Slashdot Mirror


Apple Bans Game App That Criticizes Smartphone Production

An anonymous reader sends word that Apple has removed from the App Store a game called Phone Story, which walks players through the creation of a smartphone, highlighting many of the negative aspects. There are four brief stages: running a mining facility in the Congo, saving suicidal factory workers, handing out phones to oblivious consumers, and generating e-waste through planned obsolescence. Apple said Phone Story violated sections 15.2, 16.1, 21.1, and 21.2 of the App Store guidelines, which make reference to "objectionable or crude content" and "offensive or mean-spirited commentary." A short video of the game has been posted at Kotaku.

213 comments

  1. Why am I so surprised :) by youn · · Score: 5, Funny

    apple has always been acting very nice to criticism so far, never threatening to sue commentaries it did not like... this is so out of character :)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    1. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by kthreadd · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that they should not follow their guidelines just because the app critizizes smartphone production?

    2. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Nasajin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Clauses 15.2 and 16.1 (15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected, 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected) are not being contested by Molleindustria, rather they are contesting points 21.1 and 21.2, which refer to in-app donation collection methods. The response from game studio is as follows:

      We are currently considering two steps:

      * Produce a new version of Phone Story that depicts the violence and abuse of children involved in the electronic manufacturing supply chain in a non-crude and non-objectionable way.

      * Release a version for the Android market and jailbroken ios devices.

      From the publisher's website. http://phonestory.org/banned.html

    3. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by belg4mit · · Score: 2

      He's suggesting such guidelines should not exist in the first place.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    4. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, but the independent, trendy vanguard of the people that is Apple would never attempt to do anything bad! Why, whatever they do has to be good; for, simply their doing it makes it good!

      Hark! I hear now many rushing to justify Apple, by quoting other worse companies, or such by ingenious logical methods as to perplex lesser men entirely. Surely, this is simply another reason that Apple is the great organization that it is!

    5. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      i hope they go the 2nd option

      --
      warning pointless sig
    6. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Simple Rules in business:

      Don't tell Big Tobacco that smoking kills.
      Don't tell Big Fast Food that their food is unhealthy.
      Don't tell Big Pharma that they peddle snake oil pills driven to consumers by fear they (Big Pharma) create.

      Apparently we can now add:
      Don't tell Big Communications that their industry has any sort of faults or makes a buck off the backs of kids in poor-shit-hole-third-world countries.

      Also in the agreement: 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected
      When Apple says "Questionable" they don't mean "questionable to the general public" - they mean "questionable to an Apple executive".

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says it's a justification of Apple to point out that they get singled out in this sort of thing.

      1) Person A is doing bad things!

      2) Well, Person B does identical things, perhaps you should criticise them too.

      1) You're just trying to justify Person A's actions!

      2) Err? I guess you could try and twist it that way. Am I not allowed to mention Person B's infractions at all when talking about this? Does mentioning them somehow make it look like I'm trying to give Person A a pass?

      1) Whatever fanboi!

    8. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      In the Android market (person B) it would have just been accepted and the authors of this game wouldn't have anything to publicly complain about in the media.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Well that's the point isn't it - despite doing the same things (apart from tighter control on the App Store, which is really the only difference), they're the same. Yet I've already seen it on this thread a few times: "this is what you get with Apple: censorship, third world slave labour and outsourcing!" in serious posts, as if every other mass market product in the world is made in the utopian ideal of well paid/well treated factory workers in local factories.

      Point out the issues with globalisation and capitalism, but not from a starting position of hypocrisy ("This is why I have an Android phone").

    10. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems they already have, unless the one I found wasn't by them (had the same name though). Took a bit of scrolling after searching "Phone Story" mind.

    11. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by danish94 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But you forget that android's marketplace is NOT the only legal way to buy and sell apps. even if google rejects the game, the developers can still just send a link to download the game (you know, like normal software) or publish it at amazon's appstore. If you are rejected by apple you're only way to share the game is to jailbroken devices. That's why ios is a walled garden, and android is not. (I am talking about the censorship part. slave labor and outsourcing is done by everyone)

    12. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You can, of course, publish it as an HTML5 app on the iPhone - the method that predates the App Store and is still fully supported.

    13. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I expect Phone Story would be equally applicable regardless of the phone OS sitting on top. Even some Android / Windows Phone devices could be accused of planned obsolescence by aping Apple's sealed in batteries, not allowing memory expansions and so on.

      The one thing that could be said of Android is that Phone Story would be available whether Google listed it on Marketplace or not - the devs could host the .apk on their own site and people could download it if they wished.

    14. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The app would still be on the store if they had not used Apple's logo in their product. I see it is a very smart marketing move to intentionally use another company's trademark without permission knowing that it would be removed. And all the sheep have fallen into line just as the developer intended. They're as bad as Greenpeace. "We could protest anywhere, but if we protest APPLE, people may actually see us!"

      Everyone has to admit that otherwise, you wouldn't have heard of the developer or their app, eh?

    15. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by danish94 · · Score: 1

      There are apps that cannot be ported to html5 - most games will be too slow inside the mobile browser (perhaps not with the new chips in the ipad2 but right now the current iphone and ipod are not fast enough to run heavy graphics inside the browser). On the desktop with dual or quad core 2-3 ghz cpu's and a few gigs of ram, you could do almost anything in html5, but it's not the case in the iphone. Censorship on native code is still censorship, and if someone points out that there is no censorship on native code on the other side of the fence it is not hypocrisy.

    16. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Google good, Apple bad. It's time for your two minutes of hate.

    17. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      They are a cup overflowing with the cream of human goodness.

      I have never know them to do anything immoral.

      And they have never done anything Illegal.

      Unless you count all the times they raided someones house dressed as the police.

      They have always been good law abiding citizens

      GIMME A BREAK!

    18. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hark! I hear now many rushing to justify Apple...

      Wait! What? You mean that the horse-blind-wearing tunnel-vision-seeing automatic-knee-jerking Apple-haters actually can read when their mind is filled with fanboism hate-rage?

    19. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for proving the man's point.

    20. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      You were making a meta-commentary, and it got modded down? WTF? You have a very good point. People who point out other misdeeds may be trying to add to the argument against the initial offender by offering corollary and analogy. The status quo on /. tends to be a presumption of fanboyism until proven otherwise.

    21. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, GP doesn't really have a good point. GP is just nitpicking semantics

      Ok, so it's not a "justification". Call it what you want, but it is still a distracting from issue at hand, which is about Person A, not Person B

      Going back to GP's meta-commentary:

      "2) Err? I guess you could try and twist it that way. Am I not allowed to mention Person B's infractions at all when talking about this? Does mentioning them somehow make it look like I'm trying to give Person A a pass?"

      My response would be this:
      I guess *you* could twist it that way. Am *I* not allowed to criticize Person A (first)? Who said I don't know about B and wouldn't criticize them (later)? Does not criticizing about Person B now somehow means I'm giving Person B a pass?

      Why "should" I criticize Person B too when, again, the issue at hand is about Person A?

      The GP is the one who is assuming other people are ignoring Person B and would just jump at calling fanboy to anybody who mentions Person B.

    22. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by gottspeed · · Score: 1

      Purchasing apple products demonstrates a lack of character to begin with. This kind of corporate attitude usually flies right over the heads of people who make these purchases anyway, they aren't grown ups.

    23. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You'll notice a subtle difference. It would be proving his point if my argument was "everyone else does it too, therefore why pick on Apple?", but that is not my argument. Mine is "everyone else does it too, so why *only* condemn Apple; everyone here is to blame and to somehow hold Android/Google/Samsung as somehow holding the moral highground is disingenuous".

      Subtle, but not proving his point. I'm not trying to justify Apple at all - I am no fan of outsourcing and globalisation and the seeming race to extreme capitalism, but to selectively pick on specific companies is just hypocrisy.

      Also, you forgot to log in.

    24. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Yes, you could claim that - but this thread clearly does *not* want to criticise Person B - just look at all the "this is why I have an Android phone" and "this is what you get when choosing Apple".

      I'm not calling Apple all sweetness and light here, but to try and claim the moral high ground by saying "this is why you use Android" is simply hypocritical. That was my argument, which has been very well demonstrated by many, many posts in the story comments as a whole.

