Poll: App rejected. Is this offensive? Seriously Apple?
16 comments
I can see how they might consider a particular comic offensive, but...
Regardless of their terms, I think Apple is out of line to dictate how paying customers use their devices.
Part of the problem, I think, is that until Apple's iPhone OS 3.0 "pay for content" feature is available, the application and the content are merged.
I can only hope that once content can be purchased separately, Apple will loosen its restrictions on viewers.
Personally, I think society should trust people "not to buy" things they don't like, or "change the channel". This pre-screening of "offensive" material is frankly the only thing that I find offensive about Apple, YouTube, etc.
Regardless of their terms, I think Apple is out of line to dictate how paying customers use their devices.
Part of the problem, I think, is that until Apple's iPhone OS 3.0 "pay for content" feature is available, the application and the content are merged.
I can only hope that once content can be purchased separately, Apple will loosen its restrictions on viewers.
Personally, I think society should trust people "not to buy" things they don't like, or "change the channel". This pre-screening of "offensive" material is frankly the only thing that I find offensive about Apple, YouTube, etc.
The are going to have parental controls in 3.0. So we might get looser restrictions soon.
As of yesterday, apps all have ratings based on various content like cartoon violence. Try resubmitted now that parental controls are on the way and don't check "None" for cartoon violence. See what happens.
Definitely should not get you rejected from the app store, while stuff like Wolfenstein 3D is in there. Plus you can use the YouTube app from Apple to find plenty of gory stuff.
Two anecdotes.
Perfect Dark, the N64 game released around the year 2000, got given an 18 certificate in the UK because of the fact that blood can splatter from shot enemies onto walls.
Raiders Of The Lost Ark, the film released in 1981, nearly got refused a PG [edit: thanks, bena] certificate because it showed exploding heads.
The picture you linked depicts both of these acts of violence, whereas Wolfenstein 3D does not. Maybe Apple have similarly esoteric criteria for unacceptable acts of violence as the film and video game rating boards.
Perfect Dark, the N64 game released around the year 2000, got given an 18 certificate in the UK because of the fact that blood can splatter from shot enemies onto walls.
Raiders Of The Lost Ark, the film released in 1981, nearly got refused a PG [edit: thanks, bena] certificate because it showed exploding heads.
The picture you linked depicts both of these acts of violence, whereas Wolfenstein 3D does not. Maybe Apple have similarly esoteric criteria for unacceptable acts of violence as the film and video game rating boards.
You probably mean PG, as that's what Raiders was rated.
PG 13 was created when Temple of Doom came out, because the gap between PG and R was too great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_A...
PG 13 was created when Temple of Doom came out, because the gap between PG and R was too great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_A...
Can you compare comics to games? I sure we'd all say yeah but having dealt with paranoid copyright peeps before I could see where they'd make a case against the comic. The comic lacks a varied degree of "what's happening there", the intent of the graphic is clear, dude shot in the back of the head. Its consistent every time you look at it, head shoot. A game is varied content, sometimes you see something offense, sometimes not, that degree of randomness saves the game from the harsh eyes of scrunity, the comic can't escape.
The other thing that could be the factor is the international flavor of graphic material. I recall doing packaging for an animation company and the USA cover image of a gun pointing out at the view, aka the james bond like effect was cool and ok in the states but banned in UK! Thats insane but the BBC demanded their own version of the cover with the gun pointed to the side and not straight at a person picking up the video tape. Likewise content in a film is also subject to weird rules, BBC approves sleeping with your mother but whatever you do dont show anyone getting whipped on camera that dooms your film to XXX land.
Theres a chance that comics may suffer the same WTF reasoning on the iphone due to international exposure. Who knows.
The other thing that could be the factor is the international flavor of graphic material. I recall doing packaging for an animation company and the USA cover image of a gun pointing out at the view, aka the james bond like effect was cool and ok in the states but banned in UK! Thats insane but the BBC demanded their own version of the cover with the gun pointed to the side and not straight at a person picking up the video tape. Likewise content in a film is also subject to weird rules, BBC approves sleeping with your mother but whatever you do dont show anyone getting whipped on camera that dooms your film to XXX land.
Theres a chance that comics may suffer the same WTF reasoning on the iphone due to international exposure. Who knows.
Looking for some feedback, and also food for thought: If you think its offensive enough to get rejected, what makes it so?
* Its cartoon violence, and in my opinion not that violent.
