My little rant on App rejection due to offensive content and free speech arguments

[iansilv]

I don't get the free speech restriction arguments every time some controversial app is rejected by apple- if Apple rejects it, and you are so sure that your app is needed / wanted by everyone, release it as a jail-broken app and let it be downloaded there, or release it as standard mac shareware and sell it that way.

The latest one I see is this holy picture app where you can put your face in a religious figure's face. It was rejected, and now the bitching is starting up.

Apple is not limiting free speech- they are controlling quality.

For anyone confused, free speech being limited occurs when a reporter is writing an editorial or a newspaper critical of Russia's government and in the process has an accident where a bullet enters his skull- Not when Apple decides some dumbass app is not up to par for mass market consumption.

 

[srl7741]

Soooo..... What are you trying to say? Tell us how you really feel.

 

[RedGreen]

...snip...

Apple is not limiting free speech- they are controlling quality.

...snip...

Because when Apple approves an app that's been rejected previously, after the developer has done nothing more than change the name, that previous rejection must have been for quality control right?

It's not about quality control, it's about PR, apple rejected Baby Shaker to avoid bad PR. Apple has proven that their app approval system is inconsistent at best.

Apple is limiting free speech within the app store, but we have no inherent right to freedom of speech within Apple's playground.

 

[jman800]

Get over it.

I agree. Your making a App for THEIR company. Not yours. If they deny it, well then GET OVER IT. Ranting over it on Ol' Mac Forums IS NOT going to help you get accepted. Were not going to sign our name and send it to Apple so your App will be accepted. We. Don't. Care.

Point=If your App is rejected by "The Man" try again.

 

[RedGreen]

I agree. Your making a App for THEIR company. Not yours. If they deny it, well then GET OVER IT. Ranting over it on Ol' Mac Forums IS NOT going to help you get accepted. Were not going to sign our name and send it to Apple so your App will be accepted. We. Don't. Care.

Point=If your App is rejected by "The Man" try again.

Did you even read the OP's comments?

You and the OP seem to be on the same page.

 

[iansilv]

I agree. Your making a App for THEIR company. Not yours. If they deny it, well then GET OVER IT. Ranting over it on Ol' Mac Forums IS NOT going to help you get accepted. Were not going to sign our name and send it to Apple so your App will be accepted. We. Don't. Care.

Point=If your App is rejected by "The Man" try again.

Yeah- you understand I agree with you right?

 

[jman800]

Yeah- you understand I agree with you right?

Yeah that wasn't directed towards you.

I guess I made that confusing on who I was referring to. haha, sorry.

 

[iansilv]

Yeah that wasn't directed towards you.

I guess I made that confusing on who I was referring to. haha, sorry.

No prob. It just amazed me that these idiots with the baby saker app, or the religious face app have some sense of entitlement or something. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[bruinsrme]

If I owned a company and was selling a product I would only want merchandise that fits my values.

It looks like apple does too.

So to those that don't like apples rules open your own store to sell your app.
And believeme I am furtherst from being an apple fanboy.

 

[Michael CM1]

Some people have to be reminded so darn often (Miss California, ahem) about this.

Constitutional "free speech" means Congress shall make no law yada yada yada. Apple is not Congress, therefore Apple is free to do a whole lotta things. People are free to speak their apps on another platform.

 

[Kahnyl]

I think a lot of developer whining comes from inexperience. Some of them only know code. They may never have dealt with commerce or been self-employed before now.

 

[Michael CM1]

I think a lot of developer whining comes from inexperience. Some of them only know code. They may never have dealt with commerce or been self-employed before now.

You're probably on to something. I'm betting a lot of developers are college programmers who lack the skills you just mentioned. Then you have people of all ages who can't think outside their little box. In a nutshell, its' the "Any sort of cheaper, lesser iPhone wouldn't sell because I want more features on my phone" crowd who doesn't know a thing about market trends and, sometimes, just common sense. I had an ex-friend who didn't get that I didn't like my place to smell like dog pee and cigarettes and for him to do nothing but play World of Warcraft when I was at work and he wasn't paying rent. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Because when Apple approves an app that's been rejected previously, after the developer has done nothing more than change the name, that previous rejection must have been for quality control right?

It's not about quality control, it's about PR, apple rejected Baby Shaker to avoid bad PR. Apple has proven that their app approval system is inconsistent at best.

Apple is limiting free speech within the app store, but we have no inherent right to freedom of speech within Apple's playground.

Yeah.. and it's the lack of quality of the app that makes controversial apps get rejected. It takes a quality, useful app like.. farting to get passed through.

 

[JCastro]

I don't get the free speech restriction arguments every time some controversial app is rejected by apple- if Apple rejects it, and you are so sure that your app is needed / wanted by everyone, release it as a jail-broken app and let it be downloaded there, or release it as standard mac shareware and sell it that way.

The latest one I see is this holy picture app where you can put your face in a religious figure's face. It was rejected, and now the bitching is starting up.

Apple is not limiting free speech- they are controlling quality.

For anyone confused, free speech being limited occurs when a reporter is writing an editorial or a newspaper critical of Russia's government and in the process has an accident where a bullet enters his skull- Not when Apple decides some dumbass app is not up to par for mass market consumption.

I agree 100%. If I were running the store, I would want to control the types of apps that I would see or not sell. I can't blame them. I am sure Apple could do a better job giving guidelines as to what is appropriate and what isn't. I can understand the frustration Devs must feel when they work hard on something only to have it rejected.

It takes a quality, useful app like.. farting to get passed through.

Now that is funny as crap!

 

[The Phazer]

I don't get the free speech restriction arguments every time some controversial app is rejected by apple- if Apple rejects it, and you are so sure that your app is needed / wanted by everyone, release it as a jail-broken app and let it be downloaded there, or release it as standard mac shareware and sell it that way.

The latest one I see is this holy picture app where you can put your face in a religious figure's face. It was rejected, and now the bitching is starting up.

Apple is not limiting free speech- they are controlling quality.

For anyone confused, free speech being limited occurs when a reporter is writing an editorial or a newspaper critical of Russia's government and in the process has an accident where a bullet enters his skull- Not when Apple decides some dumbass app is not up to par for mass market consumption.

You might have a point if jail-breaking was fully lawful in all countries.

It isn't.

Phazer

 

[iansilv]

I have a point iirregardless of your quasi intellectual jailbreaking argument. Don't like it? Buy a different phone. People botching about jailbreaking are not having their free speech obstructed.