7 ms·

App Store Bans Pulitzer-Winning Satirist. For Satire

126 points by pinstriped_dude 16y ago

greenlblue 16y ago
This new direction apple is taking seems completely wrong on a visceral level.
- vishaldpatel 16y ago
  Not a new direction. Our apps (two of them) were banned for the same reasons a year ago.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Perhaps he meant new as in the past three years?
- fhars 16y ago
  I don't think it is that new, it is just an instance of the same control fetishism that has permeated the company since it started to see itself as the only entity legally allowed to rip off the Xerox PARC user interface concepts some time in the mid 80ies, when they also removed the extension slots from their computers and the schematics from the documentation.
  - cubicle67 16y ago
    actually, Apple asked for, and received, permission to use the Xerox PARC interface. It also received about $1 million in funding from Xerox along with a reasonable number of engineers, glad to see someone finally understanding what they were doing
    - fhars 16y ago
      And then they went sueing other people over it. And it seems that Xerox didn't actually think they gave Apple this permission, as they in turn sued Apple over it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
      - GHFigs 16y ago
        And then they went sueing other people over it. Not arbitrarily. The prior licensing arrangement between Apple and Microsoft is central to that case. And it seems that Xerox didn't actually think they gave Apple this permission Xerox sued Apple, yes--but as even the Wikipedia article points out, it had much more to do with benefiting from the precedent that the case might have established than with anything they thought before. It's more evident--by the fact that they waited so long--that they didn't think they could deny permission (i.e. that 'look and feel' was subject to copyright, as Apple believed)--which ultimately is what the court effectively decided.
catch23 16y ago
Imagine a country run by Steve Jobs -- it would be China.
- asimjalis 16y ago
  Except China has never banned programming languages.
  - pyre 16y ago
    I think that you're trying to apply the metaphor too literally.
- blogimus 16y ago
  I think it might be more like Duloc.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Yes, because running a company that markets an application store for smartphones is exactly like running a country -- WTF??
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - iamdave 16y ago
    I think you're trying to apply the metaphor too literally, as well.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      No, I think it was a worthlessly inflammatory comment. Private corporations have no responsibility to be run as governments and, indeed, are not.
      - pyre 16y ago
        ...and tech issues are not cars, but we use car analogies anyway. Just because you can't take an metaphor and make it line up 100% does not make the metaphor worthless.
clammer 16y ago
Creating an iPhone version of my app just got even lower on my todo list.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Yes. It's so easy to forget that some 180 000 apps were accepted.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Apparently there's 447 that just make fart noises.
  - clammer 16y ago
    Yeah, but in my case I'm in a grey area like the facebook app developers that Apple just screwed...not to mention the developer's customers.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  I think the ranks of those who feel as you do are growing. Let's hope more people develop for Android and the web now.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    I think it won't happen, at least for now. The strength of the user experience and the seamless integration of iPhones with the app store is what is luring users and developers. Android can win on Apple Flaws, but it has to become better, in my opinion. Only then it will be able to force Apple out of it restricting decisions. I hope it will happen someday. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen soon.
  - chc 16y ago
    Unfortunately, I don't think so, at least not for serious commercial development. Android and the Web both have big drawbacks for producing profitable apps. Apple has a huge line of people with their credit cards out on the App Store and everyone knows it. Android has relatively few users and they are not known to be big spenders in general. The Web has lots of users but very few are likely to ever find your product and unless it fits in a few well-defined categories it's tremendously unlikely they'll be willing to pay for it (and ad-supported is not a reliable business model).
asimjalis 16y ago
Apple is quickly turning into a parody of itself.
- snippyhollow 16y ago
  s/parody/satire
  - elblanco 16y ago
    No not yet, it hasn't slipped into the App store yet.
timcederman 16y ago
Not for satire. For breaking the terms of the app store and including representations of public figures (without consent?) in the app. This is old news. http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-figures-celebrities-and-apple http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-figu... 8. Public Figures — Brian’s original article included “political lampooning.” I’ll extend that to include association or portrayal of public figures. Two examples: around Obama’s inauguration, CodeMorphic created an app called Obamify that manipulated photos to appear like those iconic posters from the campaign; the app went into infinite review. Yak Apps had to remove imagery containing Mr. and Mrs. Obama before their “First Dog” app was approved.
- sid0 16y ago
  > For breaking the terms of the app store and including representations of public figures (without consent?) in the app. So for satire?
