Rejection of Reality: Apple Denies Endgame:Syria

Politcal Games by Jiro · 2013-01-08 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Something I pointed out the last time this game was covered:

The problem with political games is that... they're still political.

Imagine that instead of making a game about the conflict, the same group had simply put out an editorial saying "Here is what we think about the war in Syria, and exactly what is happening there."

If they did that, and it was promoted as much as a game was, and it was typical media quality, everyone here would jump on it in a minute, pointing out that the editorial oversimplifies the war, and that most editorials are made by people with strong opinions on the subject who may be biased. Or the writer of the editorial may have based it on news reports but been a bit too trusting of them. Perhaps the editorial, while supposedly summarizing the war, leaves out important events. (And that's assuming all the facts in it are literally true.)

But package your editorial as a game, and everyone eats it up, as a "unique gamification approach" which "reports the news in the most entertaining fashion possible". As if a contentious subject suddenly turns into a completely objective analysis just because it was put in something that has cards and a score. Please.

Re:Politcal Games by mwvdlee · 2013-01-08 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Would Apple have blocked all access to such an editorial?
The sad truth is that games are still treated as pure entertainment, devoid of any artistic or political statements.
The problem with political games is that... they're still games.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Politcal Games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:36 · Score: 0

Uh, who cares? If you can package your dumb-assed opinions in an entertaining game, you get the honour of having me view them. Its a tiny portion of the trade. You have no sane point.
Re:Politcal Games by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 03:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

You reject the quality and/or political message of the app, but miss the issue that Apple alone gets to say what's appropriate. Apple's authoritarian censorship is a "political game".
Re:Politcal Games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:41 · Score: 0, Informative

An app like that shouldn't be banned, either. Apple's censorship is going way too far here. They're treating their customers like children, unable to cope with the realities of the world. "Don't worry, little Apple kids! Momma Apple knows best. I'll protect you from learning about the world."
Re:Politcal Games by LordLimecat · 2013-01-08 03:47 · Score: 1

Its not authoritarian unless you decide you want to play their game. You always have the option of telling them to get bent and develop for another platform.
Im not sure it makes sense to classify "right to develop games for Apple's store with whatever political speech I want" as a censorship issue.
Re:Politcal Games by Samantha+Wright · 2013-01-08 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is really a problem in the walled garden model of iOS. Providing access to the web is a 'safe harbour' sort of endeavour (in the DMCA sense)—it's not Apple's fault if there's something bad on it. The App Store, however, is curated in a number of regards, and hence isn't neutral ground. This is the case both legally and in popular opinion. As a result, permitting an unpopular or extreme political view into their little garden could generate a boycott, a swath of ugly PR, or even a lawsuit. The company would rather not take those risks with this particular piece of content, and has probably decided that political stuff in general is too risky to pick through.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Politcal Games by DarkOx · 2013-01-08 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the broader question is why does the fact that its a game warrant some higher editorial standard. Apple would not block the NYT app if they used it to publish an editorial titled "Assad is a Jerk".
I don't see why a game that happens to portray the same opinion should be looked as different. Also the sort of people who we typically have editorializing about editorials do so because they happen to also be the types that read editorials; if they had any exposure to these games they'd complain about them too. I thought we for the mast part had societal value that considered freedom to express our opinions a virtue? Yes some of them are simplistic, and uniformed. I come back to so what?
I don't think it laudable of Apple to run a market place that actively bars goods and services that happen to express opinions, about real things. Doubly so when its terribly inconsistent about when and on what those rules are actually enforced. Yes they have right to do it; just I chose not to participate.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Politcal Games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:05 · Score: 1

Every World War II game is political and american biased, then. Kindly remove them?
Re:Politcal Games by dsparil · 2013-01-08 04:10 · Score: 1

The interesting thing is the word solely. Hypothetically, if this app had covered several modern conflicts around the globe rather than specifically Syria it would not have been banned. I get the feeling Apple is trying curb apps that are overtly or covertly racist and there's always going to be legitimate apps that are afoul. On the other hand, the guidelines did originally suggest writing a book if you had some political viewpoint to express.
Re:Politcal Games by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Okay, granted, it depends on context.
Within the realm of Apple systems that run only apps we have "favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom" and "the act or practice of supervising the manners or morality of others".
Part of the problem is that opt-in commercial systems become de facto social requirements. Internet Explorer, Office, Facebook, LinkedIn, smartphones... It's hard to navigate society without opting in. I use none of these things, and having opted out puts pressure on me. People around me think I'm weird (because I am strange, I am unusual and hard to understand) and they feel judged by my refusing to do what they do (this is similar to how just being a vegetarian is threatening to others) and that puts strain on my relations.
So I'm a component of a larger organism, society. What society chooses, whether enforced intentionally, using written rules and men with guns, or enforced incidentally, by the fact of social pressure, is what I am subject to. If society ignorantly opts to relinquish freedom by adopting some corporation's politically- and morally-constrained walled garden, they apply that authoritarianism and censorship to me as well.
I'm still pissed off about Internet Explorer.
Re:Politcal Games by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-08 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't do IE. Don't do Office. I look at Facebook about once a week. No LinkedIn. No smartphone. So - where does that leave me? Have I faded away, and become a ghost or something?
Oh, social pressure. Maybe I am a ghost, 'cause that social pressure doesn't affect me very much.
And, you're a vegetarian? What's that got to do with anything? Oh - that social pressure thing. But, wait. Doesn't society pressure you to eat meat? We're all omnivores, and you choose to be different. Maybe that "social pressure" thing is just so much bullshit? You don't really care what people think, any more than I do. You're just flapping your gums in an attempt to feel morally superior or something. Phhhttttt!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Politcal Games by Infernal+Device · 2013-01-08 04:36 · Score: 0

I think the broader question is why does the fact that its a game warrant some higher editorial standard. Apple would not block the NYT app if they used it to publish an editorial titled "Assad is a Jerk".
I don't see why a game that happens to portray the same opinion should be looked as different. Also the sort of people who we typically have editorializing about editorials do so because they happen to also be the types that read editorials; if they had any exposure to these games they'd complain about them too. I thought we for the mast part had societal value that considered freedom to express our opinions a virtue? Yes some of them are simplistic, and uniformed. I come back to so what?
I don't think it laudable of Apple to run a market place that actively bars goods and services that happen to express opinions, about real things. Doubly so when its terribly inconsistent about when and on what those rules are actually enforced. Yes they have right to do it; just I chose not to participate.
Because blocking the NYT app doesn't put them on one side or the other of a political crisis where people are living or dying.

--
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Re:Politcal Games by blind+biker · 2013-01-08 04:40 · Score: 1

The problem with political games is that... they're still political.
The problem with political free speech is that it's still... political. So freakin' what? Deny it because it's inconvenient, because you don't like it, or, as Apple does, because you can?
Fuck Apple. And fuck you, too.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:Politcal Games by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 04:44 · Score: 1

Because the NYT App is not 'solely target[ing] a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity'. One particular editorial might. But overall one might expect some reasonable balance.
Re:Politcal Games by ElectricTurtle · 2013-01-08 04:51 · Score: 1

Internet Explorer? You mean that browser that statistically/demographically most people don't even use anymore?

