x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple bans apps that criticize or make fun of public figures-unless you've won a Pulitzer

Apple bans apps that criticize or make fun of public figures-unless you've won a Pulitzer

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags:

This article contains unofficial information.

Apple bans apps that criticize or make fun of public figures-unless you've won a Pulitzer
Remember when we told you about Apple's decision to ban x-rated downloads in the App Store? Well, that was just the beginning. Apps that use titles with a trademarked Apple word are a no-no, and yes, Steve Jobs recently claimed that the word "pad" was owned by Apple. Other things that will not fly in the App Store are apps with limited usability, and apps that criticize public figures-unless you have won the Pulitzer Prize. Back in December, editorial cartoonist Mike Fiore's NewsToons app was removed because it ridiculed public figures, something that is practically in the job description for an editorial cartoonist. Two things happened that made it easy for Apple to reverse its decision. First, Mr. Fiore told some fellow journalists what had gone down. Secondly, Mr. Fiore won some little trophy called the Pulitzer Prize. When the cartoonist was a rabble rousing artist with the poison of defamation coursing through his pencils, Cupertino wanted no part of him. But once Fiore became a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with skill and great wit, Apple recanted the App Store ban and NewsToons came back. All this highlights the double standards employed by Apple. For creating parody caricatures of Senators and Congressmen, BobbleRep was removed by Apple and has not returned. Of course, the site never won a Pulitzer. When asked why his site was returned to active status on App Store, Mr. Fiore shied away from discussing the Pulitzer and instead said, "Looks like some guy named Steve Jobs was able to nudge my app past the gatekeepers.”

source: NYTimes, HuffingtonPost



Apple bans apps that criticize or make fun of public figures-unless you've won a Pulitzer

27 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 20 Oct 2010, 01:46

1. scottmbolt (unregistered)


Communist Apple at its finest!

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 08:13

2. corps1089 (Posts: 492; Member since: 20 Jan 2010)


Down with free speech! Up with Jobs propaganda!

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 10:38

7. JeffdaBeat (unregistered)


Apple has never had a policy of "any app goes." In fact, they've been very public about saying an app can be denied for one reason or another. It would be different if they said they would allow any app and then started rejecting them. Even if I were a developer, I'd think twice about putting time into making an app for the App Store because of the possibility of a rejection, but at least I know that going into it.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 11:01

8. iHateCrapple (Posts: 734; Member since: 12 Feb 2010)


Double standards....tisk tisk

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 09:22

3. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


i see jobs now works for obama in silencing all opposition to the socialist takeover.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 10:08

4. IndoSlim (Posts: 7; Member since: 12 Nov 2009)


First off, you sound like an idiot. Second, there is no "socialist takeover" but the one right-wing, conservative nut-jobs have created in their heads and passed on to the other right-wing, conservatives that don't think for themselves and need someone to tell them what to do and how to think.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 10:20

6. runin2music (Posts: 14; Member since: 11 Mar 2010)


no socialism, huh IndoSlim? So how would you explain the latest....the left says Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are seditionists.... because they're using free speech to challenge Obama's agenda. Any attempt to control the media and silence opposition is part of a political and economic theory known as Socialism, my friend. Oh, and then there's the government owning a bunch of car companies....oh, and then there's national health care paid by the people via government taxes....oh, and then there's Obama telling the entire government to never listen to or watch Fox news....if it's not socialism, what the heck do you call it?? Read a book, or even just the dictionary definition, about socialism, and then try calling Obama's admin something else. Sounds more like a U.S.S.A. than the U.S.A. to me.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 11:06

9. TonyClarke (Posts: 1; Member since: 28 Apr 2010)


IndoSlim just doesn't want to understand, or can't. Perhaps he's a closet collectivist. I'll take liberty.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 11:44

10. whocares (Posts: 235; Member since: 19 Dec 2009)


U.S.S.A haha i see what you did there

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 14:23

11. dmberta (Posts: 25; Member since: 30 Dec 2009)


Quick they're coming for your guns soon!You do realize that you sound exactly like the people who claim George Bush is part of a larger Facist conspiracy that included planning 911 and other terorist incidents to "enslave" the American public, or take it down, or hate it, or sell us to the Saudi Banker Communist Facist whatevers.Also, have you never watched politics? Everyone criticizes everything, its not Socialism to be critical of something its Socialism to use force to silence it. Noone has sent National Guardsmen to Fox News to arrest everyone, noone(in the administration) has advocated the rounding up or alienation of political dissidents. If you think this is hardcore Socialsim, then I gotta tell you what our founding fathers were some evil SOB's. Heck when a bunch of freedom loving Americans rebelled under the Articles of the Confederation our founding fathers beat them till they wanted to come back.In short, CALM DOWN.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 14:36

13. networkdood (Posts: 6250; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


Indo, our country is run equally by the left and the right - people in the U.S. are brain-washed into believing that every election we have to choose one or the other. No one to blame but the AMERICAN voters, the media, and the government. Once people realize that both parties in power no longer care about its constituents then, and only then, will we finally wake up...

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 15:14

15. tiolawa (Posts: 115; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


Well from a conservative "nut job", you are right there is no socialist take over because liberals don't know how to get things done. Admittedly remfixa has a point this is not the first time Steve Jobs has worked to silence conservative views... and we all no most Pulitzer winners are Liberal... kinda like the Nobel Peace Prize...

