Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store, iPod touch
Tweetie 1.3 rejected for displaying "offensive language"
Update: Cooler heads appear to have prevailed, and Loren reports that Tweetie 1.3 has cleared the App Store bluenose barrier and should be showing up later tonight.We saw this hit the fan early today, hot on the tail of the AMBER Alert post. Apparently the 1.3 update to Tweetie, a popular Twitter client for iPhone we've covered before, has been denied release in the App Store because the app could potentially show "offensive language."
As you may know, blatantly offensive apps (like really "adult" content) are verboten on Apple's store. Unfortunately, that rule was probably intended to keep X-rated content (maybe hard R as well) off the store, not inadvertently prevent an update to a popular Twitter client. In this case, the offensive material could pop up in Twitter trend searches -- never mind that you can find much worse using Google's search app or mobile Safari itself.
This latest episode plus the Amber Alert app's delay and many other examples continue to shine a light on what is clearly a broken approval process. As Engadget's Nilay Patel says, "It's time to drop the seemingly-random black-box approach... and actually work with innovative developers like Tweetie's Loren Brichter to push your platform forward in the face of newly-stiff competition."
That last point is important, because hardware companies are working hard to avoid an iPod-like market lead for the iPhone. Last night's demo of the Palm Pre had my eyebrows raised, to be sure. If Apple can't quit shooting the feet of some of the best developers out there, it'll be all too easy for them to switch to a platform that provides less restrictions, less doubt and less uncertainty.
[Via The iPhone Blog]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
circuitboy1276 said 5:41PM on 3-10-2009
This is getting out of control. Apple needs to get a grip and reel in this approval process. They have created a bunch of independent monsters making decisions for the company and its keeping legitimate apps like this and others from progressing.
Reply
Lars said 5:45PM on 3-10-2009
Apple is well, nuts. Or has no real control over the approval process, since it is whimsical. Sadly though, it's part of a weird puritanical vein running through the company.
In the Dutch iTunes Store for instance, the word 'nicht' is censored out (into n***t) because it could mean 'fag'. However, it's also the same as cousin.
I discovered that little fact when I looked for some music by Bach, of which the titles were in German. "Fürchte dich nicht" (Fear not) from one of the motets.
Reply
JD said 5:48PM on 3-10-2009
Normally these sorts of things are clarified with a lawsuit or two. Hopefully somebody's gearing up for one out there somewhere. Not that they are at all likely to hurt Apple, but it would probably push Apple to clarify their policies. Right now, they have very little incentive to change what they are doing, what with making money hand over fist via their monopoly. (And speaking of monopolies, if the iPhone does manage as huge a market share as the iPod, there are going to be some pretty good grounds for anti-trust lawsuits too.)
Reply
Woob said 6:59PM on 3-10-2009
I love you kids who throw out the anti-trust card like you have any idea what it means. Apple has nothing to worry about.
JD said 10:56PM on 3-10-2009
Well, I admit that "good grounds" do not necessarily entail likely prosecution. On the face of it, Apple's behavior seems like the epitome of a Section 2 violation of the Sherman act. Specifically, Apple seems to engage in refusal to deal all the time, and arguably price fixing, inasmuch as it keeps the price of its own "apps" free. Both activities serve to keep competitors away and preserve their monopolies in the domains of their choice. Such concerns are minor when Apple is a minority player, but seem more reasonable should Apple become dominant in the smartphone market. Perhaps in today's environment the corporate-captured legal world would never bother bringing such claims to bear, but the reign of the Chicago School is both finite and not nearly so dominant beyond our shores.
But my other point is that small-scale lawsuits don't have to be well grounded. The legal process itself often serves to force companies to clarify their policies, and it's that clarification that is most needed.
(And do I get credit for not rising to the "kid" ad hominem?)
Andre said 5:50PM on 3-10-2009
If I hold my iPhone at just the right angle against the light, I can see myself naked in the reflection.
Or worse, I could load nudie pictures on it, or PDF files with bad language in them.
I might see a bare breast on Flickr using the mobile Safari browser.
Shouldn't they ban the sale of an iPhone?
This is crazy.
Reply
Ryan said 5:52PM on 3-10-2009
Well, if you submit a screen shot to be displayed in the app store that has #FuckItList in it....What the fuck do you expect to happen?
Seriously, are these guys like mental midgets or something?
Reply
Timm said 6:10PM on 3-10-2009
I know, right?
Can you imagine what would happen if other developers caught on to this? Apps would be submitted with screenshots containing all kinds of profanity, propaganda, political opinions, racist statements, etc...
Gwydion said 6:20PM on 3-10-2009
The screenshot was sent BY Apple to the developer, it's not an screenshot sent FROM the developer to Apple
Korpil said 6:16PM on 3-10-2009
That would be indeed stupid, however that was not the case.
The screen shot was taken and sent by the Apple reviewer.
https://twitter.com/atebits/statuses/1306895344
Ryan said 6:20PM on 3-10-2009
Ah, then I retract my comment. It was not exactly clear to me from the linked blog posting.
Now to do a 180,
Seriously, what the fuck apple? ;)
Rob E. said 6:26PM on 3-10-2009
Ryan, I think I agree with you. I can't find the facts of the story, just a merry-go-round of links. Some of those links imply that the application was bounced because of screenshots with profanity in them. Some links imply that the ap was rejected because it displays profanity when being used (if someone is using profanity on Twitter). If the latter is the case, then that's just silly. Every Twitter client does the same thing, as does Safari if you point it at Twitter. But if it's the former, then I agree. If Apple doesn't like the language in the screen shots, then I have no problem with them rejecting it so that the developers can resubmit it with profanity-free screen shots. Of course there's profanity and more all over the internet, but Apple can certainly decide whether or not they want to host screen shots with profanity on their own web sites.
Rob E. said 6:31PM on 3-10-2009
Thanks for the clarification, Korpil. That being the case, then this strikes me as very foolish decision or a mistake brought on by the reviewer not understanding what they were looking at: search results rather than terms supplied by the application itself. Either way it's not good, but the 2nd scenario is slightly more understandable and, hopefully, easily rectified.
Timm said 7:42PM on 3-10-2009
I was giving Apple the benifit of the doubt with my previous commment. But this new information just confirms my thopughts about the whole Apple App Store approval process...
nathan said 5:55PM on 3-10-2009
So stupid. By these rules the email client on iphone would never have been approved.
Reply
Brian said 6:01PM on 3-10-2009
Proof ?
Marketing scam ?
Mmmmmmm
Reply
SpinThis! said 8:09PM on 3-10-2009
Yeh, it's amazing so many people are getting riled up over this. Honest mistake from Apple and/or a great publicity stunt from the developer if true. I mean, what better way to create traffic for your app than a reject letter from Apple? Every time this happens, the blogosphere blows up.
josh said 6:10PM on 3-10-2009
Since Steve jobs left everything has gone to shit that's right apple I just used a curse word on YOUR MOBILE SAFARI are going to stop this app store bullshit?
Reply
Mark Suman said 6:24PM on 3-10-2009
It might be time for the jailbreak community to push their new App Store even harder. A serious competitor on the same device to Apple's App Store could force Apple to improve it's approval process.
Reply
PeteC said 6:20PM on 3-10-2009
I had a similar situation yesterday - http://tinyurl.com/bafkxq
I have an application already in the App Store called Diggle that shows articles from Digg. I submitted a "lite" version for review but it was rejected because, at the time the reviewer tested the app, there was swearing in one of Digg's top stories.
I've since resubmitted in the hope someone with a little common sense get's to review it next time.
Reply