'South Park' Application Rejected From App Store

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/02/17/south-park-application-rejected-from-app-store/)

Boing Boing reports (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/02/17/south-park-iphone-ap.html) that an official South Park application, demoed and submitted to Apple in October, has been rejected for inclusion in the App Store. According to an e-mail received by Boing Boing from a member of the South Park team, the application was deemed by Apple to be "potentially offensive"."We first announced our iPhone App back in October, after we submitted the Application to Apple for approval. After a couple of attempts to get the application approved, we are sad to say that our app has been rejected. According to Apple, the content was 'potentially offensive.' But Apple did admit that the standards would evolve, citing that when iTunes first launched it didn't sell any music with explicit lyrics. At this point, we are sad to say, the app is dead in the water. Sorry, South Park fans."The source did not mention whether Apple objected to the entire application or to certain specific features of it, which were previously described in Boing Boing's October preview (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/08/bb-exclusive-sneak-p.html):The app functioned beautifully, with the ability to stream clips, grab wallpapers for your device, read news, and browse the complete episode index. Also: choose character likenesses as "contact images" for your iPhone -- assign a face to the phone book entry of your choice.While Apple has apparently left the door open to future shifts in its policies, the South Park team seems to have ceased its efforts to work towards App Store acceptance in the current environment.



Article Link: 'South Park' Application Rejected From App Store (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/02/17/south-park-application-rejected-from-app-store/)

[plumbingandtech]

Oh noes! What will fans of mindless juvenile crud do now?!

:rolleyes:


They should do a PRE or Android version. That'll teach apple....
:rolleyes:

[chr1s60]

This is a stupid move by Apple. Like Apple even stated, you can buy a damn song on iTunes that is practically all curse words, but then they reject an app based on it being offensive? I thought that was the reason for warnings. "Warning material contained in this app may be offensive and may not be appropriate for all ages." Let US decide what is offensive, don't make that decision for us.

Just for the record, I could care less about this app since I am not a big South Park fan. I just think the reasoning here is plain stupid.

[PoitNarf]

Dear Apple,

We would like to be the ones that determine if an app is 'potentially offensive'. Thanks for not listening.

Sincerely,
All of your customers

[rlreif]

this is the kind of crap that needs to be out front and center.... seriously, wtf? put this on the front page, and digg it

im so tired of this arbitrary ******** from apple... this needs to be publicized to make apple look bad

[Yvan256]

Movies, TV shows, music and games are rated, but there doesn't seem to be a rating/age/content system for the App Store (unless I missed it or not used in the Canadian iTunes Store).

Yes, adults should be the ones deciding if they want something or not. However, think about the parents who want to lock their kids accounts to kid-friendly content only.

[SFStateStudent]

Oh, thanks Apple for being my "Censorship MACHINE!" When do you start censorship of all those Sylvester Stallone trainwrecks??? :eek::mad::eek:

[PoitNarf]

Oh noes! What will fans of mindless juvenile crud do now?!

I'm guessing you really haven't watched South Park in the past couple of years. In the very beginning yes, it was much more juvenile. To this day there are still several gags per episode that many would label as juvenile. But mindless? Hardly. The most recent seasons of the show have contained episodes that poke fun at all sorts of social issues, religion, politics, terrorism... and all of which were done in a very creative and clever manner.

Don't let any bias you may have towards South Park lighten the fact that Apple is rejecting app submissions based upon it's own "standards and practices". We the customers should be the ones that ultimately decide which app we choose to install on our devices.

[cube]

Buy a real phone, not the fascist iPhone platform.

[nagromme]

Movies, TV shows, music and games are rated, but there doesn't seem to be a rating/age/content system for the App Store (unless I missed it or not used in the Canadian iTunes Store).

Exactly. Games have ratings, and they're apps. Apple should just extend the rating system to ALL apps, and everyone's happy. Simple enough.

Buy a real phone, not the fascist iPhone platform.

Kind of a catch-22 there: choose another phone, and you won't have nearly as many apps to choose from (nor as cheaply and easily) and they generally won't work as well. More choice... but less choice! And the South Park app might not show up on that phone at all--hard to say until it happens.

Apple's been easing up on their app acceptance policies lately, learning and clarifying as they go. It hasn't even been a year yet, but I would bet that in time, we'll get our South Park app on iPhone. In that sense, getting an iPhone now is partly a bet on the future of the platform.

[PoitNarf]

Exactly. Games have ratings, and they're apps. Apple should just extend the rating system to ALL apps, and everyone's happy. Simple enough.

100% agree. Why they don't currently have a rating system in place is beyond me.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

No South Park, but you can get all the fart apps you want. Hmm, something smells funny about this.

[cube]

Kind of a catch-22 there: choose another phone, and you won't have nearly as many apps to choose from (nor as cheaply and easily) and they generally won't work as well. More choice... but less choice! And the South Park app might not show up on that phone at all--hard to say until it happens.

Apple's been easing up on their app acceptance policies lately, learning and clarifying as they go. It hasn't even been a year yet, but I would bet that in time, we'll get our South Park app on iPhone. In that sense, getting an iPhone now is partly a bet on the future of the platform.

There are a ton of Java apps. No need to support Apple's proprietary and closed platform.

[rtcruz1]

This is ridiculous... i agree.. there is already "potentially offensive" material in iTunes.. explicit music lyrics... mature or adult content in movies and TV shows.. this is no different.

they need to figure out a a maturity ratings standard (and enforcement process) for these apps, or at least just provide a disclaimer on the "potentially" offensive content.. but the final decision should be from the consumer/buyer.

Wake up Apple!

[thebassoonist]

I am a little upset, too. Even though I don't have an iPhone or Touch... I don't understand why Apple would make that decision.

[sdragon]

This is crazy!
But ranting here will do nothing.

We should all complain:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html

[BRussell]

Ha, if you want to get the teen boys all riled up, deny them their South Park app!

[Grumps87]

That's stupid because iTunes store do actually sell South Park episodes.

[slu]

Oh noes! What will fans of mindless juvenile crud do now?!

:rolleyes:


They should do a PRE or Android version. That'll teach apple....
:rolleyes:

South Park is irrelevant to this discussion and what you think of South Park is even more irrelevant to this discussion. I can guarantee you that I think many things you like are complete drivel not fit for human consumption. So please drop the "my opinion of entertainment is better than your opinion of entertainment" routine because it is a waste of time.

