Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Media (Apple) Apple

Apple's Schiller Responds To iPhone Dictionary App Fiasco 200

Posted by Soulskill
from the not-so-sinister-after-all dept.
beef curtains writes "Phil Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, responded by e-mail to a blog post discussing Apple's rejection of a dictionary app. If Schiller's e-mail is to be believed, it offers an interesting perspective on this whole issue. He said, 'The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. ... The Ninjawords developer then decided to filter some offensive terms in the Ninjawords application and resubmit it for approval for distribution in the App Store before parental controls were implemented. Apple did not ask the developer to censor any content in Ninjawords, the developer decided to do that themselves in order to get to market faster. ... You are correct that the Ninjawords application should not have needed to be censored while also receiving a 17+ rating, but that was a result of the developers' actions, not Apple's.' PC World has an article summarizing the drama-to-date, the blog post, and Schiller's response."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Schiller Responds To iPhone Dictionary App Fiasco

Comments Filter:
  • If they'd been called PuppyWords, then I'm sure the approval process would have been much easier.
  • Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:09PM (#28991929)
    Apple didn't force him to censor the app. The developer "voluntarily" did it. Of course, it was his only option if he wanted to get it published...
    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kumiorava (95318) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:17PM (#28991989)

      Published before the parental controls were implemented... it's a big difference. I don't agree with parental controls, but some people do and to keep those people in peace and using the service we all have to tolerate some inconveniences.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

        by davester666 (731373) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:41PM (#28992163) Journal

        The problem with this is 2 things.

        1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.

        2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to by the reviewer included 'standard' swear words, and not just so-called 'urban slang' that Phil mentions in his response. And these exact same words are already in existing dictionary apps in the app store, with MUCH lower rating levels (Dictionary.com is rated 4+, and includes the specific example words the app reviewer listed).

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

          by sbeckstead (555647) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:29PM (#28992515) Homepage Journal
          2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to
          The specific examples the developer let you see I'm sure there may have been others, we will never know.
          • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dirk (87083) <dirk@one.net> on Friday August 07, 2009 @09:05PM (#28993123) Homepage

            There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?

            • by node 3 (115640)

              There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?

              Because Apple's App review process sucks. That doesn't make the original story true, however, which was that Apple required them to submit a censored version. All they said was submit it as a 17+ app, and it will be available when iPhone OS 3.0 is released (which happened about 1 month after they first submitted the app, and 1 month before the app even made it to the app store.

        • by node 3 (115640)

          1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.

          Which came to pass almost two months ago!. The app didn't even end up on the store until one month after iPhone OS 3.0 was released.

          This story popped up over the last week. Ninja Words does not need to be censored. Any censoring is completely voluntary. What's worse, the story was originally portrayed as "Apple said we had to censor the dictionary and accept a 17+ rating!", which is downright false.

          It did make for a big news cycle over the past week, though. I suppose it served its purpose, as everyone in

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bmo (77928) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:43PM (#28992187)

        Parental controls for dictionaries is stupid on its face.

        Yes, just what we need, parents denying the use of dictionaries to their children.

        Good troll. 10/10 Would Rage Again.

        --
        BMO

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mattack2 (1165421)

          Go to any elementary school and you'll see student dictionaries, which are essentially the same thing.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

            by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:08PM (#28992349)

            No, the difference between "student dictionaries" and regular dictionaries is not primarily one of cenorship. The difference is in expected educational level of the user - the definitions are simplified, the technical pronunciations are replaced with easy to follow examples, etc. Sure, most slang terms aren't included, but that's far from the primary difference as it was here with Apple.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dahamma (304068) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:30PM (#28992525)

          Yeah, but it's a bit different when the "dictionary" is, for example, Webster's vs. Urban Dictionary. I don't remember seeing the definition of a "Cleveland Steamer" in the former...

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)

            by bmo (77928) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:05PM (#28992767)

            What you're missing is that the Unabridged dictionary in the local library isn't NC17 and has all the "bad words" that led Apple to refuse the app. Anyone can use it as long as they can turn a page or read. No, wait, I take that back. If you cannot do either, any librarian will help you if you are visually or physically disabled regardless of age.

