Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baby Shaker App Outrage - ABC Front Page Story
- Thread starter gibbz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Couldn't tell you but Apple's rejected our geotagging app 3 times in a row now. http://blog.return7.com/a-bit-ridiculousplacetagger-rejected-for-3rd-time 
It just goes to show you that the review system is messed up. They should just remove it entirely and put a "mark as offensive" button up..
Edit: it is what it is. :\
It just goes to show you that the review system is messed up. They should just remove it entirely and put a "mark as offensive" button up..Edit: it is what it is. :\
I have no idea why Apple rejects return7's application over and over, but as a beta tester of it, I do know that it is something lots of users will find really useful. With all the useless garbage in the App Store, Apple should be pushing this one to the top of the stack as something actually valuable. Get on with it!
Excellent question. There is no way in hell this app should have even been made, much less approved by Apple.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy but if someone wants to make something they should, then the market will determine if they should have or not. It sucks that Apple pulled it. Part of that whole being free to make our own decisions thing.
What's worse? The don't shake a baby app or the fact that dontshakeababy.com exists because people actually have to be told not to shake a baby. I personally don't need dontstickanoliveforkinyoureye.com to know not to do it, it's kinda sad actually.
That's exactly what happened. The market did determine it, as Apple is a for profit company, not a governmental body. Your having free speech doesn't mean that a newspaper is obligated to publish you.
I wonder how many people Apple has assigned to doing reviews? I have this impression that there's one employee sitting in a cubicle with an overflow of work to do, making arbitrary and bad choices because there's no time to do a better job. Or maybe the whole process is automated and relies on A.I.!
It's not to anyone's benefit for Apple to make these approval and disapproval misjudgments, nor to delay apps getting to market, so I hope they take care of whatever the problem is.
It's not to anyone's benefit for Apple to make these approval and disapproval misjudgments, nor to delay apps getting to market, so I hope they take care of whatever the problem is.
And if there was a Mac app that did this, you'd be right.
The problem with the iPhone is that Apple approves these apps. "Approves" being the very big important word there. Basically, Apple said they "approve" of a game where you shake a baby.
With a Mac app they can say "not our problem," but they can't do that here. By being on the app store at all means that Apple approves of it.
And you don't want to be a company that approves of baby shaking.
They had to pull it.
Honestly
You are either for Apple app censorship or not.
Ok, you should be either or, but it sounds like people like seeing this type of app censored, but then complain when other things get blocked.
I think shaking babies is pretty appauling on a taste level, but so what. I'm not going to buy the thing. I'm also not for censoring apps based on an arbitratry taste meter for the iTunes store. There should be filters for what kids can buy (as there are in the real world for mature/adult content), but that's about it.
If you don't like something, don't buy it.
Or regulate the crap out of the system and realize that adults really don't have a consenus on taste or morality levels. eBooks with mature themes or language, South Park clips, fart apps, virtual girl apps, etc. etc. all push someone's limmits. One might think farts and South Park are horrid, but a classic novel that touches on something too mature might amount to eBook burning.
Anyway, off the soapbox and casting a vote for no censorship. Even if it means I have to deal with crap that I might find offensive. I like my world to have choice and I trust in my ability to choose what is right and wrong. I trust others can do the same without the unseen hand of a censor behind the scenes.
As a comprimise how about an app rating system like we have for movies and video games? Neither of those are perfect either, but at least potenially offisnve apps can be flagged and maybe filtered for those who don't want to be exposed to them.
You are either for Apple app censorship or not.
Ok, you should be either or, but it sounds like people like seeing this type of app censored, but then complain when other things get blocked.
I think shaking babies is pretty appauling on a taste level, but so what. I'm not going to buy the thing. I'm also not for censoring apps based on an arbitratry taste meter for the iTunes store. There should be filters for what kids can buy (as there are in the real world for mature/adult content), but that's about it.
If you don't like something, don't buy it.
Or regulate the crap out of the system and realize that adults really don't have a consenus on taste or morality levels. eBooks with mature themes or language, South Park clips, fart apps, virtual girl apps, etc. etc. all push someone's limmits. One might think farts and South Park are horrid, but a classic novel that touches on something too mature might amount to eBook burning.
Anyway, off the soapbox and casting a vote for no censorship. Even if it means I have to deal with crap that I might find offensive. I like my world to have choice and I trust in my ability to choose what is right and wrong. I trust others can do the same without the unseen hand of a censor behind the scenes.
As a comprimise how about an app rating system like we have for movies and video games? Neither of those are perfect either, but at least potenially offisnve apps can be flagged and maybe filtered for those who don't want to be exposed to them.
