
App Store Bans Pulitzer-Winning Satirist. For Satire - pinstriped_dude
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/
======
spamizbad
Eagerly anticipating a post from John Gruber explaining how satire is an
inferior form of humor that drags a platform's comedic potential down.

~~~
tjogin
Wouldn't that be completely out of character for him, since he's usually
pretty hard on Apple for their mismanaged AppStore — _especially_ when it
comes to arbitrary refusals?

~~~
tjogin
Like I said (he calls it "preposterous"):
[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-
reject...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-rejection-
fiore)

Gruber is not an Apple apologist, he's just too _informed_ to knee-jerkingly
bash Apple, unlike most other people with an opinion on Apple.

------
michael_dorfman
I think this paragraph really hits the nail on the head:

 _Apple has built a little slab of Disneyland with its iPad, which is meant to
be an experience unsullied by provocative or crude material. It’s beautiful
and enticing-- the company has already sold more than a half million of them
in the first two weeks it’s been available-- but it’s not the real world._

Disneyland is the perfect metaphor for the iPhone/iPad experience. It's a
closed theme-park, which exercises tight control over what products and
services it offers its patrons. It's not an open market, and is not intended
to be.

I'm hoping that once people get this, the moral outrage (and all of the
articles about the moral outrage) will die down.

Applications that are in violation of the TOS are going to be rejected by the
App Store. That means they have to be written in the language that Apple
specifies, and meeting the content standards that Apple specifies. If there's
content that in "Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable",
you're out of luck.

And, of course, it's well within Apple's rights to keep the leash so tight,
just as Disney can tightly control which goods and services are offered within
the confines of their theme parks. It's not anywhere near a monopoly
situation, and there are plenty of opportunities outside the park walls for
developers to make and sell whatever they like.

~~~
chadgeidel
And yet, people love Disneyland. I'm not trying to defend Apple here, but the
majority of the public just doesn't care about "freedom" (in terms of things
you can do with the device) if you give them a good experience.

~~~
youngian
But no one wants to _live_ in Disneyland. A manufactured experience can be
nice for a while - it certainly achieves a level of perfection that other
experiences cannot. But in the end, a walled garden only extends as far as the
walls. And there's a whole world out there that's messy and dangerous and not
as polished, but also more exciting, more fulfilling, more _real_.

------
binarray2000
_Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information
Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a
garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of
contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more
powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one
will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and
we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)>

~~~
cabalamat
_No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures
outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man
again; but already it was impossible to say which was which._

------
greenlblue
This new direction apple is taking seems completely wrong on a visceral level.

~~~
vishaldpatel
Not a new direction. Our apps (two of them) were banned for the same reasons a
year ago.

~~~
stanleydrew
Perhaps he meant new as in the past three years?

------
catch23
Imagine a country run by Steve Jobs -- it would be China.

~~~
Locke1689
Yes, because running a company that markets an application store for
smartphones is exactly like running a country -- WTF??

~~~
iamdave
I think you're trying to apply the metaphor too literally, as well.

~~~
Locke1689
No, I think it was a worthlessly inflammatory comment. Private corporations
have no responsibility to be run as governments and, indeed, are not.

~~~
pyre
...and tech issues are not cars, but we use car analogies anyway. Just because
you can't take an metaphor and make it line up 100% does not make the metaphor
worthless.

~~~
jrockway
Don't you get it? YOU SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT APPLE. APPLE!!!

~~~
Locke1689
Don't be an asshole.

~~~
jrockway
Too late.

------
asimjalis
Apple is quickly turning into a parody of itself.

~~~
snippyhollow
s/parody/satire

~~~
elblanco
No not yet, it hasn't slipped into the App store yet.

------
Naga
I'm actually not convinced that this is a wrong direction for the App Store.
I'm not an Apple apologist or fanboy by any means. What Apple has created with
the iPhone and iPad is actually perfect for "regular users". For my mom, for
my grandmother. Even for my dad, who is just too busy these days to configure
computers and phones, who easily has the knowledge and skill to do so. The
ability of these people to do powerful things without having to spend time
working on it is actually quite interesting.

