Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Media Apple Games Politics Your Rights Online

Rejection of Reality: Apple Denies Endgame:Syria 172

arclightfire writes "Endgame:Syria billed itself as the first game to cover on ongoing war in a mashup of interactivity and journalism. However it seems like Apple is not happy with this idea, as PocketTactics reports; 'Apple's app guidelines have once again tripped up the release of a strategy game rooted in a real-world conflict. Auroch Digital's Endgame Syria has been rejected by Apple's approvals team for violating guidelines section 15.3, "solely target[ing] a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity." If section 15.3 sounds familiar, it's because it was the clause invoked when Cupertino said no to Pacific Fleet back in September – the game ran afoul of the guidelines for including Japanese flags in a WWII naval sim.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rejection of Reality: Apple Denies Endgame:Syria

Comments Filter:
  • Oh Apple... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @11:44AM (#42519029) Journal

    "Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology – where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"

    Remember when this was the straw-man that Apple was against?

  • Re:Why? Why why why? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @12:02PM (#42519299)
    How much of that $7 billion is in the pockets of Rovio?
  • Re:Politcal Games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Onymous Coward ( 97719 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @12:16PM (#42519499) Homepage

    Okay, granted, it depends on context.

    Within the realm of Apple systems that run only apps we have "favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom" and "the act or practice of supervising the manners or morality of others".

    Part of the problem is that opt-in commercial systems become de facto social requirements. Internet Explorer, Office, Facebook, LinkedIn, smartphones... It's hard to navigate society without opting in. I use none of these things, and having opted out puts pressure on me. People around me think I'm weird (because I am strange, I am unusual and hard to understand) and they feel judged by my refusing to do what they do (this is similar to how just being a vegetarian is threatening to others) and that puts strain on my relations.

    So I'm a component of a larger organism, society. What society chooses, whether enforced intentionally, using written rules and men with guns, or enforced incidentally, by the fact of social pressure, is what I am subject to. If society ignorantly opts to relinquish freedom by adopting some corporation's politically- and morally-constrained walled garden, they apply that authoritarianism and censorship to me as well.

    I'm still pissed off about Internet Explorer.

  • by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @12:29PM (#42519717)
    Apple refused to allow political cartoon apps in the App Store, even in countries where such software is entirely legal. Apple has a history of bricking jailbroken iPhones. Apple sues reporters, sues hackers who figure out how to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and tries to exert the most extreme control possible over their customers' use of their products.

    Meanwhile, Google allows you to use their search engine to find pornography, to find information on how to block Google's own advertisements, to find information on how to hack software released by Google to do things Google never intended, and so forth. Are they perfect? No, but did we really expect them to be? Frankly, Google has gone beyond what I would expect of a modern corporation in terms of user freedom.
  • Re:Politcal Games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @03:48PM (#42522911)

    You don't need anyone's permission to post an app to Google Play. You simply post it yourself and it's immediately available. It could still get taken down at some later point if Google decides it violates their terms of service, but I don't know of any cases where they've done that just because they didn't like a game making a political statement.

    But as you point out, what really matters is that you aren't restricted to Google Play. You can get apps from other places if you want. I don't object to Apple setting standards for what they will or won't sell in their store, but I strongly object to them locking down devices so you can't get apps from anywhere but their store.

Air is water with holes in it.