When Apple decides to censor the apps allowed in the store, it is bad for everyone, especially since there seems to be no clear cut rules on what is allowed and what is not. Farting Apps = OK, South Park Apps = Not OK?

Apple can't have it both ways. They can't say it is illegal to jailbreak your phone, and then censor the applications adults can put on their own phone. They have every right to sell what they want, but I should have every right to jailbreak the phone to install apps I want on it if that is going to be the case.

And the South Park developers are not trying to "teach Apple" anything. They were trying to make their fans happy and were trying to make some money (for themselves and for Apple). By making this decision everyone loses, even Apple, as I am sure this app would have sold well. I am sure if they see the opportunity to do those things on the PRE or Android, they will do so, even if they were on the iPhone already.

And lastly my band's album is on iTunes and I am sure it is quite offensive to many people, yet is was no problem to get it up there. They just label it as Explicit.

[admanimal]

This is ridiculous... i agree.. there is already "potentially offensive" material in iTunes.. explicit music lyrics... mature or adult content in movies and TV shows.. this is no different.


Forget about explicit music, the South Park TV show itself is available in the iTunes Store, so it is pretty ironic that the South Park app would somehow be too offensive for Apple to sell.

[EmperorDarius]

Lame. I hope that Trey and Matt don't get too much pissed off.

[alexbates]

Dear Apple,

We would like to be the ones that determine if an app is 'potentially offensive'. Thanks for not listening.

Sincerely,
All of your customers

No, A South Park app would be awesome

Dear Apple,

Offensive is sometimes funny and will make you money. Just let it pass and start to have maturity ratings like other video games, music, and movies.

[Rojo]

And the South Park developers are not trying to "teach Apple" anything. They were trying to make their fans happy and were trying to make some money (for themselves and for Apple). By making this decision everyone loses, even Apple, as I am sure this app would have sold well.

Actually, do we know if this app would have cost anything?
Most apps of these kind (tie-ins to movies, TV, bands, etc.) are free, and more of a promotional thing.

Forget about explicit music, the South Park TV show itself is available in the iTunes Store, so it is pretty ironic that the South Park app would somehow be too offensive for Apple to sell.

You beat me to it. It doesn't make much sense, does it?

[justflie]

Forget about explicit music, the South Park TV show itself is available in the iTunes Store, so it is pretty ironic that the South Park app would somehow be too offensive for Apple to sell.

ding ding ding. Why would they allow us to get the app/videos for free when they can sell the videos to us?

Also, if I remember correctly, the South Park folks were featured on Apple's startpage because they heavily utilize Macs in the creation of the show. It was one of those articles that they interview the people, describe the Macs/workflow used, etc. I think this is certain teams within Apple simply not talking or paying attention to what other teams are doing. There are a couple of precedents with South Park content and information being associated with Apple. For some reason, the app store team is missing that.

For those worried about parental concerns, tie M-rated applications into the parental controls already located on the phone (if it's not already).

[blindzero]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/02/17/south-park-application-rejected-from-app-store/)

Article Link: 'South Park' Application Rejected From App Store (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/02/17/south-park-application-rejected-from-app-store/)

That is ridiculous. It's not offensive for 10pm Cable but it's too offensive for Apple?

Come on. Very STUPID move. Not to mention Apple has some serious thinking to do about what kinda censorship role it really wants to play. South Park has a huge following. They'll let in a cheap little flatulence app that does nothing but cheap frills but deny one of the smartest shows on TV?

I smell possible PR campaign here? They "deny" it, then 2 weeks later it shows up and sells tons cause it's "offensive".

[zombitronic]

That's stupid because iTunes store do actually sell South Park episodes.

Forget about explicit music, the South Park TV show itself is available in the iTunes Store, so it is pretty ironic that the South Park app would somehow be too offensive for Apple to sell.

Not to mention that Apple has featured South Park on their Pro - Profiles page.

http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/southpark/

There's got to be more of a reason behind the objection other than being potentially offensive. Maybe some of the features were somehow too obtrusive to the OS.

[slu]

Actually, do we know if this app would have cost anything?
Most apps of these kind (tie-ins to movies, TV, bands, etc.) are free, and more of a promotional thing.


Even if it was to be free, Apple still makes money indirectly by giving some people another reason to get or keep an iPhone. By that I mean, it is also a potential promotional tool for the platform as well.

I really can't see what Apple gets out of this other than some bad publicity. It is very unlikely that anyone would complain at all. After all, you are not required to download the app and it wouldn't come pre-installed on the phone. Whoever said that Apple wants you to buy a TV episode of South Park for $.99 may have hit the nail on the head. The South Park guys already stream every single episode for free on their own website. They are probably afraid of them doing that on the phone and under cutting sales of what I imagine is one of their most popular shows.

I just don't get it.

[Stella]

I'm looking forward to the South Park episode that relates to this app rejection! :-D


I'm guessing you really haven't watched South Park in the past couple of years. In the very beginning yes, it was much more juvenile. To this day there are still several gags per episode that many would label as juvenile. But mindless? Hardly. The most recent seasons of the show have contained episodes that poke fun at all sorts of social issues, religion, politics, terrorism... and all of which were done in a very creative and clever manner.

QFT

[ninethirty]

I'm 29 and not even a fan of South Park and I'm riled up. This makes zero sense at all. Forget the fact that Apple is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all time if you consider some of the material they're willing to sell - but this kind of censorship from Apple sets a bad example. What it does well though is provide a competitor the opportunity to say 'WE won't censor you like Apple does' and then 2 years from now Steve Jobs will announce that Apple will no longer censor material, and drones like you will wildly applaud the notion as if it's new.

Ha, if you want to get the teen boys all riled up, deny them their South Park app!

[cubedweller]

I'm 29 and not even a fan of South Park and I'm riled up. This makes zero sense at all. Forget the fact that Apple is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all time if you consider some of the material they're willing to sell - but this kind of censorship from Apple sets a bad example. What it does well though is provide a competitor the opportunity to say 'WE won't censor you like Apple does' and then 2 years from now Steve Jobs will announce that Apple will no longer censor material, and drones like you will wildly applaud the notion as if it's new.

The rude remarks from people here is a testament to how much they FAIL at understanding even simple economics. The fact that this is "South Park" and not "American Idol" is irrelevant. All this does is stifle future development by scaring off developers.