            Also, you can browse the Urban Dictionary from any iPhone, as it is on the web.

            I find it disheartening that anyone would classify a whole dictionary as "adult only" because it contains the word "screw"

            --
            BMO

            • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

              by bmo (77928) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:15PM (#28992829)

              To follow up on myself:

              In my elementary school, there was a big unabridged dictionary ready for use by anyone,

              In my local 3 room public library, the unabridged dictionary was in the Children's/Young Adult room.

              In the local library down the road from me, the unabridged dictionary is in the Reference section and does not have a giant "NC17" sign on it.

              In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.

              Pure bloody-mindedness.

              --
              BMO

              • by node 3 (115640)

                In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.

                No, there'd just be a sticker that says "Rated 17+" and if your parents wanted, *they* could bar you from reading it, not Apple.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sbeckstead (555647)
          Until King James, bibles were written in Latin and the common man could not see the word of god he had to take the priests word for it. Masses were only performed in Latin. Censorship has been a part of human existence for our centuries. You think this is unusual.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by chromatic (9471)

            Until King James, bibles were written in Latin....

            Except for the work of people such as John Wycliffe and Martin Luther, for example, both of whom preceded James I of England.

            • granted, I wasn't sure of the time line and was too lazy to look it up.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              And not counting the fact that the old testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was originally written in Greek... and it remained in Greek for the Greek Orthodox Church. And, of course, the Coptics translated it into their Egyptian language pretty quickly too...
        • OKAY (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Shivetya (243324)

          but can I zing the next person who decries the fact the parents are not being responsible for the activities of their children?

          Parents cannot win here; Slashdot or the world in general. Because on one hand we have people who pummel them for every inaction and then turn around and berate them for any infraction their kid does.

          Parental Controls do not affect those who do not use them. They however do affect what those of use responsible enough to adhere to a self described sense of morals but live in a worl

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bmo (77928)

            Nice false dichotomy there.

            There is a difference between putting parental controls on dictionaries and on places like 4chan.

            --
            BMO

            • by hedwards (940851)
              I thought placing parental controls on dictionaries was what caused places like 4chan.
          • Re:OKAY (Score:5, Insightful)

            by StellarFury (1058280) on Friday August 07, 2009 @09:10PM (#28993141)

            Parents would have an easier time if more of them did their jobs. No disrespect to your parenting skills, personally - I have no idea how you parent your children, and won't pretend to - but "parents cannot win" because most of them suck at their job or refuse to do it, and have persistently cried to the government or third-parties that "it's hard" and to "do it for them." So even the good parents can't win.

            Parental controls DO affect people who don't use them. What the fuck do you think the FCC is? The ESRB? The MPAA Ratings Board? That shit is, in essence, "parental controls." They say what gets sold or shown where.

            Don't get me wrong, I don't think these organizations shouldn't exist. But they overstep their bounds all the time, and yes, I'm going to blame overprotective, whiny parents just as much as I'm going to blame puritanical religious zealots or stodgy politicians or whoever else is busting down freedom of expression.

      • Published before the parental controls were implemented... it's a big difference.

        Not if you don't know when those parental controls will be published and have no recourse if they are delayed. Besides in order to look the word up you actually have to know it first so it is hardly exposing them to a rude word that they have not already seen is it?

    • I call "rejecting every uncensored app" forcing him.

  • I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:17PM (#28991993) Journal

    A dictionary corrects misspelled words, it doesn't write them.

  • Back atcha (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:17PM (#28991997)

    It provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable.

    words I often find upsetting and objectionable:

    censorship
    groupthink
    DRM
    paternalism
    authoritarianism
    proprietary
    patronizing

    Thus I have an Android phone. Though it had to be rooted too. But at least when I try to install a program, it asks for my permission rather than the other way around.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by emj (15659)
      You can't answer calls with the SDK on Android. Just saying android is at least 50% of those words.....
  • Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:22PM (#28992047)

    The developers may have 'chosen' to censor their work, but only because it was the only way their work could exist at all. That's still censorship.

