10 ms·

Apple rejects Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as "enemies"

92 points by Jare 13y ago

tanglesome 13y ago
Un-freaking-believable.
higherpurpose 13y ago
And there you go, more arbitrary decisions that should have no place in an "app store". That's why a platform always needs to allow at the very least side-loading of apps, even if it makes it difficult enough for "normal users" to do that, for security reasons. For situations like these when the vendor starts banning apps for their own bogus reasons.
- wahnfrieden 13y ago
  Side loading doesn't help you sell your app if the official store is still the only one most users access.
protomyth 13y ago
This is so dumb it is "get someone fired" dumb. This is going to hit the media as political correctness run amok. I can just hear "Is Apple going to ban history books, too?". Sure, its ok for a half-naked women with a sword to slice up orks, but don't you dare show war-game with actual sides. Is Axis & Allies going to be banned?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 13y ago
  I think the decision is absurd too, but how does this generalize to history books? They don't portray one group as "the enemy" and good practice is to actively avoid that.
  - platz 13y ago
    it doesn't. History books and games are different enough in this regard.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    My high school history book of WWII definitely portrayed Germany and Japan as the enemies[1]. Going to other books, I am sure Apple will now ban all the Tom Clancy books.
  - sspiff 13y ago
    I think they do, although that's probably fine. Germany was "the enemy" of the Soviet Union, as was Japan. France was "the enemy" of pretty much everyone else in the Napoleonic wars. There's nothing wrong with labeling someone as "the enemy" of someone else, as long as you don't include a value judgement. I doubt this game labels "the vile Germans" as "the enemy of the noble Soviets".
- moogleii 13y ago
  Someone higher up (presumably) has already reversed the decision.
- pbreit 13y ago
  Or maybe it was more of a mistake. In fact it was...the game has been re-reviewed and reinstated. No need to jump to the worst conclusion.
bluedino 13y ago
Is Rocky IV available on iTunes?
- Mutinix 13y ago
  I chuckled when I read this but then I actually went and looked it up. What do you know, it is there! Rocky IV - https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/rocky-iv/id278077103 https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/rocky-iv/id278077103
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Apple has a weird view (explicitly stated) that politics are okay in films or books, but not in games.
- valarauca1 13y ago
  "Rocky IV depicts Oceania and Eurasia as enemies despite the two never engaging in an armed conflict. Due to historical in accuracies Itunes Minitruth subsection histosec has re-edited Rocky IV because Oceania and EastAsia have always been at war. Oceania and Eastasia have always been at war."
  - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
    Wasn't Rocky IV released in 1985? A year too late!
kunai 13y ago
We never cared about the App Store acceptance guidelines before, because most apps got accepted anyway. Still, there's an intrinsic risk that you take when you push a program to the store, in that YOU do not have control over how your app turns out. Apple has final authority on any changes, and it's really a restrictive environment to be in. It didn't matter then, but with billions of applications now in the marketplace, the drawbacks of having a fully closed environment for applications are becoming painfully obvious. http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html
- happyscrappy 13y ago
  He said that five years ago, has their bottom line suffered? Do developers now start with an Android app and then go to iOS? This current "outrage", which will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, was caused by a single reviewer and the fact that Apple's guidelines are intentionally vague leaving them wide latitude to control the App Store for brand protection.
  - kunai 13y ago
    Developers start with iOS because it's a better development environment and because the iPhone is a household name, while there are scores of different Android devices. Your argument is irrelevant. The point is that Apple's control over its ecosystem can't be a net benefit in the long term because it doesn't give developers enough breathing room to scale or expand. You're left at the mercy of Apple's approval staff.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Just because their strengths outweigh this weakness doesn't make it not a weakness. Has their bottom line suffered? I would wager yes. Just because they're still dominant doesn't mean this hasn't hurt them. This "outrage" was not caused by a single reviewer. It was caused by the capricious and unwieldy app review system that Apple instituted years. IT was caused by the fact that a single reviewer can fuck things up publicly for the entire company. It is a problem of process, not of an individual.
joakleaf 13y ago
Apple sells these products (and takes a 30% cut), so they have some responsibility for what they are selling. They don't want to offend anyone, so they made a list of rules. Their review team interprets rules literally. We may shake our heads when it comes to WW2, but it is really a grey area. What if the game was depicting a war between present day religious or political groups? What if it was a game between heterosexuals and homosexuals? What about a racist theme?Would that be OK? Certainly, some people would be offended. So where do you draw the line if you don't want to offend anyone with the products you sell?
- kanja 13y ago
  My Great-aunt didn't make it out of the camps. WW2 isn't a gray area by any honest interpretation.
  - joakleaf 13y ago
    Gray area in the sense that it actually offends some people whereas most people just shake their head.
  - melling 13y ago
