Apple Just Says Yes To iPhone Smoking Game

ZosX sends along a puff piece from Wired's Brian X. Chen: "Apple on Monday approved Puff Puff Pass, a $2 game whose objective is to pass a cigarette or pipe around and puff it as many times as you can within a set duration. So much for taking the high road, Apple. The game allows you to choose between smoking a cigarette, a cigar, and a pipe. Then you select the number of people you'd like to light up with (up to five), the amount of time, and a place to smoke (outdoors or indoors). And you're ready to get right on puffing."

Comments

Good

[C0R1D4N]

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

Re:Good

[wbren]

The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.

Re:Good

[Cryacin]

Yes, you're right. Look like they need to go out and buy a new Magic 8-Ball.

We all knew it was going to wear out sooner or later.

Re:Good

[wbren]

And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone on Thursday.

Re:Good

[bsDaemon]

You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.

Re:Good

[fractoid]

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?

Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?

Re:Good

[nacturation]

Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned.

Almost all apps showing sexy, non-nude pictures? Banned.
Playboy app showing sexy playmates? Approved and featured on iTunes.

No inconsistency there.

Re:Good

[fractoid]

The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.

Mr. Jobs has made an entire career on pretension. There's a reason that Apple evokes so much rabid zealotry from the otherwise computer-agnostic arty types. Just look at the way he boldly announces products' limitations and disabilities as strokes of design genius (and then later, even more astoundingly, announces re-enabling basic functionality as 'groundbreaking new features' - witness the iPhone's recent addition of multi-tasking, and the "you can't fit a netbook in your pocket" campaign with the release of the iPhone and iPod Touch, then the backflip to "bigger is better" with the release of the iPad). In the art world, you can go an awfully long way on "you're just not insightful enough to understand the vision", and these schmucks don't realise that it doesn't carry over into technical areas.

Re:Good

[dudpixel]

Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!

and all other apps thereafter.

wait...are you SURE you haven't already submitted it?

Re:Good

[TheABomb]

Then go Android and be treated like an adult. If you want to think for yourself, you're not in Apple's demo anyhow.

Re:Good

[Cryacin]

I'm under NDA.

Re:Good

[cgenman]

Apple just banned wifi-searching and network tools apps from the app store.
They approved a large number of non-nude adult apps before turning around and banning them later.
They ban political parody apps, including one where you could have Obama jumping on a trampoline to collect votes.
They ban apps that "duplicate functionality" of stuff that Apple hasn't announced or released, and that the app creator has no way of knowing exists.
They just banned 3rd party code translation frameworks. This was intended to ban Flash-based applications. It accidentally also bans all unity-based games, as well as many, many others. Apple appears to be giving those a wink and a nudge at the moment, but who knows.
Apple has simply not responded to applications submitted to the app store, keeping them in limbo indefinitely with no comment as to why.
The app store approval process itself is prone to random and embarassing gaffes, including denying a particular Tweetie update because a trending topic that day happened to be a dirty one. They denied a bookreading frontend that hooked up to Project Gutenberg because Project Gutenberg (amongst hundreds of thousands of books) includes the Kama Sutra. They banned a Nine Inch Nails app because it linked to an adult Nine Inch Nails song in iTunes.
And unlike console (or other sane) development, there is no way to contact Apple ahead of time and get concept approval or a list of what might be wrong. You have to go ahead and invest the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in development, then pray that Apple doesn't decide to reject the app or leave it hanging in limbo.

They banned wifi-stumbling apps. They banned an LCD buyer's guide. They banned Leisure Suit Larry. They banned Seikai-Camera, a GPS photography tool. They banned a Pulitzer prize-winning satyrist, then caved to public pressure and approved him but remain continue banning everyone else. They banned 3G video streaming, which wasn't against their rules at all. They banned the South Park app, for having exactly the sort of content that they give valuable promotional space in iTunes to South Park episodes. They banned a British newspaper app for the sort of nudity you find in British newspapers.

The last few games I've worked on have had budgets of 10 - 20 million dollars. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if we developed all of that for the iPhone, only to be told by Apple on the whims of change that zombies are no longer allowed in the app store? Or having the iPhone be a lynchpin of a radical new form of telephony, only to be told that AT&T doesn't like it? This is not consistent enforcement of unpopular rules. This is random enforcement of random and ever-changing rules.

Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and all of the other platform holders that I've worked with have had their approval rules. But they've also been responsive to developer queries. They work closely with developers before, during, and after development to make sure nobody is wasting their time or money. Their rules are locked months before final approval, so that you're not aiming for a moving target. Apple seems to want that level of financial reward for controlling the gateway, but none of the responsibility that a gateway holder needs to take towards their developers.

They need to either open up completely and trust their users to know what an "Adult" rating is, or they need to take some of that 30% they're absconding with and invest it into much better developer feedback systems.