    25. Re:Why am I so surprised :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the hell did this make it through the vetting process?!!? This i what kills me. Apple has an approval process which one must go through in order to have an app in the app store. So how the hell did this make it through? If it did make it through then why are they now removing it? I think Apple puts out some really slick products but their business practices and polices make it impossible for me to support.

  2. Incomplete game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In hindsight, maybe it could've used one more stage.

    1. Re:Incomplete game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Too bad the man stepped down, though. Steve Jobs would be a great endboss, he'd keep trying to choke you in his reality distortion field.

  3. Please Keep Our Consumers Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I donate to Apple and our savior, Steve Jobs?

  4. No win, really by Jiro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Allowing the application will reflect negatively on Apple just as much as censoring it (and not for reasons having to do with whether the criticism has substance). I can just imagine the headlines: "Apple is so dumb they will sell you the rope you can hang them with".

    1. Re:No win, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Also, it's not an "app" and it's not a "game."

      It's propaganda, plain and simple.

      Good luck marketing an anti-Valve game on Steam, anti-Microsoft game on XBOX Live, or an anti-Sony game on the PSN.

      Apple is setting the correct precedent here.

    2. Re:No win, really by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      Please tell me. Who would use that headline? "Man publishes app that makes Apple look bad," somehow lacks the editorial ring of "Apple censors app that makes them look bad."

    3. Re:No win, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple Approves Anti-iPhone iPhone App"

      This shit practically writes itself.

      In other news...
      /. Poster Born Without Imagination

    4. Re:No win, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about corporations, but I wouldn't ban something (from my store or whatever else) merely because it criticized me. I don't think there's anything "correct" about doing that.

    5. Re:No win, really by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Aren't you worried that it might hurt your business?

    6. Re:No win, really by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      And it would be perfectly valid if Apple had provided a user-authenticated way for users to install homebrew apps on their phones. Note "user-authenticated" is simple - remember an ITunes account is needed to activate your phone and install apps.

      Right now, anyone who has my phone for a few moments can visit jailbreakme.com, jailbreak my phone and install whatever he wants to (including keylogger software).

      Does Valve prevent you installing games on your PC?

      XBox and PS3 are in the same boat as Apple.

      (Just wondering -- when your phone is on a contract, who "owns" the phone. Is it the phone company? Or is it you, with you being liable to pay the contract termination fee?)

    7. Re:No win, really by aiht · · Score: 1

      "Apple Approves Anti-iPhone iPhone App"

      That headline would make me think "Oh! Maybe Apple's not as bad as I thought."
      This one makes me think "Oh! Apple may be even worse than I thought."

    8. Re:No win, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine the headlines: "Apple is so dumb they will sell you the rope you can hang them with".

      but it's an iHang!

    9. Re:No win, really by zwei2stein · · Score: 2

      Just like you have cop-assisted suicide, you also have apple-assisted Streisand effect.

      If you think about it, producing controversial app that you know since day 1 of development to not pass review process, is extemely cheap way to get your name on title pages.

      I bet app authors would be royally pissed if it actually passed review process and appeared in app store.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    10. Re:No win, really by grouchomarxist · · Score: 2

      Actually, it did pass the review process. It was available on the app store for a couple of hours before Apple pulled it. Whoever reviewed it probably wasn't playing close attention.

    11. Re:No win, really by Eudial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you censor criticism, you're not merely losing the moral high ground, you're also validating the criticism (after all, why would you censor something if it wasn't true?) as well as giving it publicity (see the Streisand effect.)

      The correct thing to do is to face the criticism. If they are wrong, then you prove it (tour of the facilities maybe?). If they've unearthed something wrong, then you publicly apologize and fix that. Under no circumstances try to weasel out through semantic loopholes or by putting down straw men.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    12. Re:No win, really by tsa · · Score: 1

      I think blocking this gives the 'game' as well as Apple more press coverage than allowing it, so we have here a win/lose situation.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    13. Re:No win, really by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... right.
      In my country, letting people express critiscism is not stupidity. It's call freedom of speech and it's something that some of us value (you know a little... like the ability to eat of breath)
      So NO it's not a no-win situation. You evaluate this as if it was a PR problem, (which it is, for apple's fucking PR departement !) but for you it's not a PR problem, if you really dig this, just go work in PR, you appear to be cynical enough for it.
      But don't think that the issue is in PR, the issue is in the basic principle that this apps says things that disserve Apple's image (things that are true) so Apple yanks it.
      Now imagine Amazon deleting a book from the kindle store for the same reasons...

    14. Re:No win, really by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      YEAH ! no...
      What part of the narrative of this is isn't true ?
      Could you , for the funlulz of it, define for me propaganda ? if you could use the word communist inside your definition it would totally make my day
      And last but not the least how much are you paid to say something so stupid ?
      How is censorship a good precedent ?
      What kind of masochist sheep would think that ?

    15. Re:No win, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey crApple fanboy, go check the Android marketplace lol @ U! >:-)

    16. Re:No win, really by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Sam tired old drivel.

      Why should they?

      They make something and offer it for sale. You buy it or you don't.

      You can also buy a developer subscription for the outrageous price of 59gbp or whatever it is in your local currency.

      Then you can install your homebrew software to your hearts content. Your average consumer doesn't care. In fact they probably like it the way it is. Ignorance is bliss.

      --
      Invaders must die
    17. Re:No win, really by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Allowing the app would have let apple owners (who possess a certain flair for cognitive dissonance) a chance to have fun on their i-device at the expense of apple's reputation (but let's face it, if you have an i-device you have already bought in and could care less about it). Instead, now we have a news story that transcends apple users and the whole world is hearing about not only the hilarious app, but apple's intent on censoring it. The net effect, I predict, will be that apple users will continue to find it easy to be oblivious to negative aspects of their devices given they are "kept safe" from knowing, and other non-apple users are left to poke fun at them which will merely give them more reason to have an isolationist attitude.

      In summary, this move is totally predictable as it is indeed a "Win" for apple, after all they are keeping their flock "in line" which means a future revenue stream for them.

    18. Re:No win, really by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      You do not understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only means that the government won't abridge your speech. No one is required to facilitate your speech.

    19. Re:No win, really by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Would it really? Foxconn has been target of controversy for quite some time, but iPhones still sell very well.

      By censoring this game, not only they triggered Streisand effect and brought the problems about iPhone production to attention just the same, but also made the iPhone look like a restrictive platform for developers once again.

      Besides, do you really think iPhone buyers really actually care about it's production problems enough to not to buy them?

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    20. Re:No win, really by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      Half of the apps and games don't do anything. Apple is just being Apple here.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    21. Re:No win, really by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      They already have my iPhone if they have the app... Just saying can't really hurt your business.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    22. Re:No win, really by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but Apple might have avoided the Streisand effect if they had quietly let it through.

    23. Re:No win, really by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they managed the worst possible!
      They passed it through their testing/evaluation, let it on the app store, sold it for a few hours... AND THEN pulled it!

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    24. Re:No win, really by Jiro · · Score: 1

      why would you censor something if it wasn't true?

      You censor things because you are afraid people might believe them. It is certainly possible to be afraid that people might believe something that is false.

      If someone wanted to go into your store and post a large sign on the bulletin board saying "This store serves poisoned food", would you really have nothing to worry about from such a sign just because your food isn't poisoned?

    25. Re:No win, really by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Allowing the application will reflect negatively on Apple just as much as censoring it (and not for reasons having to do with whether the criticism has substance). I can just imagine the headlines: "Apple is so dumb they will sell you the rope you can hang them with".

      If Apple hadn't banned it, would we be discussing blog posts about it?

    26. Re:No win, really by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Yes, its a matter of opinion really.

      I guess you'd happily pay your car manufacturer a fee to open the bonnet.

    27. Re:No win, really by sgbett · · Score: 1

      When I open my car bonnet, I see a plastic housing with four rings on it. there is a place to put oil, a place to put coolant, a place to put screen wash. The other stuff under the plastic, imho, is under plastic for a reason - to stop me messing about with it. Of course i'm sure it wouldn't be hard for me to take the plastic off...

