Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

Actually, what Phil wrote doesn’t make sense. In my opinion, he’s trying to spin the issue so that Apple doesn't seem have a crazy censorship policy.

First, to say that the developer should have just waited for the 17+ rating to become available, so he could release an ‘uncensored’ version is being disingenuous, because Apple wouldn’t tell him WHEN it would become available (perhaps other than sometime soon). Meanwhile, his competition, which also was uncensored (according to Phil), and with much lower ratings, was already in the app store being sold.

Second, Phil’s claim that it rejected because of new ‘urban slang’ swear words, and not regular swear words doesn’t seem to match with the specific examples the developer claims the App Store reviewer sent him, namely screen shots with words like ‘****’.
 
This just in-

The Disney Store has been issued a lawsuit by Warner Bros over the rejection of Looney Tunes items,
for not allowing them to be sold and in any of their stores........ more news at 11.......

If the only place anyone was ever capable of buying a looney tunes item was the disney store and disney was rejecting them yes, but that's not the case. You can buy looney tunes items all over the place. In the case of the app store the only way you can buy iphone apps (in any official, non-black-market capacity, and yes cydia is the black market. I have my phone jailbroken and use tons of apps from cydia but it's obviously very far from legitimate) is the app store.

It's absurd that a dictionary app is rated 17+. The rejections are ridiculous enough but to label a dictionary 17+ is absolutely insane. Anyone can go to a bookstore and buy a dictionary. Or go to a library and look at a dictionary for free. Photography books which contain full frontal female and male nudity are also available at the library with no age restrictions. Or teens could look in a mirror while not wearing any clothes and be exposed to their own self produced live child pornography in their own home. Perhaps mirrors should be treated like M rated games or R rated movies.

Someone had an app rejected / age restricted because their about screen linked to a page which linked to a page that had a google search box in it. Where someone could presumably search for boobs or cocks or recipes. Or even more likely, ignore it altogether.

When will this nonsense end?
 
If the only place anyone was ever capable of buying a looney tunes item was the disney store and disney was rejecting them yes, but that's not the case. You can buy looney tunes items all over the place. In the case of the app store the only way you can buy iphone apps (in any official, non-black-market capacity, and yes cydia is the black market. I have my phone jailbroken and use tons of apps from cydia but it's obviously very far from legitimate) is the app store.

It's absurd that a dictionary app is rated 17+. The rejections are ridiculous enough but to label a dictionary 17+ is absolutely insane. Anyone can go to a bookstore and buy a dictionary. Or go to a library and look at a dictionary for free. Photography books which contain full frontal female and male nudity are also available at the library with no age restrictions. Or teens could look in a mirror while not wearing any clothes and be exposed to their own self produced live child pornography in their own home. Perhaps mirrors should be treated like M rated games or R rated movies.

Someone had an app rejected / age restricted because their about screen linked to a page which linked to a page that had a google search box in it. Where someone could presumably search for boobs or cocks or recipes. Or even more likely, ignore it altogether.

When will this nonsense end?

A standard dictionary is not rated 17+ on the App Store.

There are no age restrictions for purchasing any apps on the App Store unless Parental Controls are enabled.
 
A standard dictionary is not rated 17+ on the App Store.

There are no age restrictions for purchasing any apps on the App Store unless Parental Controls are enabled.

The application in question is a standard dictionary. The name implies speed, not "street cred" or anything like that. And the fact that parental controls could possibly need to apply to a dictionary is what I take issue with.
 
The application in question is a standard dictionary. The name implies speed, not "street cred" or anything like that. And the fact that parental controls could possibly need to apply to a dictionary is what I take issue with.

If you read Phil Schiller's comments, there was more than your common everyday swear words found in most dictionaries. I think he termed it "urban slang."
 
The difference is that apple has yet to be taken to court... Apple has been worse than M$ with their control..

No. Microsoft was found to have abused their Windows monopoly in a court of law. The rules are now different for them.
 
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

URL please?
 
If you read Phil Schiller's comments, there was more than your common everyday swear words found in most dictionaries. I think he termed it "urban slang."

But that doesn't match up with the words that the developer explicitly quoted as being the reason for being rejected. The words he listed were your 'normal/standard' swear words. It may have not been a complete list of all the terms the reviewer claimed required a 17+ rating, but it definitely wasn't limited to Phil's "urban slang".
 
The difference is that apple has yet to be taken to court... Apple has been worse than M$ with their control..

There's no law against a company being controlling like this unless they have a monopoly and do so in a way that is anticompetitive, so let's be specific. What "control" are you talking about in regard to Apple and in what way is it illegal?

I understand that they only some apps are being rejected, but they're being rejected or given 17+ ratings for little things that shouldn't make it be rejected or have a 17+ rating.

