4 ms·

The reason is right there in the article - excessively crude or objectionable content. If a porn website released their own video player as an app, you could c

The reason is right there in the article - excessively crude or objectionable content. If a porn website released their own video player as an app, you could call it a "very specialized web browser", but it would still obviously violate the app store ToS.

pjc50 11y ago
The content was not "crude". And what's objectionable about it? It's a list of locations.
- caskance 11y ago
  Locations where people were murdered.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    What's specifically objectionable about that? If the NYT app mentions the location where someone was murdered, would that be grounds for removal?
    - caskance 11y ago
      No, just as Safari isn't removed because you can visit porn sites with it, but an app that was dedicated only to porn would be. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        Safari doesn't create the content its users view with the app; the New York Times does. They aren't the same thing.
        caskance 11y ago
        Most distinct entities aren't.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        OK, what about one of the crime mapping apps? Random example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=... Should that be pulled too?
        caskance 11y ago
        No clue. You could report it and find out.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        No, I'm arguing that there should be a clear boundary between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and trying to find out why a list of locations where people have been killed is objectionable to anyone. What about the list of V2 target sites from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 ? Would that be banned?
        caskance 11y ago
        The more likely case is that nobody will know or care about it and it will remain unnoticed forever.
      - cwyers 11y ago
        In what sense is reporting on the government's foreign policy the same as pornography?
        caskance 11y ago
        In the sense that they're both considered obscene by Apple.
        chipotle_coyote 11y ago
        Serious question: so what? The case you seem to be making in your comments is that it's irrational for all of us to be looking askance at this definition of "obscenity," but it's always been subjective, legally speaking. If we accept "controversial and potentially offensive" as obscene, that's a really broad definition, and I think it's worth pushing back on.
        caskance 11y ago
        Obscenity is always going to be subjective. When it comes to what Apple is willing to sell in their store, it is their idea of obscenity that applies. At this point, I think they have made their stance clear enough that both you and I understand what gets apps banned. I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status that prohibits them from exercising their own judgment in what apps they publish. If you actually want that, you should say so. Arguing that Apple should have to publish apps it finds obscene just because the apps don't match your own definition of obscenity IS irrational. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps not irrational. Let's say shitty.
        simoncion 11y ago
        > I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status... Not just no, but "Hell no". What folks want from Apple is for their reviewers to behave like professionals. Professionals would provide a reasonably consistent, non-capricious application of the App Store rules. The current situation can be described roughly as: "Your app will be de-listed if some app reviewer got up on the wrong side of the bed. The reviewer will point to a randomly selected clause in the TOU as the justification for the removal. You will be unable to get your app back in the App Store unless you have a large amount of social clout, or another reviewer who really dislikes the first one decides to override their decision. There are no guarantees that this process will not recur an unlimited number of times in the future." This is not a good foundation on which to build a business relationship. Could you attempt to use all the apps that aren't pulled, and the $X,XXX raked in monthly by folks from App Store revenues as counterexamples? Yes. Do those things negate my point? No.
mikeash 11y ago
That is the stated reason but it doesn't make any sense. There are games in the app store where you actually pilot a drone and blow people up and Apple has let them be. Are we to believe that graphically simulating drone strikes is not crude or objectionable, while textually reporting on real drone strikes is?
- caskance 11y ago
  You can believe what you want. Personally, I believe that either nobody has bothered to report the apps that are still up, or Apple doesn't give a shit about games because those are in their own bucket.
  - RIMR 11y ago
    I think what it boils down to is that Apple shouldn't be deciding if newsworth facts are too obscene to be published. Should news apps be removed if they report on murders?
    - caskance 11y ago
      There's a huge difference between a news app that happens to cover murders and a "murder news" app that only covers that specific subset. The app in question is clearly much closer to the latter.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - simoncion 11y ago
        So, software that only provides reports on firearm-related-homicides in a neighborhood is a "murder news" app and should be banned?
        caskance 11y ago
        I've been deliberately avoiding talking about what should be banned. I would expect Apple to remove such an app from their store once they found out about it, yes.

