Apple Rejects eBook App Over Access to Kama Sutra

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 22, 2009.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    In an extensive blog entry, James Montgomerie reveals that Apple has repeatedly rejected his eBook reader iPhone application, Eucalyptus, due to its ability to access a version of the ancient Indian text Kama Sutra, which Apple considers to contain objectionable content.

    As Montgomerie describes, the Eucalyptus application does not contain the "objectionable" text, as it merely serves as an interface to Project Gutenberg, a well-known distributor of free eBooks based on content that is in the public domain. Moreover, translations of the Kama Sutra are readily available on the iPhone via a host of other sources.
    While Apple's rejection of Eucalyptus could very well have been a result of an overzealous reviewer, Montgomerie proceeds to document his numerous attempts to contact Apple to have his case reviewed, only to be met with silence, automated e-mail responses, and in the responses that actually address his submission, tersely worded messages that provide little assistance.

    Montgomerie has resubmitted for Apple's consideration a version of Eucalyptus that manually blocks access to the version of the Kama Sutra available through Project Gutenberg.

    Article Link: Apple Rejects eBook App Over Access to Kama Sutra
  2. wavelayer macrumors member

    May 17, 2005
    Why is Apple afraid of the sacred art of lovemaking?:confused:
  3. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601


    Nov 19, 2007
    Georgia, USA
    Because they want to be the best at it.
  4. iPie macrumors regular


    Feb 21, 2006
    Milan, Italy
    Actually, I think it's because Apple wants to be the only one doing any screwing of its flock.:eek:

    Apple joins the religious right in this quest.
  5. ltcol266845 macrumors regular

    Aug 25, 2006
    Elgin, IL
    Stanza provides access to Project Gutenberg, among others... I would guess that there is even a version of that text (or maybe even "worse") trough the Kindle Store.
  6. Rootman macrumors 6502

    Jun 17, 2003
  7. ipoppy macrumors 6502

    Oct 12, 2006
  8. QCassidy352 macrumors G3


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    This has to be a mistake (an over-zealous reviewer). As the developer points out, this book can be downloaded and read in several other already-approved applications.
  9. whistler222 macrumors 6502

    Nov 8, 2007
    this clear shows the tech geek reviewing the app doesn't even know what sex is..nor ever participated in such feats..
  10. SpitzerCR macrumors regular

    Apr 20, 2009
    i want love making technique on my i phone........:rolleyes:;)
  11. DotComCTO macrumors 6502

    Aug 17, 2006
    The author is 100% right, and Apple is 100% wrong in this case. The eBook reader does not contain the "objectionable" information - just like Safari doesn't contain objectionable content. Perhaps Apple should put all sorts of filters into Safari so anytime a "bad" image or word showed up, it would just block that content?! For that matter, maybe Apple shouldn't allow "explicit" music in iTunes. I might download that to my iPhone...oh noes!!!!!

    Apple is getting insane over this. The author is right in comparing his app to the Kindle app, Stanza or any other reader.

    I feel badly for the Eucalyptus author. What a crock.


  12. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    That's why I'd never buy an iPhone. Blackberrys make me better in bed.
  13. srl7741 macrumors 68020


    Jan 19, 2008
    In my world
    It's too bad

    These type of things are getting pretty sad. Does anyone have any common sense anymore?
  14. BoyBach macrumors 68040


    Feb 24, 2006

    I think you might have just stumbled upon the Microsoft ad campaigns next line of attack!
  15. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Apr 16, 2009
    I'm a PC, and I can pleasure your girlfriend in ways you could never imagine.
  16. damnyooneek macrumors 6502

    Aug 14, 2005
    they should look into that safari app it contains all sorts of evil
  17. EgbertAttrick macrumors regular

    Feb 25, 2008
    If this kind of rejection continues to happen after 3.0's parental controls are released... Well, I won't do anything, but it will seriously piss me off. Apple's reviewers really need to lighten up and learn the difference between art and porn.

    And once they learn that difference, they should lighten up even more.
  18. kas23 macrumors 603


    Oct 28, 2007
    Shhhh! Don't let Apple know about this. This may cause them to pull their most popular eBook reader.

    Anyways, thank you Mommy and Daddy Apple for looking out for me and letting me know what could possibly corrupt my feeble mind. For God's sake, Apple is acting like the Catholic church in the Middle Ages!
  19. kdarling macrumors demi-god


    Jun 9, 2007
    Cabin by a lake
    Apple doesn't always seem to employ the brightest crayons in the box.

    I remember someone posting a link on the Apple support forums to a legal document, which happened to be titled "Petition to the FCC".

    The word "petition" in that case, of course, had nothing to do with collecting signatures. It's a legal term simply meaning "formal request".

    The uneducated Apple forum managers repeatedly deleted the link because their forum rules said "no petitions allowed".

    So... kudos to Apple for giving their people power and responsibility. They just need to pick different people to give those to.
  20. tk421 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 7, 2005
    Los Angeles
    This one seems pretty out there. Even if OS 3.0 provides app parental controls (allowing mature content in apps) it would be pretty weird to have this app rated such.

    This also implies that reviewers of ebook apps have to read every ebook available to screen them. That is insane.

    Uh... did you read the article? It says exactly what you said, only without guessing.
  21. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    Very odd. One would have hoped that the Trent Reznor business would have taught Apple a lesson. If the Kama Sutra is banned, then the Song of Solomon should be banned too. :rolleyes:
  22. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    Apple would by their own standards need to remove Safari. As it too can access this same ebook.
  23. Porco macrumors 68020


    Mar 28, 2005
    Exactly. For crying out loud, how many times? Apple need to sort this approvals mess out, they're looking increasingly stupid over it every time we hear another of these stories.
  24. Randman macrumors 65816


    Jul 28, 2008
    Jacksonville, Fla
    Obviously, there are flaws in the approval process. And yes, Apple is being silly when they can just slap a 18+ warning on apps.

    But at the same time, I am sick and tired of every developer with a rejected app blogging and creating threads in the hopes of gaining attention. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to get rejected on purpose so they can complain later for the free attention/publicity.
  25. nagromme macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    An absurd decision on many levels, and surely to be reversed--but the decision should never have been made in the first place.

    I take the silent treatment as a good sign in a sense: it's not a rejection of the issue; someone's deciding something. My own dealings with the dev program have always started with me sending an email, and getting a live call--not an email--back (in a week or two) with helpful answers. So if that's not happening, I take it as an indication that gears are slowly turning. (An upcoming content-ratings system could complicate the decision too.)

    This is a side-effect of the sheer scale of their app-approval process. I think Apple does pretty well considering the tidal wave, and they keep improving--but they do have a ways to go yet!

    Yes. Everyone--with the exception of the one-in-a-thousand bad call that one-in-a-thousand Apple employees sometimes makes. Which then gets a lot of attention. (As it should!) But it's hardly a trend of any kind: we're looking at a few bad calls out of THOUSANDS of decisions. Still bad--still in need of correction of course. And Apple has, in the past, reversed their bad calls. I'm sure they will in this case too. (And in the meantime, I feel the developer's pain! Very frustrating to be one guy dealing with such a massive operation.)

Share This Page