    The Russians weren't the enemy in WW2. In fact, their contribution greatly affected the outcome of the war. Axis and Allies are good names if someone is being historically accurate.
    - stephenhuey 13y ago
      They started out as enemies of the Allies, then they became enemies of the Axis powers when they changed their allegiance. And when they were pretending to be friends of the Polish people under Nazi rule, they intentionally failed to show up as promised to help out with the Warsaw uprising so that the Polish uprising leaders would die and not get in the way when they instituted communism in Poland (I saw the new "Warsaw Rising Museum" this past summer). Brings to mind the phrase "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" But to set clearly set the record straight, the Russians were indeed the enemy at some point no matter which side you were on.
peelman- 13y ago
Just a friendly reminder: Apple has hundreds of reviewers, and turn over is undoubtedly high. The reviews are highly subjective with the Guidelines being what they are and worded how they are, you're going to have different interpretations among the pool of reviewers. Asking for consistency out of that system is insane. That's why there's an appeal process. Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, but is just bad business.
- untog 13y ago
  You're giving Apple a free pass. Reviewers should have sufficient training to be able to make sensible calls without having to go through an appeals process.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It would be smarter to feed back a rejection through the pipe as a new submission and reject on consensus or majority.
- smackfu 13y ago
  A rejection with no proposed solution is the most extreme result of an app review. I would think that would get reviewed by someone higher up.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I could not possibly care less how Apple is organized internally. A company should not expose their internal bullshit to the outside world. Apple set this system up. If they are unable to run it consistently then they have only themselves to blame. They should either fix it or scrap it.
- 1ris 13y ago
  Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, is just the only thing that realistically works. It's unprofessional to use highly subjective guidelines.
- kryptiskt 13y ago
  > Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, but is just bad business. Nah, bitching publicly works, all those companies are incredibly sensitive to media stories. Always bitch before the appeals process, make sure their PR department notice you.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zefhous 13y ago
Isn't the word "solely" the key here? > 15.3 “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity. If you could play as both sides it seems like they would allow it. While this rejection seems irrational, I don't think the point is that Germans and Russians are targeted, but that they are depicted as the only enemy. Every conflict has at least two sides, and it's unthinkable that any game doesn't offend a group of people. However, it seems more reasonable that they should require "fairness" in the sense that both sides should be playable. This takes a game from having a perceived ideological stance to being more neutral, and I think that's the whole point here.
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  Russia and Germany are two separate nations. Nations that were on opposite sides of WWII, no less. I don't see how the game "solely" targets one specific group.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    "Nations that were on opposite sides of WWII" Not all of WW2 - they jointly invaded Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact It was after the Soviet invasion of Poland that the infamous Katyn Massacre occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Which included 7000 prisoners executed by a single man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin
    - sspiff 13y ago
      Sure, but they were on opposite sides for most of the time, and they inflicted horrendous casualties on each other (Germany suffered almost as many casualties in a single battle in the east as the entire war in the west, and Russia more so) and both committed horrible massacres on the civilian population of any neutral, conquered or enemy nation. Given the numbers, saying Russia and Germany were on opposite sides in WW2 seems pretty accurate to me.
scrumper 13y ago
I immediately thought of Bulge[1], a great WW2 strategy game depicting the eponymous battle. I thought it would support the Tank Battle developer's complaint, but actually it doesn't: the combatants are 'Axis' and 'Allies' - no mention of countries. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-of-the-bulge/id521833787?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-of-the-bulge/id521833...
itsdrewmiller 13y ago
First they came for the mkv decoding video apps, and I said nothing. Then they came for the WWII simulation games, and I said nothing. Then they came for the alternative browsers, so I switched to Android.
brudgers 13y ago
In Faulknerian terms: The past is never dead. It did not even happen. For students of Santayana: If there is no past, we cannot be doomed to repeat it. The technical term for sarcastic Orwellians: Drilling memory holes.
desireco42 13y ago
This is new history rewriting present in EU, Germans don't want to be the bad guys anymore, so they ask that formulations from WW I celebrations change. They want us to forget their role in two world wars and would like to reframe those as anything but what it was.
- rwissmann 13y ago
  I am curious where you get your information from. Got any source demonstrating the 'the Germans' - which I assume is meant to describe either the majority opinion or the official government stance - want to rewrite history regarding WWII? Or asking for anyone to 'forget their role' in it? Disclaimer: I am a German living in the UK.
