Apple under fire over iPhone 'Baby Shaker'

[meegbear]

Apple came under fire after an application for the iPhone called "Baby Shaker" was briefly approved for sale in the company's online store.

The program, which reportedly appeared in Apple's App Store on Monday and cost 99 cents to download, allowed a user to shake an iPhone screen to make a baby stop crying.

After enough shakes, the hand-drawn baby pictured on the screen stopped wailing and a large red "X" appeared over each eye.

Silicon Valley technology blogs reported that the application, from an outside developer called Sikalosoft, was pulled from the App Store several hours after Krapps.com, a website which reviews iPhone applications, revealed its existence.

Tens of thousands of applications for the iPhone have been created by independent developers, but Apple has strict control over which ones are featured in the App Store.

The Sarah Jane Brain Foundation, a New York-based group which seeks to prevent brain injuries from so-called Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), strongly condemned the "Baby Shaker" application.

In a statement, it also demanded "a personal apology to parents of SBS victims and survivors" from Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.


<snip>

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Apple_under_fire_over_iPhone_Baby_0423.html

[hlthe2b]

1. Incredibly and bafflingly stupid....

[YOY]

2. Sikalosoft is guilty of poor taste.

Really poor taste.

Apple is guilty of either not paying attention or not giving a shit about poor taste.

[Political Heretic]

8. Taste is in the eye of the beholder.

I've seen worse things on Robot Chicken and find the show to be hilarious.

But then again, I am a grown up and understand the difference between reality and make believe.

[YOY]

15. Optimus Prime Getting Prostate Cancer? I was in stitches myself

Hell, pooor taste can be entertaining...but you have to assume that the end user knows it's humor...there are some dumb people out there.

[Political Heretic]

21. True. There are all sorts of reasons why Apple would want to remove the app.

(Robot Chicken is almost the definition of tasteless - and in the right context, it is hilarious (to me))

[MissMillie]

3. Given the incidence of shaken-baby syndrome, I'm always amazed

that we never hear about shaken teenager syndrome.

I never felt the urge to shake my son when he was a baby... but now that he's "grown up" and "knows everything".... I'd like to shake the hell out of him. (I guess I'll have to settle for the figure of speech.... as I'd also like to light a fire under his ass.)

[cali]

4. can't shoot yourself in the foot much more effectively than that

publicity nightmare, entirely self-inflicted. that's some major stupid right there.

[imdjh]

5. drama

"They're basically saying that killing babies is OK," Patrick Donohue, founder of the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation, told AFP by telephone.


Tasteless and sociopathic are not the same thing.

[onehandle]

6. Several tasteless apps have popped in out of the nearly 200,000 apps "approved."

The application process is semi-automated. It was pulled quickly.

[meegbear]

"Apple has strict control over which ones are featured in the App Store" ...

so someone let it in. Only after complaints was it pulled.

[onehandle]

20. What part of "semi" do you not understand?

And yes, complaints are what companies respond to.

Thanks for your insight.

Additionally, this "outrage" was posted at DU several times yesterday.

After Apple pulled the app down.

[meegbear]

45. I fully understand what semi is, thank you very fucking much ...

And if you READ the article, you'd would have seen ...

Tens of thousands of applications for the iPhone have been created by independent developers,

but Apple has strict control over which ones are featured in the App Store.

This means they know what's going up there.

Give it a fucking rest, Apple is not fucking God. Deal with it, get out of the basement and get a life.

[Political Heretic]

10. Obviously Apple won't want such an app associated with its brand name, however...

...I find the outrage about the app to be a little contrived.

Humor is a funny thing - there is always someone who is going to find someone else's humor to be tasteless, too light or too dark, to silly or too degenerate.

Frankly as a social worker, I have the darkest sense of humor you'll ever find. I respect Apple's right to restrict what apps can appear on its product and thus be "tied" to its brand name. But I reject the notion that there's some absolute being violated in the creation of the silly app. It will be offensive to some, funny to others, uninteresting to still more - and no one's impression is more "right" than anyone else's.

[seabeyond]

16. so we should have no line drawn. there should be no limit to crudeness, tacky, tasteless

vile, violent.

free for all?

[Political Heretic]

18. The company can draw any line it wants about its own products.

Your personal right to "draw a line" for anyone other than yourself in matters of taste doesn't exist.

