Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Just Says Yes To iPhone Smoking Game

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the thought-they-were-banning-e-cigs dept.

Iphone 192

ZosX sends along a puff piece from Wired's Brian X. Chen: "Apple on Monday approved Puff Puff Pass, a $2 game whose objective is to pass a cigarette or pipe around and puff it as many times as you can within a set duration. So much for taking the high road, Apple. The game allows you to choose between smoking a cigarette, a cigar, and a pipe. Then you select the number of people you'd like to light up with (up to five), the amount of time, and a place to smoke (outdoors or indoors). And you're ready to get right on puffing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (3, Interesting)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007368)

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007468)

The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.

Re:Good (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007490)

Yes, you're right. Look like they need to go out and buy a new Magic 8-Ball.

We all knew it was going to wear out sooner or later.

Re:Good (4, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007660)

You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007748)

Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!

Then sue you to kingdom come.

Re:Good (3, Funny)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008220)

Hey, you never know... they might use your app to approve your app!

and all other apps thereafter.

wait...are you SURE you haven't already submitted it?

Re:Good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008352)

Dear bsDaemon,

Please remove your idea at once as it infringe on our patent for process approval.

Sincerly, Steve.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007516)

And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone [verizonwireless.com] on Thursday.

Re:Good (0, Troll)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007776)

The app was approved but with an Adult rating: Apple rates Puff Puff Pass 17+ for “Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References.”

Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned. They aren't just randomly selecting apps outside of those areas. The only 'vague' one is the 'questionable content', and there you're stuck with Apple's definition of questionable, rather than your own, but that's a risk you take and it's laid out clearly in the agreement the types of apps that would be at risk.

About the only real oddball judgment I can recall is when they started removing 'pointless' apps like the fart apps. One could argue that those fall under the 'questionable content' rule. Basically, if a notable number of people might find your app objectionable due to content, it is removed. Mark Fiore's iPhone app was removed because it "ridicules public figures".

Per the Developer Agreement: "Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."

These aren't 'wildly inconsistent' or anything of the sort. The rejected apps fit within the criteria and are judged on a per app basis. Go there, and risk being rejected.

You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007894)

The app was approved but with an Adult rating: Apple rates Puff Puff Pass 17+ for “Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References.”

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007956)

Nipples would fall into the Adult category, and depending on the taste level of nipple, possibly considered 'porn' and banned. This isn't obscene, pornographic, or defamatory, but because it does depict Tobacco Use, it was rated adult (17+).

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007980)

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating? What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material, aside from the developer agreement?

Puritanical moral hang-ups more suited to a Sharia state than a capitalist democracy?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008122)

Depends on whether the state or private entities are enforcing them.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008478)

Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.

Re:Good (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008178)

And they don't have an "18+: There Might Be a Nipple Somewhere in This App" rating?

Yes they do. For example the Playboy app is rated: 17+ Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity.

What makes this sort of adult material different from other sorts of adult material

Fundamentally, whether Apple thinks selling it devalues their brand or not. Same as any other brand name store.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008226)

Exactly. While Playboy is often considered 'tasteful' men's entertainment, something like Big Titty Mommas would not.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008058)

Their approval rules aren't 'wildly inconsistent'. They are consistent within context of the app, meaning if the app in question goes down one of the questionable paths like mature content, duplicates core functionality, or questionable content, then it is possible it will be banned.

Almost all apps showing sexy, non-nude pictures? Banned.
Playboy app showing sexy playmates? Approved and featured on iTunes.

No inconsistency there.

Re:Good (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008256)

You don't cut your car's brake line, and then complain when your breaks don't stop as expected.

you had me wondering what your post was all about, until the very end. I was reading it just wishing you'd explained it in terms of a car analogy...

and there it was.

Re:Good (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008656)

That's kind of the core of his argument; their judgement on "objectionable content" is what he is calling in to question. He is charging that their definition varies ( which it does ).

But as you say, those are the rules. If you want to play in Apple's sandbox, you play by their rules. If you want to play in a completely free sandbox, where you don't have to worry about app rejection, well, there's a place for that too ( android ).

Re:Good (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008766)

Ever notice how people remember posters by their sigs and not their names?

I don't know about you, 3*11^2*1811, but I remember people by the prime factorization of their UIDs.

- 2*7*58733

Re:Good (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007510)

Preference noted.