Who the hell wants to spend time, money and resources developing an app that Apple will just reject for absolutely no reason at all; and don't give me that ******** about it being "offensive." If that's the case, pull the TV show, pull the movie, pull everything with explicit language. Pull iBeer (and the other 21 > over apps) from the App Store.

Thank god for jailbreaking; I hope the developers release this on Cydia/Installer.

[BenRoethig]

This is absolutely ridiculous. If the iPhone starts to slide backwards, it will be because the insistence of Apple's leadership to push their personal preferences upon the user, not anything the competition is doing.

[The Phazer]

Apple's censorship of the iPhone platform has always been an ugly thing.

Hopefully circumstances or lawsuits will force them to change.

Phazer

[manhattanboy]

My sources tell me the App was named "Kenny" and Apple just killed it.

[iLunar]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for some people. There is currently no rating system as of yet for Apps. Apple is, in all likilhood, developing one that is certified by a larger organization. Since Apps don't fall into any specific category of media, there must be some issues to work out. Apple cannot simply police themselves and decide what is PG-13, PG, etc. All of that has to be determined by some kind of organization.

Ratings for movies, television, music, games are already in existence, so there is no due diligence necessary on Apple's part. However, the App store is new territory. I'm sure a South Park app will be available once a rating system is in place, and inappropriate content can be blocked with correct parental restrictions (so add in administration and implementation time).

The last thing Apple needs is some angry parents filing a class action suit because they didn't do their homework on dealing with inappropriate content.

[BRussell]

I'm 29 and not even a fan of South Park and I'm riled up. This makes zero sense at all. Forget the fact that Apple is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all time if you consider some of the material they're willing to sell - but this kind of censorship from Apple sets a bad example. What it does well though is provide a competitor the opportunity to say 'WE won't censor you like Apple does' and then 2 years from now Steve Jobs will announce that Apple will no longer censor material, and drones like you will wildly applaud the notion as if it's new. How do you know it makes zero sense? We don't know why the app was rejected. We haven't even seen the app. We know that apps that were rejected in the past have now been accepted (e.g., fart apps). We know that Apple sells South Park episodes via iTunes. So there must be something that goes even further in this app - and anyone who knows South Park can imagine the possibilities very easily.

Censorship from a private company doesn't set a bad example, it sets a good example. It's called responsibility. No censorship at all would quickly result in the iPhone becoming associated with porn. You can imagine the stories on the news about kids using the iPhone at school to watch porn, and watch it via apps that Apple sells on its app store. It would be terrible for Apple's reputation.

Maybe this South Park app isn't that bad, and I'd disagree with Apple's decision. But to just make a blanket statement that Apple shouldn't ever censor anything is not very responsible, nor is it very smart from a business perspective.

[Kilamite]

I'm looking forward to the South Park episode that relates to this app rejection! :-D

Haha. Damn right! South Park is out soon again, can't wait

[Stampyhead]

Forget about explicit music, the South Park TV show itself is available in the iTunes Store, so it is pretty ironic that the South Park app would somehow be too offensive for Apple to sell.

There's even already a South Park app (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284837566&mt=8) in the App Store...

[Turmoil]

Sorry Kidz, but that's life. When you own the store, you get to decide what goes in it.

[BenRoethig]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for some people. There is currently no rating system as of yet for Apps. Apple is, in all likilhood, developing one that is certified by a larger organization. Since Apps don't fall into any specific category of media, there must be some issues to work out. Apple cannot simply police themselves and decide what is PG-13, PG, etc. All of that has to be determined by some kind of organization.

Ratings for movies, television, music, games are already in existence, so there is no due diligence necessary on Apple's part. However, the App store is new territory. I'm sure a South Park app will be available once a rating system is in place, and inappropriate content can be blocked with correct parental restrictions (so add in administration and implementation time).

The last thing Apple needs is some angry parents filing a class action suit because they didn't do their homework on dealing with inappropriate content.

Its not that hard to slap an explicit tag on it like they do with music.

How do you know it makes zero sense? We don't know why the app was rejected. We haven't even seen the app. We know that apps that were rejected in the past have now been accepted (e.g., fart apps). We know that Apple sells South Park episodes via iTunes. So there must be something that goes even further in this app - and anyone who knows South Park can imagine the possibilities very easily.

Censorship from a private company doesn't set a bad example, it sets a good example. It's called responsibility. No censorship at all would quickly result in the iPhone becoming associated with porn. You can imagine the stories on the news about kids using the iPhone at school to watch porn, and watch it via apps that Apple sells on its app store. It would be terrible for Apple's reputation.

Maybe this South Park app isn't that bad, and I'd disagree with Apple's decision. But to just make a blanket statement that Apple shouldn't ever censor anything is not very responsible, nor is it very smart from a business perspective.

If they had stuck to a set of defined rules, it wouldn't be that bad. The consumers and developers would know what to expect they could choose to develop for or buy an iPhone based on a firm set of rules. What Apple is doing to completely arbitrary. They can and have banned fully developed Apps simply because they weren't their cup of tea.

[leandromp]

South Park is irrelevant to this discussion and what you think of South Park is even more irrelevant to this discussion. I can guarantee you that I think many things you like are complete drivel not fit for human consumption. So please drop the "my opinion of entertainment is better than your opinion of entertainment" routine because it is a waste of time.

When Apple decides to censor the apps allowed in the store, it is bad for everyone, especially since there seems to be no clear cut rules on what is allowed and what is not. Farting Apps = OK, South Park Apps = Not OK?

Apple can't have it both ways. They can't say it is illegal to jailbreak your phone, and then censor the applications adults can put on their own phone. They have every right to sell what they want, but I should have every right to jailbreak the phone to install apps I want on it if that is going to be the case.

And the South Park developers are not trying to "teach Apple" anything. They were trying to make their fans happy and were trying to make some money (for themselves and for Apple). By making this decision everyone loses, even Apple, as I am sure this app would have sold well. I am sure if they see the opportunity to do those things on the PRE or Android, they will do so, even if they were on the iPhone already.

And lastly my band's album is on iTunes and I am sure it is quite offensive to many people, yet is was no problem to get it up there. They just label it as Explicit.

I agree with youu!!

[CTYankee]

Maybe I'm the only one who applauds them for having standards of decency.

[justflie]

Just as a note (in case no one has mentioned it yet), this app currently would only serve clips, NOT full episodes as I had hoped. Still, it doesn't mean they couldn't have added them later.

