Yesterday's story about Apple
censoring the Ninjawords dictionary seems to have made some waves in Cupertino -- none other than Phil Schiller followed up with
Daring Fireball's John Gruber to provide Apple's perspective on the situation. According to Phil, Apple's objection to Ninjawords was that by using the free Wiktionary.org dictionary, it "provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries," and that the App Store reviewer initially suggested the developer resubmit when iPhone OS 3.0 was launched with parental controls. Since 3.0 hadn't been released yet, the developer censored some of the words in an effort to get onto the store early, and that's how Ninjawords ended up both censored and rated 17+. Sure, okay, except that Gruber points out that the App Store reviewer flagged some pretty generic swear words, not the smack-your-momma vulgarities Phil claims are the issue. Still, the larger message remains the same -- the App Store review process is
maddeningly inconsistent and in
dire need of reform -- and on that note Phil says Apple intends to "learn and quickly improve," so it sounds like there's hope yet. Check the read link for more of Phil's response, it's an interesting read.
posted August 6th 2009 2:14PM
The problem here is not the explanation Schiller gives. It's that he has responded at all. It creates further inconsistency. One bewildering move...crickets from Apple. Another happens...the #3-ranking Apple exec. quickly issues a public rationale. Third time this happens...who wants bet we'll hear crickets again?
This disjointed PR strategy further points to the need to majorly rework the process. And I'm no dev, just a devoted iPhone user.
BLUE COLLAR MINDED WORKERS APPLE LOVERS ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES! Do not let the white collar snobby preppy clothed apple lovers dominate the fandom! WE SHALL DESTROY THEEE!!!!!!!!!
{censored} Apple!
Is it really that time again, to flame Paul?
I'm looking through and it looks like his first comments had to do with the subject at hand then the flaming starts and now we got a bunch people pointing fingers at one dude for continually replying to criticism on a given thread? I think you are all jumping up and down on opposite ends of two different seesaws and wondering why the other guy hasn't shot up in the air yet...
Everyone, Paul thinks its dumb that we are outraged about the censorship of a Dictionary (definitely not one of the coolest apps out there)
Paul, everyone is actually outraged by Apple's approval process which is so convoluted that there is confusion over why Apps are rejected.
tada
I think developers should really think about the privilege they are given and not waste Apple's time monitoring the dirty diapers they want people to pay for, really. If people want a source for vulgarity they should find it at other sources. Why are they making Apple "momma" may I...?
Porn is found at Porn sites. Stop wasting everyones time.
Why do you all keep voting Paul Chapel down he has very valid points. This website is becoming filled with apple haters and thats all. The story yesterday about apple rejecting a dictionary was so stupid i didnt even read the article because i know there was more to the story. Its becoming like a gossip column for girls around here these days. And there was about 350 comments posted regarding that stupid made up story. If this website continues this downward spiral of negativity and non valid points im off to gizmodo.
tl;dr
You would enjoy it at gizmodo. They never post negative apple stories and a long time ago everyone who got tired of it came here.
In any case, you, quiz, zak and chapel can all leave. we won't stop you, we'll even hold the proverbial door.
in fact www.gizmodo.com . there you go. it's all spelled out for you.
Because he doesn't have valid points.
To all you dudes who need a dictionary to write a text message or look up an address on google maps my advice to you is GET AN EDUCATION!!!
"Zak @ Aug 6th 2009 3:14PM
Look_Around_You: Hey jackass! Apple didn't censor ANYTHING. Did you or did you not read that article? If the developers had waited until the ratings system had come out, they could have put their dictionary app on the store, all words fully intact. But they censored the dictionary THEMSELVES in order to get it on the app store ASAP.
Please enlighten me as to how you're still having trouble understanding this.
Oh and you might not like Apple's policy on this but seriously, who cares? You weren't going to buy any Apple products anyway. The point is that Apple didn't censor anything, which is directly contrary to what all the crack smoking Apple haters here would just love to believe."
Zak, you are a complete tool. Apple DID censor the app by killing it. Yes I can read that the devs censored it themselves FIRST to get in the app store BEFORE 3.0....then:
After three rejections, the forced removal of a number of "illicit" words (many of which are common and innocuous -- "ass" for instance), and a mandatory 17+ rating, Ninjawords was finally admitted into the App Store... three months after it was first submitted.
Now reread Phil's comments. Again, they are punishing devs because they could possible use the app and see "worse" vulgar things. That mentality is about as stupid as it gets, their own damn device can do that by itself. They are making up stupid reasons to kill apps for whatever real reason they have. Sometimes it's legit, other times it's not. How does wiki mobile get passed which could lead to worse content than a dictionary?! Get it yet dumbass?