    Apple claiming that the developers chose to do it is like saying someone chose to jump in front of a bullet that was aimed at their child. Yes, they chose to... But it's hardly their fault.

    • Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:08PM (#28992345)

      OK, let's all read the summary before modding this one up - the developer chose to censor the words so that they could get the app up before Apple could get parental controls implemented. Shiller states that the words were more objectionable than common swear words, and so needed to fall into the 17+ category. The developer could have waited for parental controls to be implemented, or they could choose to filter the most objectionable terms manually - there was a clear way forward in both cases.

      Whether or not the dictionary truly contains words worthy of an NC-17 is a separate argument.

      • by PCM2 (4486)

        The developer could have waited for parental controls to be implemented, or they could choose to filter the most objectionable terms manually - there was a clear way forward in both cases.

        And the way forward was censorship, in both cases.

        Seriously -- "objectionable"? Who decides? In this case, it is Apple who decides. Apple is acting as the censor, by denying the application access to distribution unless its developer agrees with Apple's position on morality/language/offensiveness/etc. Never mind that in order to see the definition of a word in the dictionary you have to look it up in the first place -- Apple wants the app developer to agree with Apple's position on principle, and ensure tha

        • Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)

          by blackraven14250 (902843) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:32PM (#28992931)
          I believe alot of the words are included in their own (OS X) dictionary, not only making them censors, but enormous hypocrites.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by babyrat (314371)

          Or is there some other explanation where Apple's actions look justified?

          How about "it's their store, they can sell what they want?"

          or should we complain that the christian book store should be selling nudie magazines because they sell other books?

          I'd even hazard a guess that it is covered in their guidelines that the developer received before he even started writing the app for the iPhone.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            How about "it's their store, they can sell what they want?"

            The question wasn't for an explanation of how Apple's actions are legal - we know that they are. The question was about Apple's actions being justified - and they clearly aren't in this case.

            or should we complain that the christian book store should be selling nudie magazines because they sell other books?

            No, but I don't see why a Christian book store should ban all books which ever mention sex or even hint at it - especially when it's not the purpose of the book. After all, they'd have to ban the Bible if they went for it.

            And, most certainly, if said Christian book store already sells one nude magazine (because its publ

  • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:24PM (#28992061)

    'The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. ...

    I'd like to see Schiller respond to the developer's allegation that the reviewers sent screenshots of specific common swear words - fuck, etc. explicitly typed in by Apple employees.

    Schiller's denial is so vague as to be a non-denial - note he doesn't actually specifically say which words they were rejected for, just hints that this was really quite a dirty, unsavoury dictionary and had no place on a nice store like ours. His implication does contradict the message sent to the developers, which homed in on quite common words which belong as slang in a normal dictionary.

    Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.

    The Google Voice one was worse than this though - at least these guys got a reason which made some sort of sense.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:41PM (#28992165)

      Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.

      Looking at the parents group response games like beer pong [gamepolitics.com] or "Madworld" [nydailynews.com] got on the wii, I have a little sympathy. Neither game was marketed at kids. Parents groups seemed more upset with Nintendo than the publishers, citing reasons that boiled down to "OMFG, KIDS PLAY THE WII, HOW COULD YOU NOT CENSOR THIS NINTENDO?!?"

      Granted, doing stupid things to avoid upsetting stupid people is stupid, but they are a company, not an organization dedicated to freedom of expression. They'd be reasonable to think that if they don't maintain some standards, parents groups would fly off the handle, boycott it, and they'd be losing out on their most profitable market: kids. It's somewhat positive that at least now they would have published it rather than just quashing it forever.

      Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by swillden (191260)

        Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.

        Are you a parent?

        I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality. Parents have a lot of stuff to do, and even those who don't work still need time to clean the house, buy the groceries, make dinner, change the oil, mow the lawn, etc. Of course, I have no sympathy for parents who buy M-rated games for their kids an

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by e9th (652576)

          --
          Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety.