[sharp65]

Maybe I'm the only one who applauds them for having standards of decency.

This has nothing to do with decency at all. Apple acting like big brother and deciding for us what we like and don't like is getting old. It just makes jailbreaking an even more important thing with their devices.

[CTYankee]

This has nothing to do with decency at all. Apple acting like big brother and deciding for us what we like and don't like is getting old. It just makes jailbreaking an even more important thing with their devices.

They are not deciding what you will like...rather what investors will like. They have to keep their standards such that the general public is happy, keeping investors happy.

[slu]

Sorry Kidz, but that's life. When you own the store, you get to decide what goes in it.

I agree, but you cannot then say it is illegal to jailbreak the device to put whatever you want on it. You don't have to sell the app, but you have no right to limit what I do on a device that I bought. What if Apple said you could only put music you bought on iTunes on your phone?

[wonderbread57]

So we have the extremes of App controversy.

On one extreme is a tip calculator; totally uncontroversial and not something that peoples under 18 need to be kept from. Then you have an adult movie app; something that would be quite controversial and need to be kept from the kiddies. South park falls somewhere in the middle but everyone should agree you can't have adult movie apps appear on the app store for any kid to download.

So, where do you draw the line? This is a pretty boring question that has been answered by the MPAA and game rating companies among many others who assign minimum ages for access to content containing certain depictions and language.

Next question; how do you allow people of appropriate age to download mature content? Credit card ownership requires that you be 18 so providing credit card info might work. How does iTunes currently restrict downloads of rated R movies to peoples 18 and up?

[bigmc6000]

I agree, but you cannot then say it is illegal to jailbreak the device to put whatever you want on it. You don't have to sell the app, but you have no right to limit what I do on a device that I bought. What if Apple said you could only put music you bought on iTunes on your phone?

They aren't really saying jailbreaking is illegal - they are just saying it violates the terms of the agreement (again, something that you signed/agreed to and they are the ones that made it so, tough *****, you willingly entered the sandbox so don't get all riled up about the edges).

I like SouthPark but I honestly couldn't give a crap about this. It is about Apple having a sense of decency, it is also about Apple not having a system set up for restricting access to offensive material (which I'm sure they'll reconcile shortly). The FCC does it, Apple does it, your local news does it, don't act so freakin' shocked...

I'd rather have Apple maintain some sense of control over offensive material until they are ready to restrict it to the appropriate parties then have the lawsuits flowing from PO'd parents about how their kids ended up looking at something like pron that was OK'd by Apple (I know SouthPark isn't pron but that's really the crux of the argument here - the restriction of Adult material to Adults).

Flame away...

[sparker]

Lame. I hope that Trey and Matt don't get too much pissed off.

Look at what they did to Chef. I cannot wait for the iPhone episode that is sure to be on it's way now!!! It will be something I record, covert to iTunes, and play over and over on my iPhone!!!

Steve

[DavidLeblond]

Heh so RealArcade can release a South Park app but South Park Studios can't?

Of course the RealArcade game is rated 9+...

[BenRoethig]

They are not deciding what you will like...rather what investors will like. They have to keep their standards such that the general public is happy, keeping investors happy.

Investors won't like when developers stop iPhone development and consumers stop buying them because of this crap.

[eleven2brett]

The iphone, or any camera can be used to send pictures that are way more offensive and adult in nature than a simple ADULT comedy show. My opinion, parents need to be the censors. I know they can't be around all the time, but they need to have more sense than give a kid an iPhone or an ipod. If the kid is old enough to pay for that stuff himself though, he's probably watching south park anyway.

[cubedweller]

Censorship from a private company doesn't set a bad example, it sets a good example. It's called responsibility. No censorship at all would quickly result in the iPhone becoming associated with porn. You can imagine the stories on the news about kids using the iPhone at school to watch porn, and watch it via apps that Apple sells on its app store. It would be terrible for Apple's reputation.

Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

All joking aside, objectionable content is already readily available on the iPhone to anyone who wants it. Rejecting this app doesn't protect Apple (or their reputation) from this fact. It just further alienates their developer base which will ultimately hurt YOU -- the end user.

[slu]

They aren't really saying jailbreaking is illegal - they are just saying it violates the terms of the agreement (again, something that you signed/agreed to and they are the ones that made it so, tough *****, you willingly entered the sandbox so don't get all riled up about the edges).

I like SouthPark but I honestly couldn't give a crap about this. It is about Apple having a sense of decency, it is also about Apple not having a system set up for restricting access to offensive material (which I'm sure they'll reconcile shortly). The FCC does it, Apple does it, your local news does it, don't act so freakin' shocked...

I'd rather have Apple maintain some sense of control over offensive material until they are ready to restrict it to the appropriate parties then have the lawsuits flowing from PO'd parents about how their kids ended up looking at something like pron that was OK'd by Apple (I know SouthPark isn't pron but that's really the crux of the argument here - the restriction of Adult material to Adults).

Flame away...

Apple's current stance on jailbreaking: http://consumerist.com/5153597/apple-wants-to-make-jailbreaking-worthy-of-jail-time-2500-fine?skyline=true&s=x

Your tone aside, I agree with you to a point. Apple can sell whatever they want in their store. But once I buy the phone, I should be able to do whatever I want to it. And if I don't like the service provided by Apple there are many alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact that I own the hardware. And please, let's not compare the FCC and broadcast TV to the App Store. The content for those is regulated by the Governement because they use public airwaves. If anything, this the iPhone ecosystem is more like cable TV, where there is no government content regulation (Even though this comparison is crappy as well since neither of these examples sell you or control the hardware you use. If you bought your TV from the FCC and they told you that you could not do what you want with the TV even though you bought it, it might be a viable comparison.).

And since when is Apple the decency police? I'd rather have parents be responsible for what their children are doing. This "OMG, won't someone please think of the children" stuff is a bunch of crap and you know it.

An iPhone can reach places on the internet that are not good for children either. Why doesn't Apple block any websites if this whole issue is about protecting the precious little children?

[alchemistmuffin]

This is the reason why Apple needs to create a separate iPhone Game section on the iTunes store, and implement ESRB rating for the US store.

But pretty much for now, Viacom is pretty much banned from BEING in the iPhone developer program.

I think the rejection was done by Steve Jobs.

