If this app can be removed for being offsenive, the we should't hear any complains when others are rejected, it might be offensive to others.
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
If this app can be removed for being offsenive, the we should't hear any complains when others are rejected, it might be offensive to others.
For those that think Apple pulling this app signals a New Age of McCarthyism, please get a grip. If this app is cool, then I'll author "Lady Raper," "Beating Gay People With a Bat," "Lynching with the Klan," and "Whale Nuker."
Look, there some things that 95% of society just can't get behind, and killing babies - even in an iPhone app - is one of them. The other 5% just have to suck it up.
And quit saying this a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment applies to the government. Apple isn't the government.
Look, there some things that 95% of society just can't get behind, and killing babies - even in an iPhone app - is one of them. The other 5% just have to suck it up.
And quit saying this a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment applies to the government. Apple isn't the government.
hope not. at least an ape is required for these tasks. at least cydia is not censored.
Perhaps I'm just a horrible person, but I lol'd when I read the description of what this app does.
That said, it doesn't make sense that Apple approved it, since most people tell me that shaking babies is bad form.
That said, it doesn't make sense that Apple approved it, since most people tell me that shaking babies is bad form.
Well, we don't have a freemarket way of legally installing software on to the iPhone/iPod, so the bad taste is definitely in Apple's court.
I guess money is more important than the experience/option to choose what we wish to choose... unless someone makes a webapp?
I guess money is more important than the experience/option to choose what we wish to choose... unless someone makes a webapp?
I think there's a few people doing only reviews. It takes 45 days to get a song approved for sale on iTunes. I guess they check some copyright and patent infringements too because the store gets in trouble if it sells illegal stuff.
The outrage over this app is dumb
Sorry to say it, all you politically correct commenters, but the outrage over this app is silly. There are plenty of other games out there that depict killing, robbing, and a host of other crimes. This is no different.
Get over yourselves and your mock outrage.
Sorry to say it, all you politically correct commenters, but the outrage over this app is silly. There are plenty of other games out there that depict killing, robbing, and a host of other crimes. This is no different.
Get over yourselves and your mock outrage.
That doesn't make it right. Excusing one thing simply because something equivalent exists is the sort of lowest common denominator thinking that ruins most things these days.
Get over yourself and find something worthwhile to defend.
Apple owns the App store. They can approve and reject what they want.
There is no "free speech" or "fairness" debate that can take place.
Sure it's a game, but anything like this involving juveniles always has a heightened standard of appropriateness.
There is no "free speech" or "fairness" debate that can take place.
Anyone with a child on this forum knows that babies are innocent humans and should not be abused like that.
Sure it's a game, but anything like this involving juveniles always has a heightened standard of appropriateness.
Isn't that what most weed advocates use as an argument? "People drink beer all the time. That's legal. Weed should be legal too."
They rejected it because it doesn't tell the user that it's going to use a network, didn't you read the blog?
It's understandable why i got rejected, if not still a bit of a PITA for the developer
As a business, Apple has some reasonable concerns:
1. iPhone app security. They don't want malware to infect phones. Phone security breaches would be very bad publicity.
2. Their bottom line. It's understandable why they would want to preserve a monopoly over certain areas where they and AT&T intend to make money directly, or where they want to maintain control over particular operations, e.g., phone calls, tethering, turn-by-turn directions. Security issues are also related to the bottom line, since they can affect sales.
3. Their reputation. Every app on an iPhone is, in the public perception, associated with Apple, because you buy them all through Apple. No wonder they shy away from apps that produce a public outcry.
If they could handle the first 2 concerns while allowing iPhone apps to be sold completely outside of Apple's control, then concern #3 would become less of a problem. Without the approval process, apps would be faster to market, Apple wouldn't have to devote staff to it, and they would no longer be in the awkward position of deciding which particular distasteful apps are too distasteful.
1. iPhone app security. They don't want malware to infect phones. Phone security breaches would be very bad publicity.
2. Their bottom line. It's understandable why they would want to preserve a monopoly over certain areas where they and AT&T intend to make money directly, or where they want to maintain control over particular operations, e.g., phone calls, tethering, turn-by-turn directions. Security issues are also related to the bottom line, since they can affect sales.
3. Their reputation. Every app on an iPhone is, in the public perception, associated with Apple, because you buy them all through Apple. No wonder they shy away from apps that produce a public outcry.
If they could handle the first 2 concerns while allowing iPhone apps to be sold completely outside of Apple's control, then concern #3 would become less of a problem. Without the approval process, apps would be faster to market, Apple wouldn't have to devote staff to it, and they would no longer be in the awkward position of deciding which particular distasteful apps are too distasteful.
For those not au fait with US morality:
Breasts = natural female form = evil.
FPS = killing adults = OK.
Shaking baby = killing children = evil.
