Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Invites Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist to Resubmit Rejected iPhone Application

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,584
13,214
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png




Yesterday, the Nieman Journalism Lab reported that Mark Fiore, who earlier this week won a Pulitzer Prize for his political cartoons, had submitted an iPhone application highlighting his work last year, but was rejected by Apple. The rejection was based on prohibitions in Apple's developer agreement against ridiculing public figures.
In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."
Fiore, who publishes his animated works on SFGate.com, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, is notable as being the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize.

The New York Times today reports that Apple has invited Fiore to resubmit his application for inclusion in the App Store. The application was resubmitted this morning, and Fiore is now awaiting word on a decision from Apple, which refused to comment publicly on the situation.



Article Link: Apple Invites Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist to Resubmit Rejected iPhone Application
 

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,390
24
Essex (UK)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Let's hope he didn't use a cross compiler when making the app....
 
Comment

175170

Cancelled
Mar 28, 2008
964
0
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Let's hope he didn't use a cross compiler when making the app....

Haha, exactly what I was thinking.

Sometimes, the app store restrictions are a bit ridiculous, and when Apple realizes that they're dealing with people who know what they're doing, they remove those restrictions quickly.
 
Comment

macduke

macrumors G4
Jun 27, 2007
11,306
15,346
Central U.S.
Haha, and then they reject it again. Double-rejected, to the face!

But seriously, if I were him, I'd just say "Screw off Apple, you didn't care about me until I was famous!" Then submit my app for Android.

What happened to "Think Different." ?

Apple has their hand in the back pocket of too many politicians, it seems.
 
Comment

BC2009

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2009
1,978
352
iPhone Developer Agreement

I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.

However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.

Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.

On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
 
Comment

alphaod

Contributor
Feb 9, 2008
22,179
1,234
NYC
But seriously, if I were him, I'd just say "Screw off Apple, you didn't care about me until I was famous!" Then submit my app for Android.

that's kind of a double-sided blade; you say screw Apple while taking yourself out of a market with a lot of potential sales.
 
Comment

bretm

macrumors 68000
Apr 12, 2002
1,951
27
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.

However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.

Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.

On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.

Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
 
Comment

kustardking

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2008
152
1
New York
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.

This is a sensible perspective
 
Comment

mingoglia

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2009
448
9
I'm not a developer and have no idea what their policies are but will say I think it's a bit lame to have that double standard. If I was the cartoonist I wouldn't have resubmitted it. Or if I did it would have been a cartoon mocking the double standard of Apple.... I'd then blog about the whole experience. :D
 
Comment

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
And hopefully Fiore will do a cartoon about it :p ... well maybe not, his app could be banned again :eek:

Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
 
Comment

mingoglia

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2009
448
9
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.

x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :eek:
 
Comment

ZipZap

macrumors 603
Dec 14, 2007
5,781
1,085
Wait....there are rules...but then apple can bend them as they see fit?

The rules should apply to all or to none.

Just another reason I really hate apple and cant wait for jobs to leave.
 
Comment

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :eek:

Thanks! :)

I wish they included this but I guess it was more detailed then they were willing to broadcast.

After NewsToons was turned down in mid-December, Mr. Fiore did not try to submit it again, “mainly because it seemed like it would be so daunting.”

“It’s not like I had a phone number for someone at Apple,” he said, adding, “interestingly enough, I do now.

Just goes to show how two-faced they are.. :(

Look, believe it or not I'm a big fan of Apple for the most part but the UGLY way they've handled the APP store was/is just too much for me to not speak my mind about it. Oh and before people start screaming... WELL YOU HAVE A CHOICE... Yea I'm well aware of my rights and freedoms and one of them is to LIKE Apple and their products and STILL speak the truth about their militant behavior they exhibit over the APP store.
 
Comment

djdole

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2007
162
0
He should give a big SCREW YOU to Apple and make a WinMo, Win7, Android and Pre apps.
Maybe with enough bad publicity Apple won't be such a dick to developers.
 
Comment

MacPhilosopher

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2005
310
0
Phoenix
Right...

Haha, exactly what I was thinking.

Sometimes, the app store restrictions are a bit ridiculous, and when Apple realizes that they're dealing with people who know what they're doing, they remove those restrictions quickly.

What they really need, though, is the ability to recognize items of merit before turning them down. It reminds me of how ridiculous zero tolerance rules are on school campuses. Expelling students for "weapons" that are not really weapons i.e. finger nail clippers, etc. Rules and filters are fine when not implemented in a manner that lacks common sense. However, it comes with the territory now that Apple is in the media distribution game. To enter such and arena, one accepts the inherent danger of becoming a censor. To be completely open to all content would be an irresponsible business decision in terms of PR. Tighten up your filter a little to much and you land on the other end of negative PR. Apple will be adjusting its policies towards content for years and never find a perfectly safe position.
 
Comment

MacTheSpoon

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2006
514
0
What the hell, how bizarre. This app store stuff is ridiculous. Either allow satire or don't, and say so in your rules.
 
Comment

MacPhilosopher

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2005
310
0
Phoenix
Yep...

Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.

They certainly need to do better, but there is no such thing as "crystal effing clear" in the censorship of media content. They will never make all sides happy. They at least need to keep in line with their history as a company that promotes "Think Different" in their PR. Suppressing ideas and creativity certainly doesn't fall under that flag.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.