iPhone Developer Creates App Criticizing The iPhone; App Is Quickly Pulled

from the don't-cross-invisible-lines dept

Molleindustria is an app developer who makes a line of controversial and political games. Some of its more well known games include McDonalds Videogame, Operation: Pedopriest, and Oiligarchy. It just recently announced and released its latest game, Phone Story. This particular game takes the player through the cruel world of smart phone production using a series of mini games depicting the mining of coltan from the Congo using child labor, the suicides in the Foxconn factories and, of course, e-waste disposal in third world countries.

On top of all those themes, the game was to be released on the very platform it criticized: the iPhone.

It didn't last long on the platform.

Just hours after being approved, Apple yanked it from the app store for four separate violations.
15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected

16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected

21.1 Apps that include the ability to make donations to recognized charitable organizations must be free

21.2 The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS
The key story going around the internet is that Apple is silencing a critic of its platform and business practices, and it's just using the iOS guidelines as a tool to do so.

Let's put that aside and focus on something a little different: Apple's arbitrary code enforcement. According to Molleindustria:
I'm very familiar with the App Store policy, and the game is designed to be compliant with it.

If you check the guidelines,
Phone Story doesn't really violate any rule except for the generic 'excessively objectionable and crude content' and maybe the 'depiction of abuse of children'. Yes, there's dark humor and violence but it's cartoonish and stylized - way more mellow than a lot of other games on the App Store.
If Molleindustria took the extra effort to be compliant, how did they end up breaking those above rules? It's hard to say as even Molleindustria doesn't quite know.

Rules 21.1 and 21.2 are the easy ones to counter. Molleindustria did pledge that all proceeds from the app sales will be going to charity, but that is not done in the app itself. That is Molleindustria giving away the 70% of sales it earns to a charity. It was not asking any buyers to donate to a charity in the app or even outside the app. I guess Apple just didn't want to be part of the charitable aspect.

Rule 15.2 might be a sticking point. Molleindustria admits:
a new version of Phone Story that depicts the violence and abuse of children involved in the electronic manufacturing supply chain in a non-crude and non-objectionable way... will be a difficult task
Yet, is depicting near real life conditions of child labor really objectionable? Would a news app reporting on child labor and showing a video of children in the working environment get a pass? Or is the problem that such a depiction is interactive in this case? It isn't like this game is a baby shaker app or anything. The child abuse depicted has an editorial purpose.

Finally, we come to Rule 16.1. Of the four, this rule is probably the most frequently broken by app developers as it is completely subjective by nature. What one app reviewer finds objectionable another would not. In this case, an app reviewer did not find the app objectionable or crude, but someone in Apple's leadership did. How is an app developer supposed to know what people they don't know find objectionable? I know many people who think the various "fart apps" or pimple popping apps on the app store are crude, and many others who think they are funny.

In Apple's case it is a matter of "it knows it when it sees it." Not really the best course of action.

Apple is no stranger to controversy over its arbitrary code enforcement. The first few years of the iPhone's life were rife with stories about apps being banned for doing nothing more than connecting people to content that is freely available online via the Safari browser. For that reason, it really comes as no surprise at all that it would attempt to silence a critic using arbitrary code enforcement.

There is also the possibility that Apple just doesn't think that Molleindustria is a professional satirist. The guidelines actually do have a code in place to allow such "professional satire" to skirt those other rules:
14.2 Professional political satirists and humorists are exempt from the ban on offensive or mean-spirited commentary
So what is it Apple? Is it okay to be mean spirited in our commentary as long as Apple is not the target? I guess so.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

    Mac Sheeple

    Look, there's no place for anything which might in any way ever by anybody be considered 'objectionable' content--unless of course it comes from an Emmy winning cartoonist (or the equivalent) and blocking said app will be more damaging the Apple's reputation due to public perception than not blocking said app, in which case the app will slide on by.

    The Apple walled garden accepts no weeds, no wild flowers, and no plants without sufficient pedigree. This is what one gets when one decides to join Apple's world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sumquy (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 5:15pm

    i disagree with the tone of this story.

    all the 100+ page documents apple makes everyone agree to before you can use an apple product really say is: apple can do what apple wants. but that is not a bad thing. apple built the whole iphone platform as a closed ecosystem. one with the apple rule(see above). the developers freely chose to build apps for it on those terms. the market will determine if that strategy is effective or not, but guys like this, that try to claim some kind of right to apple hosting their app get on my nerves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 6:04pm

      Re:

      except apple posted the app, and then pulled it. Suddenly it was breaking the terms that is passed during the "black hole" period where you submit and app and apple agrees to post it.