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Politcal Games by thoth · 2013-01-08 04:58 · Score: 1

So? It isn't like they are the government or some regulated utility/monopoly.
I swear, half the time folks on Slashdot argue vociferously that a corporation is beholden only to itself, and then get all pissed off when that actually happens. I'm not saying it is good or bad, all the time and at the extremes, just don't be surprised when a corporation acts in self-interest when... you think it has every right to do that.
Re:Politcal Games by gutnor · 2013-01-08 05:02 · Score: 1

Well, that's the usual "cover your asses or be ready to hire a lawyer" that brought you the stupid safety labels. Apple handle 20 billions download per years now, I guess the risk of losing client over the missing games is much lower than risk of getting sued by an upset association or worse be banned in some market altogether.
You should not rely on private companies to defend your rights, you have the government for that. The government in this case can force certain term to Apple in exchange for the proper safe harbor. Or more realistically since you will not convince anybody in the US to create new regulation, give unconditional safe-harbor (and regret later the golden loophole you just created)
Re:Politcal Games by nametaken · 2013-01-08 05:03 · Score: 1

I imagine what most of us would want to know is if Google Play would do the same.
There is, of course, the outside option with Android devices. I question only the part about curated stores, and if it's at-all specific to Apple.
Re:Politcal Games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 06:32 · Score: 0

Of course it's censorship. That doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it, though.
Re:Politcal Games by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:35 · Score: 1

Because that's what they agreed to when they started developing the game, and that's what iOS users agreed to when they bought their device.
This group could have easily made their game for Android, not had to deal with any of this bullshit, and reached a larger audience.
And as it turns out, they have. Their message has still gotten out, and people still have the ability to experience it.
Re:Politcal Games by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:36 · Score: 2

Nobody said you were entitled to things being easy.
Re:Politcal Games by phantomfive · 2013-01-08 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's important to note that this isn't a problem with the App store. Every single publishing house in the world has some kind of standards. The problem is there's no other way to get an app on your iPhone. The problem is the locked down device.

And that is why I will not buy an iPhone.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Politcal Games by SoftwareArtist · 2013-01-08 07:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

You don't need anyone's permission to post an app to Google Play. You simply post it yourself and it's immediately available. It could still get taken down at some later point if Google decides it violates their terms of service, but I don't know of any cases where they've done that just because they didn't like a game making a political statement.
But as you point out, what really matters is that you aren't restricted to Google Play. You can get apps from other places if you want. I don't object to Apple setting standards for what they will or won't sell in their store, but I strongly object to them locking down devices so you can't get apps from anywhere but their store.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Politcal Games by DarkOx · 2013-01-08 09:14 · Score: 1

I can see your point but Apples other policy make it effective impossible to publish 'editorial' video game content then.
Apple won't let you publish any application that runs outside code (well other than wrapper around mobile websites anyway). So you can't put something like Steam in the Appstore with its own library of content. So its pretty much can't publish a video game in Apple's walled garden that has any opinion about "a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity."
I think that kinda sucks.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Politcal Games by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 09:39 · Score: 1

Were you around for most of this curve? Did you find that time pleasant?
Re:Politcal Games by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 09:42 · Score: 1

You left "targetting" out of the quote and replaced it with your own word "opinion".
Lets be clear, this game is no editorial. It's simply a game with the objective of freedom fighters/terrorists beating Assad. No discussion; no alternative ways of making a decent country. No, the simple objective is to beat Assad.
That's an item of propaganda, not editorial content. It implies that it's a good thing to depose the Assad government without any discussion or evidence of why.
It comes far closer than "targetting" than giving an "opinion".
Re:Politcal Games by znrt · 2013-01-08 11:15 · Score: 0

But package your editorial as a game, and everyone eats it up
that's actually a good thing, because pulling off a moderately successful game still isn't something reserved to govmts/media moguls only, and a game is still a perfectly valid expression medium, in fact a very powerful one with the unique ability to bypass a priori filtering and provide subtle educational value regardless of user bias. i celebrate there are still content areas and distribution channels not systematically supervised, bullied and trolled by censors (apart from ubiquitous standard sick morality appeasement, that is. however, powerful ideas are not as easy to spot as closeups of genitals). gamification is already widely used to feed bullshit disguised in game concepts to the public. i find it just fair that everybody has the ability to do so.
of course, from a vendor locked marketplace what would you expect?
Re:Politcal Games by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 12:23 · Score: 1

Because there are real people living and fighting and dying in Syria, and some asshole has made that into a freakin' game.
How would you feel if that was your mom or brother who just got killed in the crossfire, and some asshole next to you on the street is replaying it on his iPad? Then he turns to his friend and says "Beating Assad is easy, the bitch is working out what happens next", or something equally insightful and sensitive.
Okay, I know "not having your feelings hurt" isn't a good reason for suppressing someone else's freedom of speech. But the store is Apple's walled garden, they absolutely have the right to refuse admittance to assholes for whatever reason they see fit - including the possibility that some of their valued visitors might be offended by what they offer.
Re:Politcal Games by tehcyder · 2013-01-08 21:15 · Score: 1

Were you around for most of this curve? Did you find that time pleasant?
I think in the context of the tens of thousands of people killed in the civil war in Syria (which is what this thread is about), having to accommodate the limitations of Internet Explorer for a few years is pretty trivial.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Politcal Games by ikaruga · 2013-01-08 21:40 · Score: 1

That is correct. That game app based on the Foxconn scandals is available on Google play(for at least a year) but was rejected from the Appstore.
Re:Politcal Games by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-09 03:30 · Score: 1

The Syrian civil war is one of the main topics. The other, arguably primary main topic is Apple's censorship. The sub-topic being discussed under Apple's censorship was platforms and social pressure. The sub-topic underneath that was Internet Explorer as an example of such. To think of IE and the civil war as a dichotomy is a mistake, though I certainly also feel the emotional impact of contrasting the two.

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:12 · Score: 1

It's propaganda, because you can't play as Assad.

Why? Why why why? by Chas · 2013-01-08 03:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

Yeah! You COULD sell a bajillion copies! If they don't hamstring you and waste all your time and money.

You can imagine that you're Elon Musk and that you're revolutionizing private space travel.

The reality is, on Apple's platform, you're really Robert Stroud.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Who cares about Apple anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:15 · Score: 0

Really?

They are burned out in the public mindset, even if they came out with something new and great, I don't see people really getting excited about them anymore.

It's over Apple, Steve Jobs is dead, now dry up and shrivel away.

Thanks for getting Microsoft to improve with Windows 7, bye, bye now.

Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:17 · Score: 0

Put it on Android instead.

Re:Simple Solution by jetole · 2013-01-08 03:28 · Score: 1

Doesn't sound like a game I want but I checked anyways to see if Google had it or not, if it was rejected, etc. Nope they didn't reject it and it's available on android. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.gamethenews.syriaendgame
Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:45 · Score: 0

And make no money
Because it's making so much more money on iOS right now, right? Oh wait...
Re:Simple Solution by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:57 · Score: 0

They're not entitled to make money.
Re:Simple Solution by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:58 · Score: 1

It is, actually. You can download the APK from their site, as well as from the Google Play store.

Freedom of no by Korruptionen · 2013-01-08 03:18 · Score: 1

I'm actually more offended that Apple decides who has a proper topic on their application platform, rather than the topic itself. Yes, it's still political, and we're probably chock full of political bullshit... but I wish there was a bit less censorship here.