I am completely turned off by the direction computing is taking, but people
who think this is just a fad are wrong, and aren't looking at the big picture.
People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want. Yes, Linux is
much superior to OS X and Windows, but the majority of users don't not use it
because of some FUD, its because they don't have the time or skill to work
with it. Apple is taking that concept to the next level, where _anyone_ can
accomplish things in a much easier way.

This won't go away. Apple is being extremely successful, and I see many other
companies who are going to jump on the bandwagon. But for us power users,
there will always be the hardware that we are used to buying available. Linux
is not going to go away. There is just going to be a bigger divide between
what your nontechy family and friends use, and what you use. I don't know
whether or not this will destroy the next generation of programmers, who won't
have had the ability to tinker. I can see that happening. But really, this is
not going to be a negotiable thing. This isn't something you can fight
against. This is the way technology is moving. We have to adapt to it, not the
other way around.

~~~
lena
_People buy Apple products because it gives them what they want_ So are you
saying that people don't want to see content from Pulitzer Prize winners?

~~~
nfnaaron
I think most people won't care. They want the shiny. If political satire is
missing, most people won't miss it or even notice, they'll be too busy
laughing at their cat batting games on their iPad. The same for other
political commentary, or news that puts some politician or institution in a
bad light.

The iPad may help news corporations survive, but it is certainly no saviour to
journalism. In an age where editors would fight government censorship to the
point of jail and beyond, they'll STFU and follow Apple's rules to stay in
business.

~~~
GHFigs
So what's this world wide web thing I keep hearing about?

~~~
nfnaaron
That's a good point, in the spirit of "routing around censorship."

But if people really do pay for information apps, information corporations are
going to notice that. Editorial control will be increasingly given over to
Apple (or whoever). Less to little to no effort will be made on the sites of
at least those corporations.

Of course it only works if consumers go that way. We'll hang ourselves, and
buy the rope from information corporations and the scaffold from Apple.

------
timcederman
Not for satire. For breaking the terms of the app store and including
representations of public figures (without consent?) in the app.

This is old news. [http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-
figu...](http://appreview.tumblr.com/post/150220593/avoid-public-figures-
celebrities-and-apple)

 _8\. Public Figures — Brian’s original article included “political
lampooning.” I’ll extend that to include association or portrayal of public
figures. Two examples: around Obama’s inauguration, CodeMorphic created an app
called Obamify that manipulated photos to appear like those iconic posters
from the campaign; the app went into infinite review. Yak Apps had to remove
imagery containing Mr. and Mrs. Obama before their “First Dog” app was
approved._

~~~
sid0
> For breaking the terms of the app store and including representations of
> public figures (without consent?) in the app.

So for satire?

~~~
timcederman
No. It could've included a photo of any public figure without satire, and it
would've been rejected. Therefore the title of the article is misleading. It
wasn't rejected because of satire, it was rejected because it represented a
public figure in any capacity.

You'll notice an app got banned for just including images of the Obamas.

I'm surprised at the upvotes of people dissenting with me, and my associated
downvotes. Voting doesn't change facts. Apple had an existing policy in place
which had nothing to do with satire, which is why this app was removed. If he
was satirizing himself somehow, it would have been approved. Back to my
original statement - Apple is not banning satire, and this is not new news.

~~~
stanleydrew
You mean like all of these:
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_i...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/182316/the_2_britney_spears_iphone_app_and_5_other_ways_to_waste_money.html)

Oh wait...

~~~
timcederman
Oh wait...that's an example of official apps. Hence the problem of it being
"without consent".

~~~
stanleydrew
OK how about this one: <http://www.apptism.com/apps/kim-kardashian-hot-
celebrity>

Her "official" app is here: [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-official-kim-
kardashian/i...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-official-kim-
kardashian/id357409415?mt=8)

Shall I find some more?

~~~
timcederman
We all know that app store rules have been applied inconsistently, don't
change the argument.