I'm a complete tool? You still don't seem to understand what happened. Apple told that developer to wait until the ratings system came out, and then it would be allowed into the store. That is the whole point of the ratings system. Is there a reason I have to explain this to you? All your complaints about "punishing devs" are completely misplaced. As Gruber said, the timing was really bad on this issue BUT Apple specifically told them to wait till the ratings system came out.
They didn't want to wait, and this is what happened. That's not Apple's fault, is it? They CENSORED THEMSELVES. And you're still trying to spin this like Apple was censoring them. Please buy a god damn clue.
The current vulgar words issue is a NON ISSUE because of the RATINGS SYSTEM. Jesus you people are idiots.
Yes you are a copmplete tool. Did I mention obtuse as well?
Apple has been using the ratings system as an excuse for awhile now. Please now, in your wisdom, explain them pulling other apps for the EXACT SAME REASON, apps that were using the RATING SYSTEM for what it was for. \
YOU DON'T GET IT, RATINGS OR NOT, IF THERE IS A WAY IN THE APP FOR THE CONTENT TO BE UPDATED OUTSIDE THE STORE, OR WHERE THE CONTENT COULD CHANGE, THEY YANK THE APP. Only sometimes though for whatever mystical reason. Still don't get it do you?
Once again, for your stupid brain to get. The vulgar issue is an issue because even with the ratings in place now, THEY ARE STILL NOT ALLOWING APPS FOR THAT SAME REASON. Holy shit you don't have a clue, do some research before you post again please. Try to see the big picture and don't self contain to this app. Please search out other apps that were previously approved and then removed for the same issue even WITH THE ALMIGHTY RATINGS SYSTEM you seem to know so little about.
computerguy, not only is your grasp on English tenuous at best, you have been missing the point the entire time. If Apple was censoring them, then why did Apple specifically tell them to wait until the ratings system came out, at which point they would be allowed to post their app to the app store, all words intact? Can you answer that?
Did that little piece of this whole ordeal somehow escape your notice? Or are you intentionally ignoring it just so you can act like a self righteous jackass? We get it, you hate Apple. That doesn't give you an excuse to ignore FACTS.
FACT #!: The developer censored THEIR OWN APP. Apple didn't have anything to do with that.
FACT #2: Apple specifically told them they could submit the app after the ratings system was out and it would be left intact.
FACT #3: You're a douche. Learn the FACTS of a situation before blaming Apple for everything in the universe, thanks.
Yes Zak, you are a tool. Calling me an Apple hater proves it. I love Apple, own an iPhone 2g and a Mac Mini, picking up the 3Gs soon. Yep, I'm a hater.....idiot.
Please explain why apple is still pulling and blocking apps for adult content even now that the ratings system is in place on 3.0.
Please pull your head out of your ass and address how this is happening with other apps. I know you want to just talk about this one app because you think you know what you are talking about, but you don't, and you obviously don't keep up to date on this stuff or you would know their rating system they discuss is just bs smokescreen. Just about everyone here can see it except for you, maybe cause they've read about other apps that were pulled even though the parental controls are in place....but you can't say shit about that...because if you even admitted it happened your entire stance gets thrown out the window. Too bad, I am done discussing this with you troll. Keep your head in the sand and defend every apple decision no matter how stupid it is. You only make yourself look like the douchbag dumbass that you really are......
Can apple already accept 'paul chapel' into their fold and make him assistant head of app approval like he's so persistently applying for here, he certainly seems to have all the requirements...
Lol, come back Paul? Your points are valid too!
I was watching a clip of the 1997 Macworld Expo....you know, the one where Jobs announced the deal with Microsoft. At one key point, Jobs makes an interesting statement in reference to IE being included standard on the OS at that time.
"Since we believe in CHOICE, we're going to be shipping other internet browsers as well on the macintosh and the user can change their default browser, should they choose to."
What happened to Apple believe in CHOICE?
I can appreciate larger issues such as cell network security and what not, but what happened to allowing the user to define their own experience? What happened to THINK DIFFERENT?
Come on Phil, Steve.....let US choose what we want on OUR gadgets!
Yeah... I think they should also censor Safari 'cause yo can get into dirty pages. Wait! They MUST ban the SMS application also, people could send prophanities to each other with it! WOAH, Even those application that lets you edit Word documents can be used to do wrong... may be to write some blackmail letter!!
Eerr... you are even exposed to receive a phone call with all kind of swearing in it!! EVEN ON A REGULAR OLD FASHION GRAHAM BELL PHONE !!!
This is freaking me out! Lets ban all ·"%$%"· digital -and analog- technology NOW!!
In the mean time, I'll be hidding in a hole...
Think of the children, won't somebody PLEEEASE think of the children!?!
