News
Apple rejects book app for ‘objectionable content’
By Charles Starrett
Senior Editor, iLounge
Published: Monday, December 22, 2008
News Category: iPhone Applications
Apple recently rejected an iPhone-based version of a book because it contained foul language. Citing a clause in the iPhone SDK that states “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 judgement (sic) may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users,” Apple rejected Knife Music by David Carnoy, going so far as to provide a sample of one particularly graphic section. Alex Brie, developer of the application, believes Apple is checking for such content using word-matching software because it would be difficult to believe that Apple has staff with the time to manually read each book submitted. “Apple’s staff shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to publish works of literature based only on word matching. Even more, what would happen if I (a Romanian) would publish an ebook filled with Romanian obscenities? - would Apple’s staff need to learn Romanian…and read the entire ebook…to make sure this doesn’t happen?” Brie said. Apple offers both movies and music on the iTunes Store containing similar language to that found in Carnoy’s book, although in those cases it is able to either mark the content explicit or rely on the MPAA’s movie ratings; there is no equivalent ratings system for books.
Next: App devs blast extended Apple delays, "amateur" support
Previous: Equinux announces Live TV television app for iPhone
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- Apple launches Reserve and Pick Up retail service
- Apple patent points to simplified data sharing
- iPodweek coming shortly, still time to register
- Apple rolling out updated iTunes LP/Extras files
- Apple seeking new iPhone security manager
- Vers launches open-front Shellcases for iPod, iPhone
- iPhone developer accused of stealing phone numbers
- Quirky intros Beamer case for iPhone 3G, 3GS
- Apple’s Jobs named ‘CEO of the decade’
- Intel responds on iPhone sync issues
Recent Reviews
- Elexa Consumer Products iBlink
- Bose SoundDock 10
- Shure SE115m+ Sound Isolating Headset
- Apple Remote (2009)
- Kensington Travel Battery Pack and Charger for iPhone
- Tapulous Metallica Revenge
- Electronic Arts NBA Live by EA Sports
- Edifier iF500 Luna5 Encore
- Griffin iTrip for iPod + iPhone With iTrip Controller App
- XtremeMac Luna Voyager
Recent Articles
- iPhone Gems: Asphalt 5 and Doom Classic
- Ask iLounge 10-30-09
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of Apple TV 3.0
- Ask iLounge 10-23-09
- iPhone Gems: Copy Cat, Derek Jeter Baseball, I Am T-Pain, MotionX GPS Drive, Pang + Real Racing GTI
- iPhone Gems: 2XL ATV Offroad, Adrenaline Golf Online + Iron Fist Boxing 3rd Strike
- iPhone Gems: BombLink, Rock Band + Tap Tap Revenge 3
- Ask iLounge 10-16-09
- iPhone Gems: Global Eater, NPR News, Pocket Tunes Radio, scanR + vTuner Radio
- iPhone Gems: Itsy Bitsy Spider and Little Red Hen Childrens’ Books

1
Get over it. If you don’t like what Apple does, go elsewhere.
Posted by Dennis on December 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM (PDT)
2
Wow, seriously Dennis? I think it’s ridiculous that the application can’t just be marked “EXPLICIT” and call it a day. Although then there would be complaints about how Apple labels applications as explicit.
But I don’t agree with this unorthodox rejection.
Posted by Michael on December 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM (PDT)
3
I thought apps could be rated mature or something.
Posted by John on December 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM (PDT)
4
“Judgement” and “judgment” are both valid spellings.
Posted by Andrew on December 22, 2008 at 7:42 PM (PDT)