  - timcederman 16y ago
    No. It could've included a photo of any public figure without satire, and it would've been rejected. Therefore the title of the article is misleading. It wasn't rejected because of satire, it was rejected because it represented a public figure in any capacity. You'll notice an app got banned for just including images of the Obamas. I'm surprised at the upvotes of people dissenting with me, and my associated downvotes. Voting doesn't change facts. Apple had an existing policy in place which had nothing to do with satire, which is why this app was removed. If he was satirizing himself somehow, it would have been approved. Back to my original statement - Apple is not banning satire, and this is not new news.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      You mean like all of these: http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_iphone_app_and_5_other_ways_to_waste_money.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_i... Oh wait...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
spamizbad 16y ago
Eagerly anticipating a post from John Gruber explaining how satire is an inferior form of humor that drags a platform's comedic potential down.
- danh 16y ago
  Except, of course, satire written in C, Objective-C or Javascript.
- tjogin 16y ago
  Wouldn't that be completely out of character for him, since he's usually pretty hard on Apple for their mismanaged AppStore — especially when it comes to arbitrary refusals?
  - tjogin 16y ago
    Like I said (he calls it "preposterous"): http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-rejection-fiore http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-reject... Gruber is not an Apple apologist, he's just too informed to knee-jerkingly bash Apple, unlike most other people with an opinion on Apple.
- Hagelin 16y ago
  You seem to have confused Daring Fireball with Roughly Drafted.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    It is getting easier these days. From his recent comment on an app being allowed into the store, then later rejected, for an offence that large numbers of high-profile games also commit and aren't punished for: "this is Apple being consistent, not inconsistent".
    - tjogin 16y ago
      How is that not correct? Apple has stated that apps with runtimes interpreting code are not allowed, and now they're banning an app that does that. How is that not consistent?
michael_dorfman 16y ago
I think this paragraph really hits the nail on the head: Apple has built a little slab of Disneyland with its iPad, which is meant to be an experience unsullied by provocative or crude material. It’s beautiful and enticing-- the company has already sold more than a half million of them in the first two weeks it’s been available-- but it’s not the real world. Disneyland is the perfect metaphor for the iPhone/iPad experience. It's a closed theme-park, which exercises tight control over what products and services it offers its patrons. It's not an open market, and is not intended to be. I'm hoping that once people get this, the moral outrage (and all of the articles about the moral outrage) will die down. Applications that are in violation of the TOS are going to be rejected by the App Store. That means they have to be written in the language that Apple specifies, and meeting the content standards that Apple specifies. If there's content that in "Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable", you're out of luck. And, of course, it's well within Apple's rights to keep the leash so tight, just as Disney can tightly control which goods and services are offered within the confines of their theme parks. It's not anywhere near a monopoly situation, and there are plenty of opportunities outside the park walls for developers to make and sell whatever they like.
- jcnnghm 16y ago
  Applications that are in violation of the TOS are going to be rejected by the App Store. As well as applications that are in violation of some future version of the TOS. Or compete against some future Apple product. Or that fail to meet an unknown arbitrary standard. The thing is, Apple is asking developers to invest in their product, and continuously changing the rules. Publishing for Apple products is becoming too risky. I decided not to transition my sales force to iPad's because vendors like Appcelerator will almost certainly drop iPad support if the TOS changes. Developing glue code in Objective-C is like buying a supercomputer to play Solitaire. You can do it, but it's overkill, and that doesn't make it a good idea. We'll wait for the HP Slate or an Android tablet.
- chadgeidel 16y ago
  And yet, people love Disneyland. I'm not trying to defend Apple here, but the majority of the public just doesn't care about "freedom" (in terms of things you can do with the device) if you give them a good experience.
Naga 16y ago
I'm actually not convinced that this is a wrong direction for the App Store. I'm not an Apple apologist or fanboy by any means. What Apple has created with the iPhone and iPad is actually perfect for "regular users". For my mom, for my grandmother. Even for my dad, who is just too busy these days to configure computers and phones, who easily has the knowledge and skill to do so. The ability of these people to do powerful things without having to spend time working on it is actually quite interesting. I am completely turned off by the direction computing is taking, but people who think this is just a fad are wrong, and aren't looking at the big picture. People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want. Yes, Linux is much superior to OS X and Windows, but the majority of users don't not use it because of some FUD, its because they don't have the time or skill to work with it. Apple is taking that concept to the next level, where anyone can accomplish things in a much easier way. This won't go away. Apple is being extremely successful, and I see many other companies who are going to jump on the bandwagon. But for us power users, there will always be the hardware that we are used to buying available. Linux is not going to go away. There is just going to be a bigger divide between what your nontechy family and friends use, and what you use. I don't know whether or not this will destroy the next generation of programmers, who won't have had the ability to tinker. I can see that happening. But really, this is not going to be a negotiable thing. This isn't something you can fight against. This is the way technology is moving. We have to adapt to it, not the other way around.