[iLunar]

Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

But it all comes down to liability. If Apple allows offensive material through "their" distribution channel aka the App store, they are liable. If a kid accesses objectionable material from the internet using another distribution channel on the internet but just happens to be on an iPhone, that is a completely different situation.

Just because objectionable content is easily accessible doesn't mean Apple wouldn't/shouldn't be liable should that content be distributed through their channels.

[jlanganki]

Dear Apple,

I am being shown inappropriate content on your Safari web browser. Please remove the Safari web browser from my iPhone.

[alchemistmuffin]

Dear Apple,

I am being shown inappropriate content on your Safari web browser. Please remove the Safari web browser from my iPhone.


You can.

You can disable Safari via Parental Control.

Many parents who let their kids have iPhone DO NOT even know that it has built in parental control that lets them disable Safari, YouTube, Explicit Songs on iPod, iTunes, App Store, and even Camera. And the best part, if the kid tries to type in passcode, and they get it wrong 10 times, they have the option to have the whole data from the phone wiped clean, and locked until synced with iTunes.

[unfrozen.jon]

I'm a Mac guy, we're about to add a third Mac to our house (Mac Pro for high capacity media server/gaming) and my wife and I both have iPhones. And yes sometimes I'm a bit much of an Apple fanboy defending them at every turn but this kind of draconian control makes me think twice about getting future iPhone models if Apple is going to continue this way.

I can watch all the south park epsiodes I buy off iTunes on my iPhone but an app from a TV show thats proved lucrative for iTunes isn't allowed for the same content Apple profits off of in iTunes?

[slu]

But it all comes down to liability. If Apple allows offensive material through "their" distribution channel aka the App store, they are liable. If a kid accesses objectionable material from the internet using another distribution channel on the internet but just happens to be on an iPhone, that is a completely different situation.

Just because objectionable content is easily accessible doesn't mean Apple wouldn't/shouldn't be liable should that content be distributed through their channels.

Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

This whole nonsense is nothing but noise anyway. It is not preventing kids from doing anything.

[MidtownFreak]

Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)

[zombitronic]

I think the rejection may have more to do with the fact that the app would stream content that you'd otherwise have to pay for (via the iTunes store). Maybe Apple is holding off until the "iTunes Replay" On-Demand Video service is ready.

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/itunes-replay-on-demand-video-coming/)

AppleInsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/11/apple_prepping_itunes_replay_on_demand_video_service.html) that Apple is developing an on-demand video service that would allow users to stream their purchased iTunes movies and TV shows from Apple's servers for playback on personal devices. The service, to be called "iTunes Replay", would eliminate the need for users to provide significant storage space for their libraries of purchased digital video.

In particular, devices with limited storage capacity, such as the iPhone/iPod touch and Apple TV, could benefit from this service, removing the need to sync with a host computer to load desired video files and circumventing storage capacity constraints of the portable devices.AppleInsider notes that while Amazon's Video on Demand and Netflix's Instant Watch services provide similar functionality, DRM requirements imposed by content owners have resulted in certain limitations on playback ability, generally requiring an Internet browser. Apple, however, has already integrated DRM tools into its devices, which would allow for a more flexible viewing experience for users.

Apple has been known to be exploring streaming iTunes media to the iPhone and iPod touch, with a recent patent application (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/07/remote-itunes-streaming-to-iphone-or-ipod-touch/) addressing the ability for users to stream their own at-home iTunes libraries to their mobile devices while on the go.

Article Link: 'iTunes Replay' On-Demand Video Coming? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/itunes-replay-on-demand-video-coming/)

[unfrozen.jon]

Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)

Not trying to be rude but what about Amateur Surgeon:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=299186925&mt=8

It has a disclaimer and a rating.

and the app store game ratings section, is this based off a standardized game rating system?

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/gameRatings


If so too bad that South Park was interested in jumping through hoops to relabel their app as a game to get it on the app store quicker.

[BRussell]

Kids can already use the current iteration of the iPhone to access porn. There are tons of iPhone-based web apps for this purpose alone. Lots of these sites will even stream video. And.........wait for it......yes, kids can even load these sites while in class! The horror!

All joking aside, objectionable content is already readily available on the iPhone to anyone who wants it. Rejecting this app doesn't protect Apple (or their reputation) from this fact. It just further alienates their developer base which will ultimately hurt YOU -- the end user.

You'll have to send me the link to those so I can evaluate it myself.

[Hooka]

I find it funny that Apple sells "South Park" episodes on iTunes...

[alchemistmuffin]

Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

This whole nonsense is nothing but noise anyway. It is not preventing kids from doing anything.

Do you use parental control for iPhone when you let your kids use it?

Apparently, not many parents do not know that this feature exists.

[Miker2k]

I find the many iterations of the 'fart' applications to be much more offensive (and stupid mind you) than South Park is.

[MidtownFreak]

If so too bad that South Park was interested in jumping through hoops to relabel their app as a game to get it on the app store quicker.

Interesting find, I was not aware that Apple had a game rating system in place.


Well, if the app was not labeled as a game, then that would give Apple enough justification for not hosting it until they've decided to figure out/extend the system to all apps.

[quinney]

Consider the possibility that the South Park guys deliberately wrote
the application to be so offensive that it would be rejected. There
will indeed be an episode about the rejection. It is indeed a publicity
stunt, but by the South Park guys, not Apple.

[blindzero]

Consider the possibility that the South Park guys deliberately wrote
the application to be so offensive that it would be rejected. There
will indeed be an episode about the rejection. It is indeed a publicity
stunt, but by the South Park guys, not Apple.

And what a hilarious episode it will be.. the show airing on the same date the app will be officially released in the App Store...

[aristotle]

There are a ton of Java apps. No need to support Apple's proprietary and closed platform.
That's nice. How does that make the phone work with OS X, have a usable UI, work effectively as an MP3 player that I can sync to with iTMS? What about fact that those allegedly "open" phones are often locked down to a carrier's online store for purchasing ringtones for 3-4 bucks. I speak from experience with previous phones that I had on Roger which I could not add my own ringtones onto.

Go right ahead and go back to using your crappy phone with overpriced Java games with 2d graphics.

Where are all of these tons of Java apps that you speak of? How much do they cost and how much to they cost to download? Remember that most phones that are java based are usually not "smart phones" and are usually not bundled with data plans.

[Winni]

"Hail to the king, baby!"