          Aren't your post and your sig at odds with each other?

          • He probably never connected the dots.
            • by swillden (191260)

              He probably never connected the dots.

              There is no connection. See my response to the GP.

          • by swillden (191260)

            -- Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety.

            Aren't your post and your sig at odds with each other?

            Nope. Children are one thing. Responsible adults are quite another. Children need to be protected. As they grow up, as they learn their way around the world, you back off. If you do it right, by the time they're grown up they don't need protecting any more, because they can take care of themselves.

        • by schon (31600) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:24PM (#28992871)

          Are you a parent?

          I am.

          in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain.

          No, they're not, they're acting like children when they complain.

          I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.

          OK, so now we know that you're not just a parent, you're a bad parent.

          Because if you were a good parent, you wouldn't want to be monitoring your children every waking hour, nor expecting someone else to do it for you.

          Being a good parent involves teaching your children your values so that you don't *have* to monitor them.

          • by swillden (191260)

            Being a good parent involves teaching your children your values so that you don't *have* to monitor them.

            Certainly it does. And by the time they're teenagers, if you've done a good job, that works. With younger kids, it makes a lot more sense to simply keep some stuff away until they're able to understand it.

        • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:40PM (#28992969)

          I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.

          I know that, everyone knows that. And I had hoped that everyone would realize the folowing: if something is a concern to you, like your kid reading dirty words in a dictionary, then you should deal with it yourself, not make everyone else deal with it.

          I know you have a lot of chores to do, but it takes about 5 minutes to do any one of a number of things to remedy the situation on your end:
          -take the Ipod away from him
          -trust him not to download it
          -don't give him a credit card
          -don't give him the password to itunes
          -talk to him about dirty words
          -realize he already knows them
          -wash his mouth out with soap if he uses them

          The world doesn't have a responsibility to sanitize itself because you have issues with what your kid sees reguardless of how much free time you have.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Likewise, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to limit the sort of content in their app store. I think the rating system is a better way, but in the absence of the rating system, I don't think it's inappropriate to refuse apps that contain profanity.

          I am almost certain that your kids already know the meaning of, and suitable circumstances for the use of, all the profane words that Apple was complaining about finding in this dictionary. At least, remembering my own childhood days, I know that we knew a lot of that kind of stuff far earlier than our parents figured that out. And I was a geeky, somewhat antisocial kind of guy - others have learned earlier than me.

  • What?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:29PM (#28992095)

    Blackadder said it best :

    Samuel Johnson [wikipedia.org]: Ah, I see you've underlined a few (takes dictionary, reads): `bloomers'; `bottom'; `burp'; (turns a page) `fart'; `fiddle'; `fornicate'?

    George IV: Well...

    Samuel Johnson: Sir! I hope you're not using the first English dictionary to look up rude words!

    Edmund Blackadder: I wouldn't be too hopeful; that's what all the other ones will be used for.

  • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:42PM (#28992177)

    Obviously the dictionary he's using has a rather different definition of reasonable people than mine does.

    Mine says reasonable people aren't upset by words, especially the ones they write themselves. Reasonable people also have no expectation of going through life without encountering something they might find offensive, as they know that that idea itself is offensive to some people.

    Why can't we, as a group, start using the names of idiots like that as slang for 'offensive' things? Like ...

    Schiller - verb: To use ones tongue to clean a toilet bowl.
    Intelligent Design - noun: The act of writing ones name in faeces.

    • by radtea (464814)

      Mine says reasonable people aren't upset by words, especially the ones they write themselves.

      Or in other words: fuck that shit.

      Is there an app that lets you read Shakespeare's plays on the iPhone? What's its rating? Amongst other juicy terms, that fine old English word, "cunt", appears in Henry V (in the language lesson scene.)

      Do these so-called "reasonable people" object to that?

    • I don't see the words thou shalt be reasonable anywhere in this bible...
  • Fuck Apple (Score:3, Funny)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Friday August 07, 2009 @06:54PM (#28992257) Homepage

    Break out the smelling salts, I think I just saw the word "piss" in Ninjawords!