- lena 16y ago
  People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want So are you saying that people don't want to see content from Pulitzer Prize winners?
  - nfnaaron 16y ago
    I think most people won't care. They want the shiny. If political satire is missing, most people won't miss it or even notice, they'll be too busy laughing at their cat batting games on their iPad. The same for other political commentary, or news that puts some politician or institution in a bad light. The iPad may help news corporations survive, but it is certainly no saviour to journalism. In an age where editors would fight government censorship to the point of jail and beyond, they'll STFU and follow Apple's rules to stay in business.
binarray2000 16y ago
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 of contradictory and confusing 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! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)
- cabalamat 16y ago
  No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Mc_Big_G 16y ago
When will the app store ban stories not be news anymore? I see multiple variations of it every day. One part of me wonders why everyone can't just get over it and face the fact that Apple is going to do what they want and the other part of me sees the value in complaining. If you really want to complain, don't buy their products and don't develop on their platform. The whole hammer throwing thing from the 80s just seems so ironic now.
- vetinari 16y ago
  I have one more step: 1) Do not buy their products, 2) Do not develop on their platform, 3) Voice your opinion about products/platforms loudly (Apple should be actually happy about this, it allows them to know where they can improve).
- elblanco 16y ago
  > The whole hammer throwing thing from the 80s just seems so ironic now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 I'm not even sure how to reinterpret it today. The Big Brother figure speaks of a garden of pure ideology, and it appears the woman is an app who is about to get rejected by the app store cops. Is the meaning of the hammer throw that I should go get an Android phone so I don't have to subject myself to the approval of the Big Brother character?
patrickk 16y ago
Apple refusing to allow any content that satires public figures or draws controversy in some way is akin to a religious person being afraid to read a Richard Dawkins book or listen to him speak for fear of being tainted, or hearing something that contradicts their own world view. Both to me would seem to indicate that a person or organisation has a deep-seated lack of conviction in their own position, whatever that position may be.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  That's a poor analogy. Apple is not acting in the role of the "reader" here. They're the store. They are choosing what they want to sell. It makes no sense to attribute something as simple as not wanting to be in the soapbox business to fear and lack of conviction. It projects emotion onto something that can be much more accurately attributed to the entirely reasonable and rational desire to run a store that makes a lot of money without a lot of complaints. If you really believe that retailers should be required to stock everything that anybody wants to sell, regardless of whether they want to be in the business of selling that product, I'd ask why.
Terretta 16y ago
The bobblehead congress app was rejected for ridicule of public figures as well (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5203 http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5203) getting "Tom Richmond, of Mad Magazine fame" a lot of press. Deliberate or not, this is a good PR stunt for the cartoonists to get coverage. The fart apps guys did this too. The process (submit app in violation of guidelines, tip off press, enjoy web-wide mentions and increased linkage) is replicable.
cageface 16y ago
I find this far more troubling than their recent TOS changes. It's one thing to make arbitrary and capricious changes to the technical terms of their developer agreements. It's quite another to arbitrarily censor content. If Apple really aims to be the savior of print journalism they have a moral responsibility to take their role more seriously and more sensibly. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Apple is the wrong steward for the next generation of online communications technology.
- elblanco 16y ago
  Apple has always censored content. Remember all the dictionary apps that were rejected because people could look up bad words?
tvon 16y ago
Apparently Apple has asked him to re-submit the app: The cartoonist who won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning this week says Apple has asked him to resubmit an iPhone app that it earlier rejected because it “ridicules public figures.” http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-backs-down-after-denying-iphone-app/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-back...

