Phil Schiller Comments on 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone App Rejection

[MacRumors]

Yesterday, we reported on Daring Fireball's coverage of Apple's lengthy approval process for the Ninjawords Dictionary iPhone application that ultimately resulted in the application not only receiving a "17+" age rating but also having removed a number of "objectionable" words, including some with non-objectionable definitions, from the application.

In a follow-up post, Daring Fireball's John Gruber reports that he received a detailed e-mail from Apple senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller explaining the situation. Briefly, Apple's App Store approval staff objected to the presence of a number of vulgar "urban slang" terms that appeared in the application upon its initial submission in May and recommended that the developers resubmit their application after iPhone OS 3.0 was released so that it could carry a "17+" rating and be subject to 3.0's Parental Controls. Rather than choosing that route (as iPhone OS 3.0 had no known ship date at that time), the developers opted to press ahead in advance of Parental Controls implementation and stripped "objectionable" content from the application itself. Schiller wrote:You are correct that the Ninjawords application should not have needed to be censored while also receiving a 17+ rating, but that was a result of the developers' actions, not Apple's. I believe that the Apple app review team's original recommendation to the developer to submit the Ninjawords application, without censoring it, to the App Store once parental controls was implemented would have been the best course of action for all; Wiktionary.org is an open, ever-changing resource and filtering the content does not seem reasonable or necessary.Gruber reports that Ninjawords Dictionary's developers agree with Schiller's assertions, noting that they did wish to push ahead with the application's launch by whatever means necessary instead of waiting for Parental Controls to be launched in iPhone OS 3.0.

Gruber does, however, point out that Apple should do a better job of applying reasonable uniform standards and communicating with developers looking for clarification on or appealing reviewers' decisions. In particular, the dictionary entries Apple specifically objected to in Ninjawords' rejection notice did not include the so called "urban slang" that Schiller references, and if Apple's reviewers had found other examples of "urban slang" that it felt pushed the application to a "17+" rating, those specific objectionable terms should have been communicated to the developer.

Schiller's closing comments to Gruber lay out Apple's goals for the App Store and acknowledges that while the process is not always perfect, Apple is working to fix those errors and deliver the best experience possible for all parties.Apple's goals remain aligned with customers and developers -- to create an innovative applications platform on the iPhone and iPod touch and to assist many developers in making as much great software as possible for the iPhone App Store. While we may not always be perfect in our execution of that goal, our efforts are always made with the best intentions, and if we err we intend to learn and quickly improve.

Article Link: Phil Schiller Comments on 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone App Rejection

 

[SFStateStudent]

Gawd, are we returning to the 1985 reign terror of Tipper Gore???

 

[applerocks]

Finally, we see some good PR coming out of Cupertino! It's big, in my mind, that Schiller took the time to send this to Gruber, and it removes at least some of the sour feelings for Apple lately.

Now let's see if Apple actually goes ahead and "[learns] and quickly [improves]".

 

[Bubba Satori]

Monopolies are bad.

 

[roocka]

I saw Steve Jobs yesterday...

He said he did it "Strictly for my Ninjas"... haha..

BTW, look at the new Onion Newspaper cover. It's pretty hilarious. There's an article on the front page about how Steve Jobs created the worlds first invisible iPhone that only loyal users can see.. Pretty freaking funny.

Roocka

 

[Josso]

It absolutely didn't need a 17+ rating.

If they did censor it themselves (as Schiller says they did) then they should be able to be approved with a 3+ rating.

If they didn't censor it then they should get a 13+ (not a 17+, man... Chill it)

Maybe two apps? :/

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Always nice to hear the rest of the story.

This makes sense. We all know Apple was playing nanny prior to the release of the 17+ age rating. And expecting them to release a comprehensive list of vulgar terms isn't realistic either, as there are simply too many, and any list they did create could obviously be circumvented. It would be nice, however, if they could provide general guidelines to help a developer in understanding what this content might be. (Common sense would probably narrow the list down more than a little, though).

It seems the developer, in an effort to raise some fuss, opted to leave out certain important details so their plight would come across as more desperate and dramatic than it really was.

Monopolies are bad.

What monopoly? Do you even know what that word means in the business context?

 

[freediverdude]

This tells me that there is another side to these proceedings, another viewpoint, other than what is being blogged by the developers.

 

[Teh Don Ditty]

Oy! I submitted this and posted it in the Ninjawords thread!

So now to Teh Schill™ - define "urban words"

 

[rhett7660]

This sounds more like a developer who wanted his product out there and did not want to wait for the 3.0. As a result the DEVELOPER censored his own stuff in order to get the product to market quickly...

Maybe now that 3.0 is out he can re-submit the product with the other words that were taking out, intact and add the 17+ to it.

 

[michaellinehan]

Outrage at nothing

As is unfortunately so common in our "instant info" time --- immediate knee-jerk frothing outrage about something that did not, in fact, happen.

Perhaps
- slow down... just a little
- don't believe EVERYTHING

 

[DipDog3]

That didn't really resolve anything!

Way to go Apple....NOT!

 

[jdechko]

What I find most interesting is that Schiller actually took the time to respond to Gruber. I think it shows that there may not be as wide of a gap between Apple and its (loyal) users/fans as we sometimes think.

 

[DavidLeblond]

I just got a rejection for the Lite version of my game, Claustrophobia, because in the About section under Help, I have links to the freesound project where I got my sounds from. On THAT page, they have somewhere a Google Search bar. Apple said in their email:

"Claustrophobia Battle Client 1.0 allows unfiltered access to Google Search, which includes frequent mature or suggestive themes. Applications must be rated accordingly for the highest level of content that the user is able to access."

