12 Comments

Summary:

Apple may or may not be thinking about it this way, but the iPhone App Store is fast becoming a moral battleground for the gaming and entertainment industry. Forget the ESRB, forget the MPAA, the new moral authority developers and studios have to contend with is […]

799px-gavel

Apple may or may not be thinking about it this way, but the iPhone App Store is fast becoming a moral battleground for the gaming and entertainment industry.

Forget the ESRB, forget the MPAA, the new moral authority developers and studios have to contend with is Apple’s App Store reviewers, and they may be setting the bar pretty high, at least judging from a recently publicized rejection. The app denied, in this case, is a “South Park” one (not the original Imaginationland game, which remains available), which would have brought a range of “South Park” content to the iPhone and iPod touch.

The app had been submitted in October 2008, but kicked around the review process for quite some time, actually being rejected twice until its development team finally decided to stop bashing its head against the wall and let the thing die a peaceful death. Apple’s reason for blocking the app, which provided clips, information, and other media for “South Park” fans to use and view on their phones, was that it was “potentially offensive.” Throwing the “potentially” in there is a nice attempt to evade being painted as arbiters of morality, which is just what I’m doing in this article.

Macworld UK points out that full seasons of “South Park” are available uncensored from Apple via iTunes as it is, and can therefore be easily transferred to the iPhone, so refusing to offer clips of the same content via an iPhone app seems a little arbitrary. “South Park” developers said that Apple suggested App Store standards would evolve, just as iTunes standards did (explicit lyrics were originally not allowed), but why should it require a separate evolutionary process? It is, after all, an addition to iTunes, not an altogether different beast.

My big problem with this latest rejection is that Apple is beginning to take on the role of industry councils set up for the purpose, made up of members representing a variety of concerns. Because of the success of the App Store, and since they are able to set the terms of access for developers, they are becoming a private company with the authority of a regulatory board, and as such have undue influence over what does and doesn’t get made. Hopefully the advent of mobile app stores from so many other carriers will force the establishment of some kind of standards governing software in this space, so that Apple can’t keep single-handedly setting the industry tone.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Many have been saying that the rejection is because of the lack of proper parental controls on apps in the app store, and I find it disappointing that this article chooses not to even mention that or counter-arguments to that.

    Also, it’s fairly obvious that South Park content is definitely offensive to large groups of people and something that many people would not want their kids to have free access to.

    Lastly, I think it certainly deserves at least a mention, that this app is really just one of those “psuedo-apps” that has no function other than advertising the South Park website and drawing customers to it. It’s not like it’s a “real” app like a game or a utility, it’s a portal to the South Park website and could easily be done as a web app that people who visit the South Park website anyway and already like it, could install on their iPhone with no problems.

    Like many iPhone app rejection stories, this seems like yet another tempest in a teapot to me.

  2. Apple is hurting themselves with this stupidity.

    For example, I will not write any iPhone apps simply because I have no way of knowing up front if I’m going to be ALLOWED to even try to sell my app. If Apple had actual, concrete rules I might consider it (despite disliking the idea of conforming to some arbitrary moral code) – but they don’t. Apple has arbitrary rules with inconsistent enforcement.

  3. I dunno if that is a real gavel or not, but I want it! Of course, I have no idea what I would actually use it for.

  4. Weekly App Store Picks: Feb. 21, 2009 – TheAppleBlog Saturday, February 21, 2009

    [...] With timing that implied that their next-action was some kind of nonsensical retort, Apple clenched their fists, stomped their feet and promptly rejected the latest South Park game from the App Store. [...]

  5. App Store Moral Battleground: “South Park” Nixed | Laptops Press Latest Laptops News – Reviews – Deals Saturday, February 28, 2009

    [...] here:  App Store Moral Battleground: “South Park” Nixed Related ArticlesBookmarksTags Apple Could Partner With Verizon, Rack Up Sales More [...]

  6. Will Apple’s App Store Censor the Upcoming Dexter Game? « Gold Label Goods Sunday, March 1, 2009

    [...] Yes, it’ll be interesting to see where Dexter, our favorite blood-lusting anti-hero, reads on Apple’s morality meter. [...]

  7. nintendo ds Monday, March 2, 2009

    is there a new nintendo coming out this year?

  8. To be honest this was bound to happen because the iPhone and iPod Touch have become so commercial

  9. Who exactly is tasked with the job of accepting or rejecting apps?

    At the end of the day, it’s Apple’s store and they are at liberty to chose the content they want to promote.

  10. Abrams Research Blog » Blog Archive » Point/Counterpoint: Offensive iPhone apps Friday, October 30, 2009

    [...] out at some fetish party.  No, I’m merely browsing Apple’s app store.  Yes, somehow the moral guardians at Apple have let a few questionable creations into their [...]

Comments have been disabled for this post