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.
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
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".
its not "offensive or mean-spirited commentary" its the truth, and you are the innovator of it
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
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.
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.
Goes back on his Android.
http://saveie6.com/
what's the search term? I tried phone story and nothing.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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).
It fun to out verb.
To, or not to. That the question.
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)
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.
VERY mean-spirited towards Evil. Whole cities destroyed. But perhaps this falls under the Parody Rule.
-- thinkyhead software and media
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
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
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?
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!
. . . 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
i love it... an internet with no criticism, debate, or dissent.
well, thats just a laudy, noteworthy accomplishment in the further development of the art form that is the computer game.
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.
this thread is the ultimate proof that playing video games makes people unable to apply logic and reason to an argument.
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.
thanks anyway bro it's not there I checked all 10 pages. Guess I will keep reading hackulous. Cheers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Sure - why don't you do this and see?
Thought so.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
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..
Slashdot. You really need to start using your Borg icon for Apple articles just as you do for Microsoft articles.
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
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.
"....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