Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Bad Apple, App Store
Baby Shaker further exposes App Store flaws
Update: According to news.com.au, Apple has issued an official apology for letting this app onto the store.Sometimes, you really have to question the App Store approval process.
Sure, this isn't the first time that Apple has made an unwise decision regarding the approval (or lack thereof) of applications to the App Store. But, this one takes the cake. For the span of a few hours on Wednesday, Apple allowed the release of "Baby Shaker," an app from Slkalosoft (ironically, the company no longer has the app listed on its site). The application displayed an image of a crying infant. You had to shake the iPhone or iPod touch repeatedly in order to get the child to stop crying -- literally shaking the baby to death. When the crying ceased and two red Xs appeared over the baby's eyes, you succeeded.
There's plenty of criticism over App Store standards. You can find a plethora of fart-simulating apps and other programs designed just to be a sheer nuisance, yet legitimate apps such as Tweetie get caught up in the pipeline because of potentially offensive language. "Baby Shaker" quickly hit a lot of news sites, and it didn't bode too well for an Apple doing its best to spotlight its second quarter earnings.
App Store approval is already something that is cumbersome and vague at best -- often leaving developers in limbo as to the status of their product. "Baby Shaker" certainly isn't the first dubious piece of software released into the App Store, but it is by far the worst. Even though Apple did yank "Baby Shaker" within a couple of hours, it does leave a nasty taste in people's mouths. It means that somewhere, somehow, there was a failure to communicate to employees that releasing an application promoting infanticide is a moronically stupid move. I do wonder how long "Baby Shaker" would have remained in the App Store if the media suddenly hadn't jumped on the story. What do you think this latest situation says about the App Store process? Let us know in the comments.
[Via CNet]
UPDATE: Apple has apologized for the app's release. [thanks to Paul for the tip]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
danny bogue said 10:11AM on 4-23-2009
Unbelievable
Reply
michael said 12:05PM on 4-23-2009
Get over yourself. This looks like a fun app, and if you deal with the fact that an actual baby is not being hurt, maybe you should take your pail and shovel and go play on the playground.
inteller said 12:54PM on 4-23-2009
and if you can sit there and rationalize the mere thought that shaking a baby is ok (fake or not) you should do us all a favor and kill yourself.
Dave said 1:11PM on 4-23-2009
@Michael
Not cool.
tuaw said 1:42PM on 4-23-2009
@ inteller
It's interesting to me that you find it more acceptable to encourage a real person to kill themselves because they don't agree with you than for someone to even consider that shaking a fake baby isn't hurting anyone. wow.
tabaks said 8:45AM on 4-24-2009
@ michael
You sir, are an A55HOLE!!! A big, puckered, wet and brown-crusted A55HOLE!
KomputarGuy said 10:33AM on 4-23-2009
Thats sick....
Reply
mg said 12:15AM on 4-24-2009
yeah, but it's not like pulling it is going to stop people from shaking their own babies, or the babysitter, for that matter (the less frequent of the 2 scenarios, i might add). if we were serious about this issue as a society, we'd put some real money into parent outreach and child welfare. making a stink about a video game is nothing but empty, self-righteous, arm-chair activism.
tabaks said 8:47AM on 4-24-2009
@ Mg
And then you ask yourself why no one wants to talk to you...
Two wrongs said 10:33AM on 4-23-2009
I don't think Apple really has any kind of App store standards. Whether your app gets approved or not depends on the whims of the reviewer, and maybe the phase of the moon.
Kind of like dealing with a bureaucracy in the 3rd world...not sure if you have ever had to do this, but it is hard -- sure there are laws, but they are more often observed in the breach, and getting things actually done is fairly random and dependent on the particular bureaucrat you are dealing with (and perhaps a bribe).
Reply
Robert said 3:47PM on 4-23-2009
In that metaphor, the bribe can be likened to the big game publishers paying Apple to feature the app.
munir said 10:33AM on 4-23-2009
im really contemplating switching from the iphone because of the draconian app store approval process. if theres nothing wrong with the coding, and it wont mess up my phone, apple should let it through. i dont believe apple should be in the business of censoring.
my decision will be made for me if/when slingplayer mobile gets rejected.
Reply
Rich Anderson said 10:37AM on 4-23-2009
Yeah, it's offensive. So what? Nobody's making you buy it or use it. Personally, I think the App Store's content rules are far more draconian than they need to be. Actually, if I had my druthers, the only things that would be blocked are things that are outright illegal. Apple already sells explicit songs through iTunes, with their content flagged for easy filtering. Why not do the same for apps? Anything with nudity, language, or violent/controvertial content could be given that red "EXPLICIT" tag, blocked from purchase by minors without permission, and we can be done with it.
Reply
ryan said 11:59AM on 4-23-2009
Agreed
valthewu said 12:22PM on 4-23-2009
so what?
so what: i do not think that this app should be availiable.
i do not care if you think different, i do care about moral and censorship, to keep a minimal standard.
there is a difference between
- making a joke
- making a movie where such a scene happens
- making a game
about killing babies.
i am sorry, but if you do not get the difference, shut up.
dyt1983 said 12:47PM on 4-23-2009
@valthewu
wow... just wow...
There's a difference to YOU.
Maybe to others, and maybe not. If you can't care about what others think, then why should anyone care what you think? And if YOU just don't get that, then shut up.
Rich Anderson said 1:16PM on 4-23-2009
@valthus
there is a difference between
- making a joke
- making a movie where such a scene happens
- making a game
about killing babies.
i am sorry, but if you do not get the difference, shut up.
--
Huh? The difference is what, again? All of the above are fictional. No babies are harmed by telling a joke, making a movie, or makign a game about killing babies. None. Zero. It never has, and it never will.
JD said 3:55PM on 4-23-2009
So do you pro-banning people want Amazon to start delisting offensive books? Do you want Google to start removing sites that are violent? ISPs to start blocking any content that is mean-spirited or in poor taste? Or for that matter, Apple to block websites or emails about baby-killing? C'mon, this is not a hard issue to decide: private companies that monopolize access to important resources (books, the internet, email, my phone) should not have the right to exercise even the most well-meaning censorship on their users. Period. Not hard!
John said 10:38AM on 4-23-2009
Baby Killing OK, GV Mobile BAD!?!?
Reply
hans said 11:45AM on 4-23-2009
We tried to make a FreeMemory app (for free since this is just a scam to make a buck) and Apple denied it on the pretense we accessed information that weren't available through the SDK... they just don't know what they're talking about and can't have a grasp of the context (fact that we duplicate other apps behavior). At least some reviewers do (maybe not all).
BTW, our main app took a week to push the 1.1 update, while the lite version took a month and a half. Inconsistence?