[seabeyond]

24. so as a society, there should be no line of acceptability. we are in free for all.

i really dont care about this product being sold. more your post.

you are saying companies have no responsibility to us as a people about what they allow.

of course they are free to... restrict. but socially there should not be any kind of expectation from any company selling product. no social moral conscience or expectation?

decency is no longer?

[Political Heretic]

25. I don't want you defining what is "moral" for me, would be my point.

Especially when it comes to matters of taste.

[seabeyond]

26. so, as a society we have no limits, no boundary, no socially acceptable

we are in free for all.

it would be intellectually interesting to debate a society that refuses decency, boundaries of acceptable, a free for all society with no lines drawn of what is too far

that is all.

i was not suggesting any kind of conclusion on this app or my own personal definition of what is acceptable. a question as a whole to explore

[Political Heretic]

29. We have limits, they just aren't "moral."

People organize societies in certain ways. In our case as a representative democracy. So (this is obviously oversimplified given how complicated things have gotten in modern times)in our society - the majorities values rule. The majority makes the rules.

There's nothing inherently "moral" about the majorities point of view. It is simply the majority view.

I think you are equating "cultural norms" with some sort of universal morality which doesn't exist. You are also equating aesthetic value judgments with laws restricting social interactions.

We have limits as a society, but those limits work best when they are limits to the kinds of actions we can take toward others and interactions we can have with others. Restrictive laws work best when they are designed only to protect a person from the violation of someone else.

When we start have social "limits" on personal aesthetic judgments, we get really ugly societies, as evidenced repeatedly through history. Again, an individual company can certainly look at something and say "I don't feel this product appropriate reflects the image of my company" and choose not to market a product.

But when people start looking over someone else's shoulder at what they are laughing at and saying, "I can't believe you find that funny! I've decided that it is not funny it is sick, and if you disagree there is something wrong with you. I'm going to Washington and I'm going to make sure there are laws banning you from being able to ever look at/read/watch/listen to that ever again -- that's a real problem.

[Atman]

31. I hope this doesn't spell trouble for the "Rape-A-Nun" app I'm working on.

Unfortunately, I know many on DU will be offended at my sub line, but that's the point.

It's not intended to be funny, just sarcastic. I have a gallows sense of humor, but I find the whole notion of a "baby shaking" app to be totally indefensible. Why not a SIDS app, too? I don't blame Apple for this, because I know their approval process isn't what some think it to be...they don't physically sit and play with every app before it's approved, mainly because they don't have that many sick fucks out there creating such worthless, offensive bile for sale. This slipped through the cracks and Apple responded swiftly, as they should.

The game developer, however...they should be ashamed of themselves and forbidden from ever contributing the The App Store again.

.

[seabeyond]

34. this is what i am talking about, hang a n****r, broomstick a f**, toast a (what is

offensive slang for jew?), torture a muslim. of course they are offensive. but per the poster, as a society as a whole we should not put any restrictions or limitations on ourselves as a society. so per this poster, what i have typed out, without astericks, should be perfectly fine in the society that poster permits. a fter all, some may see humor in it.

[Political Heretic]

39. And the ACLU would agree.

This has obviously moved beyond talking about what Apple can do as a company to comments on society...

If I want to sell something with one of the themes you mentioned, many would deem me to be a racist, homophobic, bigot. Few would purchase my product. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be free to make it.

I find it funny how many people on the so-called "left" of the isle really don't support the constitution at all. Many especially do not support the first amendment. Instead, people only like to talk about the first amendment when its speech or expression that they agree with. When someone else has some speech or some expression they disagree with, suddenly its an outrage and there ought to be laws against it and so on.

As a former ACLU employee, I don't take a soft position on the first amendment. There's a lot of speech out there that I personally dislike. But the rights that protect that speech or expression are the very same rights that protect MY speech and expression, and as such I don't want them weakened one bit.

Furthermore, there are better ways to deal with offensive expression or speech than restriction, bans or punitive laws. If someone out there is making public expressions or speech that broadly offends the sensibilities of a plurality of society, he or she will be marginalized without any additional action that would weaken the bill of rights. Fred Phelps? Totally marginalized. Not taken seriously by anyone. In fact, he and his twisted family have frequently been powerful forces for unifying divergent communities in opposition to that common source of hate.

