6 ms·

Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

24 points by TFrancis 17y ago

credo 17y ago
I'm puzzled by this rejection. "Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store) I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)
- CrazedGeek 17y ago
  Drudge and the like are news sites with heavy biases, not just a political statement-type app. For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.
- pistoriusp 17y ago
  During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs. He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point? Steve" http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...
  - pqs 17y ago
    That would be valid if customers had to use the App! If it was compulsory. But, people only use the Apps they want to, the ones they download! So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it. There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
    - pistoriusp 17y ago
      Never underestimate how often people will find reasons to be offended: Drive down a road... See a billboard that you don't agree with... Offended! The "fk Jesus" group on Facebook... Offended! I usually only tend to get offended when someone is trying to offend me directly. But other people are not so liberal with their egos.
      - pqs 17y ago
        But this is their problem. I should be able to use any kind of software in my iPhone.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it. You cannot count on people behaving this way, least of all when it comes to politics. There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness. Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as endorsement. For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved for the store, but one (it doesn't matter which) is only approved with a higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political issue in every country Apple runs a store.
      - pqs 17y ago
        What I cannot understand at all is why I'm able to install any kind of software on my mackbook and why I can't do this on my iPhone. It's just absurd.
allenbrunson 17y ago
oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple." i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.
- jgilliam 17y ago
  I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'. the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.
    - jgilliam 17y ago
      An application promoting single payer health care is not even remotely comparable to a flame comment.
      - allenbrunson 17y ago
        but news.yc also doesn't allow political articles, for the most part, because they tend to attract unproductive arguments. i'm going to guess that's the real reason that guy's app was rejected, rather than 'censorship'.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?
hyperbovine 17y ago
Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.
- andreyf 17y ago
  FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged" applications, as well. So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged". Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.
  - vlad 17y ago
    I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race, ethnicity, or religion of the developers.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      It wouldn't, but not because of free speech laws, but because of anti-discrimination laws.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        Would an application's political slant not be protected under discrimination laws, as well?
anonjon 17y ago
Why all of the knee-jerk reactions to the word 'censorship'? Rejecting an app on the basis that it is political is censorship. It is also censorship to reject an app based on the fact that it is porn or has 'dirty' words. A "politically charged" app is considered inconvenient to have on the iphone store, as such, it is censored. Apple may very well claim the right to reject any app that they see fit. This doesn't magically invalidate the fact that they censor certain apps. In fact, censorship is exactly the right that Apple claims here. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
zaidf 17y ago
One day Apple will realize the feeling of suffocation going through most iPhone developers.
GHFigs 17y ago
I don't understand the purpose of this post. The author seems to disagree with the rejection, but more interested in promoting the rejection than actually getting the application published. Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that really the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?

24 points by TFrancis 17y ago

credo 17y ago

I'm puzzled by this rejection. "Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store) I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)

CrazedGeek 17y ago
Drudge and the like are news sites with heavy biases, not just a political statement-type app. For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.
pistoriusp 17y ago
During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs. He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point? Steve" http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...
- pqs 17y ago
  That would be valid if customers had to use the App! If it was compulsory. But, people only use the Apps they want to, the ones they download! So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it. There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
  - pistoriusp 17y ago
    Never underestimate how often people will find reasons to be offended: Drive down a road... See a billboard that you don't agree with... Offended! The "fk Jesus" group on Facebook... Offended! I usually only tend to get offended when someone is trying to offend me directly. But other people are not so liberal with their egos.
    - pqs 17y ago
      But this is their problem. I should be able to use any kind of software in my iPhone.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it. You cannot count on people behaving this way, least of all when it comes to politics. There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness. Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as endorsement. For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved for the store, but one (it doesn't matter which) is only approved with a higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political issue in every country Apple runs a store.
    - pqs 17y ago
      What I cannot understand at all is why I'm able to install any kind of software on my mackbook and why I can't do this on my iPhone. It's just absurd.

allenbrunson 17y ago

oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple." i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.

jgilliam 17y ago
I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'. the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.
  - jgilliam 17y ago
    An application promoting single payer health care is not even remotely comparable to a flame comment.
    - allenbrunson 17y ago
      but news.yc also doesn't allow political articles, for the most part, because they tend to attract unproductive arguments. i'm going to guess that's the real reason that guy's app was rejected, rather than 'censorship'.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?

hyperbovine 17y ago

Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.

andreyf 17y ago
FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged" applications, as well. So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged". Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.
- vlad 17y ago
  I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race, ethnicity, or religion of the developers.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    It wouldn't, but not because of free speech laws, but because of anti-discrimination laws.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Would an application's political slant not be protected under discrimination laws, as well?

anonjon 17y ago

Why all of the knee-jerk reactions to the word 'censorship'? Rejecting an app on the basis that it is political is censorship. It is also censorship to reject an app based on the fact that it is porn or has 'dirty' words. A "politically charged" app is considered inconvenient to have on the iphone store, as such, it is censored. Apple may very well claim the right to reject any app that they see fit. This doesn't magically invalidate the fact that they censor certain apps. In fact, censorship is exactly the right that Apple claims here. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

zaidf 17y ago

One day Apple will realize the feeling of suffocation going through most iPhone developers.

GHFigs 17y ago

I don't understand the purpose of this post. The author seems to disagree with the rejection, but more interested in promoting the rejection than actually getting the application published. Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that really the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?