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

'South Park' Application Rejected From App Store

MagnusVonMagnum said:
Don't forget that they are the SOLE outlet for iPhone software (short of hacking) *AND* they rake 30% right off the top to boot. The point is they never should be allowed to monopolize ANY market like that, whether it be the software for the iPhone or the hardware for OS X. But fanboyz galore think it's A-OK because Apple "owns" that property (intellectual or otherwise) and they are 'allowed' to do ANYTHING they want with it whether you like it or not if you don't, go buy someone else's product and leave the fanboyz alone with their censored hardware.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?

Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted about Nintendo getting their cut from all the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" stamped games? If Nintendo doesn't approve the game, they make no guarantee to the compatibility or quality of the game. If it gets out there, Nintendo isn't getting a cut. They don't approve all games and they take a cut out of the ones they do. So does Sony and Microsoft. So does the record industry and the movie studios. And so does just about every company which distributes a product with its name and approval on it. Welcome to life.

I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.
 
zombitronic said:
Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?

Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted about Nintendo getting their cut from all the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" stamped games? If Nintendo doesn't approve the game, they make no guarantee to the compatibility or quality of the game. If it gets out there, Nintendo isn't getting a cut. They don't approve all games and they take a cut out of the ones they do. So does Sony and Microsoft. So does the record industry and the movie studios. And so does just about every company which distributes a product with its name and approval on it. Welcome to life.

I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that Nintendo and the rest have well defined standards and are pretty loose in what they allow. If they had approved things arbitrarily based on whims and personal taste, they wouldn't be in the gaming business.
 
MidtownFreak said:
Apparently, iLunar is the only person in this thread that has successfully read between the lines.

It's NOT that Apple is censoring the app, it's that they are not finished with implementing parental controls FOR the app store. As soon as they are done with that, they can move on.

Currently, Apple IS liable for nearly all of the content that is on the App Store. Because, they provide the channel AND collect revenue (remember 30% goes to them!) from individual app sales. Thus, they can be held liable through varying degrees for the content.

As for those of you that think that it's nonsense and can't happen, don't forget about FEPA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Need evidence that this is the case for Apple's rejection? Re-read the quote silly.

Why would Apple encourage them by citing an instance (the allowing of explicit content on iTunes) that was eventually resolved? Duh. Because, then, like now, they did not have parental controls and/or had finished conducting surveys on whether or not to allow questionable content. Fortunately, that was eventually resolved and we can all now enjoy the vulgarity. :)
Click to expand...

Again, liable for what?

And FEPA is nonsense and did not happen. It is not a law and therefore has no relevance. It even said that similar bills that were passed on the State level were ruled unconstitutional. Did you even read the link you posted?

You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?
 
alchemistmuffin said:
Do you use parental control for iPhone when you let your kids use it?

Apparently, not many parents do not know that this feature exists.
Click to expand...

If I were to let a child use my iPhone unsupervised, I would use parental controls.

And it is the parents' fault if they don't know the feature exists, not Apple's.
 
slu said:
You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?
Click to expand...
How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.
 
iLunar said:
No, AT&T is protected by DCMA from 1996. AT&T is not hosting or distributing objectionable content, Apple would be in the App store.



If Comedy Central failed to put up appropriate warnings out lined by the FCC, then yes, they would be held liable. Remember Janet Jackson/Superbowl/Nipplegate fiasco? That case has yet to be settled.
Click to expand...

Please stop with the FCC stuff. Again, that was on broadcast TV over the public airwaves. It is not relevant to the App Store at all. And what are these "appropriate warnings" lined out by the FCC that Comedy Central has to follow?

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/complain.html

With the exception of rules that require cable systems to carry certain local broadcast stations, cable systems decide which programming services to carry.

Generally, the rules concerning the content of programming on cable channels are not as strict as the rules concerning programming content on non-cable channels. If you object to programming on a cable system, you may contact the FCC to determine what rules may be applicable and what action may be appropriate.
Click to expand...

And again, liable for what?
 
zombitronic said:
I think the rejection may have more to do with the fact that the app would stream content that you'd otherwise have to pay for (via the iTunes store).
Click to expand...
Exactly, this against the App Store TOS.... essentially you can't provide an alternative distribution method for something that's already on the iTunes store. Apple doesn't like to come out and say this stuff but I would bet that's the real reason.