Re:Good (1)

uniquegeek (981813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007582)

The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.

(This whole thread is going to be a "shades of grey" argument, anyways.)

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008140)

The point (on here) is that Steve was really proud / pretentious / narcissistic that they do exactly that. He takes a swipe at others for being lowbrow.

Mr. Jobs has made an entire career on pretension. There's a reason that Apple evokes so much rabid zealotry from the otherwise computer-agnostic arty types. Just look at the way he boldly announces products' limitations and disabilities as strokes of design genius (and then later, even more astoundingly, announces re-enabling basic functionality as 'groundbreaking new features' - witness the iPhone's recent addition of multi-tasking, and the "you can't fit a netbook in your pocket" campaign with the release of the iPhone and iPod Touch, then the backflip to "bigger is better" with the release of the iPad). In the art world, you can go an awfully long way on "you're just not insightful enough to understand the vision", and these schmucks don't realise that it doesn't carry over into technical areas.

Re:Good (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007656)

Won't they ever think of the children [slashdot.org] ?

Hypocrites

Re:Good (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007670)

Here! Here! For moral support I just look to our leaders in washington.......

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008164)

I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me.

Less succinctly. I want them to add sucking a cock to the game and I want these nervous little pantywaists to fuck themselves in the heart with a white hot First Amendment.

It's bad enough they want to have special demerits for snuff movies, rape, murder, etc -- and they also want to restrict distribution of "cruelty to animals, but now they want special ratings for showing smoking. What next -- rating for cross looks between parents behind their children's backs?

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008280)

"I would prefer Apple not to choose my morals for me."

Smoking is not a moral issue, it's a health issue, you fucking RETARD.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

TheABomb (180342) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008546)

Then go Android and be treated like an adult. If you want to think for yourself, you're not in Apple's demo anyhow.

Re:Good (0)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008604)

Another company tried that - Microsoft - and look where that's gotten us.

]{

This should be fun (3, Insightful)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007404)

People will probably object to this as "encouraging smoking", but will whine & complain about any suggestion that violent video games encourage violence.

Re:This should be fun (3, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007632)

Nah. The Apple apologists will apologize, the Apple haters will hate, and I'll wonder why in the hell this worthless story is on Slashdot in the first place.

Ah– kdawson. That explains it.

Re:This should be fun (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007682)

If you had a game that required you to bludgeon a person with a brick in order to play the game, then your analogy would make sense. This doesn't encourage smoking, you cannot play unless you have a cigarette "joint", cigar "blunt", or pipe "bowl". I mean it's pretty obvious the game is about smoking weed, and not tobacco, because who really passes a cigarette around. A cigar would get nasty fast, and a pipe isn't much better because you hold the smoke in your mouth. If you inhale pipe smoke you will throw up.

This is a weed game, it does not encourage smoking, you must smoke to play. You would not buy it if you didn't already have the weed, or tobacco ... I guess?

I gave up cigarettes for my New Year's resolution (1)

patiodragon (920102) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007842)

But I didn't give up SMOKING!

Where is my Fedora when I need it?

Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs (5, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007408)

"Folks who want cancer can buy an iPhone"

Re:Eric Schmidt's Response to Steve Jobs (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007504)

Make love, not cancer?

I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007410)

and if this has been approved by Apple, I;'m guessing Steve Jobs has been taking a few hits from that pipe too.

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007742)

Probably almost as much as kdawson for even fucking putting this on slashdot. Not that I'm new... I saw the headline, looked at kdawson as the editor and just knew that it wasn't worth the summary, let alone the article. And I have had more than enough Apple bullshit on slashdot lately. Is Apple attempting to take over /. or something? Or is kdawson and a couple of the editors really *that* much of stupid fucking pawns?!

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007798)

I know! and FUCKING MAGNETS! How do they work?!

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008162)

My iPhone is on iFire belching iSmoke ever since that attempt to smoke an iPeacepipe*.

* the back side of an iTomahawk.
--

My UID is prime, whew.

Re:I know what sort of pipe I'd be smoking... (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008618)

If there is a person who needs a hit from the 'peace pipe' more then Steve Jobs it's the average Slashdot reader.

Apple appealing to their fan base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007416)

Those iPhone users are all pipe-smokers anyway.

Re:Apple appealing to their fan base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007542)

Pipe smoking != Pole smoking

Re:Apple appealing to their fan base (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008120)

Those iPhone users are all pipe-smokers anyway.

