or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's Schiller personally responds to App Store criticism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Schiller personally responds to App Store criticism - Page 2

post #41 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual View Post

The Google Voice rejection is most very likely an AT&T root cause. AT&T is still living and operating in the last century and has too much revenue and profit at stake to allow Google Voice over their network. This is precisely why Apple must offer a second or third carrier choice.

However, Google Voice should be allowed to operate over the WIFI connection without limitation at the very least.

Do you have any idea how Google Voice work?!

GV only use data to communicate with Google server. Google Voice calls are placed using your AT&T voice plan (using your AT&T minutes). GV is not using 3G, Edge, nor WiFi to make calls. GV uses your data plan or Wifi to send SMS just like IM apps.
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

In that book they remove words from the language to stop people having subversive thoughts.

Who was the "they" in this statement?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #43 of 132
I'd take a Porn App over a Fart App any day. Ooops - did I offend anyone?
post #44 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

That's a business decision - they don't want to piss off a large group of vocal, connected people to make a few $ off of pron. You saw the huge public freak out when there were topless women - it was all over the front page of CNN. Compare that to this (and even Google voice) and the only people talking about it are the tech community - Apple knows what they are doing and it's best to just not get involved in the "is pron ok" argument. Just avoid it all together, it's a smart business move.

I second that.
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).

Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.

Well that's the noun (your reference) but the transitive verb is what I quoted which I think does apply in this case. I will agree that the noun is referencing an official and doesn't apply in this regard.
post #46 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why did Apple hire the bejesus police in the first place? Just put in place a check off that you're over 18 and be done with it. Who cares? There will always be something to offend someone these days regardless.

Some parents want there to be more than a checkbox to keep their kids from downloading offensive material. To a teen a checkbox is more like a "CLICK HERE NOW!"
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their computers/browsers not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.

Am I missing something here?

And we all know that those nasty little viruses on Windows come from those porn sites
post #48 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Honestly, does anyone really give a s**t about this dictionary program? I mean come on.

What I really wanted to hear him respond to was the Google Voice rejection. That is what EVERYONE is upset about, yet Apple finally responds when it relates to some POS dictionary.

Now the FCC is investigating, you probably won't hear a peep from either side on that issue, nor should you expect to.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #49 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

Some parents want there to be more than a checkbox to keep their kids from downloading offensive material. To a teen a checkbox is more like a "CLICK HERE NOW!"

Some parents need to teach their kids the meaning of "NO".
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Who was the "they" in this statement?

The government of Oceania.
post #51 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Well, what would you prefer them to do? Reject porn apps outright (which they do now because those clearly do violate Apple's App Store guidelines) OR approve them and then put black bars on all the naughty parts after the fact? ...

Not that I like defending teckstud, but he has a point in that it makes no sense to censor as well as put the rating on it.

In fact, as Schiller says this is not what they are doing in this case, but in the case of other apps they do seem to be doing this. Some are censored, some are rated, and some are banned outright (at least that's how it seems on the face of it).

This makes no sense. Either you:

1) censor everything, or
2) allow people to read and see everything, or
3) allow everything but under a system of rating controls.

Mixing all three up makes no sense at all. Especially doing 1 or 2 while also doing 3, which appears to be what Apple is doing right now.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassMacMini View Post

And we all know that those nasty little viruses on Windows come from those porn sites

An eSTD?
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

You do realize that that is exactly what Apple did do. If you read Gruber's account and then Shiller's response there is NO conflict between the two accounts. The published letter of rejection from apples states exactly what Shiller stated and there is nothing in Gruber's article to indicate that Apple told them to censor the dictionary, just to wait until 3.0 to allow the 17+ check box.

I think there is.

1. The specific words that the developer claims Apple's reviewer sent him included 'regular' slang, not just Phil's so-called urban slang. So Phil is at least shading the truth that Apple only rejected the app because of 'new' swear words. And what the hell is the difference between regular swear word and 'urban slang', from a moral perspective? It's somehow more offensive to a prude?

2. It is ridiculous for Apple to just tell ONE developer that he should wait an indefinite length of time before he can sell his app, while all his competitors are already present and selling on the app store. The reviewer gave the developer the choice, either don't sell your app for an indefinite period of time OR censor the swear words out of your app (and provided a partial list). Phil can say, well, we were going to release OS 3 only a couple of weeks later, so he should have waited, except Apple wouldn't tell him that, when the app was rejected.
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.

So only Christians are interested in protecting the innocence of children and maintaining any level of societal decency?

Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not too numb to realize what's wrong with "Jesus police".
Love The MAC, Hate On The FanBoy
Reply
Love The MAC, Hate On The FanBoy
Reply
post #55 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Wow, bad move.