*cough* bullshit *cough*
'sall better now, right Nilay?
/rolleyes
How am I supposed to THINK DIFFERENT when Apple keeps thinking for me? Apple knows what is best for me! Must follow Apple! I will join you Apple when the next comet comes by, I will put on my hip suburban slacker youth clothes, listen to your indie music and drink the magic kooaid that will send me on the journey to the stars so I can be one with Apple! I will then be able to THINK DIFFERENTLY like everyone else.
It's a dictonary for God's sake! I would like to have all the words that it can handle. Specially the bad ones. Even if you are a native English speaker you cannot keep up with the new terms. Anyway. Kids have better places to learn bad words. Will they censor the Safari browser too? the hole internet? be a CHINA? hello!!!!
Er, I don't understand ... so Apple would rather people use vulgar words ignorantly and inappropriately than actually know that they're vulgar? This is a serious issue. I've seen immigrants casually misusing vulgar words without knowing that they're offensive. What's wrong with simply specifying in the definition that the word is vulgar and/or not recommended for use? I'd much rather have my child know the meaning of a profanity/obscenity, and know that it's vulgar, than learn its meaning on the streets where it might be casually used. Does Apple really think that if a vulgar word doesn't appear in a dictionary, then it won't be used?
A word is a word. And if it's a word, then the word should be in any dictionary reguardless of how vulgar the word is. Otherwise, you cannot trust a dictionary with what words it does have. If you knowingly leave out words, then why would we trust the definitions of the words that are in the dictionary?
By "Learn and improve", they mean "Learn to detect the complaints before it reaches the press and improve the silencing process".
dude, it's a dictionary, it should have every word imaginable
tomo
Unbelievable. I normally stick up for Engadget, and blog journalism generally, but this is just too much.
1. You made an error.
2. You are required (for your own credibility) to correct that error.
3. A snivelling, sarcastic, "yeah, well, maybe, but it still sucks" post is not a correction.
The facts are quite simple - you failed in your journalistic obligation to present a somewhat balanced report on the original story. You ignored the possibility that Apple might have had a good reason, you didn't even ask them (!) for their side of the story, and it now turns out that it was the developer's haste, not Apple, that necessitated the censoring.
Note that this article says, "the developer censored the dictionary" whereas your original story said, "Apple censored a dictionary" - do you see how that is completely different, and how the original accusation was a false accusation? It was the *developer*, not Apple, who did the censoring.
Note also that Apple policies were not to blame for the censoring in any case - the dev just wanted his app out immediately instead of waiting for 3.0, and *that* was to blame for the censoring.
I know you're still trying your best to appear anti-Apple in order to please the "Engadget is biased" idiots, but you have failed to provide a proper correction of your earlier story, you failed to point out that YOU falsely accused Apple of doing the censoring, and this cowering, unapologetic, excuse-seeking POS of an article is a disgrace to you, and a disgrace to blog journalism generally.
The reason this happened is obvious - you've become convinced of the evilness of Apple's approval slash rejection policy, because you've ignored the 50,000+ successes (including successes that included naughty words, hey), you've ignored the fact that most of the rejections you've reported on turned out to have actually been for good reasons, and you obviously think that a dozen problems out of 50,000 attempts is a poor success rate when it is anything but.
If Apple is so evil with their app approval, then how have 50,000 successes (again, that includes apps with naughty words in them) managed to get through, exactly? Maybe, just maybe, the process (and the company) are not actually evil and bad at all.
I never thought I'd ever be quoting Paul Chapel, but: "There is so much BS with these App Store complaints that you need wings to stay above it."
I'd love to hear from schiller on the google voice rejection.
Sorry, I'm not reading the comments on this article (which probably means no one is reading this either....hmmm) but I just want to say that censoring a dictionary is only appropriate if the dictionary is inaccurate. If the content is correct then I feel that you should not censor it at all, no matter what the content, because people have a right to know what words mean, particularly children. I certainly would not want my children using words without knowing their correct meaning since doing so can cause unintended offence to people who do know what they mean.
All this said, if the dictionary isn't the Oxford English dictionary then I'm not interested. Last heard, Wiktionary wasn't a legal dictionary for use with Scrabble...
I'll tell you why Apple's App approvals system is so damn inconsistent - the apps themselves are, all 65,000 of them, so damn many, varied and inconsistent.
I'll bet you there's an app called Inconsistency.
Inconsistency - there's an app for that...
As we all know, people learn swearwords by reading the dictionary.
Apple's response means same scrotum, different angle of view. And all the control and censorship like this is the reason I don't have an ipod nor iphone, and never will.
Yes, I used a convention known as an "analogy" here, I can see how that would be difficult to follow. But nevermind, flame on!