  - desireco42 13y ago
    Yes, there is big push to redefine everything WW I and II, Merkel officially asked English to tone down celebrations of WW I and those toning down went so much that Russians decided not to participate in charade altogether which was to happen in France and will organize remembrance events on their own. There are attempts to pin start of WW I on Serbs, like they could start the war. So you see where I am going. So, if it helps, I respect and frankly love german culture and philosophers especially, but honestly since that WW I, germans developed this cycle of going up, being destructive, being destroyed. I see that happening again.
    - rwissmann 13y ago
      Apologies for the late reply. Do you have a source for that request of Merkel's? You specifically mentioned "forget their role in two world wars". That is not the same as stating the - historically accurate notion - that Germany was not the sole party responsible for WWI. A major instigator, possibly the most important, but my no means the only one. No mainstream politician in Germany denies German responsibility for WWII.
      - desireco42 13y ago
platz 13y ago
This article explains apple's views on the difference between books, movies, and games. Basically they don't trust games to handle political subjects well. http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/15/apple-want-to-criticize-religion-write-a-book-dont-make-a-game/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/15/apple-want-to-criticize-re...
quux 13y ago
Didn't/doesn't Nintendo have similar restrictions? I don't think this is such an unreasonable reason to reject an app.
- joakleaf 13y ago
  I remember that they allowed Wolfenstein 3D, as does Apple; https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-platinum/id309470478?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-plati...
- bradyd 13y ago
  Medal of Honor: Rising Sun was available on the GameCube, where you fight the Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Rising_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Rising_Sun
- mpyne 13y ago
  There have been quite a few Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games on Nintendo systems where you have to fight German or Japanese enemies.
  - bradyd 13y ago
    Interestingly, Call of Duty is available in the Mac App Store. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-of-duty/id416666678?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-of-duty/id416666678?mt=...
noblethrasher 13y ago
The one screenshot refers to “Soviets”, but the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are not extant entities.
bambax 13y ago
> As I’ve said before, the problem here isn’t the guidelines themselves: hate speech has no place on the App Store. If you agree with policing hate speech, you have to accept the consequences. Of course the 1st amendment currently only limits the actions of the US Govt. and corporations are free to ignore it. But this situation can't last. In a world where every expression of speech utilizes a medium provided by a private corporation, free speech needs to be enforced at the corporate level. Much like a corporation isn't free to discriminate against a person on the basis of race or religion for hiring purposes, it shouldn't be able to refuse to publish something because it finds the content objectionable.
- codelap 13y ago
  This is ridiculous, you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Bullshit, you're now removing my rights, to enable your own. It's the internet, build your own platform and say whatever you want.
  - bambax 13y ago
    > you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Yes I do! If you don't want to host hate speech, don't go into the hosting business. Sell groceries or something.
    - codelap 13y ago
      Now you want to limit what I can do for business because you want to be ignorant online. That is beyond arrogant.
      - DanAndersen 13y ago
        It's similar to how I would expect my ISP to not block the websites of competing ISPs. That's forcing the ISP to have content move through its system that it may not like.
      - wtbob 13y ago
        It's the same logic behind forcing private businesses to ban smoking on their premises, and the same logic behind forcing photographers, bakers and florists to provide artistic services to celebrations they abhor: 'if you don't want to do X for everyone, according to the rules and regulations we have promulgated, then don't do X!' The sad thing is, most folks don't want liberty for others.
MBCook 13y ago
Honestly, it really is right there in the guidelines. I understand many people don't agree with them (they do seem overly restrictive), but this shouldn't have been a surprise. It doesn't make sense to me when developers make apps that are clearly against the app store guidelines and then complain that they get rejected.
- smackfu 13y ago
  >apps that are clearly against the app store guidelines The absurdity is that all they need to do is change "Germans" to "World War 2 Enemy #1" and it passes the guideline.
  - MBCook 13y ago
    I totally agree. Given the historical context (and assuming it's reasonably in line with history) I think it should be allowed. I understand why Apple wouldn't want to sell "Stomp the Muslim" or "Nuke France" on their store, but some of the things Apple is preventing may be good social commentary. People were talking about Papers Please yesterday, would that be allowed? There have been a few social justice indie-games over the last few years, I doubt many of them would have been allowed.
tomasien 13y ago
If it's going to be a policy, it should be a strict policy. This is the kind of thing where a "there's no room for interpretation" stance is probably appropriate - this is tricky, tricky territory, and even though a game simulating a real war will always have real entities as the enemy, I can respect a policy that is implemented to the letter in order to avoid the sort of really horrible games that could enter the App Store without it. I'd prefer Apple to be entirely open and then only remove apps once flagged and reviewed, but if they're going to be the way they are, I prefer them to be consistent.