Re:Good

[Anachragnome]

My first thought was that this was some still-wet-behind-the-ears tobacco corporation marketing dweeb's brainstorm, but then I realized that it is just a thinly disguised pothead game that the devs managed to get past Apple's app-approval dweebs by simply not mentioning anything illegal.

Calling it "Toke, Toke, Pass" probably would have sold more, but also make it HIGHLY likely the app would not be approved.

My guess is that most of the players are smoking pot, NOT tobacco. Smoking tobacco in such a fashion usually results in a puking session.

This should be fun

[willoughby]

People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking", but will whine & complain about any suggestion that violent video games encourage violence.

Re:This should be fun

[alvinrod]

Nah. The Apple apologists will apologize, the Apple haters will hate, and I'll wonder why in the hell this worthless story is on Slashdot in the first place.

Ah– kdawson. That explains it.

Re:This should be fun

[Dhalka226]

I think you're missing the point, along with a lot of others in this thread. This story was not created and posted because a smoking application was approved for the iPhone. I really doubt anybody here cares, much less objects. In fact most probably would prefer the app DOES exist because most people here are all about letting each individual make these choices for themselves.

Rather, this story is here because Apple has appointed themselves gatekeeper of the application universe for iPhone, and because their decisions are seldom intelligible or predictable. An application for a Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist gets banned (until public disgust forces them to reconsider). An application where you shake a baby to death is approved (though later removed.) Applications for lingerie are banned. If memory serves, even ones that do not have any sort of model shots, just the products themselves, are banned. Meanwhile an app for Playboy is passed. Now, an app about smoking a joint* with your friends has no trouble passing muster. I would not be surprised in the least if it turns out these people wrote the app explicitly to see whether or not Apple's ever-inconsistent "morality" would catch it.

I don't think it was worth a story here (Wired is free to write whatever they want for whatever reason they want), because I find the value in Slashdot to be the discussions and this is not the type of story that will encourage a decent one. There will be fanbois and haters going back and forth with little actual thought put into anything, which is almost reason enough NOT to post it for me.

But anyway. Nobody cares that this app was approved, they care that this app was approved relative to other ones that have been rejected. It's entire purpose is to take shots at Apple for playing gatekeeper, and for doing it in such a wildly inconsistent manner. I'm not sure it's worth posting on that basis alone, but the reason it is on Slashdot, at least, has nothing to do with whether or not it encourages smoking.

* Sorry, a "cigarette." Yeah, right. When's the last time anybody sat around in a circle passing a cigarette around with five of their friends?

Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs

[Freaky Spook]

"Folks who want cancer can buy an iPhone"

non-smokers

[hduff]

"Non-smokers can purchase an Android." -- Steve Jobs

Re:non-smokers

[failedlogic]

iGanja and iCrack are next on the iApprove list.

What is this world coming to?

[snowraver1]

That is crazy... You know what I saw the other day? A game that you could kill humans with assorted weapons. The gore was obscene! You could beat hookers up and kill puppies all while driving a car down the sidewalk.

What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!

There's a rejected app for that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder about Apple sometimes. I know that their actual intent with the app store is:

A) Be the only channel for iPhone apps, so that they get a piece of every sale. (Which is the *real* reason for not allowing Flash, emulators, etc.)
B) Not get sued (thus the restrictions on parody and such).
C) Not piss off too many customers (thus the restrictions on porn and whatnot).

But the execution is terrible, because C conflicts with A as well as with itself (you get people upset both for allowing and forbidding porn). And because they want to maintain point A, they have to take ALL the blame for whatever they reject or allow. Frankly, I'm surprised that people still develop for the platform. I know there was an initial gold rush, but now that that's pretty much over, I would personally do everything I could to make the platform less attractive. Why help them when they'll screw you? Better to boost other platforms that don't give you crap like this.

Steve Jobs played that game once or twice

[ZosX]

I really wonder what apple's policy on employee drug usage is........

Ah well. It will get banned and ported to android in a few months. Did anyone port the shaking baby game? I could think of all sorts of fun, twisted apps for the android. How about

Toss the Foetus

"You are an assistant at cut rate abortion clinic. Your job is to take the foetuses from a bucket and toss them into the dumpster. Score points by not leaving them to bake on the alleyway asphalt. Extra points for a rim shot."

Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)

Re:I don't get it

[cgenman]

Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.

Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. They recently banned 3rd party code interpretation tools, due to their years-long war with flash, which has thrown into doubt the state of thousands of popular applications.

At this point, basically everyone except Steve Jobs would like to see Apple stop babysitting their users and actually utilize the ratings system that they implemented. Short of that, they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.

Let me translate for you...

[sakti]

Come one... how many people sit in a circle and pass around a cigarette. You all know this is a pot smoking game. They might have well specified the items as 'joint, fatty and bong'.