"Shouldn't" according to whom? Apple laid out the guidelines and developers accepted that beforehand. There's no right and wrong. It's Apple's product and they can make the rules. If you disagree, don't develop for the iPhone. I'm sure it sucks to be on the receiving end of a rejection, but it makes no sense to talk in terms of what "should" or "shouldn't" happen especially if there was an understanding about Apple's standards in the first place.
 
"Shouldn't" according to whom? Apple laid out the guidelines and developers accepted that beforehand. There's no right and wrong. It's Apple's product and they can make the rules. If you disagree, don't develop for the iPhone. I'm sure it sucks to be on the receiving end of a rejection, but it makes no sense to talk in terms of what "should" or "shouldn't" happen especially if there was an understanding about Apple's standards in the first place.

As taeclee99 said, Why isn't the Google Mobile App rated 17+ it's rated 4+.
 
As taeclee99 said, Why isn't the Google Mobile App rated 17+ it's rated 4+.

It hasn't been updated since parental controls were announced, so it hasn't been reviewed. It contains a web browser, so it should be 17+.
 
Pathetic to say the least

It takes only five minutes in a school yard to make you blush like a teenager. I should know cos I swear like a sailor and yet the things those kids come up with make me go like "F... I am like a nun compared to them"
I guess where all this boils down to is in that notion that apple users are very serious users! They use their computers to do serious, elaborate stuff! Apple users do not even know how porn looks on the net because they never visit it! Please enough with this hypocrisy. I would like google to tell me how many of these apple computers out there have been used to access porn on the net and maybe Virtual Girl should come out with a Mac OS version. That would be fun to see!!
Apple should just stick to making hardware and software and stop trying to be our moral inquisitor. If we wanted one we could time travel back to the Middle Ages.
Thought: Maybe someone should sue apple cos its safari browser came without an explicit content warning and unknowingly he came across Jena Jameson:)
All this by the way was written using an apple computer and the same computer has been used to access freely available but not approved content by the apple inquisitors. So what? Sue me.
 
It takes only five minutes in a school yard to make you blush like a teenager. I should know cos I swear like a sailor and yet the things those kids come up with make me go like "F... I am like a nun compared to them"
I guess where all this boils down to is in that notion that apple users are very serious users! They use their computers to do serious, elaborate stuff! Apple users do not even know how porn looks on the net because they never visit it! Please enough with this hypocrisy. I would like google to tell me how many of these apple computers out there have been used to access porn on the net and maybe Virtual Girl should come out with a Mac OS version. That would be fun to see!!
Apple should just stick to making hardware and software and stop trying to be our moral inquisitor. If we wanted one we could time travel back to the Middle Ages.
Thought: Maybe someone should sue apple cos its safari browser came without an explicit content warning and unknowingly he came across Jena Jameson:)
All this by the way was written using an apple computer and the same computer has been used to access freely available but not approved content by the apple inquisitors. So what? Sue me.

You know, I'm really getting fed up with this oversimplistic thinking. Calling Apple the "inquisitors" is ridiculous. Here's the friggin' deal, buddy. We live in a litigious society. Lots of parents buy cell phones for their kids. Lots of those parents are idiots. Apple has to cover their ass in the event that some dumb parent out there buys their kid an iPhone and said kid goes about downloading every offensive and inappropriate application he/she can find.

Do you even doubt for a moment that we'd have seen a class action lawsuit against Apple for allowing children and teens access to inappropriate content by now? I don't.

So how would you rather have it? Would you prefer that Apple open the floodgates to every porn website out there that wants to use the iPhone app store as a conduit for their product and summarily get sued into oblivion or would you prefer they take the steps necessary to cover themselves against it, even if it means occasional misfires like this.

EDIT: And enough with the "but they ship it with Safari" nonsense. Do you not see the obvious difference? It's a web browser. Everyone out there knows what it means to have a web browser connected to the Internet. Apple clearly advertises that fact. They don't open themselves to any lawsuits for it. But if they distribute after-market content through the app store specifically made for accessing inappropriate or pornographic content, then that's another thing entirely.
 
What ever happened to freedom of speech? Oh yea sorry I forgot, it's not in Apples interest to not control everything to the Nth degree. :mad:

what ever happen to kids actully being kids, and not trying to be cool and create stupid, imature apps?

or worse tring to be a tech
 
I never said it was. But if taken to court the outcome of the case will determine it. But looking at it from a rational, non-fanboy view, apple is just as controlling as M$, if not more... Apple lost the desktop OS war due to their controlling nature. So far they have not seemed to learn from their past errors...

There's no law against a company being controlling like this unless they have a monopoly and do so in a way that is anticompetitive, so let's be specific. What "control" are you talking about in regard to Apple and in what way is it illegal?



"Shouldn't" according to whom? Apple laid out the guidelines and developers accepted that beforehand. There's no right and wrong. It's Apple's product and they can make the rules. If you disagree, don't develop for the iPhone. I'm sure it sucks to be on the receiving end of a rejection, but it makes no sense to talk in terms of what "should" or "shouldn't" happen especially if there was an understanding about Apple's standards in the first place.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.