nnnn 13y ago
How about depicting the USA as the enemy for once? Its not far from truth actually.
joakleaf 13y ago
What is more strange, is that Wolfenstein 3D was allowed on the App Store then… https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-platinum/id309470478?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-plati...
joesmo 13y ago
It's amazing how people accept censorship when it comes from Apple or other corporations (as evidenced by the sales and usage of iPhones and similar technology) yet complain when the government does it. What's even harder to accept is the extent of damage that a corporation like Apple does in this case. Through arbitrary censorship, they're essentially eliminating other businesses' ability to exist. They're essentially saying, "develop at your own risk." A company who has poured a ton of money and development resources into a project that falls within guidelines can no longer publish their product because of the invisible guidelines at Apple and their rigidity. One would think they would at least have an appeals process to deal with all the mistakes. EDIT: With arbitrary approval like this, what is the incentive for a business to take such a huge risk?
- joakleaf 13y ago
  It isn't really censorship in a strict big-controlling-bigbrother-government sense. If a government is censoring, they block completely 100%. You will not be able to freely say what you want. Here, you can definitely say and do what you want (within the law) -- Just not on an iPhone. If you own a website with a forum on it, and you don't allow certain links to dubious content in the comments, that isn't really censorship either, is it?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Censorship doesn't necessarily imply a government authority is the one doing the censoring.
  - joesmo 13y ago
    "censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." -- https://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+definition&oq=censor https://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+definition&oq=cen... I'd say this is definitely censorship. It's censorship chosen by those who choose to purchase an iPhone. It negatively affects those who have an iPhone and especially those developing for the iPhone. Yes, you can make an argument that one doesn't have to own or develop for the iPhone, but for the developer, that's over 40% (I believe) of the mobile phone market in the US. That's a huge customer base to ignore simply because it's risky to develop iPhone apps due to Apple's censorship. Also, iPhone apps are generally useless outside of the app store. Sure, someone with enough technical know-how can install them, but for all intents and purposes, they have no value if they're being censored. That is very different from moderating a website. There are billions of websites and only one app store.
protomyth 13y ago
Here's my big problem. Why do books, movies, and television not have to face this kind of crap? Why don't game developers get the same privileges as other media? Because its interactive? That's a load of crap. Because its immersive? Other media should be insulted by that assertion. If you're a developer and you don't think your fellow developers should get the same protections as other media, then why? How does Apple sell "Patton" or "Midway" and not this?
- 1ris 13y ago
  Several online book stores removed books for being too offensive not long ago. http://jenniferwrightauthor.com/indie-books-being-removed-from-various-bookstores-rights-and-censorship/ http://jenniferwrightauthor.com/indie-books-being-removed-fr...
- Tloewald 13y ago
  You think books, movies, and television don't face this kind of crap? Publish a book that says the wrong things about the wrong people and you are toast (especially in countries where, for example, truth is not a defense, such as Britain and Australia). Movies will do all kinds of things (notably eliminating sex scenes, especially where women are enjoying themselves) to get more permissive ratings from the MPAA. And television is completely nutty (the writers of Hill Street Blues invented an entire lexicon of curses and epithets in order to have police have vaguely plausible dialog that could get past network censors).
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Does Apple subject each television show, movie, and book to a "contains content or features that include people from a specific race, culture, government, corporation, or other real entity as the enemies in the context of the game, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines" rule?
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Well, I can't comment on what Apple allows or does not allow in terms of TV shows and movies, although it's pretty clear that -- for example -- Apple does not allow porn. The fact is that the deluge of Apps is not duplicated anywhere else -- I read somewhere that a new Flappy Bird clone is released every 24s -- I don't think there are as many TV shows to contend with. The point is that everyone publishing stuff in a store probably has to deal with censorship etc. at some point. Nintendo famously forced LucasArts to remove a puzzle from a game because the solution involved sticking a hamster in a microwave.
trevoragilbert 13y ago
This is the kind of thing that gets blown out of proportion. App reviewers are pushed to review as many as possible in a short window of time, and then make a small mistake like this. Not that big of a deal.
glhaynes 13y ago
UPDATE (Friday 14 March): Maybe they’re reading Pocket Tactics in Cupertino? Andrew Mulholland just wrote in to say that Apple re-reviewed the game and have reversed their decision without Hunted Cow Studios having to make any changes. Common sense prevails. Tank Battle: East Front 1942 will be on the App Store tonight at midnight.