      I'm happy to do these three things, I have a little book that tells me what particular type of fluid to buy.

      I would say those particular tasks are about as easy as refuelling, and likely encouraged by the manufacturer as basic DIY maintenance. I don't even need to check them, my car displays a little message telling me when stuff like that needs doing - much the same as it tells me when I am running low on fuel.

      I like this, I can spend the rest of my time more effectively on other stuff that way. Furthermore it's a lease vehicle with full service, so if/when anything more serious goes wrong they take care of it. I got a flat outside my house - they sent a guy round to replace the tyre I didn't even have to get dressed! More time coding for me :)

      I'm happy with this set up, if people find this setup abhorrent, then I would suggest that they source their vehicle by some other means. Whining at lease companies for taking away the privilege of changing their own tyres, or complaining that the car manufacturer is out of line for putting plastic housing over the 'don't mess with me' bits of the engine is a bit silly.

      --
      Invaders must die
  5. Fuck you apple by Osgeld · · Score: 1, Troll

    its not "offensive or mean-spirited commentary" its the truth, and you are the innovator of it

    1. Re:Fuck you apple by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So wait *now* they are the innovators and inventors of the smartphone?

      Ok.

      You heard it here first: slashdot admits Apple invented the smartphone and put in all the innovation. No backsies.

    2. Re:Fuck you apple by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      according to you fanbois yes, every time someone mentions a smartphone "you wouldnt have a smartphone without apple" but now its shed in a bad light "oh wait a min!"

    3. Re:Fuck you apple by jo_ham · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, my point to you was that in any Apple thread, regardless of what it's really about, there's always a flurry of /. posts about how Apple doesn't innovate, only steals, about how they take concepts that Linux and OSS was doing years ago and then "claim to invent" them and call them "magical" etc, and yet here you are claiming that Apple *are* the innovators and inventors of the smartphone.

      I'm not under any illusion that Apple were not the first to make a smartphone, or mp3 player, or all-in-one computer, or tablet, or online music store - it's only the rabid Apple haters who claim that's what Apple fans believe. What I tend to point out is that they are very good at popularising what was formerly a niche, or at the very least getting into a market just as it's about to go huge - something they have proved many times with many "hits" (and a few flops too, along the way).

      It's just amusing to see an Apple Troll claiming that the smartphone was all Apple's innovation for once. (It wasn't of course, but I guess it's true now - you Apple Haters are so vehement about being right that it must be).

    4. Re:Fuck you apple by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      it was a smartass comment, dont go spending your live evaluating it

    5. Re:Fuck you apple by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      You can only admit something that is true.
      some slashdotter ill-advisedly CLAIMS that Apple invented the smartphone.
      But since Apple was still playing with its own poo when the smartphone was invented and since you know it, I don't understand : why the fuss fanboy ?

    6. Re:Fuck you apple by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what?

    7. Re:Fuck you apple by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      It's called Logic. Don't even to understand - it does not work with fanbois.

    8. Re:Fuck you apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're just being intentionally dense and reading what you want to read. Plain and simple.

    9. Re:Fuck you apple by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The term you are looking for is "being facetious", and yes; it is an effective debating technique as a counter to hyperbole, even if it is a little bit lazy.

  6. Game is available on Installous for jailbreakers by Cito · · Score: 1

    If anyone wanted to nab a copy it's still on Installous if you are jailbroken. I never use app store anymore really, I like Cydia and Installous where I can install what I want without apple's insane draconian app rules

  7. The game sounds brilliant by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    It needs to be ported to other platforms and renamed "this app is banned on the iphone".

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  8. Apple/Scientology? by therufus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've always jokingly called apple the "Cult of Macintology", but now it's even more obvious. The cult of $cientology sue people when they don't like what they're saying, Apple also take action (by the sole means they can) by killing off criticism.

    Can anyone say Streisand effect?

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    1. Re:Apple/Scientology? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      yea, they are stomping on freedom of speech when they removed this game from their store, using their rules to suit their own purpose or to stomp a compeditor.

    2. Re:Apple/Scientology? by farnsworth · · Score: 1

      I've always jokingly called apple the "Cult of Macintology", but now it's even more obvious. The cult of $cientology sue people when they don't like what they're saying, Apple also take action (by the sole means they can) by killing off criticism.

      Can anyone say Streisand effect?

      I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm not sure that a comparison between significant changes in their manufacturing due to direct criticism versus pulling a retarded game from their own app store helps your point.

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    3. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retarded game

      According to who? I wouldn't want to release anything in that store if it could be pulled off merely because someone was of the opinion that it was "retarded." How subjective.

    4. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Can anyone say Streisand effect?

      Did you say something? I was too busy launching birds at pigs to care about that boring political bullshit.

    5. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sarcasm is, sadly, spot on, but this should only serve as a reminder that app stores (especially ones that are the only sensible way to install software on a device) are a terrible, terrible idea that we should never get behind of.

    6. Re:Apple/Scientology? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

      Can anyone say Streisand effect?

      No; they are prevented to by threat of lawsuit.

    7. Re:Apple/Scientology? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Can anyone say Streisand effect?

      I sure can, I just posted to my failbook, and if history is any indication, at least one of my friends will pick it up and run with it. And if we all do it... well, you know. This is a great reason for more of us to run FB, twitter, etc. Just don't share anything personal and you're home free.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      freedom of speech? it's their store, they can do whatever they want. that's not something the first amendment protects.

    9. Re:Apple/Scientology? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Actually in most religions the apostate is the most hated enemy. I believe in the Catholic church, speaking out contrary to official teachings is just about the only way to get excommunicated these days.

      Point is, everyone hates a traitor.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    10. Re:Apple/Scientology? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The point is that their rules are arbitrary - They allow some apps that violate their rules, and ban others, or in this case allow it through their rigorous evaluation procedure that all apps go through, leave it up for a couple of hours when anyone could download it, until someone pointed out it could refelct badly on them , and the they banned it ...

      So apps like this can get through onto the apps store - their approval procedure is not up to much
      If an it was an app that did not bother them how long would it have remained up ?
      and they only pulled it when they realised it would look bad ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    11. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Can anyone say echo chamber?

    12. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sit and blog about it. What a waste of time.

    13. Re:Apple/Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the scientology cult, Apple has a massive extremely over zealous following that takes any criticism of their beloved company as a personal insult.

      The Streisand Effect doesn't happen to Apple. They control and spin all media. Until you get mainstream TV openly showing Apple for what they are, something betwixt MS of old and Sony today, it doesn't matter what they do. One day the tide will turn, but that won't be for a very long time.

    14. Re:Apple/Scientology? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sit and blog about it. What a waste of time.

      You could say the same thing about people writing games about it. The only thing I'm sure of is that the further we descend into this thread, the more time is wasted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Giggles by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Funny

    Goes back on his Android.

    1. Re:Giggles by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Indeed, this sort of crap is precisely why I didn't get an iPhone.

      Granted, there are downsides, but all in all I'd rather have to look out for myself than have somebody tell me I can't have an app because it makes them look bad.

    2. Re:Giggles by istartedi · · Score: 0

      Because the product lifecycle on those is controlled according to the highest standards? Yeah, right.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Giggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the first time in ages I've seen someone claim that android has no apps. You iFanboys are a hoot.

    4. Re:Giggles by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Whooooooooooosh!

      I think you missed the sarcasm. I'm not sure I could have bludgeoned you over the head any more firmly with it. I might have injured someone.

    5. Re:Giggles by wannabgeek · · Score: 2

      No, because there is nobody who can stop me from installing any app I want on my phone. Did you really miss the point, or were you trying to act smart by diverting the topic?

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    6. Re:Giggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because none of the issues highlighted by the app happen in relation to Android phones. They are manufactured by happy pixies using materials that magically appear, and when they are discarded they turn into pretty green fields and cotton candy clouds.

    7. Re:Giggles by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      However, if someone coded an interactive presentation that attacks Samsung or HTC for busting up pixie unions...their phones would still allow it to be installed.
      I think its that Ios and Android differences he's giggling about.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    8. Re:Giggles by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the most popular iphone app - the one that helps you find public phones.