Like, hey, no waaay, dood. We smoke mostly, like, you know, blunts.

Well ... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007418)

... it's still safer than smoking a cigarette.

In all seriousness, WTF Apple? Surely this isn't why you strong-armed developers into switching to XCode, is it? To produce this?

Ouch (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007420)

Makes you shudder to think of the poor kids who will get beat up for demonstrating this unbelievably lame app. Won't anyone think of the children? Apple?

Re:Ouch (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007662)

Hell. I could see just about every friend I have with an iphone showing this off. In case you didn't notice, smoking (cigarettes and especially weed) are extremely popular with generation Y. It seems fairly prevalent in my generation too, but not nearly as much. Of course, when I was in my 20s it seemed like everyone I knew smoked anyways. So maybe its just an age thing, but yeah, I can totally see this as being a hit with the "kids."

non-smokers (5, Funny)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007450)

"Non-smokers can purchase an Android." -- Steve Jobs

Re:non-smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008244)

Android sales overtake Apple's iPhone-June 2010

Re:non-smokers (3, Informative)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008740)

iGanja and iCrack are next on the iApprove list.

What is this world coming to? (4, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007452)

That is crazy... You know what I saw the other day? A game that you could kill humans with assorted weapons. The gore was obscene! You could beat hookers up and kill puppies all while driving a car down the sidewalk.

What were we talking about again? Smoking? Ban it!

Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007478)

So my Bong game is a shoe in!

I don't get it (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007480)

I don't get it. How would it be the "moral high ground" to prevent developers from selling and consumers from buying this application? Is there a theory this game presents a danger to someone? Is it just that you object to smoking being depicted for some reason? What morals are we talking about?

Re:I don't get it (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007608)

Presumably, the same morals that they use to justify why they won't let porn (or a myriad of other applications) in the AppStore.

Re:I don't get it (0, Offtopic)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007702)

Because games with smoking in them are like pictures of naked people?

Re:I don't get it (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007976)

Because games with smoking in them are like pictures of naked people?

i think we've found the person responsible for approving apps on the appstore.

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007718)

Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.

Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. They recently banned 3rd party code interpretation tools, due to their years-long war with flash, which has thrown into doubt the state of thousands of popular applications.

At this point, basically everyone except Steve Jobs would like to see Apple stop babysitting their users and actually utilize the ratings system that they implemented. Short of that, they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008200)

Apple has been taking the "moral high ground" by banning apps with jiggly women, excessive violence, and political satire. They have said that they want to be a family safe zone, and have hurt many developers to become that.

Also, developers are particularly upset about the inconsistent interpretation of Apple's ever-shifting rules. For a while, slightly dirty apps were OK so long as they were wearing underwear, then they were mass banned. Apps have been banned for "duplicating functionality" of Apple applications that hadn't been released or announced at the time of the rejection. ... they need a degree of consistency that they are nowhere near achieving.

The one thing consistent with Apple's constant shifting is that they are in the news when they do it. Apple rejected scantily-clad-women-apps not because of any moral argument, but so they could be seen by others rejecting scantily-clad-women-apps.

Re:I don't get it (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008276)

none of which relates to legal drug consumption, so none of the examples apply. Violent games often have fantasy criminal activity, such as rape, murder, and illicit drug use, which some object to.

I see tons of apps on iTunes that relate to legal drug use. Many smoking, wine beer, etc. The problem is that many people clump everything they don't like together and make it equally bad, or rationalize their sinful nature as natural, while others as bad. So while having a glass of wine is sophisticated, smoking is indication of low breeding, equal to watching naked people dance.

I agree that the it seems the Apple censorship can seem to be random. In this case, however, there is no evidence of it. Legal drug apps are plentiful. It is just that a few clueless people would lump drug use in with other unrelated things that they don't like, and think that if Apple blocks one thing they don't like, Apple should block everything they don't like.

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

dasdrewid (653176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007950)

The same morals that say that bikinis aren't allowed but Playboy breasts are, that satiric pullitzer price winning cartoons are taboo but fart soundboards are an important part of our comic culture, and a few swear words is totally not allowed but sex position games are just fine.