"it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable,"

Bad word choice. Once you say reasonable, you admit that you are making the call on what to approve and what not to based on your own definition of reasonable. ...]

True enough, but that doesn't mean the statement itself is not also true. There are legal definitions that hinge on basic "reasonableness" and they seem to work fine.

Personally, I am completely against censorship of any kind at all, and being an older person there isn't much I haven't seen or heard already in this world that could shock me, but ...

Some of the things that were referenced in the dictionary in question were (to my reasonable and very open minded brain), both shocking and upsetting. I still think that they should be allowed and don't personally believe even in rating systems, but yeah, they are still shocking and only a tiny minority of folks anywhere on the planet would not think so IMO.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #56 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Well that's the noun (your reference) but the transitive verb is what I quoted which I think does apply in this case. I will agree that the noun is referencing an official and doesn't apply in this regard.

A censor is one who censors. It's an official act done by an official person. Verb or noun, same concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The government of Oceania.

Exactly. Last I checked, Apple was not the government. I think it's odd to confuse the two. One has the power to censor, the other does not.

Apple can choose not to carry or transmit or endorse certain ideas, but that does not make them censors. You can choose to do the same thing as an individual, but that does not make you a censor either. They are two very different concepts being slopped together into one for dramatic affect.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #57 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

You're not thinking outside the box. You should prefer to have an app that streams porn from all your favorite free porn sites for free.

It's always pretty funny when me and my friends are going on a long drive, and out of nowhere you just hear some really hardcore porn coming from my phone.

Seriously though, wouldn't you like to at least have the choice to do such a thing? Why should anyone have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with something you paid for (as long as it's not illegal)?

I know a lot of people think porn isn't that big of a deal, and not something iphone owners care about, nor would influence business in any way, but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?

You're not being realistic. iTunes has unrated movies, but they never have and likely never will carry adult entertainment. If you don't like that, don't use iTunes and/or don't buy an iPhone. No one's forcing you to, but that goes without saying.

Secondly, Apple hasn't gone after individuals who jailbreak their phones, so there's that if you need a dedicated porn app.

Third, to my knowledge, ALL apps rejected for 'objectionable content' thus far (which included Ninjawords) were rejected before iPhone OS 3.0 ushered in a ratings system, which protects Apple and developers from the FCC or frivolous lawsuits. That's a more significant detail than most are giving it credit for.

All that being said, in situations where apps simply embed a web browser or access web content (as in the case of Ninjawords), Apple should seriously consider taking a page from the ESRB's handbook with a Online Interactions Not Rated by the App Store disclaimer.

That would be easier for app reviewers, easier for developers, and easier for fearful parents who could disable those built-in browsers along with Safari, simultaneously, all without attributing the often negative connotations associated with a 17+ rating to otherwise non-objectionable apps.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #58 of 132
Hey, using Safari, which comes standard on the touch, I read the links in this article, which contain the "bad" words.
Why doesn't Apple sell the iPod touch/iPhone with a parental rating of +17 years?
post #59 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Apple said months back that 95% of submitted apps get approved within 1 week. Right now their developers website says 98% of the apps get approved in 14 days. They need to to seriously fix that otherwise by next year it will take month!!

So it takes a week for 95% and another week for an additional 3%.
post #60 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Hey, using Safari, which comes standard on the touch, I read the links in this article, which contain the "bad" words.
Why doesn't Apple sell the iPod touch/iPhone with a parental rating of +17 years?

You are obviously trying to be clever but failing miserably. The iPhone and iPod touch have built in parental controls which can be used to block access to safari etc.
post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.

Am I missing something here?

Well I liked my post so much and because I agree with most of what I said, I have to reply to it....

We have become such a polarized society (USA) that their is no room for logical answers to the problems that confront us. It really is "this all or nothing" and "winner take all" attitude that so consumes normal discourse and we end up with Rush on one side of an issue and Keith Oberman on the other side and both come across as discordant oafs.

In this issue I think the Dictionary people are wrong and should have followed Apple's original direction and avoided the brouhaha altogether and we could have been discussing real important issues like whether or not the new Tablet will have a glossy screen!
post #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogorant View Post

So only Christians are interested in protecting the innocence of children and maintaining any level of societal decency?

Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not too numb to realize what's wrong with "Jesus police".

Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not so naive as to believe censoring words in a dictionary will protect the innocence of children.

Unless you completely isolate kids (live in a rural town, home school, keep them away from other kids), they're going to be exposed to cursing, porn, and even *gasp* drugs. And yet they'll somehow turn out fine. There's nothing wrong with "Jesus police". Here in the US, there are many people including those in power (think the Bush administration) who want to remove the separation of church and state.
post #63 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

but let me ask you this: Had porn chosen HD DVD, would Bluray had done so well?

yes. BR has DRM and that's what the studios cared. of course its not much of a protection as it was cracked day one, yet good enough protection for the average users.