    9. Re:Giggles by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I missed the point. I was focused on the abuses in described in the app, and pointing out that Android isn't an alternative if you care about that. If you just care about being able to install whatever you want on your toy, then yeah, Android is better.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    10. Re:Giggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coltan is in most electronic devices and Foxcon is one the biggest electronics manufacturers. Chances are you own one of their products.

  10. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by bronney · · Score: 1

    what's the search term? I tried phone story and nothing.

  11. It fun to poke at Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Developer of the App knew they were going to get ban, it was obvious. Its like the child wanting to get up the parent skin just for the fun of it. It's no fun doing in on Android because they don't have guidelines. This is basically just to get attention. In reality most users like Apple's App review system, it get rid of the obvious garbage.

    1. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by xstonedogx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...it get rid of the obvious garbage.

      I'm in tears, here.

    2. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      lol yea sure it does

      http://ifartmobile.com/

      there is a mission critical app that does not in any way constitute garbage

    3. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's better than "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" and that cost $30 million dollars to make.

      There's clearly a market for fart apps if someone read the script for that film and signed a cheque for that much.

    4. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      "Apple is just protecting us, their devoted users, from seeing things that we shouldn't see! They only do it out of the goodness of their hearts!"

    5. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      well, it makes sense - fanbois and farts do go hand in hand.

    6. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Joe the Dragon, is that you?

    7. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      yeah. apparently the developer has already stated plans to release it for android. They aren't contesting violations of apple's guidelines and, as those are public, i really doubt that Apple's decision surprised them. But it has generated publicity, they got mentioned on slashdot, and they'll sell their app elsewhere. More power to them, Apple sets themselves up for abuse by attention seekers by having the walled garden. But news this is not.

    8. Re:It fun to poke at Apple by Jonner · · Score: 1

      The Developer of the App knew they were going to get ban, it was obvious. Its like the child wanting to get up the parent skin just for the fun of it. It's no fun doing in on Android because they don't have guidelines. This is basically just to get attention. In reality most users like Apple's App review system, it get rid of the obvious garbage.

      That's a pretty good assessment. Apple treats its users like children. I don't know why so many people accept that, but it's their right.

  12. streisand effect? by devent · · Score: 1

    Would I ever heard anything from the game if Apply did not ban it from their phones?

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  13. Gosh, streisand effect much? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    I don't have an iPhone as I am not a moral vacuum and so would never have heard of this app normally but now I have... good job Apple. See that they are not completely evil, they want to make sure everyone is properly informed of just what you stand for when you buy an iPhone. Censorship, outsourcing of all production work from the US and turning it into slave labor instead.

    Samsung could at this point make Android phones with real kitten fur and still take the moral high ground... I didn't just give somebody an idea did I?

    Alright all your Apple cultists, time for you to loudly protest that: vote with your dollars, doesn't apply when the shiny is shiny enough but we should boycot X Y and Z because they are not hip. Oh and claiming that it ain't censorship if it is a company doing it is also a good way to protest (and show that you have no spine).

    Ready? GO!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by jo_ham · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, so much censorship, deciding what to carry in a privately owned store. They're still free to promote their app in other ways, on different devices. Hell, they can even make it an HTML5 app for the iPhone. Nothing at all stopping them doing that. What they can't do is sell it/give it away in the App Store, since that's Apple's decision. Subtle, but there it is.

      I take it all Android phones are made in the US, right? Not made in the same factories as iPhones? Right?

      Not that it makes outsourcing any better, but assuming any Android handsets *are* made in the same factories, the workers that make them are being paid less than the ones building iPhones sitting just across from them. I'm not sure how Samsung can "take the moral high ground" on that one.

      Either way, silly of Apple to pull the app - it was clearly what the developers were hoping would happen. From no name to "from the makers that got banned from the App Store...." in one easy move. Genius marketing move- one worthy of the sort of Machiavellian scheming that /. likes to accuse Apple of being the master of. How ironic.

    2. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by farnsworth · · Score: 1

      I don't have an iPhone as I am not a moral vacuum and so would never have heard of this app normally but now I have... good job Apple. [...]

      Alright all your Apple cultists, time for you to loudly protest that: vote with your dollars[...]

      Ready? GO!

      Does HTC fare any better in this regard? Is anyone higher rated by Greenepeace, EPA, etc, than Apple? Is there some magical bamboo and seaweed phone that is in the ballpark of an iPhone? Is there a better (and feasible) way to do this? Do tell.

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    3. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by grouchomarxist · · Score: 2

      Samsung also outsources some of its production. Some to China, some to India, some to other countries.

      Is there a manufacturer left building phones or computers in the US? I don't know of one.

      Is there a manufacturer left not doing some of its production in third-world countries?

    4. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... outsourcing of all production work from the US and turning it into slave labor instead.

      As opposed to all other manufacturers that use union labor on American soil?

    5. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so much censorship, deciding what to carry in a privately owned store.

      Ownership is irrelevant, it's still censorship by definition. It is less odious than government censorship, but still offensive.

      Not that it makes outsourcing any better, but assuming any Android handsets *are* made in the same factories, the workers that make them are being paid less than the ones building iPhones sitting just across from them.

      How do you know? Because Apple claims it is so?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA ppl! Then check out the app & their site. You'll find no direct ref to Apple or iPhone there. It targets smartphones in general, FFS. And it's still available on the Android marketplace . Nuff said, pfft.

    7. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart chooses what they sell and do not sell in their store.

      Apple chooses what they sell and do not sell in their app store.

      Simple.

    8. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone owns Apple stock!

      I'm not sure I'd go with any Greenepeace (I assume this is the generic version of Greenpeace) "ratings". They have a political agenda and I've learned to never trust any ratings/reports from anybody with or ties to a political agenda.

      The guy you are replying to didn't say anything about PERFECT solutions. He also didn't say anything about HTC being better. I assume you are trying to bait him/her with pointless subject matter. I fail to understand how people are so blind that they can't see a bigger picture than their immediate reach. The facts are there and they keep coming. I wonder if it is easier to perpetually defend something than question your belief system (see: religion).

      There are people (I'll go ahead and lump you in this group) that will pay more for a brand (let's fill in Apple here) regardless of the means to get said product (let's insert iPhone 5 here). So, Apple could bring more jobs back here (I don't know any stats on this btw), and have better workings conditions there for a small jump in price which most wouldn't bat an eye over. For a real radical change, well, some other company will have to do it first so Apple can copy it and add rounded edges to it.

    9. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by slim · · Score: 2

      There's nothing wrong with doing production in the third world.

      The greatest favour you could do those countries is to take your business there, treat your staff properly, do your manufacturing and raw materials sourcing in an ethical and environmentally responsible way.

      That's how to improve conditions for the people in those countries.

      What's wrong, is to outsource parts of your business to those parts of the world, and adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude to unethical practices.

      FWIW I'd pay a £50 premium for an Android smartphone with some kind of assurance that the supply chain met some ethical standard or other (cf fairtrade coffee). I'm pretty sure they could achieve it for much less.

    10. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't have an iPhone as I am not a moral vacuum" ...but you are a prick right?

    11. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Can't understand a word - can you pull Steve Jobs' dick our of your mouth first? Thank you.

    12. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Sal+Zeta · · Score: 1

      Doubt they really care about "Marketing". It was created by a well known sociology researcher, Paolo Pedercini (at least inside sociology and communication academic circles) , whose academic focus is mainly on the effects of propaganda trough mass-media, and the effects of market induced censorship. The app itself was created with a very propagandistic, almost surreal slant towards criticizing the mobile phone industry. Most of his previous applications were created with the objective to verify the limits of freedom of speech, and to analyze the eventual outcomes from the interested parties. If he's following the same approach, probably he is more interested in objectively observing the reaction from Apple than its actual deployment inside the App Store. Yep, It looks like he's trolling but if you read his CV, you'll see he's quite serious about this kind of research. This is not that different from a medical trial, as inserting a foreign organism to see the reaction from a body.

    13. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight... people who criticize Apple's business practices should be water boarded

      After all, Jobs has cancer

    14. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys did a fantastic job of doing everything he just described. Great work.