The point is that Apple is claiming to take the moral high ground, and since the established moral high ground with smoking is that advertising is not ok (see Joe Camel, television advertising, etc.), it would seem the standard moral high ground would be to not allow that, especially given Apple's history of "looking out for the children" regarding things like suggestive language and boobies.

We're talking about Apple's so-called "morals", how they try to enforce them and stand behind them, even though a) they're bullshit and b) they can't even keep them straight themselves.

I can see it now. (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007484)

iNicorette. Simulates smoking to help you crush your worst cravings!

like it (1)

promotepoint (1762618) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007540)

i like the smoking game, using it on my iphone

After having read the article (2, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007554)

Am I the only one bothered that in the picture of the app, there's 2 hot girls, 2 "cool" guys and a fat geek with a beard?

Re:After having read the article (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008354)

Hm yes, geeks are consistently miss represented. Where's the type 2 geek! We tall and slim geeks need more exposure.


No the sun is deadly.

There's a rejected app for that! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007562)

I wonder about Apple sometimes. I know that their actual intent with the app store is:

A) Be the only channel for iPhone apps, so that they get a piece of every sale. (Which is the *real* reason for not allowing Flash, emulators, etc.)
B) Not get sued (thus the restrictions on parody and such).
C) Not piss off too many customers (thus the restrictions on porn and whatnot).

But the execution is terrible, because C conflicts with A as well as with itself (you get people upset both for allowing and forbidding porn). And because they want to maintain point A, they have to take ALL the blame for whatever they reject or allow. Frankly, I'm surprised that people still develop for the platform. I know there was an initial gold rush, but now that that's pretty much over, I would personally do everything I could to make the platform less attractive. Why help them when they'll screw you? Better to boost other platforms that don't give you crap like this.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007614)

I know quite a few people who develop for the iPhone. Although every one of them will admit to the pain caused by app store policies, it's still the only real game in town. It's a simple platform to program on, and much like this app, you don't really need much functionality to sell a ton of copies. It's much easier to throw together 10 half-assed apps hoping just ONE will be a decent seller and pay your bills vs. spending time to put together a good app for the Android platform, where even if it does become a "good seller", your still barely covering your overhead.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007778)

Um, Apple requires a -lot- more overhead than Android ever will. Lets see, if you don't have a Mac, it costs, what? $500-600 for the most basic Mac desktop? Compared to the fact you can program for Android on just about anything? Plus add in the fee to be an Apple 'developer' and you are looking at about $650ish for development hardware alone. Lets add in the price for an iPod touch (cheapest thing that runs iPhone OS) and you have a $800 total investment or so. A powerful Android phone costs $530 unlocked that you can use with almost any carrier without contract. So the total invested for Android -at most- would be $530 or so. At the very least it would cost $800 to develop for the iPhone.

The main reason why Android is less appealing to program for is because things are certain. Apple may randomly decide to give someone a monopoly and refuse any competing products leaving you as the sole provider. Such things don't happen on Android so people are free to compete, naturally if its a basic app, someone with spare time will code a free version. If its polished, no one is going to spend the time usually giving you still lots of profit.

Crap apps become free on Android. Crap apps on the iPhone generally have small monopolies.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008000)

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison. The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008170)

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer.

But isn't it realistic to assume that any person, wanting to program for an Android handset, with the skills to program would have a computer? On the other hand, many people who own iPhones (in fact, chances are, most of them) and many people with skills to program don't own Macs. In fact, if you -really- needed a computer, you could probably boot a library computer from a USB key and develop for Android and pay, what, $7 for the USB stick? Good luck finding a public library that lets their patrons use Macs for free...

The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.

But the machine is already purchased. The machine doesn't decrease with use. Most of the things that kill computers aren't determined by use but rather by fate. Once a computer is out of warranty, it can have expensive repairs if it is turned on for 24 hours a day every day, 1 hour every day, or even if it is rarely used.

If something was purchased for a non-business use and is used in the business, realistically it can't be considered part of the costs when it can be used for work and play. For example, if I bought a shirt in 2007 and wore it to work in 2010 to start up my business, it really didn't cost anything more because I still owned it, I still would have worn it and it doesn't really decrease all that much in use.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008588)

You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer. That's not a fair comparison.

You have a point, but I think it is a fair comparison. Prospective iPhone developers are, well, developers. I don't know of a single developer that doesn't have any computer at all, but I know quite a few that don't have Macs. And, the "additional use" of an already-owned PC won't cost any extra until TPM adoption reaches critical mass.