Re:Freedom of no by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:34 · Score: 0

Poor baby.
Re:Freedom of no by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:22 · Score: 0

Make your own platform them. Or use one of the others. If this is a real problem then Android (or something else) will gain because of it, and if if ios is just that good then the others will dwindle away and die and then ios will be a true monopoly and there will be legal ramifications. But right now, this shouldn't even be news.
Re:Freedom of no by bhagwad · 2013-01-08 05:26 · Score: 1

So you're saying what....? That people don't have the right to complain?
Re:Freedom of no by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:58 · Score: 1

You're not required to use Apple. The game is fully available on Android.

What instead? by tepples · 2013-01-08 03:20 · Score: 2

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

For the same reason a business does anything: it has historically had an attractive return on investment. Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?

Re:What instead? by interval1066 · 2013-01-08 03:35 · Score: 1

Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?
Not Apple.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:What instead? by geminidomino · 2013-01-08 03:42 · Score: 1

Not, perhaps, the most compelling of arguments. He starts out fine, but ends up in true Stallman fashion. The GNU/faithful already avoid Apple like a plague carrier.
Re:What instead? by MacDork · 2013-01-08 04:00 · Score: 1

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?
For the same reason a business does anything: it has historically had an attractive return on investment. Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?
Yeah, the Powerball has a great return on investment too. You just pay a dollar and get millions.
There are some Zynga's on the app store making mad cash. And for every hit like "Angry Birds", there are literally thousands of apps that don't sell at all. It's a bit like playing the lottery. You might be the next iFart. Odds are you've wasted lots of time and money for nothing.
Re:What instead? by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 04:26 · Score: 2

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?
For the same reason a business does anything: it has historically had an attractive return on investment. Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?
Yeah, the Powerball has a great return on investment too. You just pay a dollar and get millions.
There are some Zynga's on the app store making mad cash. And for every hit like "Angry Birds", there are literally thousands of apps that don't sell at all. It's a bit like playing the lottery. You might be the next iFart. Odds are you've wasted lots of time and money for nothing.
But Powerball is based on luck. App success is based on quality and marketing. Huge difference.
Re:What instead? by tepples · 2013-01-08 04:33 · Score: 2

But Powerball is based on luck. App success is based on quality and marketing. Huge difference.
Quality I'll agree with, but as for the rest, can't tell if sarcasm. The analogy between the App Store and a lottery appears to connect the success of marketing with luck, especially given the imperfection in the App Store's own search feature. Are there commonly accepted best practices for marketing an app in the App Store or Google Play Store?
Re:What instead? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 05:37 · Score: 0

Most of the truly popular apps, especially games, I have heard about somewhere else and then went to the Play Store to search for them directly by name. Lately I have scanned the barcode on the page I was reading ("best apps for..." lists or game reviews) and got sent right to the Play Store page for that app.
Based on this limited anecdotal evidence I would say the best practice for marketing an app in the App Store/Play Store is to do it somewhere else, similarly to how in-store displays don't provide adequate advertising in the brick and mortar world.
Re:What instead? by interval1066 · 2013-01-08 05:42 · Score: 1

Not, perhaps, the most compelling of arguments.
Oh? Good enough for me. But yes, I suppose yelling fire in a theater on fire is redundant.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:What instead? by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 07:08 · Score: 1

There are some Zynga's on the app store making mad cash. And for every hit like "Angry Birds", there are literally thousands of apps that don't sell at all. It's a bit like playing the lottery.
No, the lottery is a game of chance. Creating apps is a game of skill. The people not making money are the people with crappy apps.
Re:What instead? by mcgrew · 2013-01-08 07:50 · Score: 1

Please educate me:
There are some Zynga's on the app store
What is that apostrophe for? I just don't understand, sorry I'm so illiterate...

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:What instead? by MacDork · 2013-01-08 14:58 · Score: 1

It's a typo. I do it quite a lot. I type without thinking about what keys I'm pressing. It just happens. Muscle memory or something. Oddly, I do obsess over whether it's its or it's, so I don't usually get that wrong.

Can the mod community do a work-around? by doug141 · 2013-01-08 03:20 · Score: 1

Can you release a moddable game through apple that has fake flags and names, and rely on modders to alter flags/names to whatever the user wants? Or does Apple have a lockdown on mods, too?

Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by tepples · 2013-01-08 03:21 · Score: 2

Or does Apple have a lockdown on mods, too?
Given the blanket ban on applications that download and execute code, such as NPC AI scripts associated with a mod, I'd guess so.
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 07:56 · Score: 1

But changing images is not executing code. If downloading new text and images was prohibited, news apps wouldn't stay current.
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by tepples · 2013-01-08 09:51 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that most game mods involved changing not only images but also scripts for the objects on which those images are displayed.
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 10:19 · Score: 1

Except the post you replied to explicitly said "Can you release a moddable game through apple that has fake flags and names, and rely on modders to alter flags/names to whatever the user wants"
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by tepples · 2013-01-08 10:28 · Score: 1

So you're recommending making it essentially a roman à clef , changing only the names and flags. Are you trying to say Apple won't see through this?
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 10:36 · Score: 0

I didn't, doug141 did.
Re:Can the mod community do a work-around? by mjwx · 2013-01-08 13:07 · Score: 1

Can you release a moddable game through apple that has fake flags and names, and rely on modders to alter flags/names to whatever the user wants? Or does Apple have a lockdown on mods, too?
You mean a game engine where you can add your own assets like textures, skins and models... Given the fact Apple wont even let you have a file manager I doubt they'll let you have anything like this.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:Why? Why why why? by Dupple · 2013-01-08 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

Why are people still stupid enough not to read the terms of the market their trying to enter? Beats me.

--
Watch those corners

Difference from Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:21 · Score: 1

Who refused to remove the prophet video from YouTube even after being asked by the POTUS.

While flawed, they have on many occasions stood up for the free internet, which Apple has never done.

Re:Difference from Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:33 · Score: 1

Except that Google blocked the video in Libya and Egypt. Google also caved to China's demands to remove links to certain types of websites on their China version.
Google is just another corporation. They are not a Free Speech crusader. They're a Free Internet crusader, but really only because their business would be hurt immensely by a controlled Internet.
Re:Difference from Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:20 · Score: 0

They actually are, in search of profit, crusading for free speech. However, they are compelled by force to comply wit the laws of various countries. There's a whole lot of difference between "You should take that down" and "Take that down or we're sending you to jail." Both are attempts at censorship, but one comes with the force of law. We really don't want companies like Google to be full of people who haev the habit of picking what laws to follow. Notice the damage Wall Street Banks have done to our country.

"Gaming" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:23 · Score: 0

"Whoa! Dude! You blew her head off just like they showed on the news! Awesome!"

It's Apple's terms and conditions for the AppStore, they are naturally concerned about their corporate image, and in this case I can fully see why--and agree on both an aesthetic and ethical perspective.

While I would see historical real-world inclusions differently (e.g. a Japanese flag for WW2), how would you feel if you the misfortune of being stalked by a gang In Real Life, and having the new hit MMORPG be people getting amusement out of attacking your real-life rendered likeness and name? I'm betting... creepy.