    15. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I second that Greenpeace ratings shouldn't be trusted. One year they gave Nintendo the lowest rating because they didn't answer Greenpeace's survey (and once again, I am not a Nintendo fanboy, and would not buy any of their modern consoles or handhelds).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Gosh, streisand effect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are entirely too emotionally invested in smartphones. You rail against "Apple cultists" but you entire post reads exactly like a spittle-flinging, projecting zealot.

  14. Here's how you get it back on the App Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it into an explicit political statement. That puts it into a realm of much more protected speech, because then Apple is absolutely trying to censor a free dialogue between citizens.

    I suggest including references to abortion rights, the environment, same-sex marriage, and transgender relations.

    That will put them on the spot.

    1. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Why? Apple is under no obligation to assist you in your "free dialogue" - they are not the government; they are within their rights to choose to carry or not carry specific products in their store and can tell you to get lost if you say things they disagree with.

      In the same way that you cannot force a local shop owner to put up posters that he doesn't agree with in his own store - you can put them up, but you have no recourse if he takes them down and bans you from his store.

      Whether it's a smart move on Apple's part to give the developer all this free publicity is another matter, but in terms of what they *can* do, they are well covered.

    2. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      IMO, once you reach such a market share that you can control what a large part of the population can see or do, you should start being restricted by the first amendment as well.

      I don't think it matters much who does the censoring. Whether it's the government or a corporation doesn't matter, the effect on the population does. It's just that back when the first amendment was written such control by a corporation wasn't on anybody's mind.

    3. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      That is a very slippery slope to start perching on, and not one really worth taking just because you don't happen to like the corporation in question.

      It specifically refers to the government for a good reason.

    4. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Slippery how? What problems do you see arising from it?

      In my view, in regards to freedom of speech, it's the effective freedom of speech available to an individual that matters. Who restricts them isn't particularly important. Imagine that 99% of the software market is owned by Microsoft, who sets the condition that their software may not be used for disparaging them.

      So what does it matter to you if the government doesn't prevent you from writing an article criticizing MS? Even if you are one of the 1% who uses software that doesn't fall under the limitation, good luck having it published somewhere, because the magazine or news program will inevitably require at least one piece of MS software and refuse to publish it for that reason.

      In such a situation, Microsoft is effectively the censor, and your freedom is extremely theoretical.

    5. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's take your hypothetical onwards.

      Let's say Microsoft runs some retail stores. I can now stand in them and talk to all their customers about anything I want, including criticising Microsoft.

      Since they're now blocked by First Amendment issues they also cannot refuse to sell my piece of software in my store if I want them to (exactly like this app in Apple's app store that you are claiming Apple should not be able to remove due to First Amendment issues).

      I could also get a job in Microsoft's stores, and then spend all day telling the customers how terrible MS is, and they cannot stop me because the First Amendment protects me in this situation. If they fire me for this I can sue them for their unconstitutional sacking.

      Starting to see the issues now?

      What happens if their marketshare drops? Are they suddenly free of the first amendment and then become free to decide what to carry in their store?

    6. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Let's say Microsoft runs some retail stores. I can now stand in them and talk to all their customers about anything I want, including criticising Microsoft.

      You already can do that.

      Sure, they can ask you to leave, but AFAIK they can't do much if you decide to hang out around the door and hand out flyers so long you don't do something too disruptive like actually blocking the entrance.

      Since they're now blocked by First Amendment issues they also cannot refuse to sell my piece of software in my store if I want them to (exactly like this app in Apple's app store that you are claiming Apple should not be able to remove due to First Amendment issues).

      Ah, here is gets more complicated.

      I think it should scale depending on the amount of control you execise, and the market share you have. If you're a private club you get to decide exactly who enters, if you own a park with free entrance or a token fee then you need an excellent reason to forbid entry, and if you somehow own the entire city you lose any ability of control at all.

      The same way, if you have a shop that exclusively sells toy cars that you hand picked yourself, you get to keep doing that. If on the other hand you offer shelf space then you get very little control over what gets placed on it. If you somehow are the only shop in the country, IMO you should get forced into providing shelf space on a non-discriminatory basis. If there's available space and you pay for it, you get to use it for whatever you want. Not a nice position for a business to be in, but such things shouldn't happen in the first place.

      I could also get a job in Microsoft's stores, and then spend all day telling the customers how terrible MS is, and they cannot stop me because the First Amendment protects me in this situation. If they fire me for this I can sue them for their unconstitutional sacking.

      Coming back to the previous idea. Since the management decides exactly who works for them they get to impose restrictions while you're on the job. Outside of the job I think you should be able to say whatever you want.

      What happens if their marketshare drops? Are they suddenly free of the first amendment and then become free to decide what to carry in their store?

      Freer. It's like with monopolies, it's not illegal to be one, but being one imposes restrictions.

      The overall idea is that I think the government's job is maintaining balance. Ideally a healthy market would have hundreds of options for a given service. If it doesn't, regulation should work in such a way that the end result is as if it was.

      So if there's a hundred different coffee shops there's no problem with a shop deciding to require formal attire. If you're into punk fashion you can still find a shop that will serve you. If Starbucks somehow managed to take over everything though, it should get forced into serving you even if you show up in a fursuit.

    7. Re:Here's how you get it back on the App Store by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      Retail stores...the new mass media.

      If there is a slippery slope argument here its about the decline of dictionaries.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  15. Android phone made of hemp by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are currently considering ...

    * Release a version for the Android market and jailbroken ios devices.

    Yeah, cause Android phones are made from hemp by fair trade workers.

    This is all just a publicity stunt, seems to be working quite well. Congrats to the developer no one had ever heard of.

    1. Re:Android phone made of hemp by ... by Nasajin · · Score: 2

      A publicity stunt? I guess so, although the developers are independently funded, all their games are free, and they've been around for a while. They essentially produce donationware, so it's not of financial benefit to the developers. Their site is here: http://www.molleindustria.org/en/home. I recognized Every day the same dream, McDonalds Videogame, and Oiligarchy.
      A friend pointed out to me MIT Press published a book that discusses most of the games in a political context: Newsgames: Journalism at Play by Ian Bogost et al, 2010.

    2. Re:Android phone made of hemp by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A publicity stunt? I guess so, although the developers are independently funded, all their games are free, and they've been around for a while. They essentially produce donationware, so it's not of financial benefit to the developers.

      Organizations soliciting donations often desire publicity. Organizations with a political/social agenda often desire publicity. Consider PETA using various naked celebrities to garner publicity. Maybe their next app can show Pamela Anderson's boobs, then they can have another round of "my app got banned" articles.

    3. Re:Android phone made of hemp by ... by petman · · Score: 1

      ... all their games are free, ...

      Huh? Weren't they selling the app on the App Store before it got pulled?

    4. Re:Android phone made of hemp by ... by Nasajin · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to say "almost all". I think I must have deleted something when I was proofreading the sentence. All the games on their website are available free, and the PhoneStory game that the fuss is about is not one of the ones advertised on their website.

    5. Re:Android phone made of hemp by ... by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      "This is all just a publicity stunt, seems to be working quite well..."

      I hope so. A little consumer awareness of how products are produced during the entire life cycle is a good thing - even if only 1% of them actually react with any kind of empathy and start applying pressure on our their political systems. Why shouldn't social justice issues get more coverage? You make it sound like its a bad thing to discuss the implicit cost of our consumer society - costs that we do have some influence other.

  16. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by Cito · · Score: 1

    I found it searching 'phone story' in installous it was about 4 pages down when you get to bottom of screen and it auto loads next screen of search results. there was only 1 source on fileape when I picked it up. http://phonestory.org/banned.html the developer will probably put it on Cydia he mentions on his website also. If the Fileape source is down the listing drops I'll repost in the hackulous forums for a repost. also http://hackulo.us/forums/ - has a request section they have the binary there to install manually

  17. Censorship by Mathinker · · Score: 2

    It's propaganda, plain and simple.

    And this wasn't also?

    Face it, Apple deserves criticism when it messes up on its decided course to censor all executables for iOS. It is perfectly OK to criticize Apple for not having the balls to approve content which criticizes Apple --- and AFAIK this content wasn't even criticizing Apple directly (unlike the strawman examples you talk about), it was criticizing all smartphone production (and probably, by association, smartphone consumption).

