Apple apologizes over Baby Shaker app

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    I want a "kick the dog in the nuts App" - keep them from pissing on my steps in NYC.



    To be more realistic, it would be kick the dude in the nuts for pissing in your doorway. At least most dogs are smart enough to use the curb or a tree.
  • Reply 42 of 96
    emulatoremulator Posts: 251member
    is it on cydia yet?
  • Reply 43 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    OK- so you think Child porn is ok? Oh- you mentioned the laws thing. Right- nice circular argument- you cant ban it unless its illegal... but you can make it illegal because you are stepping on someone's freedoms...



    So, by your logic, there are actual babies that have been shaken and killed, whose pictures have been added to this "game"?



    Child porn is illegal because its evidence of a crime. i.e. Sexual abuse of a minor. This is just a bunch of graphics, and there is no reality behind it (unless I am mistaken, and these are images of real babies being abused).



    Fake Child porn (e.g. Hentai, where a lot of the women are depicted as underage) is not illegal.



    This may be repulsive, and Apple, as a private entity, has the right to remove it from their store. However, its not illegal. If the government was running an app store, it would have been an infringement on free speech for them to do such a thing.
  • Reply 44 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    I don't know, I think people are making entirely too much out of this incident. Especially given that all we have is a general description of the app, and none of the people damning it have ever played it or seen it.



    Anyone over the age of 45 or so who remembers the 70's or the 60's can tell you that this sort of black humour used to be common, things like this were published in humour magazines and lampooned on comedy shows all the time.



    At the risk of using the classic "old-timer" phrase ... it never hurt me or anyone I ever heard of.



    We can't laugh at this sort of thing anymore, but we have wall to wall disgusting porn available to every six year old through the internet? This is "too shocking" yet we are (at least 30 or 40 percent of us) okay with raping and torturing our enemies in wartime?



    Sometimes it seems like the world is topsy-turvy. We are so PC we can't make an inappropriate joke, but at the same time pretty much anything goes as long as you keep it nominally hidden or don't talk about it too much? That's just dishonest. I think censorship is always wrong unless there is an actual material harm that can be identified. This is not that. It's a stupid game like the folks at National Lampoon would have wrote if they could write iPhone games back then.



    It's not Apple's job to protect us from boobies and bad jokes.



    Absolutely! It's a GAME. It's a JOKE. Sure it's a bit tasteless, so what?



    And from the video I saw, it's so poorly done it deserves to be ignored for THAT reason ALONE, not the content. It certainly shouldn't be banned. No one is being forced to play the stupid game.



    Like everything else, if you don't like it;

    don't buy it

    don't look at it

    don't listen to it

    don't eat it

    don't smell or taste it

    Just ignore it.



    The scourge of PC-ness and nannification of everything is truly sickening. All it takes is ONE damn person who is "hurt" or "offended" by ANYTHING to set off a firestorm. It's gotten so bad that even things that "may" have the "potential" to hurt or offend are banned.



    The world should be G rated, just like Disney cartoons.
  • Reply 45 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    So, by your logic, there are actual babies that have been shaken and killed, whose pictures have been added to this "game"?



    Wow, I love how people invent fantasy stories about something they've never seen.



    Here's the YouTube link for Baby Shaker:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAM9VFM6HzY



    The app consists of static pencil drawings of babies, with some crying sounds.

    Shake your iPhone and red "X"es cover the eyes, it stops crying.



    BIG DEAL.



    If the "developer" had put any thought or effort into this thing, it might have actually been offensive, rather than merely stupid.



    Check out the VooDude app in the App Store. Swap the voodoo doll for a baby...

    http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...304109077&mt=8



    This reminds me of the Bonsai Kitten web site from around 2000. It was hilarious, but there were many literalists who thought that it was real, rather than an elaborate joke web site with Photoshopped kitty pictures, fake products and even a hilarious "help board".



    http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/

    http://images.google.com/images?clie...num=4&ct=title

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten
  • Reply 46 of 96
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member


    Did "developer" need Core 2 Duo at 4GHz to implement this?

    "Developer"' my ass!
  • Reply 47 of 96
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jmadlena View Post


    You only show your own intolerance when you jump to conclusions without any evidence. Nice.