Re:"Gaming" by ganjadude · 2013-01-08 03:45 · Score: 2

I just would wager it makes more sense not to download and play the game if you find it offensive, not complain and ruin things for people who would enjoy it.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:"Gaming" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:28 · Score: 0

Whatever can be done to ruin things for the type of people that would enjoy it, I'm all for.
Re:"Gaming" by bhagwad · 2013-01-08 05:34 · Score: 1

I guarantee that no one is stupid enough to blame Apple for the the political content of an app that runs on iOS. Do you blame Microsoft for a violent PC game you bought form elsewhere?
No.
Re:"Gaming" by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 07:01 · Score: 1

Just like it would make more sense to not use platforms who's policies you don't agree with than complain about it?
Re:"Gaming" by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 07:50 · Score: 1

Do you blame Microsoft for a violent PC game you bought from Microsoft?
No one is stopping this game from being released to a 3rd party app store. Apple are asserting their right to not be associated with it.
Re:"Gaming" by bhagwad · 2013-01-08 08:05 · Score: 1

Apple is stopping this game from being installed on iOS using ANY means. Not just from the iOS app store. Let them allow users to sideload apps and then no one can blame them.
Let users have a checkbox saying "Install from untrusted sources at your own risk etc etc". Trust me - no one will blame Apple for offensive games installed that way.
Re:"Gaming" by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 09:47 · Score: 1

That's a different issue. That means users could buy apps without Apple getting a 30% cut.
Re:"Gaming" by bhagwad · 2013-01-08 10:34 · Score: 1

Shocking! They're as bad as Microsoft!
Oh wait...

Re:Why? Why why why? by gnasher719 · 2013-01-08 03:24 · Score: 2

There are lots of people killed in Syria every day. Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless. So I don't feel the slightest bit sorry about these guys.

And consider that if the game was sold and successful, some people could be very tempted to put a bullet through their heads. Either someone who lost dear friends or relatives in this struggle, or someone who is in danger of losing their power over the country.

apple is finally doomed by alen · 2013-01-08 03:24 · Score: 2

just wait till the next earnings release in a week or two, Tim Cook will finally announce Chapter 11

just because they kicked some app back

Rose colored glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:25 · Score: 1

By another name: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

The worst part about this is the fapbois will find justifications. For you see, when you wear the rose colored glasses the world becomes filled with roses!

Re:Why? Why why why? by alen · 2013-01-08 03:27 · Score: 1

$7 billion paid out to developers? maybe that's why?

how much has the Play store paid out in royalties?

"What's the big deal?" by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 03:29 · Score: 1

A belittled as we may want to think of it ("silly little platform"), it's actually big. You can reach a lot of people through Apple apps.

It's hard for most to understand the harm of having a corporation, a single entity decide what's acceptable.

And it's especially hard for an overwhelming majority to grasp the concept of distributed, incremental contribution to problems and how one's individual actions play in.

100 bandits descend on a village and rob the 100 villagers of their lunches, each bandit taking the 100 bean lunch from a single villager. The villagers lament in hunger. Later, the bandits experience qualms over harming the villagers so. Luckily, a clever bandit devises a solution: take only one bean from each villager. With 100 villagers between whom to spread the theft, each bandit gains a full meal without harming anyone noticeably.

Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?

Re:"What's the big deal?" by nyctopterus · 2013-01-08 03:53 · Score: 1

Now, I think Apple should have stuck to rejecting technically harmful, misleading and illegal apps, and not concerned themselves with content, but I think worries about censorship are way overblown. There is a powerful platform that runs on every iOS device, and is not censored by Apple in any way: the web.
I suspect you'll find that this is their philosophical stance (I've seen quotes from Jobs that echo this, but I can't find them at the moment): native apps are their curated platform, whereas the web is where you can do whatever you like, and is for the free exchange of ideas. The app store is important, but the web is crucial. The evidence for this is that they do put a decent effort into providing a very good web platform. I think that's how they square this stuff with liberal values.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 04:22 · Score: 1

That's reassuring. I'll have to look at the issue in more depth.
The primacy of apps over web is something to consider. That is, apps are more prominent and more capable.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 04:57 · Score: 1

There is a powerful platform that runs on every iOS device, and is not censored by Apple in any way: the web.
Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web. Mobile apps require the user to do fewer things and can better take advantage of the client's hardware. Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.

liberal values
What liberal values? Apple has no liberal values, they are just like any other large corporation: money first, values never.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:"What's the big deal?" by nyctopterus · 2013-01-08 05:37 · Score: 1

Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web. Mobile apps require the user to do fewer things and can better take advantage of the client's hardware. Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.
Huh? I spend more time in the web browser of computing devices than anything else. I don't think I'm unusual. And as easy as it is to install an app, it's easier to visit a web page. There's virtually no friction.

What liberal values? Apple has no liberal values, they are just like any other large corporation: money first, values never.
I'm tempted to give you a snarky reply, because you just baldly state this like you're certainly right, and I'm a naive fool. However, I will try to explain why I think you're wrong on this and leave out the snark. People (and corporations are just a bunch of people) are rarely, if ever, motivated by a single thing. Most people like to think they are doing good in the world. Most people have an ideology, and seek to justify, defend, and promote it. Steve Jobs did, other people at Apple do, and I think it's very naive to ascribe a single motivation to what they are doing.
The "money is the motivation" explanation is sophomoric, and leaves you blind to the complex reality and explanatory power of other motivations and causes. I think this particularly the case with Apple and other technology companies that have been hugely shaped by one person.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 06:39 · Score: 1

I spend more time in the web browser of computing devices than anything else. I don't think I'm unusual
You are unusual if you are talking about a smartphone. If people have a choice between an app and a website, they choose the app -- at the very least, it involves one less tap. Remember when we used to talk about having fewer clicks, and complained about websites that required two or three more clicks to get to the things we wanted?

corporations are just a bunch of people
A bunch of people whose operations are done using money borrowed from other people who want to see a return on their investment. A corporation cannot let values or anything other than a nation's laws supersede its profit motive without the consent of its investors, and it is naive to think that Apple's investors care about anything other than the return on their investment.

Let's put it this way: Steve Jobs admitted that the tantalum used in iPhones probably could be traced to Congo, where teenage soldiers are being ordered to rape women as a military tactic in a conflict that is fueled by minerals. Did Apple take some grand moral stance and spend money on either ending the conflict or finding alternative materials? No, Apple simply said that tantalum is needed to make iPhones and that they could not do anything about the conflict (despite being a corporation with enough capital that it could buy the entire region).

the complex reality and explanatory power of other motivations and causes
I call BS on that one. The only complication is in how corporations choose and exploit their markets, not in the purpose of their existence or of their ultimate goal. Apple is not creating computers out the goodness of their hearts. Apple did not sue journalists out of some moral obligation. Apple did not go after hackintosh makers for any sort of greater good. When Apple gives to charity, do they do so quietly, or do them make sure lots of cameras are around so that everyone knows about their service to the world (when/if you give to charity, do you then go around telling everyone about it?)?

It is kind of like saying that there is a complex reality to an army at war. Sure, different armies do things differently, and they are fighting for different reasons, but at the end of the day an army has a goal when it fights and that goal takes priority. Corporations are not all that different from a military operation: the people who work for them are trained to think they are doing something important, they are trained to think that they have an ethical obligation to follow orders, and at the top level there are people who direct operations to achieve the goal.

