Nine Inch Nails Comments on Apple's App Approval Process

I'm loving Nine Inch Nails' response to their app being rejected by Apple. When it was brought to my attention last week, I knew given their "coolness" with the very same Apple crowd, this was gonna be an issue.

Here is what they said according to Macrumors. Be warned, there are bad words used here. I'm keeping them in there because I want readers to know the full brunt of the anger Apple's idiotic app approval process has generated.

Here goes:

From: iPhone Developer Program
Date: April 27, 2009 11:44:12 AM PDT
To: help@store.nin.com
Subject: nin: access 1.0.3: Application Submission Feedback

Please include the line below in follow-up emails for this request.

Follow-up: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear Craig,

Thank you for submitting nin: access to the App Store. We've reviewed nin: access and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it contains objectionable content which is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which 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 may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

The objectionable content referenced in this email is "The Downward Spiral". Since the app is live on the App store, please make the necessary changes to the application as soon as possible, and resubmit your binary to iTunes Connect. Thank you


Regards,

iPhone Developer Program
****************************


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.

This truly speaks volume about the kind of work that Apple ahead of it in order to make its policies make sense to developers.  I'm sure Cupertino didn't really foresee this when they came up with the guidelines but they really should have.  In fact, outside of porn, anything else can be allowed to go into the app store.  

Or else, jailbreak apps galore.

Source: Macrumors