    If someone wants to worship censorship because it's Apple's censorship, he should at least be honest about it. In the case of the Apple App Store, Apple took the decision to censor all executables so that it could give a "walled garden" experience. I can understand how consumers benefit from having malware walled out; I can imagine some consumers enjoying the walling out of various content which offends them (e.g., naked breast images); but I find the submission of the executable in question here (be it classified as a game, an app, or propaganda) to be an interesting commentary on society --- it emphasizes the fact that consumers enjoy not having to deal with criticism of themselves (since they encouraged the production of the smartphone they use by buying it).

    1. Re:Censorship by Froomb · · Score: 1

      So Apple is deemed evil for removing a game treating worker suicides as grist for a clever post-modern parody of jaded consumerism? The "evil Foxconn drives its exploited workers into suicidal despair" meme is apparently now so entrenched its supposed truth is the stuff of games. Nasty Apple for choosing not to endorse a superficial falsehood presently crudely and for lucre.

    2. Re:Censorship by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Evil in my eyes is not necessarily evil in another's, and vice versa. I also admit to never having seen the actual game/propaganda/whatever, so my post is somewhat theoretical in nature.

      Evil is relativistic. If you take that into consideration, Google's "Don't be evil" motto/guideline/whatever actually makes a bit of sense.

    3. Re:Censorship by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Evil is relativistic.

      Good travels at a leisurely pace, but evil travels at damn near the speed of light :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  18. It fun to out verb by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 3, Funny

    It fun to out verb.

    To, or not to. That the question.

    1. Re:It fun to out verb by troc · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Have you spared a moment to consider whether the OP is a non-native English speaker?

      Slashdot might be based in the US and thus be predominantly Anglo-centric but there are quite a few people on this Earth who aren't native English speakers. English could be this guy's 4th or 5th language for example.

      I have no problem with the idea of poking fun at someone's language skills when they should know better (or indeed DO know better but are just being lazy) but assuming everyone speaks MY language at least as well as I do is, in this day and age, very naive.

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    2. Re:It fun to out verb by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with the idea of poking fun at someone's language skills when they should know better (or indeed DO know better but are just being lazy)

      I hear you. I rarely poke fun at anyone's poor grammar, and when I do I am careful to make fun of specific sentences, not of the person.

      The thing is I think this fellow may very well be a native speaker and the poor grammar may be caused by laziness or by typing on a small touchscreen with software that will check your spelling but not your grammar. I happen to be a non-native English speaker myself (second language). I read a lot of poor English written by learning speakers. I also read quite a bit of awful English written by careless native speakers. Both can be rather horrid, but in different ways. In this case I am not 100% certain - that text is too short. But for example, it is not typical of learning speakers to confuse "its" with "it's", especially when done inconsistently - the OP incorrectly writes "Its" but shortly thereafter (s)he correctly uses "it's". Non-native speakers rarely make that mistake because they usually learn written English before learning how to speak.

    3. Re:It fun to out verb by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It fun to out verb.

      Whoa, seriously? I had no idea verb was gay.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. Harness Streisand Effects for free publicity by Happy+Finish · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Golden age of app distribution over? Can't get your crummy apps seen or sold? Want armfuls of publicity for your company/cause?

    1. Write an app that deliberately criticises the smartphone production process, dish out lots of dirt over alleged sweatshops, suicides etc.
    2. Wait for the ban.
    3. Pow! Instant news story! The tech press will lap it up! Anti-apple and Apple fanbois will whip it into a frenzy. Folks will relish being the first to spot a potential Streisand Effect.
    4 ..
    5. Profit*??

    (*or at least tons of free exposure)

  20. I can't disagree with this one... by geogob · · Score: 0

    This 'game', which seems only to be used as a propaganda platform, has seriously some questionable content, if not simply defamatory (which would make it illegal).

    I'm all against arbitrary censorship and, I have to admit, this looks damn like it. After all, the people targeted by the propaganda are those having to play the censor role. But I think this app should have been taken down regardless of whom it 'targets'.

    Then, watching the game video again, I wonder. Who writes an app like that. What kind of app developer does that? Why? I come to believe that this is just an elaborate troll (that we are feeding without end right now). It's someone who's intention was to put Apple in this difficult position. On one side Apple had probably no choice to removed it (and not only because of their EULA) and if they hadn't they might even have gotten themselves some legal trouble. On the other side, they look totally evil taking it down, regardless how stupid that app was (because, as I see here, critics of censor action are somewhat narrow sighted). Nice catch 22.

    1. Re:I can't disagree with this one... by slack_justyb · · Score: 0

      I can't agree more. The game's "facts" are highly subjective. Also, I hate those stupid coltan people who argue that if you own something electronic then you support child slavery. Look the majority of Coltan comes from Brazil. In fact the Congo only produces 13% of the world's supply of Coltan without considering recycling (which provides 20% of the worlds supply might I add.)

      I think the thing that makes me the hottest about it all is the fallacy in logic here. If a country has child slavery, is war torn, and has issues like "can't provide clean water to the population," then more than likely they aren't doing too well on the exporting crap out of their country. Anyway, I hate that Apple had a heavy hand in this, for the simple fact that it's one sided censorship, but the game sucked and the "facts" of the game are shaky at best.

    2. Re:I can't disagree with this one... by Slur · · Score: 1

      Well it could be seen as a slanted and prejudicial kind of slander, to imply that Apple and others like them are predatory creatures playing on Human weakness. It could be say to be unrealistically insulting to Apple, its ilk, and to consumers as well in calling them unconscious dupes. If the app presented the alternative view as well, that some of us consumers may actually willingly and with awareness take part in the sharing of products with the caveats of advertisements, exploitation of workers, mining of rare minerals and all the other attendant issues, and in spite of it are still good-spirited individuals, merely having fun within this echelon... Well, Apple is fulfilling a dream of mankind, so why not at least give them the benefit of the doubt? It's a hard position for Apple to be in, having to acknowledge this product as plainly mean-spirited. But I suspect other mean-spirited apps have also been blocked - Dartboards with the faces of politicians and things like that... It's a fine line and a hard call, and maybe there's some flak deserved for coming down on a sketchy line. The app could be seen as kind of satirical, but it's possible the detailed content has a nastier spirit than the plain idea we have so far discussed.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
  21. Like those Bible apps... by Slur · · Score: 2

    VERY mean-spirited towards Evil. Whole cities destroyed. But perhaps this falls under the Parody Rule.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Like those Bible apps... by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      Dude the bible is the most mean spirited book ever...
      God basically kills several millions people in the most atrocious fashions for over 1000 pages. I mean seriously there are 2,476,633 documented murders commited by god in the bible. That must be some kind of record for the numbers of kills in a story. And that doesn't even count Sodome and Gomorra and the Flood and the really big stuff for which there are no numbers of victims provided by the Bible.

  22. Another reason not to buy Apple products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck should they be allowed to dictate what we can purchase? Are we children?

    1. Re:Another reason not to buy Apple products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iphone users are.

      trendy little cult children that believe apple can do no wrong.

      I'd want that cash cow protected too. It's just good business.

  23. Brand protection by Slur · · Score: 1

    Apple has a brand to protect, in a similar manner to Disney, which sounds weird, but then you go to Times Square in 2011 and nothing will ever seem that weird again.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Brand protection by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they have to protect the brand from the truth.

      It's a truth for the whole industry, sure. Other corporations would do exactly the same, but they don't have the needed walled garden, sure.

      It's no surprise, sure.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  24. Love the headline by Grail · · Score: 1

    Pity it's off-base.

    How about, "Apple bans game that portrays suicide & child slavery, and offers to collect donations outside the usual rules for the App Store."

    But that doesn't have the same attention-pulling power, does it?

    1. Re:Love the headline by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      Yeah !!!!
      How dare they remind us that our beloved iPhones are made by underpaid chinese suicidal workers who are at it 16hours a day, with minerals that are mined by 12 years old congoleses.
      How is it moral huh ? to say it I mean. No really SAYING IT IS THE PROBLEM ! Because I was confortably numb not think about that in my couch and now I have not to give a shit actively...
      idiot.