Apple and other technology companies that have been hugely shaped by one person
Apple was led to an overwhelming success by one ruthless person. Steve Jobs was not on some moral or ethical quest; he wanted to lead Apple to a great business success, and was willing to do whatever it took to make that happen. He berated employees if they were not perfect. He directed the company to patent everything, so that they could never be sued without having some counter-suit ready. He directed the company to go after anyone who stood in the way of the company's profits. It is as if he read Ender's Game and thought, "I bet Apple would be the most successful company in human history if someone like Ender Wiggin were to run it..."

Which of Apple's or Jobs' actions leads you to think otherwise? Frankly, which of the technology companies that was driven to success by one person suggests a different story? Facebook has yet to work on any sort of interoperability with any other system, and is increasingly aggressive about profiting from its userbase. Google does not stop short of doing business in countries where they are required to be evil. Oracle is as typical of a corporation as possible. Do I even need to mention Microsoft?

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:"What's the big deal?" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 06:39 · Score: 0

100 bandits descend on a village and rob the 100 villagers of their lunches, each bandit taking the 100 bean lunch from a single villager. The villagers lament in hunger. Later, the bandits experience qualms over harming the villagers so. Luckily, a clever bandit devises a solution: take only one bean from each villager. With 100 villagers between whom to spread the theft, each bandit gains a full meal without harming anyone noticeably.
Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?
I've never heard this before but it seems like a standard argument to prove some sort of point...
what about the last bandit who is taking 100% of a villager's beans 100 times? he doesn't noticeably harm each one? or the next to last bandit who is taking 50% of each villager's food supply? 33% is very noticeable, also 25%...20% of the total is a lot of food to go missing...as is 17%...etc.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:53 · Score: 1

It's hard for most to understand the harm of having a corporation, a single entity decide what's acceptable.
But, they don't. I went onto the Google Play store just now, and the game was available. I didn't download it, because I had no interest, but if I wanted to, I had full access.
The developer has even put the APK up on their site for download.
Pretty hard to beat that kind of access.

You can reach a lot of people through Apple apps.
And I could reach a lot of people through writing something in the New York Times, or by selling something at WalMart. Doesn't mean either of those parties are obligated to carry my stuff.

Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?
There isn't harm being done if there was never an obligation to carry the thing in the first place. Their app is still available on other platforms, and there are still the PC and Mac platforms available if they want to reach a wider market.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:56 · Score: 1

Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web.
So fucking what? An editorial ran in the New York Times is much more likely to reach people than something written on my self hosted blog or my small town newspaper. Does that mean the NYT should be obligated to carry my writing?

Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.
Not anyone's problem but their own.
Re:"What's the big deal?" by nyctopterus · 2013-01-08 07:24 · Score: 1

You seem to be arguing against Apple's primary motivation being ethical. That's not what I said, either in my original comment or my followup. I think the motivation at Apple is complex, mostly comprising power, money and aesthetics, and a technological vision. Ethical considerations are in there, but they will probably be trumped by the others, all things being equal. I also think you're mistaking your ethics for being universal -- interoperability and technological freedom (which isn't identical with intellectual freedom) may simply not be seen as a good thing by many of these people. Your money-only explanation seems attractive because Apple has made an awful lot of it. But it did not get there by doing the things most people would have done to make money. A lot of their actions are very akin to artists ho get fiercely protective of their work. Controlling user experience is part of that, their patenting another. This part seems to be somewhat aesthetically motivated, and as an artist I recognise it (although I think it mostly counterproductive).
An example I think I can point to of Apple's non-money motivation is Apple's relatively benign relationship to the web. They have not made anything like the aggressive moves to control it that Microsoft, Google and Facebook have made. They have made significant contributions to web technology in an open way.
The best way to show that you understand someone's motivation is to predict their future behaviour. I predict Apple will maintain and probably increase the tight control they have on their platforms. They will aggressively bully companies they feel are copying them aesthetically, while largely ignoring the ones that don't (regardless of the actual patents involved). They will take a hands-off approach to web content and will keep developing the technological web platform, regardless of how tight their native platform control gets. In the longer term, they will scale iOS so that it can be the primary computing platform for most people. At that point they may make OS X (or a derivative) some sort of more flexible beast aimed at the cutting edge; this will have some sort of restriction to define who uses it rather than what it will do (very expensive is my guess).
What are your predictions?
Re:"What's the big deal?" by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 09:46 · Score: 1

Even almost completely spelled out it's hard to get.
If each bandit takes a single bean from each villager, they will have only done 1% harm, and so they'll feel morally comfortable. But there are 100 bandits, which means each villager still loses their entire 100 bean meal.
That's the point. Even if you do only a little harm to others in your quest for self-satisfaction, it still adds up to others suffering substantially.
Did anyone else miss this?
Re:"What's the big deal?" by tehcyder · 2013-01-08 22:02 · Score: 0

Most people like to think they are doing good in the world.
Sociopaths don't, and corporations are essentially sociopathic, as are the people who control them.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Why? Why why why? by interval1066 · 2013-01-08 03:32 · Score: 2

Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.

Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment. People and companies churn out tasteless crap all day. Perhaps they should all be censored. Good thing I don't have to buy Apple's crap.

...the game ran afoul of the guidelines for including Japanese flags in a WWII naval sim.

So if Godzilla were to attack New York would Apple deny a sim after the fact because it was unfair to monsters? Its absurd to disallow a game for including historically accurate imagery. The Rising Sun ensign isn't even a current national symbol of any current nation/state.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:35 · Score: 0

Because they can make a lot of money. Developers DO NOT give a shit about open platforms. You really need to understand that. You can claim it is a prison system all you want, they don't care, they care about money.

Doesn't matter by blind+biker · 2013-01-08 03:38 · Score: 1

Android will be more than happy to have it. The same thing happened with Tawkon Apple didn't want it, but Android is open to anyone - (and even Google Play is much more open than Apple's appstore). Mind you, Tawkon requires true parallel multitasking to work the best (i.e. must run while the call is ongoing) which is not the case with iOS: on iOS Tawkon would only monitor the radiation emission at the very beginning of the call - on Android it does this during the call duration).

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.

Re:Doesn't matter by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 07:47 · Score: 1

I've got an app that does the same thing as Tawkon.
I send you a text message that says "Warning: Your cellphone is producing safe amounts of electromagnetic radiation". Its only $0.99.

Oh Apple... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-08 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology – where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"

Remember when this was the straw-man that Apple was against?

Re:Oh Apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:41 · Score: 0

I still remember when showing a nipple in TV was a non-issue... oh, wait. Maybe corporations reflect our silly moral rules? YOU DON'T SAY!
Re:Oh Apple... by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 07:48 · Score: 1

Where did all the TV nipples go?
Re:Oh Apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 09:37 · Score: 0

Thank you for proving my point yet again. When you don't have a logical leg to stand on, just make crap up and proclaim it to be a quote. Good job at misinformation there, spanky.
Re:Oh Apple... by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-01-08 11:54 · Score: 1

Oh, they weren't *against* it. It was pure projection. They thought that IBM had it, and desired it for themselves.
Really sad how Apple couldn't define themselves without reference to IBM. Apple's famous motto: "Think Different". IBM's motto: "Think". It's just a ripoff, and yet these days nobody knows or even cares.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Re:Why? Why why why? by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 03:49 · Score: 1

Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.

Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.

Yup. And Congress has made no law restricting it, just as the 1st Amendment provides for.