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 15:15

16. LogosPryme (Posts: 2; Member since: 28 Apr 2010)


It's sad when people can't see past our own borders, thinking always that in every way we do everything better than everyone else. Well wake up, man, we are the LAST industrialized nation to have some form of universal healthcare. And don't worry, the watered down version we are getting will still keep money in the pockets of corporate insurance companies who are more than willing to make money on the deaths of American citizens. So as people spread the blindness through fear seeding hype words like 'socialism', even more will wake up to the reality of the situation by gaining an understanding of the facts.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 15:26

17. tiolawa (Posts: 115; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


Corporate insurance companies means competition which drives down costs. As for the idea of it leading to Socialism... maybe you aught to do a little research on Adolf Hitler... one of his biggest platforms was universal health care.. and while you are at it look up Eugenics too and see how the two coincide. As for the little comment about us being the last to not have universal healthcare that is a good thing we do not want to be followers of Europe we should be the rouge leaders we have always been. Our way has always worked best!!!

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 18:28

18. LogosPryme (Posts: 2; Member since: 28 Apr 2010)


I'm glad you brought up Hitler. Hitler was also very involved in industrial expansion, reducing unemployment, and had a focus on healthy family units for German people. Why is it that those opposed to universal healthcare give the most weight to their arguments through fear inducing comparisons? Instead an argument should be based on facts, like what corparate insurance companies are willing to do to make a dollar (ie:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317). Sure competition does bring down costs and that is great in all kind of areas of business, but the cost of insurance is not the real issue here, it is the quality of healthcare the insurance companies are willing to provide vs. the cost that we are paying. And as long as the group in charge of the decisions on what kind of healthcare is 'covered' runs purely on the basis of profit we will continue to be #37 (or worse) in the world. So much for our way always working best.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 23:04

21. dandirk (unregistered)


Driving down costs lol... Do you even work in the Healthcare industry? Well I do, for every insurance company we have to bill differently, do procedures differently, use different equipment all because they want it their own way. This INCREASES costs! More people with 3-4 times knowledge and experience (more $$$) to do the EXACT proper billing and documentation for any particular insurance company. That's right, you have to bill, and document that SAME exact things 3-4 different ways. If you mess up and do it the way another company wants it, the clinic/hospital eats the bill which is then spread to other patients (just like shoplifting). There is a fairly large amount of billing issues like this even for a quality staff. Example: I work in IT for a major university health care group. For basic diabetes care (simple right), I have to support and maintain 4 different devices/software for checking blood sugar levels. They all do the exact same thing (measure blood sugar), yet each insurance company will only except readings from their "official" device, so we don't get paid unless their device is used.. So my company pays me 4x what should be needed to support a very basic feature of healthcare. While I am not a huge supporter of universal. I do support universal billing, and medical standards which will save the healthcare industry and patients money. I think Mass does it like this, they determine universal rules for billing and even costs for ALL insurance companies. If universal healthcare is the only to do this then so be it.

posted on 29 Apr 2010, 09:43

22. corps1089 (Posts: 492; Member since: 20 Jan 2010)


+1: Burned

posted on 29 Apr 2010, 09:44

23. corps1089 (Posts: 492; Member since: 20 Jan 2010)


kind of unfair, the US left turned thier executive and congressional majority into the TARP disaster and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act disaster, so they got something done; the wrong thing. but it remains to see if The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hold up to judicial challenges since it broadly increases teh power and scope of congress to regulate States and individualas and there is no precedents for the health insurance Mandate and there are precedents agaisnt the health insurance Mandate. Great dig at Kerry and Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize and making the award a mokery. Kerry got it for global warming activism, when he actually harnmed the environment filming a movie to support teh environment, and Obama got it for doing whatever he did for the first 23 days in office [supposedley he stopped proliferation of nuclear weapons by folding on a US agreement with Poland].

posted on 29 Apr 2010, 09:44

24. corps1089 (Posts: 492; Member since: 20 Jan 2010)


+! Burned!

posted on 30 Apr 2010, 07:35

27. tiolawa (Posts: 115; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


As a matter of fact I do work in healthcare. And i am sorry but when has a government bureaucracy ever done anything better than a private institution... the post office inefficient .. social security bankrupt... Medicare and Medicaid our current government run healthcare bankrupt.... i could go on but ya'll get the point.

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 10:13

5. merkeke (Posts: 62; Member since: 03 Jan 2009)


yup

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 14:33

12. networkdood (Posts: 6250; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


wow, another reason not to buy an iphone. Mixing politics and business is just not good business. I wonder what PAC funds APPLE contributes to??

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 14:41

14. tiolawa (Posts: 115; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


So are they gonna ban Fox News's app next.. gotta love it when a company starts acting like big brother... Long Live Android!!!!! Open source freedom all the way!!!

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 19:53

19. wade1968 (Posts: 224; Member since: 12 Apr 2010)


i thought about buying a Iphone but the more stuff like this i see oh hell no. what is it the bigger your company or your wallets gets the crazier you get? i thought jon at techseven was kidding when he said apple wanted one device to rule them all.

posted on 29 Apr 2010, 09:56

25. corps1089 (Posts: 492; Member since: 20 Jan 2010)


...and in the darkness bind them. too true and a perfect analogy: +1

posted on 28 Apr 2010, 21:29

20. sellerc (Posts: 2; Member since: 28 Apr 2010)


Is Cupertino a city in China?

posted on 29 Apr 2010, 11:50

26. athiel021 (Posts: 33; Member since: 10 Aug 2009)


The word "pad" is owned by Apple? I guess Maxi is up the creek....

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories