Pocket Troll 1.0

For more info, go here: http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/pocket_troll/

Even more shame-worthy behavior from Apple. I thought it was being mean to politicians that Apple didn’t like—apparently now, it’s being “politically charged?” What the hell are Apple’s standards here? Whoops, I just said “hell,” which in the iPhone’s Disney-like dictionary, gets auto-corrected to “heal” or “hello.”

Here’s the link: http://lambdajive.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/isinglepayer-iphone-app-censored-by-apple/

Jason Grigsby wrote an excellent article on Cloud Four about the significance of Apple’s rejection of Freedom Time that anyone who is interested in Apple’s App Store policies, or corporations and censorship should take a look at.

Thanks Jason, I am glad that someone gets the real issue, and I won’t even take issue with “simple, stupid”:

Can you imagine political discourse of any significance that doesn’t include demeaning or attacking political figures? Like it or not, that’s part of the exchange of ideas that form a democracy.

This policy essentially bans any editorial cartoons—cartoons that have been part of America’s history since its inception….

Freedom of speech is easy to defend when the speech is popular, but the real test comes when you have to defend unpopular speech or things that you don’t agree with.

In Fall 2008, George Bush had the worst approval ratings since Nixon. At a time in which we had one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history, Apple didn’t have the courage to approve a simple, stupid application like Freedom Time.

What is the likelihood that Apple would approve a truly controversial and unpopular application during a time when popular opinion makes it difficult to stand up for what’s right?

I just saw that Apple has put on its home page now has a public response to justify its App Store policies.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

Of course the FCC is primarily interested in its rejection of big, important apps like Google Voice, and not indie developer apps, so Apple was able to gloss over its political censorship of apps like Freedom Time (See section 5, above), and not even include any rejected political content app in its list of “representative applications.”

To me, rejecting an app for speech reasons is much worse than for technological competition reasons, but maybe that’s because I am someone who cares about the first Amendment, something that has been shoved to the back of the bus while greasing the wheels of the free market machine.

Thanks to Brad at Bent Media for pointing me to this excellent essay by Joe Hewitt demanding the end of the App Store approval process as we know it.

Well, I’ve given up on trying anything too humorous for the App Store— if you have to finish your idea BEFORE it’s approved, what’s the point?

But that hasn’t stopped others from trying ideas that are beyond the pale, and some that are so truly tasteless, that our little attempted joke at the expense of the outgoing president of the US seems really sterile by comparison.

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the “Baby Shaker” app controversy. It got the press scrambling to look at Apple’s app approval stories once more and, after months of assuming the whole thing had been relegated to its proper place as a footnote in the appendix of the Apple history books, I got contacted by ABC News and the Wall Street Journal over Apple’s rejection of Freedom Time.

• Banned by Apple: 9 iPhone App Rejects – ABC News (page 5)
• Apple’s Gatekeeper Role Draws Scrutiny – WSJ.com

All very exciting, I suppose, except that the reporters never seem to get the gist of what I was trying to say, which was this:

If Apple makes itself the gatekeeper, it is actually causing itself the problems it’s trying to avoid. By rejecting an app that makes fun of Bush, but accepting one that lets you kill babies, it implies that it disapproves of one and approves of the other. If someone had made this application for Windows, Mac OS X, or any other desktop system, no one would accuse Microsoft, Apple or Linux for not building an OS that prevents Baby Shaker applications from being installed. Apple made both a whole lot more work and a whole lot more controversy for itself by insisting on manually gatekeeping for every single app that goes in the store.

Well since we can’t sell it for 99 cents on the App Store, we’re going to give it away for free via Apple’s Ad Hoc distribution model.

Send us your iphone’s UDID (unique device ID) on the contact form on this page.

And we’ll send you a link with install instructions. 

Why do we need your UDID? Because we have to authorize your specific device to run the app. 

Where to find your UDID:

Make sure you have a recent version of iTunes (version 7.6.2 or later).

Connect your iPhone to your computer.

When your iPhone appears in iTunes, select it.

Click the summary tab. The name and other information including the serial number for your iPhone will display.

Click on the Serial Number field. It will change to the Identifier, also known as the UDID number.

Wow, although I’m not happy with Apple right now, I have to give Apple’s CEO some serious credit for answering the email I wrote yesterday:

Dear Steve,
 

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.
 

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement. 
 

For a quick screen shot:

http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/       

Sincerely,

Alec Vance

juggleware llc

Mr. Jobs replied :

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers.  What’s the point?

Steve

I’m not sure if he’s asking what’s the point of the app (not much—just poking fun and a time-killer), or what’s the point of letting me risk alienating a portion of his customer base (which is what I think he’s asking, rhetorically).

My friend John Barousse (the guy who convinced me to write Mr. Jobs) makes the point that the market should decide. And why not? No one thinks this is an Apple app, it’s clearly from an independent developer. Why would Apple lose business because of this app? As John says, “It’s not Apple’s application; they’re the store.”

[The following blog entry was deleted by me and is now restored; although originally Apple added a line that said that communications were "under NDA" and as I value my status as an Apple developer and don't have any interest in getting involved in a dispute I redacted their rejection letter and this blog entry. Now that Apple has redacted the NDA, I am including the blog entry and rejection letter again.]

After a wait of 10 days while Freedom Time was in review, Apple sent us our Dear John letter.

I find the word “censorship” a bit strong, so I’ll use it carefully. But the long and short of it is that Apple did not find the Freedom Time app to their liking:

Hello Juggleware Developer,
Upon review of your application, Freedom Time cannot be posted to the App Store because it contains content that does not comply with Community Standards.  Usage of such materials, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.12, is prohibited:

“Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”

Defaming, demeaning, or attacking political figures is not considered appropriate content for the App Store.

If you would like to provide an application that contains such content to a group of friends, then we encourage you to use the Ad Hoc application distribution method.  Please go to the Distribution Tab in the iPhone Developer Portal for complete information on Ad Hoc distribution.

Best Regards,

iPhone Application Review Team
Apple Developer Connection 
Worldwide Developer Relations
**************************************************************************
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS UNDER NON-DISCLOSURE
**************************************************************************

I don’t believe that we violated the terms as they were specifically defined. The reason in the rejection letter was that it’s not appropriate to defame, demean, or attack political figures. The original terms I agreed to of course allow for  ”Apple’s reasonable judgment”  which means that they have the right to reject anything they want of course by applying their own standards, and as it’s their App Store, I don’t dispute that right.

However, I could not disagree more with the approach both to the general public and to the developer community, and I wish they’d been more clear in defining what was “offensive”  or “demeaning.” I can honestly say that I believe this app does not demean George W. Bush. If we had wanted to do that, we’d have made him look like a monkey. (But then people would say that we were demeaning monkeys!).

Defamation means making an untrue claim about someone in order to hurt their public standing. This app makes no untrue claims whatsoever. It actually goes pretty light on “W” considering his record. A good case could be shown that the guy is probably a war criminal, possibly even a traitor in his role as military leader with respect to the Constitution. However, this App does nothing but animate him count the time till he leaves, and play back a few quotes that the guy himself said. The text “till the end of an error” is the only thing that could even remotely be considered defamatory (if it wasn’t obviously satirical). I know in Britiain the laws are a bit different, but in the USA you can say just about anything you’d like about a political figure and it’s not considered defamation. Especially if it falls under parody or satire, and this certainly would.

This isn’t exactly a case of First Amendment rights, and I can see why Apple wants to keep the App Store clean of controversy, but I think they really walk a thin line trying to make themselves arbiters of what is tasteful and what is not. There should be some sort of rating for explicit material, of course, and for stuff like this maybe put it in a “Satire” or “Commentary” section of the App Store so that people who get offended by such things won’t have to navigate to that part of the store.

I’d heard of their rejecting applications for duplicating technology and a violent comic book for being too violent, but I didn’t think they’d ban a lighthearted political satire very gently mocking the least popular president in recent U.S. history (if not all-time). 

My first Apple program was a text-based AppleBASIC Lunar Lander on an Apple ///, I’ve been a Macintosh afficionado for ages, and I’m even an Apple shareholder. The iPhone and the App Store are two of the coolest things that I’ve come across in ages, and have gotten me more excited about development than anything has in a long time — but I won’t deny that this puts a serious dent in my enthusiasm.

My hope is that they review and reconsider their policy. I’ve written them back, and at the urging of my friend John who’s a fellow Apple junkie, an email to Steve Jobs, in the off hope that he’ll see it. John says he responds to developers’ emails now and again, but I’m not holding my breath.