• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • News
  • Events
  • Media
  • Video
  • Glossary
  • Contact
  • Download
  • RSS

iPhone Roundup

June 5th, 2009  |  by elisabeth  |  Published in iphone  |  3 Comments

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

It’s been a while since we’ve done a roundup of what’s going on in the iPhone app world. Apple continues to reject or kill apps at a slow but steady pace. The rejections fall into a various categories: political rejections, content-based rejections (both explicable and not), and catch-all rejections of cool and useful apps I wish were available. On the “political rejection” front, we have Obama Trampoline and MyShoe. Obama Trampoline is a game where the user bounces Obama (or one of 17 other political figures, including a pants-free Bill Clinton) on a trampoline and uses his head to pop balloons. MyShoe, based on last December’s shoe-throwing incident, allowed users to pretend to throw the iPhone at a political figure—Bush, bin Laden, and others—and the program would tell users how good their aim was. It seems from these and other rejections that Apple is just completely against political satire. That’s a clear loss for public discourse, but it’s easy to understand what Apple is thinking from a business perspective. They obviously shouldn’t discriminate against political apps based on viewpoint. But I’m also not sure they can let everything in—at least, not without legal immunity similar to what ISPs have. What if an app advocated violence? Is shoe-throwing “violence”? A potentially-liable gatekeeper would prefer to avoid those questions.

As for content-based rejections: first, there’s the South Park app (too profane, of course—though you can get the episodes from iTunes). Another app rejected for profanity displayed EFF’s RSS feed, which at the moment of vetting included a link to a parody using the f-word. Apple must think its users’ sensibilities are awfully delicate—would they really face public backlash for this stuff?

More understandably (if not defensibly), Apple rejected an app called Me So Holy that let users insert their own faces over the body of Jesus. Still, it’s hard to see who’s harmed. Finally, Apple rejected—actually, accepted then killed—an utterly tasteless app called BabyShaker. The “game” displayed a picture of a baby; users shook the phone until the baby’s eyes turned into x’s. People actually protested that one, which is the first time I can recall that happening.

Finally, there are the cool apps, including Newber and iCall. Newber hasn’t been rejected; it’s in apparently permanent limbo. The program lets you redirect incoming calls on the iPhone to other phones, like your work or home phone. Useful, but AT&T, which loses the call, presumably isn’t pleased with it. Another app, iCall, allows users to make VoIP calls from iPhones. The developers, realizing AT&T might worry about this one too, communicated with Apple before they started developing and during the process. The app has now been approved, but only after months of radio silence from Apple, which the creators spent wondering if their half-million dollar investment had been wasted. The developer testified to the Copyright Office that “even after months under submission, Apple did no meaningful testing of the iCall app before approving it.”

So in all those apps, we have one that’s pretty offensive, a couple that would amuse some and offend others, and a couple that are both harmless and interesting. I wonder if that ratio is worth the massive investment of time Apple puts into pre-approving apps. Plus, you have to wonder how scalable that system is. Could they just wait until people protest, as with BabyShaker? Or might it have been better to try to portray themselves more like an ISP—just a conduit, not liable for content (even if they weren’t treated that way legally)? Apple seems very concerned about public opinion (hence the heavy hand with political satire), but I suspect the public would understand a policy of admitting apps indiscriminately.

On the other hand, the iPhone doubled its market share in the last year, all the other smartphone makers are creating their own app stores, and small developers can become zillionaires without having to figure out distribution for their programs. So, there’s a lot to like, too.

Responses

Feed
  1. Bertil Hatt says:

    June 6th, 2009 at 5:24 am (#)

    How can a company so savy with customer design end up being so clueless about censorship? It sounds more like Steve Jobs defending DRMs (never wanted it, had to do it to please the majors) to hurry their demise, rather then a control-freak on the loose. It’s not in their interest to be responsible for all that — so I’m now assuming their are trying to use this blog and other legal ressources to argue against their control and free them from legal threats.

  2. iPhone Roundup :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It | TechnoSwarm.com says:

    June 6th, 2009 at 5:28 am (#)

    [...] fall into a various categories: political rejections, … Go here to read the rest:  iPhone Roundup :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It Share and [...]

  3. Haakon's blog » Blog Archive » Can the Internet continue as “small pieces loosely joined”? says:

    December 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm (#)

    [...] Apple´s AppStore policy on applications such as Google Voice and political satire [...]

Blog

  • Controlling Cyberspace
  • This semester, we’re starting an exciting new class, aimed not at lawyers, but undergraduate CS students here at Harvard. It’s called CS42: Controlling Cyberspace – and we’re sharing the syllabus online.  Anything big we’re missing? Read more »

  • Computers Going Wild?
  • Computers Gone Wild: Impact and Implications of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Society was an informal discussion that took place at Harvard Law School on December 8th, 2011. Hosted by Jonathan Zittrain, Marin Soljačić and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, we brought together eighteen mostly local guests to discuss the ways that AI is changing society. Unlike futuristic predictions involving the Singularity or the underlying technology, this workshop explored current technology. Sessions included discussions on warfare, finance, education, and labor. Below is a list of attendees and a summary of the discussion.

    Read more »

  • Ideas for a Better Internet
  • Ideas for a Better Internet, or i4bi, is an interdisciplinary course at Harvard and Stanford that challenges students from law, computer science, and public policy to come up with novel and plausible ways to improve the Internet and its use. i4bi centers on immersing participants in Internet history, technologies, and politics, so that students can come up with ideas that help to build a better Internet — however they define “better.” Read more »
  • Microsoft Echoes Apple App Store Requirements
  • Here at Future of the Internet, we’ve already talked a little bit about Apple’s content requirements for both the iOS and Mac App Stores in JZ’s The PC is Dead post. As JZ said,

    “Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore found his iPhone app rejected because it contained “content that ridicules public figures.” Fiore was well-known enough that the rejection raised eyebrows, and Apple later reversed its decision. But the fact that apps must routinely face approval masks how extraordinary the situation is: tech companies are in the business of approving, one by one, the text, images, and sounds that we are permitted to find and experience on our most common portals to the networked world. Why would we possibly want this to be how the world of ideas works, and why would we think that merely having competing tech companies—each of which is empowered to censor—solves the problem?”

    Apple’s approach is an example of a larger phenomenon. Read more »

  • A SOPA compromise is floated
  • Last week several members of Congress — Senators Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, and Paul, and Reps. Issa, Lofgren and Chaffetz — floated a proposal to substitute for the contentious proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, previously discussed here.  Sen. Wyden’s office has commented on the compromise, and TechDirt has a writeup and a copy of the document here. The proposal omits the elements of SOPA that had run into the most resistance. Gone is tinkering with fundamental Internet architecture such as the use of the domain name system. Gone is the involvement of the Attorney General. Gone is the criminal copyright streaming provision that could, theoretically, make a teenage Justin Bieber a felon for streaming amateur videos featuring his renditions of songs by his favorite artists.In all these ways, the Wyden compromise is significantly better than SOPA. So what’s left? Read more »
About Jonathan Zittrain

jonathan zittrain

Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

RSS Tweets from Z

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Blog Archives



Creative Commons BY-NC-SA Jonathan Zittrain unless otherwise noted.
Powered by WordPress using Gridline Lite.