Saturday, 16 May 2009
-
Apple Excommunicates Religious App from iPhone and iPod Touch
by mr palm
Apple has been guarding the iPhone and iPod Touch against apps that it deems distasteful. A couple of weeks ago, apps for the band Nine Inch Nails were rejected, but eventually approved. Now, an app called 'Me So Holy' has gotten the axe. 'Me So Holy' allows users to add their picture into a portrait of Jesus or another religious figure.
The condemning statement in the iPhone agreement:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Benjamin Kahle, creator of 'Me So Holy', noted, "Sex, urine and defecation don't seem to be off-limits, yet a totally non-violent, religion-based app is." (CNET article)
Should the 'Me So Holy' app have been rejected by Apple according to the above terms?
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: mr_palm
- Name: mr_palm
- About Me: I want to encourage, entertain, and challenge others in new and meaningful ways. I'm a big fan of music, college football, geeky stuff, and food.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 15 Views: 0 27751 Comments: 0 1177 View all posts by mr_palm
Comments (21)
i see where apple is coming from. i think they wanted to avoid the uproar of offended christians as they see their Lord with a goofy face plastered on there. it personally doesn't offend me (i think it's kinda funny), but i think they were really trying to protect the greater good. whether the inventor's intentions were harmful or not we don't know, but i don't blame apple for what they did. if they had done it for an app with a removable face for buddha or whatever, it'd be the same thing... it's just that Jesus is always the most controversial (and usually the biggest targets for non-believers).
@vvorldsapart@xanga - "it's just that Jesus is always the most controversial (and usually the biggest targets for non-believers)"
Gee... I wonder why?
What "sex, urine and defecation" apps is Benjamin Kahle talking about? Not a sarcastic question, I'm just curious because I don't think I've seen them. It doesn't matter to me, I have no interest in this app anyway. I tend to only have useful applications and tools, no games or anything.
I agree with @KasumiCelesta@xanga . I don't see any apps where those items come into play. Apple has a point saying that they are taking precaution that maybe if they did approve it and someone made a picture offending Jesus or Buddha or something, they would be in hot water as well.
Apple is a free, money making enterprise and as such, has the right to legally conduct its business as it pleases.
As a consumer, it is my choice whether Apple's business model suits me or not.
If Apple didn't pull it, someone would've complained eventually.
"It's making fun of Jesus!" and then there's a lawsuit.
I have to side with apple. Sooner or later someone would complain about how it's offensive to take Jesus' face out and replace it with something crude or silly.
They're just being cautious.
First of all, I don't know why Christians would be upset that an app which doesnt take Christianity seriously was deleted.
Second, as has been said, Apple is a company. It means things like Freedom of Speech/Expression does not apply. Much like how forums can delete "off-topic" threads even if they are harmless (and do).
Apple wanted to make sure those who had various faiths wouldn't be offended by the app, I don't see anything wrong with that. Believers would be offended if misc. people were inserted into a portrait of their religious figures, while there isn't a large group of people offended by sex, or urine.
The title of this post implies that they are preventing actual "religious apps" such as maybe a Bible reader application or something. The app mentioned above is incredibly distasteful. It's disrespecting Jesus, and likely Mohamed, Buddha, etc.
It's a pointless and tasteless app, and Apple's terms seem to fit it well.
The disclaimer is broad enough that they can shoot down just about anything. They could have left it or rejected it without breaking their rules.
Personally, I think their rules are stupid. Why regulate what apps people can use on your product? Stereo companies don't tell their consumers what music they can or cannot listen to.
Ofc, they're free to do as they wish. If they think nannying people will win them more fanbois than letting people use their product as they see fit, that's their call.
It could be seen as offensive to many people.
I don't understand...does this mean that its not allowing you to get the app at all? or is it saying that it is not going to be the one that you can get the app from?
And why on earth is this controversial in the first place? Are there that many people who want to copy and paste their face on the face of a religious leader? Couldn't they just do that with a photo editing program on their computer? I am just absolutely confused here......
What is the big deal?
@LoBornlite@xanga - Good response
@stuartandabby@xanga - Stereo companies don't tell their consumers what music they can or cannot listen to.
It's not a relevant comparison.
@megankendall@xanga - Computer companies do not tell their consumers what games they can or cannot play.
That work?
@stuartandabby@xanga - No. Because Microsoft does, for example, certify if software can be used on Windows or not and that is exactly what Apple is doing here.
@megankendall@xanga - I'll drop the analogy then. My point is that if you're not forced to use the app, why should you care? And if your customers are not forced to use the app, why should you ban all of them from using it (when the ones offended by it wouldn't use it anyway)?
I'll throw up a new analogy for you to shoot down:
I complain about an R-rated movie at the theater, so the theater won't feature it. That work?
@stuartandabby@xanga - I shoot your analogies down because they are idiotic.
See @LoBornlite@xanga - . The theater, like Apple, is a private enterprise. It's funny how you think only the customer has freedom, but not the PRIVATE company. If you don't like it, don't use Apple's products. If you don't then, as you said, why do you care?
@megankendall@xanga - I agree with LoBornlite (which should be obvious from my first post). I agree that Apple can ban the app if they like ("Ofc, they're free to do as they wish"; remember reading that?). That's their call completely. I was just saying I think it's stupid to ban an optional app. If a consumer is offended by an app, they just shouldn't use it.
So, let me again restate it: Apple can ban and allow as they please.
I think it is stupid for them to ban Me So Holy because if a customer is offended by it, he or she can just not use it.
However, if they want to ban it anyway making it so that other people can't use it because it offends some (who wouldn't use it anyway), they can do that all day long.
Normal
0
21
Hi,
hab grade
http://www.erotik-kleinanzeigen.comeine super neue Seite gefunden
da kann man kostenlose Anzeigen schalten, Anzeigen merken, Nachrichten an
Mitglieder verschicken. Jetzt haben die auch ganz neu Gratis Videos, Video-on-demand Service eingebaut. Super Seite... Ich kann
sie nur weiter empfehlen.