It always blows me away that Apple can do whatever fascist crap they won't, and there will still be someone here who will defend them with his last drop of blood. For some, Apple just can't do anything wrong.

This is just another reason to boycott that big brother iPhone platform. And I've lost count how many reasons there have already been before Apple did not approve this little app.

Or to bring it to the point: This entire AppStore concept is reason enough to NOT buy an iPhone or iPod Touch. I want to install whatever app -- I -- want -- WITHOUT -- having to go through Apple's AppStore. This is yet another anti-competitive control measure from Apple. Microsoft can learn a lot from them. Especially how to be evil and still have fanboys.

[iLunar]

Liable for what?

And using your example, then AT&T should be liable if a kid uses Safari on the iPhone to access "objectionable" content because they provide the distribution channel.

No, AT&T is protected by DCMA from 1996. AT&T is not hosting or distributing objectionable content, Apple would be in the App store.

If my kid stays up late and watches South Park is Comcast Liable or Comedy Central?

If Comedy Central failed to put up appropriate warnings out lined by the FCC, then yes, they would be held liable. Remember Janet Jackson/Superbowl/Nipplegate fiasco? That case has yet to be settled.

[Bubba Satori]

Apple is turning into the Soviet Union before our eyes. Incredibly sad. :(

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This is absolutely ridiculous. If the iPhone starts to slide backwards, it will be because the insistence of Apple's leadership to push their personal preferences upon the user, not anything the competition is doing.

Don't forget that they are the SOLE outlet for iPhone software (short of hacking) *AND* they rake 30% right off the top to boot. The point is they never should be allowed to monopolize ANY market like that, whether it be the software for the iPhone or the hardware for OS X. But fanboyz galore think it's A-OK because Apple "owns" that property (intellectual or otherwise) and they are 'allowed' to do ANYTHING they want with it whether you like it or not if you don't, go buy someone else's product and leave the fanboyz alone with their censored hardware.

[bug67]

So, who died and left Apple in charge of the "What people should think" department? Aren't people other than Apple able to decide for themselves what is "offensive" or not? Fascists!

[zombitronic]

Don't forget that they are the SOLE outlet for iPhone software (short of hacking) *AND* they rake 30% right off the top to boot. The point is they never should be allowed to monopolize ANY market like that, whether it be the software for the iPhone or the hardware for OS X. But fanboyz galore think it's A-OK because Apple "owns" that property (intellectual or otherwise) and they are 'allowed' to do ANYTHING they want with it whether you like it or not if you don't, go buy someone else's product and leave the fanboyz alone with their censored hardware.

Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?

Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted about Nintendo getting their cut from all the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" stamped games? If Nintendo doesn't approve the game, they make no guarantee to the compatibility or quality of the game. If it gets out there, Nintendo isn't getting a cut. They don't approve all games and they take a cut out of the ones they do. So does Sony and Microsoft. So does the record industry and the movie studios. And so does just about every company which distributes a product with its name and approval on it. Welcome to life.

I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.

[Dagless]

Oh noes! What will fans of mindless juvenile crud do now?!

People who haven't seen series 3+ of South Park aren't allowed to pretend they know about it.

[BenRoethig]

Apple is turning into the Soviet Union before our eyes. Incredibly sad. :(

Jobs didn't change, he just brought in new people who are more in line with his direction.

[BenRoethig]

Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?

Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted about Nintendo getting their cut from all the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" stamped games? If Nintendo doesn't approve the game, they make no guarantee to the compatibility or quality of the game. If it gets out there, Nintendo isn't getting a cut. They don't approve all games and they take a cut out of the ones they do. So does Sony and Microsoft. So does the record industry and the movie studios. And so does just about every company which distributes a product with its name and approval on it. Welcome to life.

I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.

The difference here is that Nintendo and the rest have well defined standards and are pretty loose in what they allow. If they had approved things arbitrarily based on whims and personal taste, they wouldn't be in the gaming business.

[diamond.g]

and the app store game ratings section, is this based off a standardized game rating system?

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/gameRatings


It is a standard but not the same as the one the rest of the gaming industry uses (ESRB (http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp)). It was done this way because ESRB charges (a lot) to rate a game, and Apple (somehow) didn't want to pass that on the their developers.

[slu]

Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)

Again, liable for what?

And FEPA is nonsense and did not happen. It is not a law and therefore has no relevance. It even said that similar bills that were passed on the State level were ruled unconstitutional. Did you even read the link you posted?

You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?

[slu]

Do you use parental control for iPhone when you let your kids use it?

Apparently, not many parents do not know that this feature exists.

If I were to let a child use my iPhone unsupervised, I would use parental controls.

And it is the parents' fault if they don't know the feature exists, not Apple's.

[dejo]

You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?
How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.

[slu]

No, AT&T is protected by DCMA from 1996. AT&T is not hosting or distributing objectionable content, Apple would be in the App store.



If Comedy Central failed to put up appropriate warnings out lined by the FCC, then yes, they would be held liable. Remember Janet Jackson/Superbowl/Nipplegate fiasco? That case has yet to be settled.

Please stop with the FCC stuff. Again, that was on broadcast TV over the public airwaves. It is not relevant to the App Store at all. And what are these "appropriate warnings" lined out by the FCC that Comedy Central has to follow?

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/complain.html

With the exception of rules that require cable systems to carry certain local broadcast stations, cable systems decide which programming services to carry.

Generally, the rules concerning the content of programming on cable channels are not as strict as the rules concerning programming content on non-cable channels. If you object to programming on a cable system, you may contact the FCC to determine what rules may be applicable and what action may be appropriate.

And again, liable for what?

[SpinThis!]

I think the rejection may have more to do with the fact that the app would stream content that you'd otherwise have to pay for (via the iTunes store).
Exactly, this against the App Store TOS.... essentially you can't provide an alternative distribution method for something that's already on the iTunes store. Apple doesn't like to come out and say this stuff but I would bet that's the real reason.

Why does this need to be a native app in the first place? I can only assume they 1) want to put it in front of every iPhone user possible and (2) charge a fee (or not). This is a perfect opportunity for an iPhone formatted web app. You don't need to write native Objective-C code to get movies to stream on the iPhone. The article here mentioned everything but the episode streaming. Make a relatively clean app, charge for it if you want, then provide a simple link that dumps you into Safari to the "mobile" version of their site with the content. Problems 1 and 2 solved. Once you hit the browser, the content there is irrelevant. More of a hassle? Maybe but if you want to be on the store, you play by Apple's rules.