greenlblue 16y ago

This new direction apple is taking seems completely wrong on a visceral level.

vishaldpatel 16y ago
Not a new direction. Our apps (two of them) were banned for the same reasons a year ago.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  Perhaps he meant new as in the past three years?
fhars 16y ago
I don't think it is that new, it is just an instance of the same control fetishism that has permeated the company since it started to see itself as the only entity legally allowed to rip off the Xerox PARC user interface concepts some time in the mid 80ies, when they also removed the extension slots from their computers and the schematics from the documentation.
- cubicle67 16y ago
  actually, Apple asked for, and received, permission to use the Xerox PARC interface. It also received about $1 million in funding from Xerox along with a reasonable number of engineers, glad to see someone finally understanding what they were doing
  - fhars 16y ago
    And then they went sueing other people over it. And it seems that Xerox didn't actually think they gave Apple this permission, as they in turn sued Apple over it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      And then they went sueing other people over it. Not arbitrarily. The prior licensing arrangement between Apple and Microsoft is central to that case. And it seems that Xerox didn't actually think they gave Apple this permission Xerox sued Apple, yes--but as even the Wikipedia article points out, it had much more to do with benefiting from the precedent that the case might have established than with anything they thought before. It's more evident--by the fact that they waited so long--that they didn't think they could deny permission (i.e. that 'look and feel' was subject to copyright, as Apple believed)--which ultimately is what the court effectively decided.

catch23 16y ago

Imagine a country run by Steve Jobs -- it would be China.

asimjalis 16y ago
Except China has never banned programming languages.
- pyre 16y ago
  I think that you're trying to apply the metaphor too literally.
blogimus 16y ago
I think it might be more like Duloc.
Locke1689 16y ago
Yes, because running a company that markets an application store for smartphones is exactly like running a country -- WTF??
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- iamdave 16y ago
  I think you're trying to apply the metaphor too literally, as well.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    No, I think it was a worthlessly inflammatory comment. Private corporations have no responsibility to be run as governments and, indeed, are not.
    - pyre 16y ago
      ...and tech issues are not cars, but we use car analogies anyway. Just because you can't take an metaphor and make it line up 100% does not make the metaphor worthless.

clammer 16y ago

Creating an iPhone version of my app just got even lower on my todo list.

rimantas 16y ago
Yes. It's so easy to forget that some 180 000 apps were accepted.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Apparently there's 447 that just make fart noises.
- clammer 16y ago
  Yeah, but in my case I'm in a grey area like the facebook app developers that Apple just screwed...not to mention the developer's customers.
stanleydrew 16y ago
I think the ranks of those who feel as you do are growing. Let's hope more people develop for Android and the web now.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  I think it won't happen, at least for now. The strength of the user experience and the seamless integration of iPhones with the app store is what is luring users and developers. Android can win on Apple Flaws, but it has to become better, in my opinion. Only then it will be able to force Apple out of it restricting decisions. I hope it will happen someday. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen soon.
- chc 16y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think so, at least not for serious commercial development. Android and the Web both have big drawbacks for producing profitable apps. Apple has a huge line of people with their credit cards out on the App Store and everyone knows it. Android has relatively few users and they are not known to be big spenders in general. The Web has lots of users but very few are likely to ever find your product and unless it fits in a few well-defined categories it's tremendously unlikely they'll be willing to pay for it (and ad-supported is not a reliable business model).

asimjalis 16y ago

Apple is quickly turning into a parody of itself.

snippyhollow 16y ago
s/parody/satire
- elblanco 16y ago
  No not yet, it hasn't slipped into the App store yet.

timcederman 16y ago

Not for satire. For breaking the terms of the app store and including representations of public figures (without consent?) in the app. This is old news. http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-figures-celebrities-and-apple http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-figu... 8. Public Figures — Brian’s original article included “political lampooning.” I’ll extend that to include association or portrayal of public figures. Two examples: around Obama’s inauguration, CodeMorphic created an app called Obamify that manipulated photos to appear like those iconic posters from the campaign; the app went into infinite review. Yak Apps had to remove imagery containing Mr. and Mrs. Obama before their “First Dog” app was approved.