You answered your own question. The more useful the app, the more likely Apple or AT&T will spoil the fun.
And while people are shaking babies on their iPhone......we sit here patiently waiting for the 4th straight week in hopes that we will be able to Sling our tv streams across the internet.
Here's to hoping there's no public outcry on the Slinging of TV streams....
Here's to hoping there's no public outcry on the Slinging of TV streams....
Apple has made their bed and, unfortunately for them, refuses to change the sheets.
While they are bragging about a meaningless billion apps downloaded (just read the thread on the contest and see how many people are downloading apps that don't even own an iPhone/iPod Touch), their app approval process has some glaring problems. It seems now they have just officially conceded liability for app content.
Competitors' emerging app stores are likely to learn from the few mistakes Apple has made so they don't repeat them. Apple, on the other hand, will insist their system is working and refuse to change. Early on when developers apps were getting rejected and their stories starting popping up around the web, instead of listening to their feedback (of which their only outlet was the media as Apple refused to communicate), they starting slapping non-disclosure agreements to the rejection letters. They followed the same strategy with the mac line just to turn around and, oops!, PCs have 90% of the marketshare.
While they are bragging about a meaningless billion apps downloaded (just read the thread on the contest and see how many people are downloading apps that don't even own an iPhone/iPod Touch), their app approval process has some glaring problems. It seems now they have just officially conceded liability for app content.
Competitors' emerging app stores are likely to learn from the few mistakes Apple has made so they don't repeat them. Apple, on the other hand, will insist their system is working and refuse to change. Early on when developers apps were getting rejected and their stories starting popping up around the web, instead of listening to their feedback (of which their only outlet was the media as Apple refused to communicate), they starting slapping non-disclosure agreements to the rejection letters. They followed the same strategy with the mac line just to turn around and, oops!, PCs have 90% of the marketshare.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
I think the whole idea of an approval process is fundamentally against a free market. This app was completely dumb but it really didn't break any rules, it just offended people. That shouldn't be grounds for removal from the App store. Anyway, it is what it is. Flame if you want, I won't read the post anyway.
I think the whole idea of an approval process is fundamentally against a free market. This app was completely dumb but it really didn't break any rules, it just offended people. That shouldn't be grounds for removal from the App store. Anyway, it is what it is. Flame if you want, I won't read the post anyway.
Since Apple has around $30 billion on hand maybe they could spend some of that money making the approval proces.. i don't know... work.
Apple sets themselves up for extra scrutiny by saying they will block certain types of apps and then they let this one get through.
Apple sets themselves up for extra scrutiny by saying they will block certain types of apps and then they let this one get through.
New App!
I'm working on an App called, "Dwarf Tossing."
Think of the classic game Hot Potato - you toss your iPhone/Touch to a friend, and while it's in the air, the dwarf yells through the speaker.
The longer he yells, the more points you score. The game will be free. The paid version allows you to customize your dwarf.
Think Apple will approve it?
I'm working on an App called, "Dwarf Tossing."
Think of the classic game Hot Potato - you toss your iPhone/Touch to a friend, and while it's in the air, the dwarf yells through the speaker.
The longer he yells, the more points you score. The game will be free. The paid version allows you to customize your dwarf.
Think Apple will approve it?*BOO ****ING HOO!
"oh noes, its offending me take it down!"
Goddamn it, if its offending you, don't go looking for it in the first place you dumbasses.
What if the iFart apps offend me? Can I get those taken down also?
"oh noes, its offending me take it down!"
Goddamn it, if its offending you, don't go looking for it in the first place you dumbasses.
What if the iFart apps offend me? Can I get those taken down also?
Censorship ???
While I don't agree with the baby APP, Apple is in a difficult spot to censor every APP. There should be a way to tag or categorize APP's that fall into this social fringe without stepping on our first amendment rights. Like drugs, it's a demand problem not a supply problem. If there was no demand for these APP's then there would be no supply. Personally, I think that an APP developer should use their so-called talent for productive applications not junk like this baby APP.
An after thought, I wonder if the images that were used are free of copyright. A good reason for Apple to reject this kind of APP.
While I don't agree with the baby APP, Apple is in a difficult spot to censor every APP. There should be a way to tag or categorize APP's that fall into this social fringe without stepping on our first amendment rights. Like drugs, it's a demand problem not a supply problem. If there was no demand for these APP's then there would be no supply. Personally, I think that an APP developer should use their so-called talent for productive applications not junk like this baby APP.
An after thought, I wonder if the images that were used are free of copyright. A good reason for Apple to reject this kind of APP.