    2. Re:Love the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like every other phone manufacturer out there. Not that it's right or should be ignored, but every phone manufacturer is using the same child labor in china. It's not unique to Apple or for that matter tech industry. Look at toys, clothing and shoes. All the idiots getting pissed about Apple should really own up to the fact that many of the things they buy in the US is made by factories in China with questionable practices.

    3. Re:Love the headline by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      My current phone was made in South Korea B-)

      Last two were made in Canada IIRC.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  25. Seconded. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    The actual violence and abuse of children is crude and objectionable. The contortions you'd have to go through to make it not be so would rob the app of any hope it ever had of making an impact.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Seconded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have missed the sarcasm tags.

    2. Re:Seconded. by silvalen · · Score: 1

      Thank you Ted, that was the joke.

  26. If it is a no-win situation . . . by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    . . . then Apple still has only themselves to blame. They willfully demonstrated previously that they're willing to censor content for their own petty and arbitrary reasons, and now they can't (easily) back out of that. They've therefore opened themselves up to substantive criticism regarding the consistency of their censorship.

  27. buy an android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who in their right mind would want an iphone when you can't play quality games like this one?

  28. Dr Obvious. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    Yes, thank you for explaining their point for those without the two brain cells needed to work it out for themselves...

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  29. Let me get you in touch with reality by zarlino · · Score: 1

    Your conspiracy theory is just ridiculous. People creating the game just meant to inform people in a funny way. Of course you can disagree (if you bothered to inform yourself first). I'm somewhat concerned by people like you who totally fail to see the dangers of letting Apple decide what can and cannot be published. It's time for new laws ensuring that owners of publishing platforms (in a broad sense) don't get to interfere with what Americans call 1st amendment rights.

    --
    Check out my cross-platform apps
    1. Re:Let me get you in touch with reality by geogob · · Score: 1

      People creating the game just meant to inform people in a funny way.

      A bit naive, much?

  30. This is so reassuring... by LaRainette · · Score: 2

    So some eco-friendly hippies make an app that teaches people how smartphone pollute and Apple takes it back because it's offensive ?
    I honnestly for the life of me still don't understand how anyone can have a good image of this company.
    How do they get ANY support ? They are the douchiest mean f*cks and they have no ethics whatsoever.
    When you get to the point where people saying your shit doesn't smell good enough to be put in their sink gets you mad, I think it's really time to see a psychiatrist. Hopefully Jobs departure will put an end to this decade of giant ego and utter douchery (but I wouldn't hold my breath)

    1. Re:This is so reassuring... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I honnestly for the life of me still don't understand how anyone can have a good image of this company.

      Part of it is that Apple successfully prevents the masses from hearing about what is wrong with them. Banning this app is one such example. Another example is that Apple deletes documents from the knowledge base that make them look bad. B&W G3 has a UDMA data corruption problem that shows up with nearly all devices. Apple's fix (posted to the TIL) was to slow down the disk to PIO modes with FWB toolkit (commercial, for-pay software) or to use a Mac IDE PCI card, which at the time literally cost minimum four times what the identical card with different firmware cost for the PC. They deleted this document from the TIL when folding it into the KB, so that the record of their failure to honor the system's warranty would be lost to time. Now you can only find references to the document on LowEndMac.

      Apple is evil and goes out of their way to hide the fact. Meanwhile documents showing how bad DOS 5 was are still in Microsoft's pages.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This is so reassuring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs apple a ton of money to run their store. Why would they spend that money supporting assholes who create apps like this one?

      Did you watch the video? The whole point is to make the player feel like shit for deciding to buy a phone. It doesn't mention apple's phones anywhere.

    3. Re:This is so reassuring... by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Practically everything you buy or consume in some way is manufactured, transported, or distributed by a company who employs some level of low-paid worker. Consumers want their shiny *cheap*, so it's either do that or be run out of business. In this case, this company wanted to be jerks and Apple subsequently wouldn't approve their app -- it didn't meet the published guidelines. Wah-wah-wah. You're getting your panties in an uproar over that fact, and missing the whole point that any single company isn't going to sacrifice profits for the sake of some poor Chinese workers -- not in today's society anyway, where it's all about the money.

      Fight the system if you want, but your attack-this-company-of-the-day attitude doesn't make any changes long-term. Have a banana-flaxseed smoothie and chill out. Surely there's a better way to promote change if that's what you really want.

    4. Re:This is so reassuring... by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile documents showing how bad DOS 5 was are still in Microsoft's pages.

      If you've used Vista, DOS 5 was an improvement. <ducks>

    5. Re:This is so reassuring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I think you're the one who needs to see a psychiatrist. They have a private App store and have clearly posted guidelines, but even so, they can reject any app they see fit. This developer can go and publish his app on other smart phones.. or better yet, turn it into a Flash or HTML5 web app for EVERYONE to see. Anyone who spits vitriol out like you do is a hypocrite.

    6. Re:This is so reassuring... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm using Vista regularly now on a machine that literally won't run anything else properly, and aside from being very very slow it's just fine.

      I know we all love to bag on Vista, but now it's basically Windows 7 without what little sexiness Microsoft managed to cram in there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:This is so reassuring... by godglike · · Score: 1

      Chill dude, you'll bust a vessel.

      If you want to help the children in DRC, give some money to the International Trade Union organisation or the Red Cross, or lobby your congressman (or equivalent).

      Samsung, Nokia, et al buy the same niobium etc from the same mining companies. Only changing the mining companies behaviour in the DRC is going to help.

    8. Re:This is so reassuring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they take it back because it uses Apple's trademarks without permission.

      However, if they HADN'T used Apples trademarks without permission, it would still be on the store and you, LaRainette, would never have heard of it and gone on your profanity laced tirade. So, if you ENJOY getting your knickers in a twist every so often, thanks the developers! :)

    9. Re:This is so reassuring... by jaysones · · Score: 1

      You're a shop owner and I've written a book about how crappy your shop is. Are you obliged to sell this book?

  31. and no anti-slashdot on slashdot by decora · · Score: 2

    i love it... an internet with no criticism, debate, or dissent.

  32. but murdering prostitutes and stealing their money by decora · · Score: 1

    well, thats just a laudy, noteworthy accomplishment in the further development of the art form that is the computer game.

  33. also non-factual? red-alert 2 and starcraft. by decora · · Score: 1

    the hypocrisy is here is just overwhelming. look at the video games you have played in your life, now try to apply the logic you are using against this game to any of those other games.

    1. Re:also non-factual? red-alert 2 and starcraft. by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      Come on. This game was specifically created to spread invalid facts.

      You can't compare it to starcraft, which is designed to be a fun game to play.

    2. Re:also non-factual? red-alert 2 and starcraft. by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Someone already beat me to the punch, but I'll just reiterate since it may take that many times for it to sink in.

      There is a difference between the Daily Show's "news" and CNN's "news", much like there is a difference between the "games" I play and this "game."

  34. and GTA should show the prostitutes viewpoint by decora · · Score: 1

    this thread is the ultimate proof that playing video games makes people unable to apply logic and reason to an argument.

  35. and the windows app store by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-app-store-approval-policy-outlined

    seems to have a faster approval process.

    But apple and ms should have a adult area with little in the Content Compliance area.

  36. Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how is this any different then lets say China banning internet web pages to leave people clueless about the outside world?

    1. Re:Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple != Government

  37. BLAH BLAH BLAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone make an app that clearly criticizes Google (whenever right or wrong doesn't matter, it's not the point), and put it in the main Android store and tell me Google doesn't get it moved.

    No real story here, just sexy Apple headlining.

    Argue that Android has 3rd party sources for apps that you could still get this app, fine.
    A company that can and does remove material painting it negatively, give me a break, they all do when they can.

    1. Re:BLAH BLAH BLAH by imric · · Score: 1

      Sure - why don't you do this and see?

      Thought so.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  38. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by bronney · · Score: 1

    thanks anyway bro it's not there I checked all 10 pages. Guess I will keep reading hackulous. Cheers.

  39. Free market at work by BobGregg · · Score: 1

    Why, what's wrong with that? It points out what is so very wrong with government regulation. The "regulation" in this case being that pesky freedom of speech most people have to adhere to. If we just got rid of the government, then the free market can sort out everything - just like Apple is doing. Then we'll be in free market heaven, won't we?