sid0 16y ago
> For breaking the terms of the app store and including representations of public figures (without consent?) in the app. So for satire?
- timcederman 16y ago
  No. It could've included a photo of any public figure without satire, and it would've been rejected. Therefore the title of the article is misleading. It wasn't rejected because of satire, it was rejected because it represented a public figure in any capacity. You'll notice an app got banned for just including images of the Obamas. I'm surprised at the upvotes of people dissenting with me, and my associated downvotes. Voting doesn't change facts. Apple had an existing policy in place which had nothing to do with satire, which is why this app was removed. If he was satirizing himself somehow, it would have been approved. Back to my original statement - Apple is not banning satire, and this is not new news.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    You mean like all of these: http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_iphone_app_and_5_other_ways_to_waste_money.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_i... Oh wait...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

spamizbad 16y ago

Eagerly anticipating a post from John Gruber explaining how satire is an inferior form of humor that drags a platform's comedic potential down.

danh 16y ago
Except, of course, satire written in C, Objective-C or Javascript.
tjogin 16y ago
Wouldn't that be completely out of character for him, since he's usually pretty hard on Apple for their mismanaged AppStore — especially when it comes to arbitrary refusals?
- tjogin 16y ago
  Like I said (he calls it "preposterous"): http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-rejection-fiore http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-reject... Gruber is not an Apple apologist, he's just too informed to knee-jerkingly bash Apple, unlike most other people with an opinion on Apple.
Hagelin 16y ago
You seem to have confused Daring Fireball with Roughly Drafted.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  It is getting easier these days. From his recent comment on an app being allowed into the store, then later rejected, for an offence that large numbers of high-profile games also commit and aren't punished for: "this is Apple being consistent, not inconsistent".
  - tjogin 16y ago
    How is that not correct? Apple has stated that apps with runtimes interpreting code are not allowed, and now they're banning an app that does that. How is that not consistent?

michael_dorfman 16y ago

I think this paragraph really hits the nail on the head: Apple has built a little slab of Disneyland with its iPad, which is meant to be an experience unsullied by provocative or crude material. It’s beautiful and enticing-- the company has already sold more than a half million of them in the first two weeks it’s been available-- but it’s not the real world. Disneyland is the perfect metaphor for the iPhone/iPad experience. It's a closed theme-park, which exercises tight control over what products and services it offers its patrons. It's not an open market, and is not intended to be. I'm hoping that once people get this, the moral outrage (and all of the articles about the moral outrage) will die down. Applications that are in violation of the TOS are going to be rejected by the App Store. That means they have to be written in the language that Apple specifies, and meeting the content standards that Apple specifies. If there's content that in "Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable", you're out of luck. And, of course, it's well within Apple's rights to keep the leash so tight, just as Disney can tightly control which goods and services are offered within the confines of their theme parks. It's not anywhere near a monopoly situation, and there are plenty of opportunities outside the park walls for developers to make and sell whatever they like.

jcnnghm 16y ago
Applications that are in violation of the TOS are going to be rejected by the App Store. As well as applications that are in violation of some future version of the TOS. Or compete against some future Apple product. Or that fail to meet an unknown arbitrary standard. The thing is, Apple is asking developers to invest in their product, and continuously changing the rules. Publishing for Apple products is becoming too risky. I decided not to transition my sales force to iPad's because vendors like Appcelerator will almost certainly drop iPad support if the TOS changes. Developing glue code in Objective-C is like buying a supercomputer to play Solitaire. You can do it, but it's overkill, and that doesn't make it a good idea. We'll wait for the HP Slate or an Android tablet.
chadgeidel 16y ago
And yet, people love Disneyland. I'm not trying to defend Apple here, but the majority of the public just doesn't care about "freedom" (in terms of things you can do with the device) if you give them a good experience.