Was the app banned for satire or the use of public figures?

------
Terretta
The bobblehead congress app was rejected for ridicule of public figures as
well (<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5203>) getting "Tom Richmond, of Mad
Magazine fame" a lot of press.

Deliberate or not, this is a good PR stunt for the cartoonists to get
coverage. The fart apps guys did this too.

The process (submit app in violation of guidelines, tip off press, enjoy web-
wide mentions and increased linkage) is replicable.

------
patrickk
Apple refusing to allow any content that satires public figures or draws
controversy in some way is akin to a religious person being afraid to read a
Richard Dawkins book or listen to him speak for fear of being tainted, or
hearing something that contradicts their own world view.

Both to me would seem to indicate that a person or organisation has a deep-
seated lack of conviction in their own position, whatever that position may
be.

~~~
GHFigs
That's a poor analogy. Apple is not acting in the role of the "reader" here.
They're the _store_. They are choosing what they want to _sell_. It makes no
sense to attribute something as simple as not wanting to be in the soapbox
business to fear and lack of conviction. It projects emotion onto something
that can be much more accurately attributed to the entirely reasonable and
rational desire to run a store that makes a lot of money without a lot of
complaints. If you really believe that retailers should be required to stock
everything that anybody wants to sell, regardless of whether they want to be
in the business of selling that product, I'd ask why.

------
cageface
I find this far more troubling than their recent TOS changes. It's one thing
to make arbitrary and capricious changes to the technical terms of their
developer agreements. It's quite another to arbitrarily censor content. If
Apple really aims to be the savior of print journalism they have a moral
responsibility to take their role more seriously and more sensibly. I think
it's pretty clear at this point that Apple is the wrong steward for the next
generation of online communications technology.

~~~
elblanco
Apple has always censored content. Remember all the dictionary apps that were
rejected because people could look up bad words?

------
tvon
Apparently Apple has asked him to re-submit the app:

    
    
        The cartoonist who won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning 
        this week says Apple has asked him to resubmit an iPhone app that 
        it earlier rejected because it “ridicules public figures.”
    

[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-
back...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/16/cartoonist-apple-backs-down-
after-denying-iphone-app/)

------
Mc_Big_G
When will the app store ban stories not be news anymore? I see multiple
variations of it every day. One part of me wonders why everyone can't just get
over it and face the fact that Apple is going to do what they want and the
other part of me sees the value in complaining.

If you really want to complain, don't buy their products and don't develop on
their platform.

The whole hammer throwing thing from the 80s just seems so ironic now.

~~~
vetinari
I have one more step:

1) Do not buy their products,

2) Do not develop on their platform,

3) Voice your opinion about products/platforms loudly (Apple should be
actually happy about this, it allows them to know where they can improve).

------
clammer
Creating an iPhone version of my app just got even lower on my todo list.

~~~
stanleydrew
I think the ranks of those who feel as you do are growing. Let's hope more
people develop for Android and the web now.

~~~
chc
Unfortunately, I don't think so, at least not for serious commercial
development. Android and the Web both have big drawbacks for producing
profitable apps.

Apple has a huge line of people with their credit cards out on the App Store
and everyone knows it. Android has relatively few users and they are not known
to be big spenders in general. The Web has lots of users but very few are
likely to ever find your product and unless it fits in a few well-defined
categories it's tremendously unlikely they'll be willing to pay for it (and
ad-supported is not a reliable business model).

~~~
warfangle
True, apple has about 25% of the market. But it slipped a little between
November and February, while the Android market share more than doubled.

It's been a slow starter (it didn't explode out the gate like Apple did), but
it's gaining. Much like Chrome.

In other news, Blackberry is still the market leader.

[http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/4/c...](http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/4/comScore_Reports_February_2010_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share)

~~~
chc
That's subscribers. I was talking about app sales. The two aren't necessarily
corelated all that strongly - which is kind of my point. I remember one study
recently that estimated Apple was responsible for more than 99% of all mobile
app sales: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-
responsible-...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-
for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars)