Apple is 100% right. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:49 · Score: 0

The war in Syria is very ugly, and the USA has paid to have Sunni fundamentalists enter the fray, who are now killing Christians and Shiite Muslims.
To believe that the dumbed-down stories on CNN and Fox News are complete and valid is sheer stupidity.

very good news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 03:58 · Score: 0

bad propaganda disguised as entertainment for the iMass...

No jailbreak exemption for tablets by tepples · 2013-01-08 04:00 · Score: 1

If Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a particular kind of work in a particular medium, then what's the anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? There's a DMCA exemption to jailbreak phones but not to jailbreak tablets like the iPad.

Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 04:23 · Score: 1

If Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a particular kind of work in a particular medium, then what's the anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? There's a DMCA exemption to jailbreak phones but not to jailbreak tablets like the iPad.
Totally irrelevant. The "information" can be published somewhere else. Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information. That is what the 1st Amendment is for. A corporation (aka a "person") can choose not to publish it as they wish. Random House need not publish every novel of fan fiction. It does not violate the 1st Amendment.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by tepples · 2013-01-08 04:27 · Score: 1

The "information" can be published somewhere else.

In the case of Endgame:Syria, where should this information have been published?
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 04:35 · Score: 1

Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information
Really? Then, what happened here, when 2600 magazine was prosecuted for publishing links to deCSS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes

If you are wondering why Fedora will provide information on its website about RPMFusion but not Livna (where libdvdcss packages are), you have your answer: it is illegal to even publish that information in the United States. So much for the first amendment, so much for freedom of speech.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 05:47 · Score: 1

The "information" can be published somewhere else.
In the case of Endgame:Syria, where should this information have been published?
It's not a matter of "should" but "can." They don't have to make the game an iOS game. They can make it a PC game, an XBox game, or a Wii game. If I publish a novel in the format for the Kindle, should Amazon be forced to sell it? If I print my own books, should B&N be forced to sell it. The answer is no in all cases.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 05:50 · Score: 1

Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information
Really? Then, what happened here, when 2600 magazine was prosecuted for publishing links to deCSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes If you are wondering why Fedora will provide information on its website about RPMFusion but not Livna (where libdvdcss packages are), you have your answer: it is illegal to even publish that information in the United States. So much for the first amendment, so much for freedom of speech.
I was referring to the fact that Apple's refusal to publish the app is not a violation of the First Amendment. I didn't say that no First Amendment violations have ever occurred.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by tepples · 2013-01-08 06:00 · Score: 2

an XBox game, or a Wii game.
Microsoft and Nintendo have historically been even stricter than Apple.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:42 · Score: 2

That's completely beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a work. However, the people at Apple are NOT Congress, and are therefore not bound by the same restrictions. Just like you're not required to buy an iOS device.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:43 · Score: 1

Anywhere that will have them. The Internet, for one. They have also made an Android version.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 06:55 · Score: 1

an XBox game, or a Wii game.
Microsoft and Nintendo have historically been even stricter than Apple.
My point is there are other places, not which are suitable. They can develop their own platform, if that's what it takes. Fact is, this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
Re:No jailbreak exemption for tablets by tepples · 2013-01-08 07:42 · Score: 1

Just like you're not required to buy an iOS device.
Apple has been taking steps toward making that a requirement. How many of the behaviors found to be infringing in Apple v. Samsung are part of TouchWiz (Samsung's customizations), and how many are part of AOSP itself?

Re:Why? Why why why? by psmears · 2013-01-08 04:02 · Score: 2

Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.

Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.

True, but this isn't about Congress passing a law to restrict speech - it's about one company deciding not to sell a third party's product...

People and companies churn out tasteless crap all day. Perhaps they should all be censored. Good thing I don't have to buy Apple's crap.

Exactly - those (myself included) who are uncomfortable with either Apple's policies, or the general stranglehold they like to maintain on their ecosystem, are free to buy other stuff :-)

...the game ran afoul of the guidelines for including Japanese flags in a WWII naval sim.

So if Godzilla were to attack New York would Apple deny a sim after the fact because it was unfair to monsters?

The policy in question was about games depicting entities that are real. Despite what Stephen King and Dr Who may have you believe, most adults consider that monsters are not real :-)

--
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys

No WebGL in Mobile Safari by tepples · 2013-01-08 04:02 · Score: 1

There is a powerful platform that runs on every iOS device, and is not censored by Apple in any way: the web.

Of course the web is censored by Apple. Apple has refused to support WebGL in Safari for iOS. So how should one make a 3D web game that Apple can't censor?

Re:No WebGL in Mobile Safari by Ravaldy · 2013-01-08 06:51 · Score: 1

I'm no fan of Apple but allowing apps to run via browsers is a huge security risk. This is why the app store is controlled. Apple prides themselves in providing a friendly, safe and stable environment, something both MS and Linux have failed to do.
If you want flexibility, it comes at the price of security in most cases. Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple device, so if your not happy go to Android or yet MS.
Re:No WebGL in Mobile Safari by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:54 · Score: 1

That is NOT CENSORSHIP.
They are NOT OBLIGATED to cater to your whims.

So how should one make a 3D web game that Apple can't censor?
Who says you should be able to? If you're that afraid of "being censored", then release on a different platform. You are NOT entitled to a platform supporting your stuff.
Re:No WebGL in Mobile Safari by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 07:24 · Score: 1

WebGL is not part of HTML5 standards.
Re:No WebGL in Mobile Safari by tepples · 2013-01-08 07:37 · Score: 1

Then what API for 3D presentation is, or should be, included in HTML standards?
Re:No WebGL in Mobile Safari by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 07:56 · Score: 1

I don't care.

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

How much of that $7 billion is in the pockets of Rovio?

Lots of people are killed to make the iPhone by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 04:16 · Score: 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_minerals

So I guess what really matters is not whether or not people are being killed, but whether or not Apple's customers are being reminded of that killing on a daily basis.

--
Palm trees and 8

Can you show... by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 04:24 · Score: 1

Can you show how those developers needed Apple to make that money i.e. that they would not have made that much without Apple's restrictive ecosystem?

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Can you show... by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:49 · Score: 1

No, and quite frankly, I don't care to. It's a purely retarded argument.
Although I could point to the Google Play store, which doesn't have those restrictions, and show how they've paid out far, far, far less than Apple has to developers.

Still not as bad as Apple by betterunixthanunix · 2013-01-08 04:29 · Score: 1, Interesting

Apple refused to allow political cartoon apps in the App Store, even in countries where such software is entirely legal. Apple has a history of bricking jailbroken iPhones. Apple sues reporters, sues hackers who figure out how to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and tries to exert the most extreme control possible over their customers' use of their products.

Meanwhile, Google allows you to use their search engine to find pornography, to find information on how to block Google's own advertisements, to find information on how to hack software released by Google to do things Google never intended, and so forth. Are they perfect? No, but did we really expect them to be? Frankly, Google has gone beyond what I would expect of a modern corporation in terms of user freedom.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Still not as bad as Apple by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 07:01 · Score: 1

And yet, no one is forcing you to use Apple products.
And really, if Google did any of the stuff you're talking about, they'd have the FTC on their ass even harder than they did.

