Filed under: Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store
Monday morning App Store shenanigans, NIN: Access edition
Another week, another App Store scandal. Over the weekend, Apple rejected an update to the NIN: Access app (reviewed here) because of "objectionable content." The objectionable content? 1994's The Downward Spiral (iTunes link, also available in a deluxe edition here). Needless to say, Trent Reznor is a little upset (TUAW disclaimer, Reznor uses adult language, if this bothers you, avert your eyes or don't click the link).This latest incident allows us to revisit other incidents of non-sensical approval decisions. In the case of Tweetie, Apple backed off the potential objectionable content claim and let the update through. In the case of craigsphone, the developer re-routed potentially "adult" content to Mobile Safari. As for South Park, well, it's still not in the App Store.
With a tour in progress, the developer of the NIN app has removed what he believes to be the objectionable file, but we'll need to wait to see if this (or the ensuing outrage over this stupid decision) will change Apple's mind.
As it stands, I can't help but be flummoxed by the seemingly arbitrary nature of the App Store review process. When I reviewed NIN: Access, it was readily apparent that users had access to podcasts, remixes and music videos for the Nine Inch Nails catalog. I even thought to myself, "Well, I guess Apple got over the Craigslist-aphobia" and accepted that users who download the NIN: Access app know what they are getting into. Clearly, I was wrong.
So while apps that simulate killing an infant can actually make it into the store (and the PR nightmare is what ends up gettting it removed), apps that provide access to online content -- content that is available for sale via iTunes -- remains off-limits. Way to go!
[via TechCrunch]
UPDATE: The app has been approved despite the content issues, it would seem.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
fractured said 10:46AM on 5-04-2009
" apps that provide access to online content -- content that is available for sale via iTunes -- remains off-limits. Way to go!"
Perhaps that could be a motivator. If the content is available through the app, it may dilute sales through the iTunes Store.
Reply
nz said 11:53AM on 5-04-2009
Perhaps? That's the "aha" moment of this banning.
Pterrence! said 7:49PM on 5-04-2009
Then why wouldn't they say, every album that's available via this app is objectionable content? Basically, ALL of the NIN catalog... Sin, Pretty Hate Machine, Broken, Fixed, The Downward Spiral, Further Down the Spiral, The Fragile, With Teeth, The Slip, Things Falling Apart, ETC ETC ETC. are all on iTunes. So if they rejected it because sales of The Downward Spiral would be down because the content is available in the app, why not list all of them? It has nothing to do with sales, because even if that was their reasoning, why would people only quit buying The Downward Spiral from iTunes, of all the albums, just because some of it is available to enjoy from the app, along with bits & pieces of all the others?
No, this is a simple issue. The official policy for the people who review the apps is to judge harshly better to error on the side of caution. A tech who was reviewing the app probably when skimming through the content probably stumbled on the chorus of "Closer", and added another checkmark to his/her list, eager to show their superiors how well they perform their job of keeping us safe from bad, bad things.
Ryan Trevisol said 11:17AM on 5-04-2009
All the NIN forum links are 404's . . .
Reply
Aron Trimble said 11:57AM on 5-04-2009
Thanks for the tip Ryan, they should be working now!
Robert said 11:26AM on 5-04-2009
I am an adult in every jurisdiction in the world.
If I want to have legal adult content on my damn computer/media player/phone/whatever else the iPhone is - I should be able to.
Apple has "explicit" content in their music catalog. What the heck is so different about apps?
Reply
Stephen Miller said 11:26AM on 5-04-2009
Major facepalm here, reporting for duty.
Good lord, you make MONEY off his "adult content" via iTunes!!! I think that they should deny Safari next, after all, there is a little adult content on the web that it provides access too. Ugh.
Reply
LD said 11:41AM on 5-04-2009
I think both the press and the Apple shareholders are failing in their duty to really uncover the app store approval process. No one really even knows what the process is (how many people, who those people are, what the rules are, etc). No one presses Apple on these issues other than to get some worthless "we're sorry" type of quote.
