Nine Inch Nails App Update Gets Approved By Apple

nin-logoTrent Reznor just announced, via Twitter, that Apple has now approved an update to Nine Inch Nails’ iPhone app.

We reported earlier in the week that Apple had rejected the updated NIN app because of objectionable content.

It’s great to see that Apple used some common sense in this case.

They still need to implement a simple parental guidance system and stop censoring apps over content that would be acceptable in book, movie or music form.

Is it time for Apple to get out of the censorship business, and start slapping a Parental Guidance warning on some apps?

6 thoughts on “Nine Inch Nails App Update Gets Approved By Apple

  1. > It’s great to see that Apple used some common sense in this case.
    > Is it time for Apple to get out of the censorship business, and start slapping a Parental Guidance warning on some apps?

    use some common sense yourself, because this is what apple is planning to do.

  2. Again, only a government can -censor-.

    Apple is a corporation and has a right to approve or not approve any content or media they sell and it is -not- censorship.

    Common sense is very subjective, and Apple neither displayed or ignored common sense. They are a corporation which is driven by profit.

    Here's a question, who's common sense will determine when to put a "parental warning" on content? Yours? Mine? Bob in marketing? The security guy on the nightshift?

    Personally as a parent, I found it refreshing that a corporation would actually take a moral stand and risk profit to not carry the music. I find it sad that fuzzy, subjective standard of general societal decency keeps falling; bowing to the God of corporate profit and a perception that "if we don't sell it, someone else will."

    But there again, this is the same corporation which approved the shaking baby application.

    Heaven help us…

  3. I find that personal responsibility for persons under 16 years of age or so falls unequivocally on the parents. After about 16 your child will pretty much do whatever he or she wants, guided only by the rules and personal standards they were taught in the previous 16 years. Of course, that only works when you have a close relationship with your children, and trust that once you teach values to your children that they will use those values as a check system to see if what they are doing is in-line with their core value system.

    Companies should, and will, sell you whatever they can. Not only is is good "common sense" but it's actually required by law to perform as well as possible for its shareholders.

    Parents should, but don't, spend time with their kids and teach them as much as they can about as many things as possible.
    the bottom line is this: parents are responsible for their children and corporations are responsible for their shareholder's money. unequivocally. if there are any fuzzy lines, you are either raising your kids wrong or running your company wrong.

  4. Good points.

    Apple shouldn't be censoring apps, but they should make it easy for parents to do their job.

    A lot of parents aren't going to know much about the content of songs that kids are listening to, so it would help if music apps were rated the same as movies or albums.

  5. dingebre – how is Apple banning content different than your library banning books or your school district banning topics like evolution?

    The idea that only the government can censor seems naive. The government is controlled by big corporations now and big corporations control the media. Look at the results of media self-censorship/bias in early coverage of the Iraq War.

    The important thing here, though, is that Apple fixed their mistake and they are apparently working on a better process for approving apps.

  6. You asked me about the difference between a library and Apple, and the link to reply brought me back here. I apologize if this is the wrong forum to respond.

    KORGI: how is Apple banning content different than your library banning books or your school district banning topics like evolution?

    A public library is a government institution, hence when they ban a book it is censorship. (Your choice of evolution as an example was interesting. I would have picked Harry Potter 🙂 ).

    KORGI: The idea that only the government can censor seems naive. The government is controlled by big corporations now and big corporations control the media. Look at the results of media self-censorship/bias in early coverage of the Iraq War.

    It is not naïve to claim only a government can censor, it 's a matter of law that only a government can censor. It is incorrect to say that any privately held, non-government funded institution can censor, which by definition is denying the right of free speech and expression.

    Personally, I think that subjective arguments and conspiracy theories that corporations control the government are naïve.

    You invoke newspaper coverage. A free press is fundamental to the US Constitution. The fact that a public newspaper chooses what to print is again a profit decision, not censorship. They will print the news that makes money so long as they are not breaking laws regarding false advertising, or liable/slander, etc.

Leave a Reply