92 points by Jare 13y ago

Un-freaking-believable.

And there you go, more arbitrary decisions that should have no place in an "app store". That's why a platform always needs to allow at the very least side-loading of apps, even if it makes it difficult enough for "normal users" to do that, for security reasons. For situations like these when the vendor starts banning apps for their own bogus reasons.

wahnfrieden 13y ago
Side loading doesn't help you sell your app if the official store is still the only one most users access.

protomyth 13y ago

This is so dumb it is "get someone fired" dumb. This is going to hit the media as political correctness run amok. I can just hear "Is Apple going to ban history books, too?". Sure, its ok for a half-naked women with a sword to slice up orks, but don't you dare show war-game with actual sides. Is Axis & Allies going to be banned?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 13y ago
I think the decision is absurd too, but how does this generalize to history books? They don't portray one group as "the enemy" and good practice is to actively avoid that.
- platz 13y ago
  it doesn't. History books and games are different enough in this regard.
- protomyth 13y ago
  My high school history book of WWII definitely portrayed Germany and Japan as the enemies[1]. Going to other books, I am sure Apple will now ban all the Tom Clancy books.
- sspiff 13y ago
  I think they do, although that's probably fine. Germany was "the enemy" of the Soviet Union, as was Japan. France was "the enemy" of pretty much everyone else in the Napoleonic wars. There's nothing wrong with labeling someone as "the enemy" of someone else, as long as you don't include a value judgement. I doubt this game labels "the vile Germans" as "the enemy of the noble Soviets".
moogleii 13y ago
Someone higher up (presumably) has already reversed the decision.
pbreit 13y ago
Or maybe it was more of a mistake. In fact it was...the game has been re-reviewed and reinstated. No need to jump to the worst conclusion.

bluedino 13y ago

Is Rocky IV available on iTunes?

Mutinix 13y ago
I chuckled when I read this but then I actually went and looked it up. What do you know, it is there! Rocky IV - https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/rocky-iv/id278077103 https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/rocky-iv/id278077103
- _delirium 13y ago
  Apple has a weird view (explicitly stated) that politics are okay in films or books, but not in games.
valarauca1 13y ago
"Rocky IV depicts Oceania and Eurasia as enemies despite the two never engaging in an armed conflict. Due to historical in accuracies Itunes Minitruth subsection histosec has re-edited Rocky IV because Oceania and EastAsia have always been at war. Oceania and Eastasia have always been at war."
- Patrick_Devine 13y ago
  Wasn't Rocky IV released in 1985? A year too late!

kunai 13y ago

We never cared about the App Store acceptance guidelines before, because most apps got accepted anyway. Still, there's an intrinsic risk that you take when you push a program to the store, in that YOU do not have control over how your app turns out. Apple has final authority on any changes, and it's really a restrictive environment to be in. It didn't matter then, but with billions of applications now in the marketplace, the drawbacks of having a fully closed environment for applications are becoming painfully obvious. http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

happyscrappy 13y ago
He said that five years ago, has their bottom line suffered? Do developers now start with an Android app and then go to iOS? This current "outrage", which will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, was caused by a single reviewer and the fact that Apple's guidelines are intentionally vague leaving them wide latitude to control the App Store for brand protection.
- kunai 13y ago
  Developers start with iOS because it's a better development environment and because the iPhone is a household name, while there are scores of different Android devices. Your argument is irrelevant. The point is that Apple's control over its ecosystem can't be a net benefit in the long term because it doesn't give developers enough breathing room to scale or expand. You're left at the mercy of Apple's approval staff.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Just because their strengths outweigh this weakness doesn't make it not a weakness. Has their bottom line suffered? I would wager yes. Just because they're still dominant doesn't mean this hasn't hurt them. This "outrage" was not caused by a single reviewer. It was caused by the capricious and unwieldy app review system that Apple instituted years. IT was caused by the fact that a single reviewer can fuck things up publicly for the entire company. It is a problem of process, not of an individual.

joakleaf 13y ago

Apple sells these products (and takes a 30% cut), so they have some responsibility for what they are selling. They don't want to offend anyone, so they made a list of rules. Their review team interprets rules literally. We may shake our heads when it comes to WW2, but it is really a grey area. What if the game was depicting a war between present day religious or political groups? What if it was a game between heterosexuals and homosexuals? What about a racist theme?Would that be OK? Certainly, some people would be offended. So where do you draw the line if you don't want to offend anyone with the products you sell?