Reply
milkmage said 11:51AM on 5-04-2009
Dear Apple -
Please extend OSX's Parental Controls to the phone.
You can put a switch in General Settings called "think of the children" (yes/no) that lets me decide whether or not I want to set a code that I have to enter in order to launch an objectionable app (as defined by Apple or the developer)
I am a big boy and perfectly capable of setting my own boundaries. I do not need you telling me what I can and can't do on the hardware I own.
Thank you.
@Christina. If I walked up to you in a bar and said "I want to f*ck you like an animal" I would expect to get slapped. That line is in the chorus of one of the songs on Downward Spiral. If the lyrics are in the source, the bad word checker (probably not a human) sets the REJECT flag. Banning the app is not because of arbitrary or inconsistent rules. The album is flagged with the EXPLICIT sticker - so that makes it OK to sell the album (right?).
Reply
EMoShunz said 12:46PM on 5-04-2009
great idea.
Luna Lovegood said 1:43PM on 5-04-2009
I think if you approached Ms. Warren in a bar and said, "I want to fuck you like an animal," she'd reply, "Look at my t-shirt -- I already fucked your boyfriend."
Christina Warren said 2:23PM on 5-04-2009
Granted, unless you were singing the lyrics, I'd probably respond negatively to such a request in a bar. That's not the same thing as reading the lyrics to "Closer" on a fan app for a band. I don't think the lyrics are even accessible from the app (and if they are, they are stored online, not in the app) -- I think the fact that you can stream podcasts of the songs or watch the music videos was what the problem is. It just strikes me as odd that the app would get through the approval process, get in the store, and THEN only after a bug-fix is submitted, do the obscenity or content issues come into place.
Plus, it's weird that TDS is cited as the objectionable content. All of NIN's albums have explicit stuff, The Fragile has a song TITLED Starf*!kers Inc. (sans obstructions). It's just weird and evidence of way too much inconsistency in the review process.
Luna -- you are my favorite troll. That actually did make me laugh out loud, however.
EMoShunz said 8:01AM on 5-05-2009
looks like your idea may become a reality.
EMoShunz said 8:03AM on 5-05-2009
sorry, didn't realize html didn't work...
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/04/iphone-os-3-0s-parental-controls-to-assuage-some-app-submission/
kanebake said 11:54AM on 5-04-2009
I expect no less than a full jail braking instructions article on the NIN site.
The iPhone and iPod touch are like luxury sports cars. When they are jail broken they are like luxury sports cars with wheels.
There is no morals involved here, it just concern about apps cutting into their sales.
Reply
James Donevan said 11:57AM on 5-04-2009
"another App Store scandal"
You need either a dictionary or a better sense of perspective.
Reply
Christina Warren said 2:23PM on 5-04-2009
That was written with implied sarcasm, sorry if it didn’t come across.
Alex L. said 6:49PM on 5-04-2009
..."or a better sense of perspective."
Is it me or your sense of perspective's broken too? Too hard without the "/s"?
And how about your sense of not being rude and devoid of any constructive criticism?
Shunnabunich said 12:13PM on 5-04-2009
That's "flummoxed". :)
Reply
John said 12:22PM on 5-04-2009
It was a stupefyingly bad decision on Apple's part not to allow any app at all on the App Store--even at the risk of spreading malware or offending someone. Now, Apple is judged by both its own inconsistent rules and the particular morals of whomever is doing the judging. Apple cannot possibly please everyone in the situation it has created for itself and so is in a no-win scenario.
Apple would have been far better off creating a mechanism where anything can be listed, but certain apps get the Apple Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Additionally, apps could get rated on a few attributes by users themselves. E.g., "Offensive," "Malware," "Crashes," etc.
As it stands, Apple is appearing to wield power haphazardly like a blunt instrument... which is a Microsoft trait.
Reply