    Though your use of "life-loving" sounds sarcastic, so I don't know what your angle is...



    In all fairness, I think it's easy to assume they'd have such a position when the group in question is complaining about Apple selling something that's available over the air for free and legally at that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post


    If it were a game about killing gays the creator would have been thrown in jail by now for a hate crime.



    I don't understand why you would think that, I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a hate crime. Besides, what "game" has resulted in a jailing of the maker that you are aware of?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    OK- so you think Child porn is ok? Oh- you mentioned the laws thing. Right- nice circular argument- you cant ban it unless its illegal... but you can make it illegal because you are stepping on someone's freedoms...



    I have no idea how your response can reasonably follow the person that you replied to. Your response looks like some random non-sequitur.
  • Reply 48 of 96
    (link)

    Quote:

    "Who is this apology directed to?" said Patrick Donohue, founder of the foundation. "It's directed at the media to kill the story. This is the most cynical apology I have ever seen."



    The group is calling on Apple to provide a full accounting on how the application was vetted and then launched on the App Store and who is being held accountable. In addition, the foundation wants Apple to devise a plan to "mitigate the harm they've now caused," Donohue said.



    Donohue said the organization has added plans to hold protests in front of an Apple store in each city, unless it gets a satisfactory response from Apple. In addition, the foundation has sent letters to the boards of Apple and AT&T, the exclusive iPhone seller in the United States, asking that they take action to meet the group's demands.



    (emphasis mine)



    (link)

    Quote:

    "As the father of a 3-year-old who was shaken by her baby nurse when she was only 5 days old, breaking 3 ribs, both collarbones and causing a severe brain injury, words cannot describe my reaction," Patrick Donohue, founder of the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation, said in a statement. Donahue said that he had also sent an email to chief executive Steve Jobs and other Apple vice presidents with the same sentiments.



    "You have no idea the number of children your actions have put at risk by your careless, thoughtless and reckless behavior!" Donahue added. "We will do everything we can to expose your reckless actions and reverse the horrific impact it will have on the innocent children throughout the United States."



    The foundation demanded a "personal apology to parents of SBS victims and survivors from Steve Jobs," and "a significant effort to reverse the damage they [Apple] have already undoubtedly caused."



    Now, firstly let me say that I think that app was very poor taste and obviously shouldn't have been approved in the first case under Apple's current approval system. It was clearly a mistake and Apple did right by pulling it and issuing an apology (even if they didn't have to).



    However, what Patrick Donohue (as well as some commenters) is saying, and the group's demands and plans for pickets, is ridiculously out of proportion and not a reasonable reaction. Though he's of course excused for being sensitive on that painful subject, it is getting out of hand. But I suspect this case will live on for a little while in the media because the foundation wants to get as much attention as possible for their cause. I fully understand why they want attention for the cause (which I sympathize with, btw), but this is a wrongful way to get it.
  • Reply 49 of 96
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    In all fairness, I think it's easy to assume they'd have such a position when the group in question is complaining about Apple selling something that's available over the air for free and legally at that.







    I don't understand why you would think that, I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a hate crime. Besides, what "game" has resulted in a jailing of the maker that you are aware of?







    I have no idea how your response can reasonably follow the person that you replied to. Your response looks like some random non-sequitur.



    Hate crimes are a total bs. Lets sat that hypothetically I decide to kill Mr/Mrs X and one week later I do. And after being found legally sane I go to trial. It was obviously premeditated and I knew what I was doing.

    I killed Mr/Mrs X because they did/were one of the following....

    They bumped into me on the street and did not say excuse me.

    I didn't like the way they dressed.

    They cut me off on the highway.

    Their child was rude to mine.

    They were of the wrong religion.

    They were of the wrong race.

    They were of the wrong sexual orientation.

    They drove a suv.

    They had to large a house.

    These are all sadly pointless reasons and I cant see where one reason deserves more punishment than any other. I believe that these all should be prosecuted to the maximum. If i killed someone for being gay I should get an extra life sentence or put to death twice? If I beat someone up becuase I thought they looked funny isnt that just as bad as giving someone an identical beating because I thought they were gay? Imho this does not compute. If you think that the punishment does not fit the crime then stiffen the penalty for all victims not just ones of a minority. All abuse and murder is a hate crime in my book.
  • Reply 50 of 96
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    Absolutely! It's a GAME. It's a JOKE. Sure it's a bit tasteless, so what?