      To try to pretend that they are trying to shove it into the app store, when they were already there fails at that point. They tried to find ways to make it fit into apples "new" terms but the fact that it at its heart the removal was not because of violating any term other than making apple look bad.

      This is apple being thin skinned to criticism of how they do business, and reading the terms differently to support that position.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 6:38pm

      Re:

      If nobody complains that the Apple Store is an unfair walled garden, how are people going to understand that they should go elsewhere?

      Basically you're saying that people shouldn't say anything since they accepted those rules. But then, people wouldn't find out that these rules suck and things would never change, even if that just means helping others realize they should abandon the platform.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        David Liu (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 11:20pm

        Re: Re:

        But that's not the point. Everybody has the right to complain about Apple's rules, but until those walled garden rules change, it's absolutely idiotic to think that the app store is a viable place to use as a platform to further your own counter agenda.

        It's about as stupid as going inside Apple headquarters to do your soapbox thing, and then complain when you get escorted out.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 4:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I disagree, it is very effective specially if you go inside Apple and call the media to report on it.

          That is exactly what happened.

          Those guy just multiplied their exposure and got more attention than they probably normally would.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fb39ca4 (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 6:02pm

    Apple just screwed themselves over

    If it weren't for them pulling the app, most people would not know it even existed, but now, with websites everywhere reporting this, the whole world knows about this, and those who have jailbroken and use Installous are going to be downloading it anyways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      David Liu (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 11:11pm

      Re: Apple just screwed themselves over

      More like Apple has firmly established this position in the past, and won't give a fuck. To be blunt: the vast majority of people won't know about this, and won't care anyways. The people that do, already know that Apple is a walled garden, and this is only evidence that reaffirms their suspicions.

      To say that pulling this app screws them over to the extent of a Streisand effect is a bit hysterical at this moment, when considering the fact that tons of apps get pulled or blocked for similar reasons every day.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 4:12am

        Re: Re: Apple just screwed themselves over

        And yet this one got attention from people outside of the innermost circle of devs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 16th, 2011 @ 7:06pm

    Apple

    Can't handle the truth, but they care about being politically correct? Methinks their out of order priorities are heading the ship in the wrong direction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      David Liu (profile), Sep 16th, 2011 @ 11:12pm

      Re: Apple

      Their priorities are about making money, and so far, you can't say that they haven't been wildly successful with their endeavors.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 4:13am

        Re: Re: Apple

        Today, not always, there is a giant whole in their history showing just how bad things can get.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 16th, 2011 @ 7:23pm

    Apple does whatever Apple wants, and all the iSheep lap it up. This is just more of the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 4:08am

    I hope the reality-distortion-field is not DNA encoded or else whomever is running Apple today will have problems making it work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ken (profile), Sep 17th, 2011 @ 6:36am

    Can you imagine Microsoft announcing that all applications and programs on any Microsoft machine must be submitted and approved by them? Why do we accept Apple doing this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ken (profile), Sep 17th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    Can you imagine Microsoft announcing that all applications and programs on any Microsoft machine must be submitted and approved by them? Why do we accept Apple doing this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2011 @ 6:37pm

    Can you imagine Microsoft announcing that all applications and programs on any Microsoft machine must be submitted and approved by them? Why do we accept Apple doing this?

    Shallow people with shinning gadgets as status symbols?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    kriya shah, Sep 19th, 2011 @ 5:17am

    mobile store

    it's absolutely idiotic to think that the mobile store is a viable place to use as a platform to further your own counter agenda.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Sep 19th, 2011 @ 7:31am

    meh, my company is trying to create a regular old iPhone app, and we are getting the same stupid run around about made up violations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    shanerolland (profile), Jan 4th, 2014 @ 4:18am

    I want to start my own iphone repair service. I've been looking around online, and to be honest I'm not sure were to start. Me and my collegues have looked up places where we can become certified technicians, but how good is the training at so and sos you know. Another thing we are having trouble with is finding a supplier for parts. The internet is scattered with part suppliers, but who is going to be the most reliable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This