Don't even need to use the editorial analogy by poity · 2013-01-08 04:29 · Score: 2

Battleground: Election 2012 - Obama vs Romney
This was political in nature and solely targeted a real government. Wasn't banned.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:Don't even need to use the editorial analogy by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 04:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the blurb it doesn't seem to target anyone. You can pick to play either side.

sidetrack by poetmatt · 2013-01-08 04:40 · Score: 1

The issue is apple. Since when/why would someone rely on and/or trust apple?

Put something out cross platform, everywhere - so that a refusal by Apple means nothing.

I really don't understand how it's this hard for people to recognize that relying on a single platform is an incredibly poor idea. Ever since the inception of "web 2.0" the concept of a platform is broken into a limited functionality/walled garden.

Re:sidetrack by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:38 · Score: 2

They did put it out on Android. Meaning that people still have access to their game. Hell, on their site they have a link to Google Play AND a link directly to the APK.

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 04:55 · Score: 0

Why are people still stupid enough not to read the terms of the market their trying to enter? Beats me.

Free Market? Ain't Apple. That's for sure.

No App Store has *ever* been a free market. Be that Debian's package repository or Google's Play Store. But in these cases the user always has access to Free Market by simply installing 3rd party software. With Apple or now Microsoft's Windows RT, that is not possible. Developing for these platforms is not Free Market - it is like modern laws no longer apply.

Then again, how many don't even know what GPL is? Or even copyright? Or Fair Use?

Correction. by Chas · 2013-01-08 04:59 · Score: 1

App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.

After that, it's totally quality and marketing.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Correction. by coinreturn · 2013-01-08 05:53 · Score: 2

App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
After that, it's totally quality and marketing.
App rejection is overplayed, mostly by (1) Those that have been rejected for obvious violations that Apple lets you know about in advance, and (2) Fandroids who celebrate every rejection as a repudiation of Apple. I currently have 5 apps selling, only one of which got an initial rejection, but was cleared with a little email exchange with Apple.
Re:Correction. by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:47 · Score: 1

App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
95% of apps get through the approval process with little or no incident. The "dangers of rejection" are seriously over-hyped by anti-Apple fanboys.
Re:Correction. by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 07:14 · Score: 1

And most of the remaining 5% get rejected because they have bugs.
The rules allow one to predict pretty well what is acceptable and what is not. Out of hundreds of thousands of apps, there's perhaps 1 a month that gets a debatable rejection and hits the blogs. Those are pretty good odds.

Black propaganda from the usual suspects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 05:06 · Score: 0

The right-wing zionist agenda of Slashdot is becoming ever less subtle. Despite this being a technical news site, no opportunity is ever lost to post stories that either bash Iran or praise Israel. The Internet is full of racist, Muslim denigrating 'political' webpages, so it isn't as if the owners of Slashdot are compensating for a lack of coverage of their POV.

The irony is that the rulers of the great powers in the West (particularly the USA and UK) are destroying the SECULAR regimes in the Middle-East one-by-one, and replacing them with various flavours of radical Islamic theocracies.

Iraq was exterminated, the USA murdering well over TWO MILLION Humans there, in order to end a secular socialist regime and replace it with an Islamic religious one.

Later, Libya, possibly the most socially enlightened regime in Africa, suffered the most depraved slaughter by the USA, UK and France, in order to install a regime of militant, tribal, islamic radicals. The two major towns that had majority 'black' populations were completely wiped out by military atrocities completely backed by American and French forces.

Syria is to be the greatest price. A long standing stable socialist secular society is under attack from veteran radical Islamic butchers from Libya, Iraq and other Western backed conflicts. These terrorists are trained and controlled by special forces from the UK, USA and French military. Their funding is from the USA, laundered through Saudi Arabia (to make the blood money more acceptable) into Qatar, where Britain and America have their main Middle East military control centre. The terrorists are trained and armed in Jordan and Turkey.

The dribbling public in the USA thinks that America hates Islam. This is what the owners of Slashdot bank on when they push such propaganda. People are not supposed to question why secular regimes in the Middle East are being exterminated by military action fronted by the vile theocracies of Israel and Saudi Arabia (and notice how close the American government is to these two obscene regimes).

Syria has always been a Christian power-house. Obama is specifically targeting Syria Christians on behalf of Saudi Arabia Wahhabis (the most extreme lunatic fringe of Islam that is also proud to be a partner of Israel). For every one Obama terrorist the Syrian people and their military kill or capture, Obama sends another three. In the end, it is a numbers game, and Syria's resources are finite.

Obama's puppet masters figure they can't lose. If Syria continues to resist, it will do so by becoming a harsh military dictatorship, as we see in Israel/USA friendly Egypt. America loves military dictatorships- the psychos that tend to rise to the top in these regimes speak America's language.

Anyway, unlike Slashdot, Apple doesn't want to be seen as source of cheap and nasty Black propaganda from the psy-op departments of Obama's intelligence services. Apple is happy to do its 'duty' in more subtle and useful ways.

You know you're from a poor country if by dorpus · 2013-01-08 05:15 · Score: 1

- When you were little, white people came from the sky and asked you to make a sad face for the camera.
- The government, rebels, and UN peacekeepers all shoot at you.
- You've ever drank water from a mud puddle.
- You had a bean for dinner last night.
- You've never seen your own face in a mirror.
- Escalators terrify you.
- The village witch doctor can let you talk telepathically through the cell phone.
- You got a pack of cigarettes for your 10th birthday.
- White people tell you to have savings accounts and get educated, but banks steal your money and schools just produce unemployed people.

Good! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 05:26 · Score: 0

What's going on in Syria is not a game. Only a self-absorbed idiot would try to defend that sort of behavior.

Re:Why? Why why why? by interval1066 · 2013-01-08 05:40 · Score: 1

most adults consider that monsters are not real

Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Stay on point to be an effective, persuasive, writer.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

Re:Why? Why why why? by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:39 · Score: 1

Yeah! You COULD sell a bajillion copies! If they don't hamstring you and waste all your time and money.

95% of apps are approved with little or no incident, and in a timely manner. This idea that they're going to hamstring you is quite outdated.

Re:Why? Why why why? by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:40 · Score: 1

Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.

The 1st Amendment says that you can say it. It doesn't say you have to have a platform to do so on.

Besides, they've also put the game out on Android. So it's still available.

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 06:43 · Score: 0

Sure, because Apple always applies its terms evenly and fairly to all iOS software, and would never arbitrarily, inconsistently, or capriciously apply them in different manners to different products.

Re:Why? Why why why? by s73v3r · 2013-01-08 06:48 · Score: 1

Many of us quite frankly do not give two shits about pure "Free Markets".

Re:Why? Why why why? by BasilBrush · 2013-01-08 07:05 · Score: 1

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

Because they'll make more money than doing Android development. Reports from developers that have tried both platforms seem to put it at about 10:1 in terms of return.

And the rules are published to developers. Whilst every set of rules has borderline cases, the sensible developers stick to something that's obviously within the rules, or test out a potentially rule breaching idea with a quick proof of concept.

Given that this game is playable as on line as a HTML5 game, the iOS development probably consisted of little more than copying some boilerplate code for putting a web-view on screen, and loading up the HTML. A hours work for the chance of also being on the App Store, or at least the publicity of getting a rejection. Not a bad investment.

Breaking News by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 07:42 · Score: 1

App that violates guidelines is rejected, more at 11.

