Earlier this week, Trent Reznor, the man behind industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails, announced via his Twitter account that Apple rejected his update for the incredibly popular nin access iPhone app. The update was to address bugs which caused crashes when international users tried to use the app.
However, Apple rejected the update due to 'objectionable' content, which is referencing 'The Downward Spiral', the 1994 Nine Inch Nails album containing the song 'Closer', which contains explicit language (mainly F-bombs).
The app itself does not contain the album or song, but rather linked to a podcast that had the content. However, Apple deemed this as "objectionable," despite having The Downward Spiral in the iTunes Store with both Standard and Deluxe versions, both tagged 'Explicit.'
Reznor posted his rant on the NIN forums to vent his frustration with Apple's ridiculous app approval policies to all his fans as well as the public:
(Warning: Explicit language!)
Now, "The Downward Spiral" the album is not available anywhere in the iPhone app. The song "The Downward Spiral" I believe is in a podcast that can be streamed to the app.
Thanks Apple for the clear description of the problem - as in, what do you want us to change to get past your stupid fucking standards?
And while we're at it, I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart
years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart
went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored
of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands
(including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing
album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because
Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a
pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can
understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent"
material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees
from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface"
completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can
be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?
You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't
allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in
it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I
suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got
some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I
just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my
iPhone!
Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.
Reznor brought up good points in his rant about Apple's app approval process. For instance, the Baby Shaker fiasco from about two weeks ago. Was the Baby Shaker app the reason that Apple is being illogical in its approval process? "offensive" language is bad, but baby shaking, that's fine.
This is the same problem that the popular Twitter iPhone app, Tweetie, faced weeks ago. Rejected for containing the F word in the top trends on Twitter at the time--something the app's developer could not control. Reznor brings up this similar topic in his rant, since anyone in the forum can use swear words--would Apple reject an app if they saw F-bombs in the forums? Developers and Apple simply cannot control the Internet. This begs the question, if Apple won't allow this bug-fix update through because it links to a podcast that streams "offensive" content, how did the app get through in the first place?
Apple's approval process mis-steps have led to Reznor threatening to make the updated app available for the jailbrake community.
Jamie
May 06, 2009 at 10:30am
I don't think he did bring up good points. Content from iTunes is added by the user, not bundled with the software. Apple isn't responsible for what users put on their iPhones; but they do have accountability for the software they provide. Like that or not (and I don't necessarily like it), it's not an unreasonable thing for a business to do, and their policy on controversial iPhone content has been pretty clear from the very beginning, when Steve said 'No porn.' Who knows? This may change as time goes by with parental controls, but Reznor pretty much just sounds like a whiny b*tch to me. I'm all for freedom of expression, but when an artist creates such intense and sometimes explicit work, they may have to accept that it won't be welcome in all venues. Such is life. Get over it. This isn't a double standard.
njdevilsfan
May 06, 2009 at 1:50pm
it is a double standard and Reznor says it perfectly. he can go and sell the same song WITH profanities on itunes but is blocked from giving an app with the song on it? How is that not a double standard? It would be one thing if ALL explicit material was not allowed in itunes, but thats not the case. Prove to me its not a double standard. Your logic is messed up. And what you say about the user adding the content while Apple makes it available; thats true. However, Apple already made the explicit song available from itunes, and then goes and blocks it on an app. If they were so worried about being held accountable for itune's content, then they should ban explicits across the board