Sony did not even let porn on BR at the beginning. with online porn, it's proven that the age, when the porn industry decides over technology is gone, it's not vhs time again.
post #64 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

You are obviously trying to be clever but failing miserably. The iPhone and iPod touch have built in parental controls which can be used to block access to safari etc.

Yet, even with parental controls, this app STILL requires a +17 rating but Safari does not.
This app does not have those words in it. It requires internet access to get the words as does Safari.
post #65 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why did Apple hire the bejesus police in the first place? Just put in place a check off that you're over 18 and be done with it. Who cares? There will always be something to offend someone these days regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

this comment offends me in so many ways, you have no idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Go back and re-read then- I changed it to a PG13 Version so you wont be offended. Judas priest!

Swing and a miss. Chronster was making a joke.
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

That's totally unrelated...

Totally unrelated to what? My comment was responding to the last paragraph in the article.
post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why did Apple hire the bejesus police in the first place? Just put in place a check off that you're over 18 and be done with it. Who cares? There will always be something to offend someone these days regardless.

Given the fact that Apple runs a business, and that selling your application in THEIR store is much like selling your application at Wal-Mart, Apple retains the right to decide just what nasty filth they want left off their platform. And by the way, I applaud them in doing so. See, Apple is free to ascribe to higher standards than you might personally want to.
post #68 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Since when is censorship a good business decision? I guess WalMArt knows what there doing to by censoring lyrics too? We all know how fanstastic a company WalMart is. At lease let us put non- sactioned Apple apps on our phones if Apple doesn't want to sell them. Like widgets on our computers.

TS, save your 'moral' outrage over the indignity of not being allowed to sell pron apps in the App-store. If that is your desired use for your iPhone, there are PLENTY of web-sites out there for you to surf.
post #69 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

The problem isn't with the original poster's comments, but the fact that you're so easily offended. What's wrong with "Jesus police"? The censorship is clearly aimed at appeasing Christians, since no one else is offended by the so called "vulgar" words.

There are many MANY people who would rather such words not be flying around - like PARENTS, for example.

It always amazes me the base level of selfishness exhibited by certain people about 'their' rights. "You must not censor me! I must be able to say and do whatever I want whenever I want, because I am free! Free!' These arguments, in my experience, almost always stem from self-involved individuals who are not concerned about the effects they exert in the lives of others.

Freedom of speech is not without limits - you cannot stand in a theater and shout 'fire' nor stand in the midst of a mob of people and yell 'get them!' The concept of enforcing some sense of responsibility in speech is built in to the law. Regardless of that, however, there are always those who think that whatever they want to do should be the gold standard for what is considered proper. It is a terrifically selfish, juvenile kind of thinking.

If you had any sense about you at all you would realize that the flip side of freedom is responsibility. Absolute freedom untempered by responsibility is anarchy, and I suspect not even you would really want that. What you are really saying, here, is that you want things to be as you prefer. In other words, you are saying 'I am a selfish individual who is more concerned that my own personal behaviors not be limited than I am regarding the effects those behaviors have on others, or what others' desires might be'. Congratulations on your capacity to look beyond yourself.

Bottom line is this: many people have a legitimate expectation that you won't wander around next to their kids babbling about sex using every vulgar description you can think of, so why should your iPhone app have Carte Blanche? If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, you need help that I certainly cannot give you. Apple is aware of the fact that many MANY parents will not want that stuff flowing into their kids' cerebellum, so they have placed age ratings in their platform. They did not censor anyone; they required the use of those age ratings.

If that is too much for you to fathom, I suggest you wait a few years until you become a parent yourself.
post #70 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Maybe he could comment on the Google Voice debacle while he is at it. I would love to hear that explanation...

It depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? It's really their football and they can give it to whoever they want. They don't really "owe" anyone an explanation, technically. I'm sure developers would feel better if they knew the reasons why it was excluded, but as far as Google Voice goes, we already know. At&t doesn't like competition using their network.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #71 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

What, you can't get enough porn on it already!

I can! At least on my iPod, never mind an iPhone! Only trouble is the screen isn't big enough!

Ooops, did I offend someone?

Perhaps it's your mind, not the screen, that needs to be enlarged.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

You are _completely_ full of it. There are many MANY people who would rather such words not be flying around - like PARENTS, for example.

It always amazes me the base level of selfishness exhibited by people about 'their' rights. "You must not censor me! I must be able to say and do whatever I want whenever I want, because I am free! Free!'