Why does this need to be a native app in the first place? I can only assume they 1) want to put it in front of every iPhone user possible and (2) charge a fee (or not). This is a perfect opportunity for an iPhone formatted web app. You don't need to write native Objective-C code to get movies to stream on the iPhone. The article here mentioned everything but the episode streaming. Make a relatively clean app, charge for it if you want, then provide a simple link that dumps you into Safari to the "mobile" version of their site with the content. Problems 1 and 2 solved. Once you hit the browser, the content there is irrelevant. More of a hassle? Maybe but if you want to be on the store, you play by Apple's rules.
 
dejo said:
How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.
Click to expand...
Actually, I would say it comes from past experience: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10127333-37.html
NDA or not, everyone knows that the David Carnoy's book, "Knife Music" was banned for explicit content. And there have been a few other instances, iFart for example that were only allowed after Apple added a new catagory.

Honestly, this draconian censorship from Apple is complete BS, but it's just my opinion.
 
Wow some people here are so stupid. Apple fan boys until they die.

I own Apples, worked for Apple for 3+ years, and still love Apple. HOWEVER!

This is just typical Apple. Apple is a culture and they are trying to press there culture onto the people who buy there computers. Now that Apple has gone mainstream however there grip on there culture has changed. Apple is now this huge company that doesn't care about there Core Members (FANBOYS THAT MEANS YOU!) they want the new breed of people (IPHONE PEOPLE HI!). Well, what Apple needs to learn is that with this new breed of people comes people who don't care about Apple's culture. They just love there products and want more of them. Fanboys crack me up because go into an Apple store to talk Mac with a "Genius" or bring your computer in for help... guarantee you, the iPhone customer is more important to Apple than you.

So with the rant Fanboys get over yourself. This censorship is stupid. The whole idea is that Apple allows Adult Video Apps and FART Apps but not a South Park app. Pot I don't believe you have met the Kettle yet.
 
stanton said:
Actually, I would say it comes from past experience: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10127333-37.html
NDA or not, everyone knows that the David Carnoy's book, "Knife Music" was banned for explicit content. And there have been a few other instances, iFart for example that were only allowed after Apple added a new catagory.
Click to expand...
Well, explicit / objectionable content is specifically prohibited in the iPhone Developer Agreement so there's no secret there. My point was that we shouldn't expect Apple to comment on the reasons for rejection because that is covered under the NDA. And therefore it doesn't behoove us to try to draw conclusions when only hearing one side of the story, and perhaps not even the entire side of that one perspective.

P.S. No new category was added by Apple for iFart. It sits in the Entertainment category. Apple just chose to loosen their restrictions on what they consider objectionable.

stanton said:
Honestly, this draconian censorship from Apple is complete BS, but it's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you there, though! My company currently has an app that's been under review for over 2 months now. But I can't discuss it publicly because of that NDA. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers as to why that might be the case. ;)
 
dejo said:
P.S. No new category was added by Apple for iFart. It sits in the Entertainment category. Apple just chose to loosen their restrictions on what they consider objectionable.
Click to expand...
It was a little more than that, they actually came up with a Age rating system:
Link
Why they didn't just use the rating systems already in place is beyond me, and I think actually causes more confusion than good.:confused: Overall though, I think we're on the same page.
 
slu said:
Again, liable for what?

And FEPA is nonsense and did not happen. It is not a law and therefore has no relevance. It even said that similar bills that were passed on the State level were ruled unconstitutional. Did you even read the link you posted?

You may be right that Apple is just temporarily rejecting this app until they get parental controls or ratings or something else, but if that is the case, why not say so?
Click to expand...

I posted the reference to FEPA to highlight how close we've come to controlling the distribution of questionable content. And although moves by state and local governments to do so have been declared unconstitutional, it's still extremely expensive for corporations to have to spend on legal fees and arbitration just to disprove the plaintiffs.

It seems more likely that Apple denied the app because it was not a game. Although, again judging from their reply, it seems that are working on extending the parental controls to all apps -- regardless of genre.
 
Wow, it was submitted in October and this is news now? Talk about getting jerked around. Hopefully this is what happens to Slingplayer. Then people will care.
 
diamond.g said:
It is a standard but not the same as the one the rest of the gaming industry uses (ESRB). It was done this way because ESRB charges (a lot) to rate a game, and Apple (somehow) didn't want to pass that on the their developers.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that shoots down the theory that Apple was waiting to institute a rating system.
 
dejo said:
How do we know they didn't? A problem with this whole situation is that there tends to be so much speculation because we only hear one side of the story, and probably not their whole side, when in fact discussing the reasons for rejection in public is actually covered by an NDA. Therefore, details can be sparse which leads to widespread conjecture.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with ALL of apple.. if they just weren't so secretive then we would, uh, wait, then I guess we wouldn't be here since there would probably be no Macrumors :p:p
 
zombitronic said:
Yes, they are the sole outlet and approval channel for their hardware's software. But what market are they monopolizing? The Apple-hosted iPhone App Store market?
Click to expand...