kanja 13y ago
My Great-aunt didn't make it out of the camps. WW2 isn't a gray area by any honest interpretation.
- joakleaf 13y ago
  Gray area in the sense that it actually offends some people whereas most people just shake their head.
- melling 13y ago
  The Russians weren't the enemy in WW2. In fact, their contribution greatly affected the outcome of the war. Axis and Allies are good names if someone is being historically accurate.
  - stephenhuey 13y ago
    They started out as enemies of the Allies, then they became enemies of the Axis powers when they changed their allegiance. And when they were pretending to be friends of the Polish people under Nazi rule, they intentionally failed to show up as promised to help out with the Warsaw uprising so that the Polish uprising leaders would die and not get in the way when they instituted communism in Poland (I saw the new "Warsaw Rising Museum" this past summer). Brings to mind the phrase "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" But to set clearly set the record straight, the Russians were indeed the enemy at some point no matter which side you were on.

peelman- 13y ago

Just a friendly reminder: Apple has hundreds of reviewers, and turn over is undoubtedly high. The reviews are highly subjective with the Guidelines being what they are and worded how they are, you're going to have different interpretations among the pool of reviewers. Asking for consistency out of that system is insane. That's why there's an appeal process. Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, but is just bad business.

untog 13y ago
You're giving Apple a free pass. Reviewers should have sufficient training to be able to make sensible calls without having to go through an appeals process.
rbanffy 13y ago
It would be smarter to feed back a rejection through the pipe as a new submission and reject on consensus or majority.
smackfu 13y ago
A rejection with no proposed solution is the most extreme result of an app review. I would think that would get reviewed by someone higher up.
mikeash 13y ago
I could not possibly care less how Apple is organized internally. A company should not expose their internal bullshit to the outside world. Apple set this system up. If they are unable to run it consistently then they have only themselves to blame. They should either fix it or scrap it.
1ris 13y ago
Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, is just the only thing that realistically works. It's unprofessional to use highly subjective guidelines.
kryptiskt 13y ago
> Taking to the internets to bitch about it and inciting the masses makes headlines, but is just bad business. Nah, bitching publicly works, all those companies are incredibly sensitive to media stories. Always bitch before the appeals process, make sure their PR department notice you.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zefhous 13y ago

Isn't the word "solely" the key here? > 15.3 “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity. If you could play as both sides it seems like they would allow it. While this rejection seems irrational, I don't think the point is that Germans and Russians are targeted, but that they are depicted as the only enemy. Every conflict has at least two sides, and it's unthinkable that any game doesn't offend a group of people. However, it seems more reasonable that they should require "fairness" in the sense that both sides should be playable. This takes a game from having a perceived ideological stance to being more neutral, and I think that's the whole point here.

ForHackernews 13y ago
Russia and Germany are two separate nations. Nations that were on opposite sides of WWII, no less. I don't see how the game "solely" targets one specific group.
- arethuza 13y ago
  "Nations that were on opposite sides of WWII" Not all of WW2 - they jointly invaded Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact It was after the Soviet invasion of Poland that the infamous Katyn Massacre occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Which included 7000 prisoners executed by a single man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin
  - sspiff 13y ago
    Sure, but they were on opposite sides for most of the time, and they inflicted horrendous casualties on each other (Germany suffered almost as many casualties in a single battle in the east as the entire war in the west, and Russia more so) and both committed horrible massacres on the civilian population of any neutral, conquered or enemy nation. Given the numbers, saying Russia and Germany were on opposite sides in WW2 seems pretty accurate to me.

scrumper 13y ago

I immediately thought of Bulge[1], a great WW2 strategy game depicting the eponymous battle. I thought it would support the Tank Battle developer's complaint, but actually it doesn't: the combatants are 'Axis' and 'Allies' - no mention of countries. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-of-the-bulge/id521833787?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-of-the-bulge/id521833...

itsdrewmiller 13y ago

First they came for the mkv decoding video apps, and I said nothing. Then they came for the WWII simulation games, and I said nothing. Then they came for the alternative browsers, so I switched to Android.

brudgers 13y ago

In Faulknerian terms: The past is never dead. It did not even happen. For students of Santayana: If there is no past, we cannot be doomed to repeat it. The technical term for sarcastic Orwellians: Drilling memory holes.

desireco42 13y ago

This is new history rewriting present in EU, Germans don't want to be the bad guys anymore, so they ask that formulations from WW I celebrations change. They want us to forget their role in two world wars and would like to reframe those as anything but what it was.