If you already have a Macintosh, the cost to develop for iPhone over Android is the Apple developer fee. Otherwise, it's developer fee + Mac purchase.

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008050)

It's much easier to throw together 10 half-assed apps hoping just ONE will be a decent seller and pay your bills

This, ultimately is why the platform will fail. Throw together 10 low quality applications, hope that some pass the censors and then hope that one makes some money. This plan relies on hope, which is a terrible business model. Android will be better off without supporting this kind of thinking.

Now where this business model falls apart is that very few are making money using this model. It requires constant releases in an ever diluting market, which increases overheads. Fortunately people still believe that there is money to be made here so there is no shortage of suckers. Notorious Time Share touts like Absolute Resorts are still in business despite being revealed on several current affairs programs because many people just cant use logic to figure out a bad deal.

Android platform, where even if it does become a "good seller", your still barely covering your overhead.

This is where you completely stop making sense (not that you were doing to well before).

OK if your ratio of 10 applications for every 1 success is true then you need to do 10 times the coding, so that one success needs to cover 10 times the work + iphone + mac + yearly fee. Most US$0.99 applications wont cover the $99 yearly fee, let alone the developers time and definitely not the A$1,500 starting price of a Mac, I'll ignore phone costs as both Android and Iphone handsets cost money although it is worth mentioning you can almost buy two Motorola Milestones (Droid) outright for the price of an Iphone 3GS outright (A$540 vs A$950 before delivery).

With Android, if you want to make a simple application it can be tested using the Android VM's available in the SDK. If you make a complex application you need to do extensive testing on handsets (wait until someone develops the idea of using a beta program, just like PC game development). If you want to make money in the Android market, you need a good idea and some coding skills, it doesn't support bad clones of existing applications like the Iphone market. You simply cannot charge for simple applications in Android because someone will or has already coded a free application that does the same thing (ye olde market at work).

Re:There's a rejected app for that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008268)

You can test iphone OS apps in xcode as well. That is how 99.99995% of all iPad dev was done befor ethe ipad was released because Apple were cocksuckers and didn't supply hardware to needed developers, instead handing them out to douchebag comedians and the like.

I'm not an apple fanboy, but I've seen commercial dev for all their current devices. I own an android phone, and I can't even say I'm an android fanboy.

I can say in all certainty that the Pre sucks.

Makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007586)

No boobs because kids use iPxds, but we'll let them pretend to smoke.

Sounds logical to me.

Mixed Priorities (1)

Random5 (826815) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007618)

Want porn? Go get android you filthy person. Smoking? No worries, light up!

Steve Jobs played that game once or twice (4, Funny)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007642)

I really wonder what apple's policy on employee drug usage is........

Ah well. It will get banned and ported to android in a few months. Did anyone port the shaking baby game? I could think of all sorts of fun, twisted apps for the android. How about

Toss the Foetus

"You are an assistant at cut rate abortion clinic. Your job is to take the foetuses from a bucket and toss them into the dumpster. Score points by not leaving them to bake on the alleyway asphalt. Extra points for a rim shot."

Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)

Re:Steve Jobs played that game once or twice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007914)

"Extra points for a rim shot"

What the FUCK am I reading.

Re:Steve Jobs played that game once or twice (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008186)

Anyone remember the talk to jesus app for Mac OS 7? I loved that thing I could totally port that to android. Anyone still have a copy? (My old mac drive died years ago)

The one where you hammered nails? Yeah, I do. The same guy wrote one called "Rupture the Rapture" where you tried to shoot down souls rising to heaven. It was great. Wish I still had a copy.

Openness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007672)

Is the moral high-ground.

Let's hope that it catches on there.

(Captcha is "morals," so I know I'm right :)

Make up your mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007686)

Apple bans an app, and it gets a flurry of bad press on slashdot.
Apple approves an app, and it gets a flurry of bad press on slashdot.

Make up your mind, outraged mob!

420 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007704)

This should have been released on 4/20. For those that don't understand, no one shares cigarettes or cigars or pipes with tobacco. This app is for simulating smoking of pot, and it's kind of stupid in that regard because it doesn't get you high (the app).

Nobody Cares (1, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007844)

I admit, I'm an Apple Fanboy and enjoy reading stories about Apple but I just do not give a flying fuck about "this" app being approved and "that" app being rejected. I really, really, really just do not care.