Your freedom of speech is not without limits and if you had any sense about you at all you would realize that the flip side of freedom is responsibility. Absolute freedom untempered by responsibility is anarchy. People have a legitimate right to expect that you won't wander around next to their kids babbling about sex using every vulgar description you can think of, so why should your iPhone app have Carte Blanche? If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, you need help that I certainly cannot give you.

But let's just deal with facts: Apple is aware of the fact that many MANY parents will not want that stuff flowing into their kids' cerebellum, so they have placed age ratings in their platform. They did not censor anyone; they required the use of those age ratings.

If that is too much for you to fathom, I suggest you wait a few years until you become a parent yourself. If you are already there, I feel really bad for your children.

I was going to debate you, but then saw the "Orange County" moniker and decided against it.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

So it takes a week for 95% and another week for an additional 3%.

No, it means the approval process takes 14 days now instead of 7 days few month ago.

I have submitted one new app a month ago and still in review and have submitted an update to existing app 10 days ago and still in review. Few months ago (prior to 3.0 update) it always took 1 week.
post #74 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

I was going to debate you, but then saw the "Orange County" moniker and decided against it.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. My guess is that it involves some kind of overly-broad generality about residents in OC. And, since I did not specify which of the multiple 'orange' counties we have in the United States, I must conclude you feel your opinion extends to everyone in all of them.
post #75 of 132
Grubes sums up Schiller's mistaken impressions quite well:

Quote:
but the feedback Matchstick software received from the App Store reviewers was very specific. They were flagged for the words c~t, f~k, and s~t. Those three words are in other dictionaries, rated as low as 4+.

Seriously, this is one heck of a bungled case. I guess at least Ninjawords is getting lots of press out of it.
post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

this comment offends me in so many ways, you have no idea

Please don't steal from Larry David and Richard Lewis.
post #77 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

So I assume he's OK with Safari requiring parental controls? It can access all kinds of nasty stuff....

Heck, we should block phone calls and SMS, anyone can send profane txts, and what about the enw trend of kids sexting? and the phone, well a little antic-dote for you: at work, a guy was dialing into a conferance call in a meeting room conferance phone, he misdialed one number, the number he dialed was toll free, but one digit off, and it was a sex line...they went right into the stuff, no age checks, they didnt care...

Apple should live by its own rules and remove phone and SMS/MMS from the iphone, in addition to safari and mail...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Apple said months back that 95% of submitted apps get approved within 1 week. Right now their developers website says 98% of the apps get approved in 14 days. They need to to seriously fix that otherwise by next year it will take month!!

yes but the number of apps being submitted is increasing daily. it makes sense that the process will take longer in such a case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Just put in place a check off that you're over 18 and be done with it. Who cares? There will always be something to offend someone these days regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Since when is censorship a good business decision?

the whole point of Parental Controls, on the computer or the phone, is because there are folks that have demanded that option. Apple has already been hit by lawsuits over the iphone features not working the way they were advertised. so while it might seem extreme, Apple is covering their butts by doing things such as blocking safari on the phone, blocking swear words etc on the phone because they know that somewhere, someone is going to give Little Johnny Ten Year Old his own iphone he would use it to try to pull up photos of naked tits if you didn't block safari. ANd that mother and father will sue Apple because they claimed that parental controls would prevent Little Johnny from seeing the big bad boobies and such.

if you aren't under 18, don't turn on parental controls. if you don't care about your kids seeing whatever, don't turn on parental controls. then the issue is moot

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #79 of 132
it seems that the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY has to name a few discreetly (and you read further at you're own risk though i have censored them):
[CENTER]
M****rf*ck*r
f**k
s**t
c**t
cr*ckwh*r*
n*gg*r
j*g*boo
[/CENTER]
and that is just a small fraction of the words found in that highly regarded dictionary maker...
Seems if you have a name for yourself and perhaps the money you get a free pass...
And do I dare mention that AHD's app even SPEAKS these words... incase you just came across them in a book and want to confirm how they are said...
Anyhow I apologize to anyone who was offended by the above censored words but I felt it VERY important that some perspective be set... a little food for thought...
let it digest.

and I am an apple addict... And I often agree with apples 'moves' regarding policies but this tastes like a sour apple... or perhaps crab apple... or....

-david
post #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

... we end up with Rush on one side of an issue and Keith Oberman on the other side and both come across as discordant oafs.

That is pretty funny that you feel Olbermann is the "left's" version of Rush. Therein lies the problem with so-called "balanced" news coverage in this country. Olbermann is a news anchor, Rush is a pundit.

But I digress...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's Schiller personally responds to App Store criticism