    And from the video I saw, it's so poorly done it deserves to be ignored for THAT reason ALONE, not the content. It certainly shouldn't be banned. No one is being forced to play the stupid game.



    Like everything else, if you don't like it;

    don't buy it

    don't look at it

    don't listen to it

    don't eat it

    don't smell or taste it

    Just ignore it.



    The scourge of PC-ness and nannification of everything is truly sickening. All it takes is ONE damn person who is "hurt" or "offended" by ANYTHING to set off a firestorm. It's gotten so bad that even things that "may" have the "potential" to hurt or offend are banned.



    The world should be G rated, just like Disney cartoons.



    Since this has happened in REAL LIFE in which babies have been shaken to death, it is NO JOKE, you xxxxxx xxxx! I guess you would feel different if your baby was killed in the same manner, then maybe you might have a clue. This has never been portrayed as humorous, as Virgil tried to claim in his post. He is full of shit, as others have pointed out.



    EDIT:

    This post has been reported. Please refrain from using such language. I agree with your feelings about this, by the way, but moderate your responses please.
  • Reply 51 of 96
    uelogyuelogy Posts: 16member
    I own a powerbook, mac pro, macbook pro, 5 ipods, an iphone, airport express and airport extreme....



    I am a proud apple supporter...



    I often defend apple - even when practices seem questionable....



    however - this is the first time i have actually been emotionally offended.



    It is so horrible to see QualityControl approve this app - 100x worse to see such an app being made...



    Anyone defending this App or apples lack of screening to allow this through is a fucking douche....



    THE APP IS ABOUT KILLING BABIES... W T F
  • Reply 52 of 96
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


    Hate crimes are a total bs. Lets sat that hypothetically I decide to kill Mr/Mrs X and one week later I do. And after being found legally sane I go to trial. It was obviously premeditated and I knew what I was doing.

    I killed Mr/Mrs X because they did/were one of the following....

    They bumped into me on the street and did not say excuse me.

    I didn't like the way they dressed.

    They cut me off on the highway.

    Their child was rude to mine.

    They were of the wrong religion.

    They were of the wrong race.

    They were of the wrong sexual orientation.

    They drove a suv.

    They had to large a house.

    These are all sadly pointless reasons and I cant see where one reason deserves more punishment than any other. I believe that these all should be prosecuted to the maximum. If i killed someone for being gay I should get an extra life sentence or put to death twice? If I beat someone up becuase I thought they looked funny isnt that just as bad as giving someone an identical beating because I thought they were gay? Imho this does not compute. If you think that the punishment does not fit the crime then stiffen the penalty for all victims not just ones of a minority. All abuse and murder is a hate crime in my book.



    In principle, I agree, but you're still missing the idea behind it. Hate crime law is a means to bring people to justice when the local law enforcement and prosecution won't prosecute properly because they too don't like the minority type of the victim, thereby perpetuating the oppression against said minority group when people are free to commit crimes against them.
  • Reply 53 of 96
    magic_almagic_al Posts: 325member
    The only thing I'm offended by is people who react to being offended by doing anything other than avoiding the content for themselves and their families. Taking any action to make it less likely that other people can make their own choice is wrong. Never treat another adult as a child.
  • Reply 54 of 96
    freenyfreeny Posts: 128member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by resurgent View Post


    instead of the slingbox app, they approved the baby shaker app. Nice.



    my thoughts exactly!
  • Reply 55 of 96
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freeny View Post


    my thoughts exactly!



    Slingbox is an extremely high profile app with specific issues regarding bandwidth and Apple's corporate strategies around video streaming.



    Baby Shaker is yet another stupid little time waster of the sort that Apple's app vetters must see 100 times a day.



    I realize it makes an almost irresistibly easy shot, but the comparison actually makes no sense.