Abortion = killing foetus... no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't! yes it is! = great distraction from other political issues.
Did I miss any detail? I was going to go Apple-specific with...
Gandhi = great "Think different" poster = good.
Refusing iPhone contracts with military = anti-America = bad.
PR campaign out of following environmental regulations = great for environment = good.
Removable batteries = increases product life = bad...
but I didn't want to sounds too trollish.
The choices are all based on what gets best PR => best profit. There is no other principle to Apple whatsoever, and that's precisely as you should expect.
Breasts = natural female form = evil.
FPS = killing adults = OK.
Shaking baby = killing children = evil.
Abortion = killing foetus... no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't! yes it is! = great distraction from other political issues.
Did I miss any detail? I was going to go Apple-specific with...
Gandhi = great "Think different" poster = good.
Refusing iPhone contracts with military = anti-America = bad.
PR campaign out of following environmental regulations = great for environment = good.
Removable batteries = increases product life = bad...
but I didn't want to sounds too trollish.
The choices are all based on what gets best PR => best profit. There is no other principle to Apple whatsoever, and that's precisely as you should expect.
You people are missing the bus on this one. Maybe the creator needs to change the name to...
BIRTH CONTROL
Seriously though, garbage app shouldn't see the light of day.
BIRTH CONTROL
Seriously though, garbage app shouldn't see the light of day.
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.
would you toss your iphone around?
Sorry, I have to agree that Apple is in the ethical "wrong" by blocking apps based on morality / taste levels. Those boundaries are not clearly defined enough for them spend time trying to police them. What's offensive to one person can be hilariously entertaining to the next. While I understand that it's within Apple's legal right to permit / deny anything they way, I still believe that they are not bettering society by waving their moral superiority stick around and smacking down any app they don't see as being socially acceptable.
Plenty of people have already identified other "morally" / "tastefully" questionable applications that have been accepted as proof that this subjective system does not function perfectly. You wanna shake the crap out of a baby on a video game then have at as far as I'm concerned. Wanna run over bystanders with a car on a virtual street, be my guest. Feel like reenacting any number of previous military engagements and slaughtering millions in the name of freedom or lower oil prices, enjoy yourself.
But hear this apple, there are plenty of better things you could be doing with that time and money (like fixing bugs on this damn phone, or giving me a better explanation as to why the radio in my 2G iPhone can't receive an MMS message that 95%+ of the <$50 phones on the market can) than serving as my offensive content interceptor. Let the market decide what's appropriate, let the app developer receive the internet flogging from the righteous by publishing the developer's email addresses along with the app.
Plenty of people have already identified other "morally" / "tastefully" questionable applications that have been accepted as proof that this subjective system does not function perfectly. You wanna shake the crap out of a baby on a video game then have at as far as I'm concerned. Wanna run over bystanders with a car on a virtual street, be my guest. Feel like reenacting any number of previous military engagements and slaughtering millions in the name of freedom or lower oil prices, enjoy yourself.
But hear this apple, there are plenty of better things you could be doing with that time and money (like fixing bugs on this damn phone, or giving me a better explanation as to why the radio in my 2G iPhone can't receive an MMS message that 95%+ of the <$50 phones on the market can) than serving as my offensive content interceptor. Let the market decide what's appropriate, let the app developer receive the internet flogging from the righteous by publishing the developer's email addresses along with the app.
I prefer that *I* decide what might offend me, not someone else
I can get behind criticism of the Shaking Baby app. I can understand why Apple wouldn't want it in their own store.
But a situation where someone else decides what iPhone apps are appropriate for me to choose from, I don't like. Screening for security or stability is OK. Screening for ideas, opinions, jokes, or basically any kind of content... that's not OK with me.
Makes me want to look elsewhere when it's time for me to choose my next phone.
I can get behind criticism of the Shaking Baby app. I can understand why Apple wouldn't want it in their own store.
But a situation where someone else decides what iPhone apps are appropriate for me to choose from, I don't like. Screening for security or stability is OK. Screening for ideas, opinions, jokes, or basically any kind of content... that's not OK with me.
Makes me want to look elsewhere when it's time for me to choose my next phone.
*Applauds iPhone envy*
A thought-out, rational & well put point. I totally agree.
Now only if other people (including
) wouldn't just immediately act on their initial knee-jerk reaction. 
I was pissed off that they let this app go through but rejected my iFight Pro update for calling the shotgun scene the "Cheney Incident". Claiming that I was ridiculing a public figure. So a movie called W is allowed and even featured but an app is not? Censorship sux! They need to let the market decide what is good by making a better app store or allow us to sell our apps through other channels.
In any case I dont see what the big deal about this baby app is. Why would anyone get offended?
In any case I dont see what the big deal about this baby app is. Why would anyone get offended?