pjc50 11y ago

The content was not "crude". And what's objectionable about it? It's a list of locations.

caskance 11y ago
Locations where people were murdered.
- pjc50 11y ago
  What's specifically objectionable about that? If the NYT app mentions the location where someone was murdered, would that be grounds for removal?
  - caskance 11y ago
    No, just as Safari isn't removed because you can visit porn sites with it, but an app that was dedicated only to porn would be. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      Safari doesn't create the content its users view with the app; the New York Times does. They aren't the same thing.
      - caskance 11y ago
        Most distinct entities aren't.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      OK, what about one of the crime mapping apps? Random example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=... Should that be pulled too?
      - caskance 11y ago
        No clue. You could report it and find out.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      No, I'm arguing that there should be a clear boundary between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and trying to find out why a list of locations where people have been killed is objectionable to anyone. What about the list of V2 target sites from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 ? Would that be banned?
      - caskance 11y ago
        The more likely case is that nobody will know or care about it and it will remain unnoticed forever.
    - cwyers 11y ago
      In what sense is reporting on the government's foreign policy the same as pornography?
      - caskance 11y ago
        In the sense that they're both considered obscene by Apple.
        chipotle_coyote 11y ago
        Serious question: so what? The case you seem to be making in your comments is that it's irrational for all of us to be looking askance at this definition of "obscenity," but it's always been subjective, legally speaking. If we accept "controversial and potentially offensive" as obscene, that's a really broad definition, and I think it's worth pushing back on.
        caskance 11y ago
        Obscenity is always going to be subjective. When it comes to what Apple is willing to sell in their store, it is their idea of obscenity that applies. At this point, I think they have made their stance clear enough that both you and I understand what gets apps banned. I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status that prohibits them from exercising their own judgment in what apps they publish. If you actually want that, you should say so. Arguing that Apple should have to publish apps it finds obscene just because the apps don't match your own definition of obscenity IS irrational. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps not irrational. Let's say shitty.
        simoncion 11y ago
        > I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status... Not just no, but "Hell no". What folks want from Apple is for their reviewers to behave like professionals. Professionals would provide a reasonably consistent, non-capricious application of the App Store rules. The current situation can be described roughly as: "Your app will be de-listed if some app reviewer got up on the wrong side of the bed. The reviewer will point to a randomly selected clause in the TOU as the justification for the removal. You will be unable to get your app back in the App Store unless you have a large amount of social clout, or another reviewer who really dislikes the first one decides to override their decision. There are no guarantees that this process will not recur an unlimited number of times in the future." This is not a good foundation on which to build a business relationship. Could you attempt to use all the apps that aren't pulled, and the $X,XXX raked in monthly by folks from App Store revenues as counterexamples? Yes. Do those things negate my point? No.

mikeash 11y ago

That is the stated reason but it doesn't make any sense. There are games in the app store where you actually pilot a drone and blow people up and Apple has let them be. Are we to believe that graphically simulating drone strikes is not crude or objectionable, while textually reporting on real drone strikes is?

caskance 11y ago
You can believe what you want. Personally, I believe that either nobody has bothered to report the apps that are still up, or Apple doesn't give a shit about games because those are in their own bucket.
- RIMR 11y ago
  I think what it boils down to is that Apple shouldn't be deciding if newsworth facts are too obscene to be published. Should news apps be removed if they report on murders?
  - caskance 11y ago
    There's a huge difference between a news app that happens to cover murders and a "murder news" app that only covers that specific subset. The app in question is clearly much closer to the latter.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - simoncion 11y ago
      So, software that only provides reports on firearm-related-homicides in a neighborhood is a "murder news" app and should be banned?
      - caskance 11y ago
        I've been deliberately avoiding talking about what should be banned. I would expect Apple to remove such an app from their store once they found out about it, yes.