    I'm not saying that the app vetting process doesn't have real issues, and needs more transparent and consistent standards. But those issues and standards aren't what keeps Slingbox off the app store while allowing Yet Another Stupid App on.
  • Reply 56 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Slingbox is an extremely high profile app with specific issues regarding bandwidth and Apple's corporate strategies around video streaming.



    And let's not forget that contractual legal issues with the tethering app that was approved and then removed and then added again before finally being taken away.



    Apple has contracts with almost every (if not every) TV network. They may have contractual agreements that may not allow them to offer any TV streaming option, especially one that can potentially time shift off a DVR, in their iTS. If just one network has something specific in there then Apple would have to get a new contract inked before being able to allow it, which mean lawyers going through every contract to make sure there is nothing that could come back and bite them in the ass. Approving an app just to renege on the decision doesn't make Apple look good, but high-profile apps are more likely to get stopped before silly little self contained games.
  • Reply 57 of 96
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Totally tasteless, sure. But still very funny. Even the darkest of subjects can be a source of great comedy if the delivery is right. The shock value of something that is just totally wrong is frequently a source of some extremely funny comedy.



    Look at the nazi related skits from shows like Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, the whole concept of Hogan's Heroes, or the 'Hitler's car' scene from the movie Rat Race. Taken for what they were, with the way they were delivered, they were hilarious. Doesn't mean anyone thinks genocide itself is funny.
  • Reply 58 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Look at the nazi related skits from shows like Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, the whole concept of Hogan's Heroes, or the 'Hitler's car' scene from the movie Rat Race. Taken for what they were, with the way they were delivered, they were hilarious. Doesn't mean anyone thinks genocide itself is funny.



    Don't forget Life Is Beautiful, one of the best films every made. It didn't make fun of the Holocaust, but because a father tried to shield his child from the horrors taking place in the film it was seen by a certain portion of the Jewish community as belittling the events that took place.



    There is something that will offend someone somewhere, but you get to a threshold when x% is offended and you have to consider their feelings for the betterment of your business. Fortunately, this is a sliding scale that keeps moving with each new year and new generation.



    Just take all these crime dramas on TV. They continually try to out do each other with disgusting looking corpses. This would have been regulated to rated R movies not to long ago. Then there is sex on TV that keeps on moving forward. And then there is homosexuality and so forth.



    PS: Oh yeah, hasn't South Park had Kyle kicking his little brother Ike, who is shaped like a football and saying "Kick the baby!" as he does it for 13 seasons now?
  • Reply 59 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    In principle, I agree, but you're still missing the idea behind it. Hate crime law is a means to bring people to justice when the local law enforcement and prosecution won't prosecute properly because they too don't like the minority type of the victim, thereby perpetuating the oppression against said minority group when people are free to commit crimes against them.



    Look at all the recent issues involved hate crimes and honestly tell me it hasn't gone way past it's initial intent (what you mentioned). I can't think of a single situation in, at least, the past 5 to 10 years that something got brought to trial because it was a hate crime but wouldn't have been brought to trial otherwise. As bigdaddy said - a crime is a crime - so long as there is intent to kill/harm there should be no difference.



    Unless of course you think a white guy killing a white guy isn't as bad as a white guy killing a black guy - it's a double standard to be quite honest. We stress equality - we've got mandates and laws out the yin-yang to try to make things fair and equal but when it comes to punishment we're still holding on to the idea that we're not equal. Well, which one is it? Theoretically a minority should be charged with a hate crime if they kill/hurt a member of the majority but, umm, yeah, when, if ever, has that actually happened? Just like racism a hate crime is not relegated for the majority oppressing the minority - it works both ways but the legal system (and society) have deemed that someone doing something to a white guy is never out of hate for the fact that he's white - riiiggghhhhtttt...



    Either ditch the idea of a "hate crime" all together or apply it in all cases not just where it's PC.
  • Reply 60 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: Oh yeah, hasn't South Park had Kyle kicking his little brother Ike, who is shaped like a football and saying "Kick the baby!" as he does it for 13 seasons now?



    I think they only kicked the baby for 1 season - I think Ike got fed up with it actually, ya know Kyle: "Kick the baby!" Ike" "Don't kick the [email protected] baby!"



    Great show - loved the one about Kanye - soooo true... hahaha
Sign In or Register to comment.