[stanton]

How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.
Actually, I would say it comes from past experience: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10127333-37.html
NDA or not, everyone knows that the David Carnoy's book, "Knife Music" was banned for explicit content. And there have been a few other instances, iFart for example that were only allowed after Apple added a new catagory.

Honestly, this draconian censorship from Apple is complete BS, but it's just my opinion.

[MBLAST.EXE]

Wow some people here are so stupid. Apple fan boys until they die.

I own Apples, worked for Apple for 3+ years, and still love Apple. HOWEVER!

This is just typical Apple. Apple is a culture and they are trying to press there culture onto the people who buy there computers. Now that Apple has gone mainstream however there grip on there culture has changed. Apple is now this huge company that doesn't care about there Core Members (FANBOYS THAT MEANS YOU!) they want the new breed of people (IPHONE PEOPLE HI!). Well, what Apple needs to learn is that with this new breed of people comes people who don't care about Apple's culture. They just love there products and want more of them. Fanboys crack me up because go into an Apple store to talk Mac with a "Genius" or bring your computer in for help... guarantee you, the iPhone customer is more important to Apple than you.

So with the rant Fanboys get over yourself. This censorship is stupid. The whole idea is that Apple allows Adult Video Apps and FART Apps but not a South Park app. Pot I don't believe you have met the Kettle yet.

[SatanLover]

apple is a bunch of pussies

[dejo]

Actually, I would say it comes from past experience: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10127333-37.html
NDA or not, everyone knows that the David Carnoy's book, "Knife Music" was banned for explicit content. And there have been a few other instances, iFart for example that were only allowed after Apple added a new catagory.
Well, explicit / objectionable content is specifically prohibited in the iPhone Developer Agreement so there's no secret there. My point was that we shouldn't expect Apple to comment on the reasons for rejection because that is covered under the NDA. And therefore it doesn't behoove us to try to draw conclusions when only hearing one side of the story, and perhaps not even the entire side of that one perspective.

P.S. No new category was added by Apple for iFart. It sits in the Entertainment category. Apple just chose to loosen their restrictions on what they consider objectionable.

Honestly, this draconian censorship from Apple is complete BS, but it's just my opinion.
I have to agree with you there, though! My company currently has an app that's been under review for over 2 months now. But I can't discuss it publicly because of that NDA. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers as to why that might be the case. ;)

[stanton]

P.S. No new category was added by Apple for iFart. It sits in the Entertainment category. Apple just chose to loosen their restrictions on what they consider objectionable.
It was a little more than that, they actually came up with a Age rating system:
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_content_rating_system)
Why they didn't just use the rating systems already in place is beyond me, and I think actually causes more confusion than good.:confused: Overall though, I think we're on the same page.

[MidtownFreak]

Again, liable for what?

And FEPA is nonsense and did not happen. It is not a law and therefore has no relevance. It even said that similar bills that were passed on the State level were ruled unconstitutional. Did you even read the link you posted?

You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?

I posted the reference to FEPA to highlight how close we've come to controlling the distribution of questionable content. And although moves by state and local governments to do so have been declared unconstitutional, it's still extremely expensive for corporations to have to spend on legal fees and arbitration just to disprove the plaintiffs.

It seems more likely that Apple denied the app because it was not a game. Although, again judging from their reply, it seems that are working on extending the parental controls to all apps -- regardless of genre.

[markgamber]

Wow, it was submitted in October and this is news now? Talk about getting jerked around. Hopefully this is what happens to Slingplayer. Then people will care.

[unfrozen.jon]

It is a standard but not the same as the one the rest of the gaming industry uses (ESRB (http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp)). It was done this way because ESRB charges (a lot) to rate a game, and Apple (somehow) didn't want to pass that on the their developers.

Well I guess that shoots down the theory that Apple was waiting to institute a rating system.

[manhattanboy]

Wow, it was submitted in October and this is news now? Talk about getting jerked around. Hopefully this is what happens to Slingplayer. Then people will care.

I hope you're kidding... it's bad enough that the most advanced smartphone in the world can't even play flash videos when this feat has been possible on Windoze phones for years. :(

[manhattanboy]

How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.

That's the problem with ALL of apple.. if they just weren't so secretive then we would, uh, wait, then I guess we wouldn't be here since there would probably be no Macrumors :p:p

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?

I believe the market would be called the iPhone and iPod Touch computer platforms. If you don't think those are computers then you are the one that is completely naive.


Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted


If you want my opinion, no I don't think Nintendo SHOULD get ANY say what kind of software is allowed to be sold for their gaming platform. That should be solely up to the consumer to decide. Why should corporations be allowed to play the part of the fascist parent? If you create a computing platform in ANY form and sell it to the public, that should be the sole end of your control over that platform...the HARDWARE and its OS. Software should be a freedom/right in this country. If companies don't like it, they can move to Communist China whom will be MORE than happy to censor the software market for them. And no I don't think Nintendo should be able to charge licensing fees either and nor should Apple be able to force that 30% protection money THEFT from programmers either. If they can't monopolize the software market for their platform, they cannot STEAL money from the software developers for that market. If those programmers WANT to use that store and pay 1/3 of their sales out to Apple just to host their program, that should be their CHOICE, but they should ALWAYS have an alternative way to distribute the software for a platform. If Apple tried to pull that crap with the regular Mac market, they'd end up in court. And no I would NOT put it past those greedmongers.



I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.

Defending greed without purpose either makes one a fanboy or one of the greedmongers. You either want to rake that kind of theft in yourself or you wish Apple well doing it because you worship them. Take your pick. Any consumer that wants free choice and lots of selection would never support a company's decisions based flatly on what benefits them. Look at the Republicans considering to refuse stimulus money right now purely because they're considering running for President in 2012 and they're putting their party principles above their constituents needs. It's petty greed mongering and I want no part of it. Viva La Consumer!

Next I'll hear about how if I don't like Apple, I can go buy a Windows machine. Like I prefer Microsoft GREED to Apple GREED.... I buy by product, not the greedy company producing the product. I don't like Apple OR Microsoft. I like the principles of Linux, but not the product (lack of standardization, direction and commercial software due to a total LACK of leadership by Linus Torvalds). But I could put up with the limitations if the software was there, but it is not. Apple has the best OS with few issues concerning spyware and viruses so it's my primary OS now. I keep XP around for gaming and the applications that are not available for OS X. But that does not mean I "like" Apple itself.