    1. Re:Free market at work by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      You don't understand "freedom of speech." It only protects you from government censorship. No one has to facilitate what you have to say. It is their store and their policy rules. Go play somewhere else if it bothers you.

  40. Ineffective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides the awkward verbiage with inconsistent contractions usage, and self-important jabs at the viewer, the authors really have missed the point. Yes, people do buy status symbols, but most are buy means to ends. I think most would say they use their iPhone to find directions without having to run home and grab printouts from Google Maps. Or to keep in touch with family and friends. Or to take photographs. And so on. I have yet to meet one person who says, “my iPhone makes me dynamic and special!” No.

    They missed another point. You cannot live in the modern world and use any modern convenience without causing some harm to the environment or someone else. Should we try to improve that? Yes. Should we avoid contributing to bad working conditions? Absolutely. But opposing technology—which this game seems to do—is not the answer.

  41. Did not take long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here comes Apple's bitches, running, shouting and blabbering.

  42. Good on Apple by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Well, good. It was stupid and useless. And Apple played right into their hands so they could have an inflammatory news story to promote their "back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle" agenda.

    Maybe next time they can create one called Pencil Story.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  43. *Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have an iPhone as I am not a moral vacuum and so would never have heard of this app normally but now I have... good job Apple. See that they are not completely evil, they want to make sure everyone is properly informed of just what you stand for when you buy an iPhone. Censorship, outsourcing of all production work from the US and turning it into slave labor instead.

    Samsung could at this point make Android phones with real kitten fur and still take the moral high ground... I didn't just give somebody an idea did I?

    Alright all your Apple cultists, time for you to loudly protest that: vote with your dollars, doesn't apply when the shiny is shiny enough but we should boycot X Y and Z because they are not hip. Oh and claiming that it ain't censorship if it is a company doing it is also a good way to protest (and show that you have no spine).

    Ready? GO!

    Well I have a Mac, but I've never owned an iPhone or other smartphone.

    Frankly, I think it's pretty silly to expect any company to actually distribute something that openly criticizes it. And no, I don't think that's "evil" or "censorship," just a company doing what companies do.

    I guess that makes me a "cultist" for not "boycotting" the corporation for being the shamelessly self-aggrandizing, money-grasping corporation that it is. I'm sure you consider me a "hypocrite" as well, because I'm not doing the "hip" thing.

    When I do get a smartphone, I'll surely consider your advice to buy a Samsung phone, because I take your word that Samsung would hypothetically suck it up and distribute a hypothetical anti-Samsung parody over the distribution channels that it doesn't have, if it hypothetically did have them. Because Samsung is, I'm sure, just as self-effacing and open-minded as you believe, and not at all like Microsoft or Apple or all those "evil" companies that I'm supposed to have been boycotting. (Yeah, incidentally, I don't boycott Microsoft, either; I bought a copy of Office for my Mac. I guess I'm just a hopeless corporate stooge.)

    (The only company that I can think of that does distribute things like that is News Corp, which lets the writers on The Simpsons mock it regularly on its own network. But then, The Simpsons brings in so much money that I can see why News Corp laughs all the way to the bank.)

    1. Re:*Yawn* by Omestes · · Score: 1

      So.. I'm an ISP, thus I should have the right to remove anything from the internet that may criticize me, offend me, or goes against my agenda? ( I know there is a difference, but the way you phrased your reply makes it look like this would be acceptable.)

      Sure, this might be in Apple's rights, but just because you have the right doesn't mean you should use it. I know this lesson had been completely lost on modern America. I have the right to free speech, does this mean I'm any less an asshole for following you calling you nasty names constantly? Apple should have just ignored them, or, if they were really feeling like not being the typical amoral (sociopathic) faceless corporation; make a statement and genuinely try to clean things up, or address the situation.

      I'm sick of both ignoring the "responsibility" side of the term "rights", and giving a pass to giant corporations somehow being held as "individiauls" but somehow lacking all of the standards (and, oh dear, responsibilities) we hold ourselves to.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  44. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone wanted to nab a copy it's still on Installous if you are jailbroken. I never use app store anymore really, I like Cydia and Installous where I can install what I want without apple's insane draconian app rules

    ..."I like [Cydia and] Installous where I can install what I want without *paying*. FTFY. Unless you just use Installous to try out apps before paying for them you're just using it to steal apps. Don't kid yourself you're just trying to get around some imaginary "insane draconian app rules".

  45. The fact that they have the ability.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to ban an app in this manner shows that the iphone isnt for me.

    The fact that they would shows that apple isnt for me.

  46. streisand effect by awsx123 · · Score: 1

    when will people learn that attacking negative publicity just creates more of the "thing" you are attacking? :o)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    what we fight, we become, what you resist persists etc etc etc..

  47. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, companies tend to get a little snippy when you directly attack their production problems. Since they are in control of most of the money in the entire world, they can back up their anger. This accomplished its goal, however, which was likely pointing out the flaws in the industry and showing people just what kind of thing they are donating their money towards. Remember, only your MONEY matters not what you think. If you don't like how someone's manufacturing choices affect the areas they actually manufacture in, then you don't buy it. All these words we keep printing and saying are totally worthless and mean absolutely nothing unless the sway of public opinion takes the dollars out of their pockets.

  48. Phone Story is a game for smartphone devices. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phone Story is a game for smartphone devices that attempts to provoke a critical reflection on its own technological platform. Under the shiny surface of our electronic gadgets, behind its polished interface, hides the product of a troubling supply chain that stretches across the globe. Phone Story represents this process with four educational games that make the player symbolically complicit in coltan extraction in Congo, outsourced labor in China, e-waste in Pakistan and gadget consumerism in the West.Keep Phone Story on your device as a reminder of your impact. All of the revenues raised go directly to workers’ organizations and other non-profits that are working to stop the horrors represented in the game. Needless to say, the app is no longer on the App Store, and Apple is apparently being mum about why the app was pulled. We’ve got to admit, though, we’re a little uncomfortable with Apple banning this game based on its description. It doesn’t sound as if the title explicitly criticized Apple’s iPhone manufacturing process Affiliate Programs Review
    , just the state of the smartphone manufacturing industry in total. And by stamping down on an app that was raising money for groups striving to protect the human rights of the people putting together our gadgets — including our iPhones and iPads — Apple has seemingly opened itself up to a lot of criticism about its commitment to its own ethical guidelines.

  49. On the other side of the fence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Giant-machine-Amazon-com-Second/dp/1456555359/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316022293&sr=1-3
    http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Guide-Step---Step-ebook/dp/B004L9KNTY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316022332&sr=1-1
    http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Your-Place-Bookstores-ebook/dp/B003WMA7H4/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1316022197&sr=1-3

  50. Borg by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot. You really need to start using your Borg icon for Apple articles just as you do for Microsoft articles.

  51. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple had preexisting rules that this app violated. The only reason any one cares is because it happened to violate them by aiming itself at (effectively) the iphone. If I shoplift 10$ or 100$, it's still shoplifting. It's not like I get a free pass if I steal gay porn from a priest.

  52. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by Cito · · Score: 1

    well crap sorry about that, I guess once the source for it on fileape was taken down the listing dropped. keep eye on hackulous forums. it will turn up.

  53. Sounds exciting by raymorphic · · Score: 1

    "....walks players through the creation of a smartphone, highlighting many of the negative aspects. There are four brief stages: running a mining facility in the Congo, saving suicidal factory workers, handing out phones to oblivious consumers, and generating e-waste through planned obsolescence." Sounds exciting. Maybe they should release a sequel

  54. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well crap sorry about that, I guess once the source for it on fileape was taken down the listing dropped. keep eye on hackulous forums. it will turn up.

    Don't kid yourself, they banned it from the pirate sites too.

  55. Re:Game is available on Installous for jailbreaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's on Installous now, for anyone who's still looking, see: http://hackulo.us/forums/index.php?/topic/147134-phone-story-banned-app-on-apptrackr-and-file-ape/page__hl__%2Bphone+%2Bstory__fromsearch__1