I believe the market would be called the iPhone and iPod Touch computer platforms. If you don't think those are computers then you are the one that is completely naive.

Is Nintendo monopolizing the official Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii game market? Sure, Third parties make a lot of games, but have you ranted
Click to expand...

If you want my opinion, no I don't think Nintendo SHOULD get ANY say what kind of software is allowed to be sold for their gaming platform. That should be solely up to the consumer to decide. Why should corporations be allowed to play the part of the fascist parent? If you create a computing platform in ANY form and sell it to the public, that should be the sole end of your control over that platform...the HARDWARE and its OS. Software should be a freedom/right in this country. If companies don't like it, they can move to Communist China whom will be MORE than happy to censor the software market for them. And no I don't think Nintendo should be able to charge licensing fees either and nor should Apple be able to force that 30% protection money THEFT from programmers either. If they can't monopolize the software market for their platform, they cannot STEAL money from the software developers for that market. If those programmers WANT to use that store and pay 1/3 of their sales out to Apple just to host their program, that should be their CHOICE, but they should ALWAYS have an alternative way to distribute the software for a platform. If Apple tried to pull that crap with the regular Mac market, they'd end up in court. And no I would NOT put it past those greedmongers.


I don't agree with this South Park rejection, but you think that evil Apple is alone in this practice and that anyone who doesn't hate Apple for this is a "fanboy," you're naive.
Click to expand...

Defending greed without purpose either makes one a fanboy or one of the greedmongers. You either want to rake that kind of theft in yourself or you wish Apple well doing it because you worship them. Take your pick. Any consumer that wants free choice and lots of selection would never support a company's decisions based flatly on what benefits them. Look at the Republicans considering to refuse stimulus money right now purely because they're considering running for President in 2012 and they're putting their party principles above their constituents needs. It's petty greed mongering and I want no part of it. Viva La Consumer!

Next I'll hear about how if I don't like Apple, I can go buy a Windows machine. Like I prefer Microsoft GREED to Apple GREED.... I buy by product, not the greedy company producing the product. I don't like Apple OR Microsoft. I like the principles of Linux, but not the product (lack of standardization, direction and commercial software due to a total LACK of leadership by Linus Torvalds). But I could put up with the limitations if the software was there, but it is not. Apple has the best OS with few issues concerning spyware and viruses so it's my primary OS now. I keep XP around for gaming and the applications that are not available for OS X. But that does not mean I "like" Apple itself.
 
slu said:
I agree, but you cannot then say it is illegal to jailbreak the device to put whatever you want on it. You don't have to sell the app, but you have no right to limit what I do on a device that I bought. What if Apple said you could only put music you bought on iTunes on your phone?
Click to expand...

No problem, I would simply not buy that phone. They have a right to control their intellectual property.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
If you want my opinion, no I don't think Nintendo SHOULD get ANY say what kind of software is allowed to be sold for their gaming platform. That should be solely up to the consumer to decide. Why should corporations be allowed to play the part of the fascist parent? If you create a computing platform in ANY form and sell it to the public, that should be the sole end of your control over that platform...the HARDWARE and its OS. Software should be a freedom/right in this country. If companies don't like it, they can move to Communist China whom will be MORE than happy to censor the software market for them. And no I don't think Nintendo should be able to charge licensing fees either and nor should Apple be able to force that 30% protection money THEFT from programmers either. If they can't monopolize the software market for their platform, they cannot STEAL money from the software developers for that market. If those programmers WANT to use that store and pay 1/3 of their sales out to Apple just to host their program, that should be their CHOICE, but they should ALWAYS have an alternative way to distribute the software for a platform. If Apple tried to pull that crap with the regular Mac market, they'd end up in court. And no I would NOT put it past those greedmongers.
Click to expand...

In Nintendo's case they couldn't sell their gaming systems for so cheap if they didn't have licensing fees. In Apples case it was more about easy of use. The App Store wouldn't be as nice if Apple didn't get their cut (notice how no one complains about the cut Apple gets from the music side, but all of a sudden the App side is sooo special...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back