It's a game about war by viperidaenz · 2013-01-08 08:00 · Score: 1

Perhaps Apple are just stopping people wasting their time

The only winning move is not to play.

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 08:25 · Score: 0

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

Why are people still stupid enough not to read the terms of the market their trying to enter? Beats me.

Because they are 117 pages long, containing deliberately obfuscated legal text designed to not be understandable by anyone?

But don't let reality burst your zealot's stance. Here's a life tip: Apple don't care about you, just how much you'll tithe to them via your cultlike obsessiveness.

Re:Why? Why why why? by mcgrew · 2013-01-08 08:57 · Score: 1

Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.

You mean like Grand Theft Auto, or Wolfenstein? Sure it's tasteless, so fucking what? Everyone has a right to be a boor and a cad if they wish to be.

You know what's more offensive? Your suggesting that these folks don't have the right to be offensive. Nothing is more offensive than censorship.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 09:27 · Score: 0

I care even less about open source and all this jibber jabber about walled gardens. I want a working product. Apple provides.

This is Working as Intended by Sarusa · 2013-01-08 09:46 · Score: 1

Just look at the comments here. Apple just doesn't want that controversy s@$%storm, and the 'they didn't approve it' controversy is a minor fartzephyr in comparison. That rule is specifically there to prevent games like like this, especially ones that won't make them much money. Educating people is approximately nowhere on the list of App Store goals.

Re:Why? Why why why? by mcgrew · 2013-01-08 09:48 · Score: 2

most adults consider that monsters are not real :-)

You never heard of John Wayne Gacey? Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Charlie Manson? All of them make Dracula and Frankenstein look like girl scouts.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Why? Why why why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 10:54 · Score: 0

There was no zealatory just an observation you didn't like because you're your own kind of zealot

don't get distracted by Onymous+Coward · 2013-01-08 16:39 · Score: 1

I do choose to be how I am, and I do catch flak for being different. That flak is social pressure.

Maybe you don't remember the days before Open Office, receiving important documents you couldn't read or needing to create important documents that you couldn't make without Microsoft software. Maybe you don't remember how many websites were IE-specific, or how it was business suicide to build a site without catering to the IE userbase. Do you think that those pressures weren't real?

You don't really care what people think, any more than I do.

You probably care less. It sounds like you don't have to interact in a business environment and maybe you don't have many friends who want to be in touch via Facebook- Oh, but you do use Facebook. Do you also build websites? When did you start web surfing? IE was a thorn in the sides of everyone who wanted a better browser, but folks had little choice except to deal with it -- that's social pressure. You don't have to worry about IE or Office now. It sounds like you didn't experience these things. And the one example of extant pressure, Facebook, you are using. So maybe it's hard for you to understand. Look around, though. There are plenty of other normative things that society smooths the way for, and which swimming against is damned hard.

Don't let your disdain for haughtiness distract you when you think you've caught whiff of it. There's a real issue here.

Its as if a million muslims cried out in blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 17:29 · Score: 0

And were suddenly silenced.

Apple is just worried the App Store might end-up like YouTube after the Innocence of Muslims release.

Re:Why? Why why why? by tehcyder · 2013-01-08 21:37 · Score: 0

If you think it's "politically correct" to support Assad and therefore object to this game on those grounds, you're living in a fantasy world. But then again, using "beatnik" as an insult is like something from the 1950s, so maybe you're just stuck in a Senator Joe McCarthy timewarp somehow.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

perfectly fine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-08 22:36 · Score: 0

I bought my iThing precisely so Apple could think for me. I depend on them to decide whether or not I should have access to any given topic or opinion, that's exactly why I love Apple so much. They tell me what to buy, they tell me what to read and what to think. It's a great user experience.

Don't see any problem here. Wish Apple would become a more powerful force in my life.

Free publicity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 00:19 · Score: 0

Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?

Why are people still stupid enough not to read the terms of the market their trying to enter? Beats me.

If the developers of this game really wished have as many people as possible to play the game, wouldn't it make more sense for them to make a free flash-game that everyone can play on browser?

Yeah, you guessed it, the most probably outcome would be basically nobody will know about the game. It will be lost in the sea of free flash game in the net.

But, what if, instead, they wrote an iOS app(!) and submitted it to Apple, knowing full well that it will be rejected? Instant free publicity. Now that so many people have heard about this "forbidden game", more people will come when they put out the flash-based version.

Validation of undesirability of restrictions by tepples · 2013-01-09 04:14 · Score: 1

App rejection is overplayed, mostly by (1) Those that have been rejected for obvious violations that Apple lets you know about in advance, and (2) Fandroids who celebrate every rejection as a repudiation of Apple.

Assuming these rejections are in fact predictable from Apple's restrictions, Fandroids celebrate these rejections as validation of the undesirability of Apple's restrictions.

Marketing by tepples · 2013-01-09 04:15 · Score: 1

No, the lottery is a game of chance. Creating apps is a game of skill.

The contention as I understand it is that successfully marketing them is a game of chance.

Re:Marketing by BasilBrush · 2013-01-09 05:18 · Score: 1

That might be the contention, but it's wrong. GIven the same decent marketing, a bad app will still not be successful, whilst a good app will be. That's a game of skill.
Of course there can be many ways of defining bad and good apps. Most of them subjective. So for the purposes of this I'll say a bad app is one which people typically use for long enough to see what it is, then abandon it. And a good app is one that people keep on using for a long time.
Good apps predominantly get good reviews, bad ones get bad reviews. Both on store and off store. People see other people running good apps, and get personal recommendations for them. Not bad apps.
None of these things happen in a game of chance.

How to get into "somewhere else"? by tepples · 2013-01-09 04:18 · Score: 1

You claim that "'best apps for...' lists or game reviews" are an appropriate "somewhere else" for end users to discover applications for a tablet operating system. So what are the best practices, once one has developed a quality application, to get it into one of those lists?

Acclaimed flops by tepples · 2013-01-09 07:14 · Score: 1

GIven the same decent marketing, a bad app will still not be successful, whilst a good app will be.

Is this more true of apps than of, for example, movies? I was under the impression that several critically acclaimed movies still didn't make a profit.

Good apps predominantly get good reviews

But how does an app get in front of a widely followed reviewer in the first place?

Re:Acclaimed flops by BasilBrush · 2013-01-09 08:10 · Score: 1

Is this more true of apps than of, for example, movies? I was under the impression that several critically acclaimed movies still didn't make a profit.
I'm way ahead of you. As I said there are many ways to define good/bad, and so I defined what I meant by it. And it was apps that people tend to want to use for a long time. Not that reviewers said it was good.
(OT: You want to take claimed lack of profit on movies with a pinch of salt. Very often that's an accountancy trick to lower costs such as royalties. For example the studio tried to claim that none of the LOTR movies made a profit. Of course they did. Why the hell else would they have moved on to making The Hobbit.)

But how does an app get in front of a widely followed reviewer in the first place?
You send it to them. A proportion will pick it up. Meanwhile user reviews on the App Store count for a lot.
It's not random. It's not a game of chance. It's a game of skill - primarily in developing a good app. Secondarily in doing competent marketing.

Another rejection of reality by mick129 · 2013-01-10 08:50 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't allow porn on the app store, despite the fact that people have sex all around the world. How unjust.

--
Move along, no sig to see here.

Slashdot Mirror

Rejection of Reality: Apple Denies Endgame:Syria

172 comments