Therefore I either have to remove all links from my help section or make the game 17+. I also cannot mention any features found in the full version of my app.

Looking on my iPhone now I see several lite versions that mention features found in the full version. And looking on the App Store Google Mobile is rated 4+. This has gone too far!

EDIT: The full version of the game has the exact same links to freesound.org, yet was approved.

 

[SG1-1]

Gruber does 180, Tries to Still blame Apple

Gruber reports that Ninjawords Dictionary's developers agree with Schiller's assertions, noting that they did wish to push ahead with the application's launch by whatever means necessary instead of waiting for Parental Controls to be launched in iPhone OS 3.0.

Then;

Gruber does, however, point out that Apple should do a better job of applying reasonable uniform standards and communicating with developers looking for clarification on or appealing reviewers' decisions. In particular, the dictionary entries Apple specifically objected to in Ninjawords' rejection notice did not include the so called "urban slang" that Schiller references, and if Apple's reviewers had found other examples of "urban slang" that it felt pushed the application to a "17+" rating, those specific objectionable terms should have been communicated to the developer."

Way to go Gruber, Your at fault, You Knew it, Then Try to act like you where the Hurt party in all this by drumming up some free News for Yourself, Then have the Audacity to turn around again and Blame Apple on how they should do things, when they told you they are doing there best.

I'll tell you what you can do with your app and any more you produce "*****".

I hope people see this for what it is, Gruber Deliberately went ahead and caused a "NON STORY ITEM" to being a "Trumped Up Story Item".
And Suckered in allot of people to rally to the poor defenseless developers side, In turn making them look like a complete fool along with the Pitch fork fire at the stake burning people that Where Not aware, of the complete Truth.

Goes to show, 2 sides to every story, and a little Time to see the truth is all that was needed.

 

[Doctor Q]

Gruber does, however, point out that Apple should do a better job of applying reasonable uniform standards and communicating with developers looking for clarification on or appealing reviewers' decisions.

There's a simple solution. Have Phil Schiller personally explain Apple's reasons every time an app is rejected!

 

[gatepc]

Are they going to put a 17+ rating/parental controls on safari? I mean I can search all kinds a bad stuff with the built in safari does that mean they should put a high rating on it? this is BS

 

[Small White Car]

IMPORTANT POINTS:

* App review process is messed up in many ways.
* Apple is not trying to be evil, they're just a bit incompetent right now.
* Management doesn't WANT to be incompetent or evil.

Some of that isn't news, but some of it is for some of us.

Unfortunately I think things will only get worse as the iPhone user base gets larger. Long-term I think the only solution is to allow users to get apps from other sources but still keep the iTunes store as the only "trusted" source.

So if you get on the app store you're still approved by Apple, but consumers know they can trust you. You'll make more sales because of it. But if you want to sell "iPorn" (or whatever) on your website, you can do that, even for non-jailbroken phones.

I think Apple will eventually realize that its either this or they'll have to hire thousands of people to review apps. It eventually won't be possible to keep up.

Way to go Gruber, Your at fault, You Knew it,

No.

Based on the information he had at the time, his first article was accurate.

The problem was that it wasn't accurate information. Now, you'll say "that's a writer's job." But that's exactly the problem here! Developers don't know what's going on, Apple won't tell them, and they don't know exactly what it is they're supposed to be doing. So the developers can't get a straight answer and neither could Gruber. (Until now.)

So the fact that Gruber's article was wrong only proves his point that miscomunication is the real problem here.

 

[jmargolese]

It is a Monopoly and Apple is non-responsive

I'm a big Apple fan, but there's no way anyone can say that one comment on one application is a sign of Apple becoming more "open". Still silence on Google Voice and dozens or hundreds of other randomly removed applications which might be similar to what Apple has released.

And to be clear, Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone market. It's not illegal, but it's a fact. And they use this monopoly power to control the iPhone application market. Whether they are abusing that power is a matter for lawyers.

 

[uberamd]

As is unfortunately so common in our "instant info" time --- immediate knee-jerk frothing outrage about something that did not, in fact, happen.

Perhaps
- slow down... just a little
- don't believe EVERYTHING

Exactly. So many people jump on Apple for "censorship" this and "unwritten rules" that. Here is a perfect example of knee-jerk frothing as you said. People on the internet are funny with their complaining without the facts.

 

[trevorlsciact]

There's a simple solution. Have Phil Schiller personally explain Apple's reasons every time an app is rejected!

lmao he'd be awfully busy!

honestly this whole thing is getting ridiculous. according to apple's rules safari should be only for mature users, so why do they sell it with safari enabled by default to customers of any age?

 

[TheIguana]

There's a simple solution. Have Phil Schiller personally explain Apple's reasons every time an app is rejected!

Or Apple could direct those who are both reviewing and communicating with developers to give clear answers, not useless PR speak that is being reported in cases like this.

 

[sishaw]

It turns out that Apple's position was more sensible than it seemed at first.

 

[Small White Car]

Here is a perfect example of knee-jerk frothing as you said.

No, this is not "knee-jerk" at all.

That's when you jump to conclusions without getting any facts. The point here is that they tried to get facts, but couldn't.

And that's the whole problem. The fact that they had to write a long (and inacurate) article to get a response from Apple. If Apple had been clear in the first place, the article wouldn't have happened.

"Knee-jerk" is when you don't even attempt to gather facts.

 

[queshy]

Good to hear from phil, I suppose.