Here's a secret - a _LOT_ of apps are approved/rejected on a regular basis. Like, really, a lot. I'd wager a fuckton would be an accurate measure of the quantity. This really is not news. Really, really not news.

And I don't care if it paints Apple in a bad light or a good light - I just don't give a fuck. Why streamline the "story" to read "Apple conducts business just like it did yesterday." Much simpler that way.

Ok. Rant done.

For someone who doesn't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008078)

you just posted a rant claiming you don't care multiple times.

YOU don't care. Don't speak for everyone else. (2, Informative)

Camael (1048726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008680)

Of course you don't care. You won't until it personally affects you.

I didn't care much either, until Apple forced the Stanza app to remove its functionality to load books through the USB cable. Which I liked, instead of using the wireless transfer or internet download workarounds

Wait till the Apple restrictions bites you or your favourite app in the ass.

Re:Nobody Cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008744)

the problem has nothing to do with arbitrary accept and rejects of apps it has to do with why they reject them. look at this from the standpoint of the developer. you just spent months putting together an amazing app just for it to be rejected for some asinine reason. im not saying that no apps should be rejected. i can completely understand if all the apps rejected where just quickly thrown together pieces of garbage. in fact i would applaud apple if they did that. the thing is they don't. they constantly let a large number of worthless apps come aboard there i-train and reject perfectly good ones for bizarre reasons. its a bad business practice and frankly just cruel to developers and whether customers realize it or not cruel to them as well.

Re:Nobody Cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008748)

Judging by the number of replies stories like this generate, plenty of people care. The fact that you don't doesn't indicate a damn thing about the rest of Slashdot's users (clearly).

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007848)

Now my iPhone has lung cancer too!

Wait... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007922)

Is Slashdot for corporate censorship, or against it. You lost me again.

Let me translate for you... (5, Insightful)

sakti (16411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007972)

Come one... how many people sit in a circle and pass around a cigarette. You all know this is a pot smoking game. They might have well specified the items as 'joint, fatty and bong'.

Re:Let me translate for you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008380)

" You all know this is a pot smoking game"

The pot smokers forgot that part.

Pot smoking is for losers and idiots. And you know what, if you aren't a loser or an idiot
when you start smoking pot, just keep it up and you'll get there.

Re:Let me translate for you... (2, Funny)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008698)

Exactly, and you can probably buy a [insert a regional colloquialism for a small quantity of cannabis here] for the price of this app, so why pretend?

You think it started as a cigarette? (2, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007998)

For every app accepted there were 100 rejected

You think it's emulating a cigarette you're blowing?

Hint: this is a modification of an existing app, where 'suck' turned into 'blow' and fellatio changed into smoking.

I don't know this for a fact, just an educated guess :)

Makes sense for the developer to modify the app to be acceptable to Apple's more attuned tastes, and their key demographic.

Re:You think it started as a cigarette? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008102)

Hint: this is a modification of an existing app, where 'suck' turned into 'blow' and
fellatio changed into smoking.

Half right. The half wrong, however, is so wrong that I have to wonder if you hate your parents for dropping you so much as an infant.

Re:You think it started as a cigarette? (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008566)

If its called puff, puff, pass, its not a fellatio game, its a marijuana game.

Let me guess, you had a private school education?

Re:You think it started as a cigarette? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008818)

Let me guess, you had a private school education?

Given that he immediately wondered about bj's, I gotta wonder if it wasn't a Catholic school education.

I do say "good job Apple" and mean it. (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008098)

It is not Apple's place or right to make moral or ethical choices for me or anyone else. I will choose what is and is not correct for me and I will not leave it in the hands of any other person or entity. This is the main reason I decided to jailbreak my iPhone as soon as I obtained it.

Re:I do say "good job Apple" and mean it. (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008796)

The vast majority of major retailers in the civilized world make 'moral or ethical choices' on behalf of their customers. Get over it.

Tobacco? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008426)

Yeah, right, this game is about smoking tobacco, just like water pipes, bongs and Zig Zag rolling papers are solely designed and sold to be used on tobacco!

Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008494)

Moral high ground? It's smoking, not killing jews. Give it a rest already.

R. Zimmerman for the American Cancer Society (1, Funny)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008532)

"But since I Lost One of My Lungs, I’ve Cut My Smoking In Half."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?