Naga 16y ago

I'm actually not convinced that this is a wrong direction for the App Store. I'm not an Apple apologist or fanboy by any means. What Apple has created with the iPhone and iPad is actually perfect for "regular users". For my mom, for my grandmother. Even for my dad, who is just too busy these days to configure computers and phones, who easily has the knowledge and skill to do so. The ability of these people to do powerful things without having to spend time working on it is actually quite interesting. I am completely turned off by the direction computing is taking, but people who think this is just a fad are wrong, and aren't looking at the big picture. People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want. Yes, Linux is much superior to OS X and Windows, but the majority of users don't not use it because of some FUD, its because they don't have the time or skill to work with it. Apple is taking that concept to the next level, where anyone can accomplish things in a much easier way. This won't go away. Apple is being extremely successful, and I see many other companies who are going to jump on the bandwagon. But for us power users, there will always be the hardware that we are used to buying available. Linux is not going to go away. There is just going to be a bigger divide between what your nontechy family and friends use, and what you use. I don't know whether or not this will destroy the next generation of programmers, who won't have had the ability to tinker. I can see that happening. But really, this is not going to be a negotiable thing. This isn't something you can fight against. This is the way technology is moving. We have to adapt to it, not the other way around.

lena 16y ago
People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want So are you saying that people don't want to see content from Pulitzer Prize winners?
- nfnaaron 16y ago
  I think most people won't care. They want the shiny. If political satire is missing, most people won't miss it or even notice, they'll be too busy laughing at their cat batting games on their iPad. The same for other political commentary, or news that puts some politician or institution in a bad light. The iPad may help news corporations survive, but it is certainly no saviour to journalism. In an age where editors would fight government censorship to the point of jail and beyond, they'll STFU and follow Apple's rules to stay in business.

binarray2000 16y ago

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 of contradictory and confusing 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! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)

cabalamat 16y ago
No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Mc_Big_G 16y ago

When will the app store ban stories not be news anymore? I see multiple variations of it every day. One part of me wonders why everyone can't just get over it and face the fact that Apple is going to do what they want and the other part of me sees the value in complaining. If you really want to complain, don't buy their products and don't develop on their platform. The whole hammer throwing thing from the 80s just seems so ironic now.

vetinari 16y ago
I have one more step: 1) Do not buy their products, 2) Do not develop on their platform, 3) Voice your opinion about products/platforms loudly (Apple should be actually happy about this, it allows them to know where they can improve).
elblanco 16y ago
> The whole hammer throwing thing from the 80s just seems so ironic now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 I'm not even sure how to reinterpret it today. The Big Brother figure speaks of a garden of pure ideology, and it appears the woman is an app who is about to get rejected by the app store cops. Is the meaning of the hammer throw that I should go get an Android phone so I don't have to subject myself to the approval of the Big Brother character?

patrickk 16y ago

Apple refusing to allow any content that satires public figures or draws controversy in some way is akin to a religious person being afraid to read a Richard Dawkins book or listen to him speak for fear of being tainted, or hearing something that contradicts their own world view. Both to me would seem to indicate that a person or organisation has a deep-seated lack of conviction in their own position, whatever that position may be.

GHFigs 16y ago
That's a poor analogy. Apple is not acting in the role of the "reader" here. They're the store. They are choosing what they want to sell. It makes no sense to attribute something as simple as not wanting to be in the soapbox business to fear and lack of conviction. It projects emotion onto something that can be much more accurately attributed to the entirely reasonable and rational desire to run a store that makes a lot of money without a lot of complaints. If you really believe that retailers should be required to stock everything that anybody wants to sell, regardless of whether they want to be in the business of selling that product, I'd ask why.

Terretta 16y ago

The bobblehead congress app was rejected for ridicule of public figures as well (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5203 http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5203) getting "Tom Richmond, of Mad Magazine fame" a lot of press. Deliberate or not, this is a good PR stunt for the cartoonists to get coverage. The fart apps guys did this too. The process (submit app in violation of guidelines, tip off press, enjoy web-wide mentions and increased linkage) is replicable.

cageface 16y ago

I find this far more troubling than their recent TOS changes. It's one thing to make arbitrary and capricious changes to the technical terms of their developer agreements. It's quite another to arbitrarily censor content. If Apple really aims to be the savior of print journalism they have a moral responsibility to take their role more seriously and more sensibly. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Apple is the wrong steward for the next generation of online communications technology.

elblanco 16y ago
Apple has always censored content. Remember all the dictionary apps that were rejected because people could look up bad words?

tvon 16y ago

Apparently Apple has asked him to re-submit the app: The cartoonist who won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning this week says Apple has asked him to resubmit an iPhone app that it earlier rejected because it “ridicules public figures.” http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-backs-down-after-denying-iphone-app/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-back...