“Tuesday’s piece on Ninjawords was really about two stories. The small story is that of a clever $2 iPhone dictionary app, the developers of which removed ‘objectionable’ words from its dictionary so as to get it published in the App Store. The big story is about the App Store itself, and whether Apple’s management is attempting to correct its course. Yesterday afternoon I received a thoughtful email from Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller regarding Ninjawords and the App Store, and I think it bodes well for both stories.”
I’m glad to see Apple at least giving some information about this situation. Hopefully we’ll see a change in Apple’s behavior, though it’ll probably happen very slowly. I really do like most Apple products, it’s just the company’s attitude that bothers me and I’m glad to see at least this much of a sign of openness however small it is.
Hmm, funny I don’t see any comments attached to this story… everybody so eager to flame Apple for not explaining themselves and yet when they finally begin to do so… nothing?
it was not better than expected from an apple representative.
nevertheless the review process is still very opaque,
and as the article point out, the ninjawords case still point out
a lot of discrepancies in the app review process ( focusing on dictionaries ).
No clarification was really given from apple (on the ), only some different
explanation.
Of course Apple is not censoring the application, it only reject it
until you make the “proper modification” (ie: removing offensive content ),
plus according to some news the rejection process seems arbitrary
(like depending on reviewer mood).
And people would blindly follow these principles, because well,
it was like that with apple from the beginning of the Iphone, so no surprise.
Let’s see how this kind of review bode with microsoft or even palm (especially
for microsoft which enjoy an inverted distorsion field).
You mean there was a negative article posted about Apple that was built on half-truths!?
Scurrilous! SCURRILOUS!!! Never thought I’d see the day…
Only for the last month or so !-)
But, it doesn’t seem to be a “half-truth”; Schiller says they didn’t censor it, but then he says they rejected it because it included uncommon-but-possibly-offensive words.
So, which way is it, Apple? Rejecting because of content, and then accepting it after the content is removed (and requiring a 17+ rating, wtf) sounds like censorship to me.
Still not willing to spend any time doing iPhone development, the review process is capricious and seems to take a completely random amount of time. Developers need to be able to make updates available quicker and easier.
– chrish
This is an incredibly poor argument.
Is Apple keen on censoring all of the user generated content out there?
apple didn’t censor this thing, they simply gave the option to the dev on what to do…
if you read the full thing and understand how the app store works, apple previously didn’t allow certain ‘mature’ content before iPhone OS 3.0.
iPhone OS 3.0 allows mature content and get flagged, but the dev didn’t want to wait an extra week for iPhone OS 3.0 to ship, so he decided to sensor it to get it in the store _sooner_.
iPhone OS has been out for a while and he hasn’t released a ‘mature’ rated version of it yet.