  • If the dictionary app was rejected on the basis that it proved access to dirty words, does this mean that Safari is the next to go? After all, it only provides access to the entire Internet, where I'm sure a few dirty words and even porn could be found.

  • reasonable people? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jjeffries (17675)
    "words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable"

    These are not reasonable people. These are people looking through a dictionary in order to be offended.

    Fuck those people. Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfuckers.
  • To Recap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aim Here (765712) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:21PM (#28992445)

    I apologise in advance for the bad language but in the interests of having a complete public record on Slashdot, here's a list of the words and phrases that Apple censors from their iPhone dictionaries:
    ---
    Reality Distortion Field
    egomaniac
    vendor lockin
    exploding iPod
    making unfreedom hip
    iCon
    backdated stock options
    Lisa
    fanboyism
    ---
    There you go. I feel dirty now, and shall wash my keyboard out with soap.

  • Only If... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:31PM (#28992527)

    the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable.

    Only if you look them up, fool!

  • So there's a question about the authenticity of this e-mail. Yeah, it's hard to verify by itself. What the Apple guy should have done is respond by a link to a YouTube video of him reading his e-mail aloud. That might authenticate him a bit more firmly. I'm sure he could make one easily from his MacBook since it just works.

    Oh, wait, YouTube is a Google site!
  • by fluch (126140) on Friday August 07, 2009 @07:56PM (#28992725)

    Does Safari need a 17+ age limit to be used? Will it be removed from the iPhone and iPod Touch? From Mac OS X? It can access even darker places outside there in the virtual world! Oh my godness! :-O

  • In-store censoring (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quacking duck (607555) on Friday August 07, 2009 @08:04PM (#28992765)

    Canadian App store users, try this: search for "redskins" As in the Washington Redskins NFL team.

    In each of the resulting 7 or so apps, each of their descriptions has Redskins censored, i.e. "R*****ns."

    (Non-Canadians can verify this by downloading either Pandora Box or AppMiner apps, which download app lists for each country separately, and setting them to use Canadian currency)

    Native American sensibilities is one thing, but censoring the name of a recognized sports team is pretty damn ridiculous. This raises a question: what was the process for getting it censored, and who demanded it be censored?

  • Is there anything new in the article not copy-pasted from Daring Fireball? Apart from the adds, I mean.
    • by grrrl (110084)

      Agreed! Post the link [daringfireball.net] to the guy who actually wrote about this thoughtfully, and who, you know, GOT THE ACTUAL EMAIL from Schiller. His name is John Gruber and he writes Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net]. And maybe mention him in the summary ??~?~!?

  • WTF (Score:3, Informative)

    by mshaver (43970) on Friday August 07, 2009 @09:09PM (#28993137)

    The full American Heritage Dictionary app has all of the seven deadly words (and more) stored on the ipod/iphone with audible pronunciation available with net access. Obviously there are different standards for different sources of apps.

  • I just realized that making a game out of this would be fun. Steve Jobs could be the level boss and if you defeat him, your app gets accepted into the app store.

    I wonder if it would be accepted.

    I know how to create apps, but I don't have time for it this weekend so I'm putting it out there. Get on it Slashdot. Someone write this now.

  • nice advertising (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Odinlake (1057938)
    I have no idea what ninjawords is about (sounds completely irrelevant to me) but it sure got some serious exposure out of all this.
  • Full of iShit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kiddailey (165202) on Friday August 07, 2009 @10:48PM (#28993617) Homepage

    Dear Steve and Steve:

    Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous:

    * Anyone can receive e-mail that contains profanity and porn. Please remove MobileMail.app from everyone's iPhone.
    * Anyone can access or stumble upon profanity, porn and more while web browsing. Please remove MobileSafari.app from everyone's iPhone.
    * Anyone can download and purchase songs full of profanity and sexual references. Please remove the iTunes Music Store from everyone's iPhone.

    Until you remove those three apps as well, it's obvious that you're full of iShit.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...