[dejo]

Defending greed without purpose either makes one a fanboy or one of the greedmongers.
How is rejecting an app that would probably make Apple some decent coin being greedy? Isn't it just the opposite?

[rockosmodurnlif]

Oh noes! What will fans of mindless juvenile crud do now?!
this (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=300807141&mt=8) or maybe this (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=301166113&mt=8)

My sources tell me the App was named "Kenny" and Apple just killed it.
LOL! :D

[Turmoil]

I agree, but you cannot then say it is illegal to jailbreak the device to put whatever you want on it. You don't have to sell the app, but you have no right to limit what I do on a device that I bought. What if Apple said you could only put music you bought on iTunes on your phone?

No problem, I would simply not buy that phone. They have a right to control their intellectual property.

[diamond.g]

If you want my opinion, no I don't think Nintendo SHOULD get ANY say what kind of software is allowed to be sold for their gaming platform. That should be solely up to the consumer to decide. Why should corporations be allowed to play the part of the fascist parent? If you create a computing platform in ANY form and sell it to the public, that should be the sole end of your control over that platform...the HARDWARE and its OS. Software should be a freedom/right in this country. If companies don't like it, they can move to Communist China whom will be MORE than happy to censor the software market for them. And no I don't think Nintendo should be able to charge licensing fees either and nor should Apple be able to force that 30% protection money THEFT from programmers either. If they can't monopolize the software market for their platform, they cannot STEAL money from the software developers for that market. If those programmers WANT to use that store and pay 1/3 of their sales out to Apple just to host their program, that should be their CHOICE, but they should ALWAYS have an alternative way to distribute the software for a platform. If Apple tried to pull that crap with the regular Mac market, they'd end up in court. And no I would NOT put it past those greedmongers.


In Nintendo's case they couldn't sell their gaming systems for so cheap if they didn't have licensing fees. In Apples case it was more about easy of use. The App Store wouldn't be as nice if Apple didn't get their cut (notice how no one complains about the cut Apple gets from the music side, but all of a sudden the App side is sooo special...).

[maxlew]

like people have said before. apple cant actually put this on the app store without putting their hand up to be sued. they can put southpark episodes and songs with obscene lyrics up because there is a way to fliter them out. what is considered offensive and not offensive with tv shows and music is all based of a ratings system that has been around for years.

now we would be in the exact same situation if apple decided to rate apps themselves people would be complaining that they should be able to decide what is offensive cause their adults and they should have choices.

well though luck we live in a time where people sue for anything they can and companies like apple have to watch what they are selling. apple have taken the only road that they can without facing lawsuits and that is to say no offensive apps.

and about the fart apps thats just apple weighing up bad publicity vs being able to fight a fart app as non offensive.

[twoodcc]

i never did like south park all that much, but this app doesn't seem to bad. maybe it'll get in the store eventually

[Let's Sekuhara!]

Imagine if Apple remotely reached into your Mac and was like "we see you have µTorrent and we don't like it so we're removin' it"
and then "oh and you use Firefox... well that competes with Safari! Better uninstall that too."
We would instantly lose all loyalty to Apple.

Because the fact is that if you create a platform that is to be the standard for anything, you simply cannot pick and choose who publishes on your platform. It's unethical.

The fastest way to lose customers is to tell them what they can and cannot view/listen to/play etc. And this is what Apple has chosen to do with the App Store. It's one of the reasons I don't own an iPhone.

[diamond.g]

Imagine if Apple remotely reached into your Mac and was like "we see you have µTorrent and we don't like it so we're removin' it"
and then "oh and you use Firefox... well that competes with Safari! Better uninstall that too."
We would instantly lose all loyalty to Apple.

Because the fact is that if you create a platform that is to be the standard for anything, you simply cannot pick and choose who publishes on your platform. It's unethical.

The fastest way to lose customers is to tell them what they can and cannot view/listen to/play etc. And this is what Apple has chosen to do with the App Store. It's one of the reasons I don't own an iPhone.

You are missing out on a great experience though...

[jmccullough108]

I remember when this application was posted on the south park web site.. They had some screenshots and some video of the application being played. Back then, they said that the application was submitted into the app store, but I noticed that it never made it in.. Pretty much figured that it was rejected.

Kinda a bad move on apples end, but there are a few websites that stream it over the network.

[Bodah]

I noticed an South Park app in Cydia today... Is this the same one?

EDIT:
It looks like it is
http://iphonefreakz.com/2009/02/20/cydia-southpark-mobile-released-against-apples-will/

[miketcool]

You are missing out on a great experience though...

AT&T customer service?

[macfan881]

this gets turned down and yet Ifart was the number one selling app for months wow oh well im glad i got a jailbroken Ipod touch.

[alchemistmuffin]

It's just a matter of time before Cydia is killed by iPhone KILL SWITCH, and creators of Cydia sued by Apple for violating DMCA.

[macfan881]

It's just a matter of time before Cydia is killed by iPhone KILL SWITCH, and creators of Cydia sued by Apple for violating DMCA.

try doing some reasearch or knowing what your talking about before you make those kinda statements :rolleyes:

[DavidLeblond]

I noticed an South Park app in Cydia today... Is this the same one?

EDIT:
It looks like it is
http://iphonefreakz.com/2009/02/20/cydia-southpark-mobile-released-against-apples-will/

Huh?

The SouthPark Mobile app is not the app that was going to be released via the App Store but is a application from developer EvanXTC.

Looks like it isn't.

[eplchamps0304]

That's stupid because iTunes store do actually sell South Park episodes.

..and that is why the app was rejected.

[EB66]

that grinds my gears if people dont like it then dont download it... simple as that

[lftrghtparadigm]

Imagine if Apple remotely reached into your Mac and was like "we see you have µTorrent and we don't like it so we're removin' it"
and then "oh and you use Firefox... well that competes with Safari! Better uninstall that too."
We would instantly lose all loyalty to Apple.


Who is WE?

WHEN Apple starts to do this (not hypothetically, not if, but when...) you will still have the parade of fanboys to tell us all how good it is for us.

When Apple decides they are as sophisticated as OnStar and they need to turn on your isight and make sure everything is OK in your home, and they see you asleep in the middle of the day, and they call 9/11 for you, you'll still have a parade of Apple fanboys telling you how good it is for you.