* The blood is not red.
* Its cartoon violence, and in my opinion not that violent.
* The blood is not red.
That image shows a guy getting shot in the back of the head. That is a disturbing image (at least to me). Maybe you are numb to that level of violence, but apparently Apple is not.
In the context of the comic, the guy is a "bad guy" and is holding the gun shooter's daughter hostage, threatening to kill her with a gun himself, and is about to shoot. Its a case of self-defense in a hostage situation.
While I do not deny that there is a certain level of violence depicted, is it grounds for rejection? Specially since games like Wolfenstein 3D are on the app store.
While I do not deny that there is a certain level of violence depicted, is it grounds for rejection? Specially since games like Wolfenstein 3D are on the app store.
I'm not trying to defend Apple and you do have a valid point about Wolfenstein (I'm not arguing that). You asked "what you were missing." I found the imagine somewhat disturbing, so I pointed that out. And the fact that it's the bad guy getting shot does not change my opinion on the image.
point taken. thanks for your comment.
The main issue is Apple's consistency with the App approval process. This is the screenshot taken from Wolfenstein 3D on App Store, showing multiple shootings, body on floor and blood.
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/82/wolfenstein3d.png
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/82/wolfenstein3d.png
Apple is adding age based ratings [1] in 3.0. Since that is the case, I would guess that this is an example of content that could be rated appropriately and added to the app store. Personally I support as much artistic freedom as possible. Just rate it appropriately.
[1] http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/05/07/iphone-30-beta-5-app...
[1] http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/05/07/iphone-30-beta-5-app...
I'm simply amazed by how people accept _any_ company dictating what they can and cannot do with computers (an iPhone is a computer) the people _own_. Forget discussing when/how Apple might 'loosen' restrictions...why are you accepting restrictions, at all. It's very disturbing how Apple and others are re-defining the nature of ownership and control over our computing devices. But more disturbing is how the public seems to simply accept the new paradigm.
Wait - what's the question that I'm voting on: the one in the title or the one immediately preceding the voting? I assume it's the one in the title but it is ambiguous.
But since the answer to both will be the same -- does it matter? If the image is offensive then the poster is missing something, since he disagrees. If the image is not offensive then the poster is not missing anything -- since he/she feels the same way.
I don't think it is so violent that it should be rejected. But since it has been rejected, do you need to have that comic bundled with the app?
It looks like you are marketing your app as a comic reader, not a service that provides comics, so I'd think that even giving out a free comic would not be integral to your product.
So I'm sure this must be frustrating, but I'd just take it out, or just replace it with something undeniably tame.
It looks like you are marketing your app as a comic reader, not a service that provides comics, so I'd think that even giving out a free comic would not be integral to your product.
So I'm sure this must be frustrating, but I'd just take it out, or just replace it with something undeniably tame.
Context. This picture lacks context for me to judge whether it is offensive or not.
Question. You lost context there as well. What am I answering with a "Yes"? "Yes, seriously Apple?" "Yes, it is offensive?" "Yes, you're missing something?"
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inclined to think it's the "Yes, you're missing something" option, and what you're missing is context.
Question. You lost context there as well. What am I answering with a "Yes"? "Yes, seriously Apple?" "Yes, it is offensive?" "Yes, you're missing something?"
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inclined to think it's the "Yes, you're missing something" option, and what you're missing is context.
I would simply stop being frustrated about this and delay your release for 3.0. Then you can simply use the parental controls / age rating to prevent this kind of review bs.
Remove the offending image, resubmit, get approved, then re-add it (or have your app download it).
Did you set the appropriate ratings for your app?
Are you sure it was just because of that one photo and not the story line or anything else?
I'd like to know! I only received the boilerplate.
The previous time the app got rejected was because the content contained swear words. The description of the grounds for rejection in the email was clear. This time, there was no description.
Though I doubt it would be the story, comments from the reviewer would have been nicer.
The previous time the app got rejected was because the content contained swear words. The description of the grounds for rejection in the email was clear. This time, there was no description.
Though I doubt it would be the story, comments from the reviewer would have been nicer.
The first time was acceptable, but this time, they seem to be pushing it. They rejected the app due to the content linked below.
http://getcomicstrips.com/public/img_0067.png
It does not seem to me that it is "obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory". Wolfenstein 3D is on the app store and got approved and is way more violent.
Am I missing something here? Comments are most welcome.