When he and his five friends tried to come make noise in my town by protesting in front of a couple churches, the local Buddhist, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic congregations all rallied along with our local Secular Humanists group and the Unitarian Universalists and completely walled off an entire block so that no people going to this Episcopal church could even see or here the Phelps clan and they couldn't see the people going to church (or us, as we all had our backs turned to them in a wall).

They eventually left early.

No need for bannings. If you dislike someone's exercise of their first amendment rights, counter it with more exercise of the first amendment. That is always the best way.

Furthermore, I'm sure that on the fringe we can find examples of things that we will agree offend both of our sensibilities. But in between those poles is a huge grey area where I don't want YOU making decisions for me. Some people thing a computer app where you shake a digitized picture of a baby should be on one of those polls. I think that's ridiculous. Which is all the more reason why I don't want OTHERS making those decisions. I accept that Apple as a company had complete control over what products appear on its Apple store. But if this guy wants to make an app or program and distribute it himself or some other way he should be free to do so...

...and I'll be free to not buy it. :)

[Atman]

42. I'm pretty much a strict first amendment advocate. I didn't call for banning anything.

I said Apple acted appropriately in swiftly removing it from its store. I never advocated "banning" anything. If the software company can find another distribution vehicle for its horribly offensive software, so be it. I repeat, though...it's a disgusting game premise and the developer should be ashamed of themselves. That's not the same as saying I wanted anything banned.

.

[Political Heretic]

44. I understand, I was primarily refering to the above exchange.

[seabeyond]

43. where, in any of my posts, have you read talking about banning, passing law, or

messing with constitution?

that is not even a little, kinda what i am talking about and is clear that i am not even touching on issue of outlawing things. it is CLEAR i am not talking about law

it doesn't mean that social boundaries is not a discussion, consideration, up for intellectual debate. you are suggesting that there should not be a "call" from society as to what should be allowed and not. you suggest that all should be allowed. that is what i am addressing. as a whole, is it a free for all today. no boundary of decency. no responsibility in our demand, manufacturing or selling of product.

responsibility as a society. this is a much tougher question than the mere tangible issue of law

[Political Heretic]

46. Define "allowed" if you're not talking about law.

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

37. Feel free to publish your app yourself. If you're going through Apple, they have the right to say

no thanks.

[Raspberry]

7. Stupid, stupid, stupid

I saw an ad about 10 years ago that featured Hitler touting some cell phone co. as the "final solution" to his communication problems, or something like that. This ranks right up there with that in terms of "what were they thinking!"

[dem629]

9. Millions of digital babies are now safe. Whew.

[Political Heretic]

11. Crisis averted.

[NeedleCast]

14. Thank Dog for That

People that would download this application are the same ones who neglected their digi-pets. Prosecute them all!

[NorthernSpy]

12. Yeah, that's pretty appalling.

:puke:

[RB TexLa]

13. Does this Sarah Jane Brain Foundation not understand they aren't real babies?

Also, when did the word "application" become too long and required shorting?

[cali]

17. do you understand that making a joke out of sbs is

what they're objecting to? Do you grasp what a stupid move it is on the part of any business to link themselves to violent assaults on babies?

[Political Heretic]

19. EDIT - I am dumb

:rofl:

[NeedleCast]

22. It's been terrible for video game companies

That promote pretend violence...

No, wait...

[moc]

23. My husband's great-niece died of brain injuries caused by shaken baby syndrome.

Needless to say, I don't find such a game amusing.

:grr:

[Political Heretic]

27. Then don't buy it.

Obviously, I want to state again, that a company such as Apple has every right to restrict what kind of applications appear on its products and in connection with its Brand. So removing this app is a completely legitimate move for the business.

However, on the personal side of things, I have a real problem when people start trying to generalize their own feelings, experiences and opinions to everyone else, especially when it comes to matters of taste. There are so many examples of how taste differs.

[moc]

28. Here's my problem with it.

There's a lot of misinformation out there with regards to childcare. I have a doctorate in maternal and child health (teach at the graduate level in a school of public health), so I have some professional knowledge of this. I've been doing parenting research for over 15 years. I don't like anything that suggests that it's a reasonable approach to infant soothing to shake the child. Societal norms are a weird thing, and as a public health professional I think it's misguided at best to contribute to any perception that it's normative to shake a baby to quiet him.