rwissmann 13y ago
I am curious where you get your information from. Got any source demonstrating the 'the Germans' - which I assume is meant to describe either the majority opinion or the official government stance - want to rewrite history regarding WWII? Or asking for anyone to 'forget their role' in it? Disclaimer: I am a German living in the UK.
- desireco42 13y ago
  Yes, there is big push to redefine everything WW I and II, Merkel officially asked English to tone down celebrations of WW I and those toning down went so much that Russians decided not to participate in charade altogether which was to happen in France and will organize remembrance events on their own. There are attempts to pin start of WW I on Serbs, like they could start the war. So you see where I am going. So, if it helps, I respect and frankly love german culture and philosophers especially, but honestly since that WW I, germans developed this cycle of going up, being destructive, being destroyed. I see that happening again.
  - rwissmann 13y ago
    Apologies for the late reply. Do you have a source for that request of Merkel's? You specifically mentioned "forget their role in two world wars". That is not the same as stating the - historically accurate notion - that Germany was not the sole party responsible for WWI. A major instigator, possibly the most important, but my no means the only one. No mainstream politician in Germany denies German responsibility for WWII.
    - desireco42 13y ago

platz 13y ago

This article explains apple's views on the difference between books, movies, and games. Basically they don't trust games to handle political subjects well. http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/15/apple-want-to-criticize-religion-write-a-book-dont-make-a-game/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/15/apple-want-to-criticize-re...

quux 13y ago

Didn't/doesn't Nintendo have similar restrictions? I don't think this is such an unreasonable reason to reject an app.

joakleaf 13y ago
I remember that they allowed Wolfenstein 3D, as does Apple; https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-platinum/id309470478?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-plati...
bradyd 13y ago
Medal of Honor: Rising Sun was available on the GameCube, where you fight the Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Rising_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Rising_Sun
mpyne 13y ago
There have been quite a few Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games on Nintendo systems where you have to fight German or Japanese enemies.
- bradyd 13y ago
  Interestingly, Call of Duty is available in the Mac App Store. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-of-duty/id416666678?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-of-duty/id416666678?mt=...

noblethrasher 13y ago

The one screenshot refers to “Soviets”, but the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are not extant entities.

bambax 13y ago

> As I’ve said before, the problem here isn’t the guidelines themselves: hate speech has no place on the App Store. If you agree with policing hate speech, you have to accept the consequences. Of course the 1st amendment currently only limits the actions of the US Govt. and corporations are free to ignore it. But this situation can't last. In a world where every expression of speech utilizes a medium provided by a private corporation, free speech needs to be enforced at the corporate level. Much like a corporation isn't free to discriminate against a person on the basis of race or religion for hiring purposes, it shouldn't be able to refuse to publish something because it finds the content objectionable.

codelap 13y ago
This is ridiculous, you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Bullshit, you're now removing my rights, to enable your own. It's the internet, build your own platform and say whatever you want.
- bambax 13y ago
  > you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Yes I do! If you don't want to host hate speech, don't go into the hosting business. Sell groceries or something.
  - codelap 13y ago
    Now you want to limit what I can do for business because you want to be ignorant online. That is beyond arrogant.
    - DanAndersen 13y ago
      It's similar to how I would expect my ISP to not block the websites of competing ISPs. That's forcing the ISP to have content move through its system that it may not like.
    - wtbob 13y ago
      It's the same logic behind forcing private businesses to ban smoking on their premises, and the same logic behind forcing photographers, bakers and florists to provide artistic services to celebrations they abhor: 'if you don't want to do X for everyone, according to the rules and regulations we have promulgated, then don't do X!' The sad thing is, most folks don't want liberty for others.

MBCook 13y ago

Honestly, it really is right there in the guidelines. I understand many people don't agree with them (they do seem overly restrictive), but this shouldn't have been a surprise. It doesn't make sense to me when developers make apps that are clearly against the app store guidelines and then complain that they get rejected.

smackfu 13y ago
>apps that are clearly against the app store guidelines The absurdity is that all they need to do is change "Germans" to "World War 2 Enemy #1" and it passes the guideline.
- MBCook 13y ago
  I totally agree. Given the historical context (and assuming it's reasonably in line with history) I think it should be allowed. I understand why Apple wouldn't want to sell "Stomp the Muslim" or "Nuke France" on their store, but some of the things Apple is preventing may be good social commentary. People were talking about Papers Please yesterday, would that be allowed? There have been a few social justice indie-games over the last few years, I doubt many of them would have been allowed.

tomasien 13y ago

If it's going to be a policy, it should be a strict policy. This is the kind of thing where a "there's no room for interpretation" stance is probably appropriate - this is tricky, tricky territory, and even though a game simulating a real war will always have real entities as the enemy, I can respect a policy that is implemented to the letter in order to avoid the sort of really horrible games that could enter the App Store without it. I'd prefer Apple to be entirely open and then only remove apps once flagged and reviewed, but if they're going to be the way they are, I prefer them to be consistent.