I see in your other posts that you are a social worker which is frankly curious to me. My husband is also a social worker - 16 years of experience. He's seen the worst of the worst, and yes, he has a very good sense of humor. He wouldn't find such a game amusing either. I have known him for over 20 years, and I've witnessed him crying only 3 times - two of those related to his great-niece whom he desparately tried to save, albeit from 1300 miles away. Never again do I want to relive that phone call from him, wherein he was stopped by the side of the road, sobbing and telling me the news of his great niece on life support.

Sure, free enterprise is great. Apple can do what they want. That doesn't keep me from viewing it, both professionally and personally, as stupid and incredibly offensive.

[NeedleCast]

30. There may be a lot of misinformation out there

but if DU is any indication, there are also lots of people who have very strong feelings about the right way and the wrong way to do everything related to children. Don't believe me...start a thread on breast feeding and take a side...

This is no different between the ability to understand the difference between real life and Doom 3. It doesn't matter one bit if you "find it amusing" or not. If we got rid of everything that someone didn't find amusing it would be an awful dull world. I don't discount what you and your husband went through regarding your niece but at the same time lets have a little faith in humanity that people can understand the difference between an I-phone application and abusing a living child.

[moc]

33. We will have to agree to disagree.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the "mommy wars" wherein everyone debates the pros/cons of everything from spanking to bribing kids to get good grades to whether you should pick up a child who is crying or let them "cry it out". There are not many things that are black and white in parenting, which I've learned less as a researcher and more as a parent of two very lively and very different children. (It's always amusing to reflect on the fact that although I'm a parenting researcher and my husband is a clinical social worker who specializes in child/adolescent, we are still very often confounded on what is the best way to handle our own kids.)

However, baby shaking is a black and white. There is never, ever a time when it's okay to shake a baby. Never, for any reason. It is not up for debate.

You may have more faith in people being able to distinguish real life from a "game" than I do. Maybe it's because I've seen so many examples over the years of young, poorly educated, over-stressed mothers with little or no social support who handle their children in ways that horrify.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned if the world is more "dull" because we don't have a game about shaking babies.

[Political Heretic]

32. That's great. You and your husband can be free to not buy this.

Yes there is a lot of misinformation out there about childcare, and an iphone app is neither going to help or hurt that reality. I work right now, by the way, at the Child Welfare Center.

I don't think people should blow off other people's heads with shotguns in real life, either. But that doesn't mean I think Call of Duty 4 or Unreal Tournament should be banned.

The fact that my being a social worker is "curious" to you seems a little judgmental don't you think? Yes it is "curious" that different people can't have differences in matters of taste. Curious indeed.

You seem to be superimposing personal trauma over an issue that is really irrelevant to your personal experiences. You had a traumatic experience, thus you don't find something funny. That makes perfect sense. Is when you start to generalize your personal experience into "should" or "ought" how other people should think or feel that there's a problem. Moving from "I find this offensive" to "anyone who does find it funny is insensitive, misguided, offensive, etc." is a illegitimate move.

[moc]

35. I never said that "anyone who does find it funny is insensitive, misguided, offensive, etc."

If you can find where I said that, please do. I said I'm offended, and I have a right to be offended. Whether you're amused or not doesn't concern me a bit. I also have the right to use my professional judgement to consider such a game is ill-advised. If you don't see the difference, that's your problem, not mine.

[Political Heretic]

36. I felt it was implied.

Professional judgments can obviously differ. And I think you're being disingenuous to suggest that your choice of words did not reflect a broader generalization beyond just your own personal take.

Saying "I'm offended and I won't be using this" is one thing. Saying, "I'm offended and I want to interfere with others using this is what I generally have a problem with. Whether subtlety or overt, I felt the latter attitude was reflected in your comments, especially coming in waving credentials around, implying that somehow professionals must all feel the same way about things like this. They don't. Fortunately I have enough professional education and experience of my own not to be bullied around by credential waving.

[Evoman]

38. Hmmm....it seems dead baby jokes have gone digital.

[Political Heretic]

40. Mommy Mommy can we have Aunt Sally for Dinner?

Not until you finish Grandma.

:D

[Evoman]

41. Ha!