nnnn 13y ago

How about depicting the USA as the enemy for once? Its not far from truth actually.

joakleaf 13y ago

What is more strange, is that Wolfenstein 3D was allowed on the App Store then… https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-platinum/id309470478?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/wolfenstein-3d-classic-plati...

joesmo 13y ago

It's amazing how people accept censorship when it comes from Apple or other corporations (as evidenced by the sales and usage of iPhones and similar technology) yet complain when the government does it. What's even harder to accept is the extent of damage that a corporation like Apple does in this case. Through arbitrary censorship, they're essentially eliminating other businesses' ability to exist. They're essentially saying, "develop at your own risk." A company who has poured a ton of money and development resources into a project that falls within guidelines can no longer publish their product because of the invisible guidelines at Apple and their rigidity. One would think they would at least have an appeals process to deal with all the mistakes. EDIT: With arbitrary approval like this, what is the incentive for a business to take such a huge risk?

joakleaf 13y ago
It isn't really censorship in a strict big-controlling-bigbrother-government sense. If a government is censoring, they block completely 100%. You will not be able to freely say what you want. Here, you can definitely say and do what you want (within the law) -- Just not on an iPhone. If you own a website with a forum on it, and you don't allow certain links to dubious content in the comments, that isn't really censorship either, is it?
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Censorship doesn't necessarily imply a government authority is the one doing the censoring.
- joesmo 13y ago
  "censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." -- https://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+definition&oq=censor https://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+definition&oq=cen... I'd say this is definitely censorship. It's censorship chosen by those who choose to purchase an iPhone. It negatively affects those who have an iPhone and especially those developing for the iPhone. Yes, you can make an argument that one doesn't have to own or develop for the iPhone, but for the developer, that's over 40% (I believe) of the mobile phone market in the US. That's a huge customer base to ignore simply because it's risky to develop iPhone apps due to Apple's censorship. Also, iPhone apps are generally useless outside of the app store. Sure, someone with enough technical know-how can install them, but for all intents and purposes, they have no value if they're being censored. That is very different from moderating a website. There are billions of websites and only one app store.

protomyth 13y ago

Here's my big problem. Why do books, movies, and television not have to face this kind of crap? Why don't game developers get the same privileges as other media? Because its interactive? That's a load of crap. Because its immersive? Other media should be insulted by that assertion. If you're a developer and you don't think your fellow developers should get the same protections as other media, then why? How does Apple sell "Patton" or "Midway" and not this?

1ris 13y ago
Several online book stores removed books for being too offensive not long ago. http://jenniferwrightauthor.com/indie-books-being-removed-from-various-bookstores-rights-and-censorship/ http://jenniferwrightauthor.com/indie-books-being-removed-fr...
Tloewald 13y ago
You think books, movies, and television don't face this kind of crap? Publish a book that says the wrong things about the wrong people and you are toast (especially in countries where, for example, truth is not a defense, such as Britain and Australia). Movies will do all kinds of things (notably eliminating sex scenes, especially where women are enjoying themselves) to get more permissive ratings from the MPAA. And television is completely nutty (the writers of Hill Street Blues invented an entire lexicon of curses and epithets in order to have police have vaguely plausible dialog that could get past network censors).
- protomyth 13y ago
  Does Apple subject each television show, movie, and book to a "contains content or features that include people from a specific race, culture, government, corporation, or other real entity as the enemies in the context of the game, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines" rule?
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Well, I can't comment on what Apple allows or does not allow in terms of TV shows and movies, although it's pretty clear that -- for example -- Apple does not allow porn. The fact is that the deluge of Apps is not duplicated anywhere else -- I read somewhere that a new Flappy Bird clone is released every 24s -- I don't think there are as many TV shows to contend with. The point is that everyone publishing stuff in a store probably has to deal with censorship etc. at some point. Nintendo famously forced LucasArts to remove a puzzle from a game because the solution involved sticking a hamster in a microwave.

trevoragilbert 13y ago

This is the kind of thing that gets blown out of proportion. App reviewers are pushed to review as many as possible in a short window of time, and then make a small mistake like this. Not that big of a deal.

glhaynes 13y ago

UPDATE (Friday 14 March): Maybe they’re reading Pocket Tactics in Cupertino? Andrew Mulholland just wrote in to say that Apple re-reviewed the game and have reversed their decision without Hunted Cow Studios having to make any changes. Common sense prevails. Tank Battle: East Front 1942 will be on the App Store tonight at midnight.