https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a
When a movie like Iron Sky has no problem being shown in German cinemas with the swastika left untouched, because it's clearly art, then it should be fairly obvious to Apple that banning historically accurate representations in historically accurate interactive art is far overreaching; though not legally, but ethically.
"We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App."
Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.
Essentially they want to separate themselves from most existing legal precedent.
Why would that end up in court? Apple is a private company. It's free to include/exclude whatever content it wants. Consumers don't have a right to force a company to provide the content they want.
Get in trouble for anti-monopoly stuff usually requires two parts: that you be a monopoly and that you somehow use it. Shaping a market to your desires is an example of using your monopoly standing.
Apple won't get in trouble because they're not a monopoly, but that's how a private company can get in trouble for filtering speech in an eco-system they control.
IANAL, but I feel like there were previous monopoly cases successfully brought on behalf of far smaller groups than that. E.g. the fact that I'm a vegetarian doesn't invalidate a steak-knife monopoly
this looks more the result of living in the land of the lawsuit-happy easily offended puritans than anything else. if they could shift liability to esrb for their apps and games, they would
actually, I wonder how did they managed to pass under the esrb radar so far.
It's pretty similar to a local coffee shop maintaining a few book cases for customers to borrow or buy, but being pretty strict about what books can be put in their selection.
Ultimately, I suspect they are more controlling about apps than about books or music because apps are (or were) a new medium that, for both financial and marketing reasons, they wanted to think about differently. Apple probably feared (and/or hoped) that Apps would have a more intimate connection to their brand than e.g., the tracks in iTunes.
(edit: 1. Not saying I agree; 2. this post is a descriptive conjecture about why/how Apple treats apps differently, not an advocacy that they continue to do so. Jeesh.)
The simile is only stronger in that case. The local coffee shop might be OK stocking some Marxist rags or hard core Libertarian texts or whatever the owner likes. Meanwhile, Starbucks only stocks the inoffensive books. Thus, the masses go to Starbucks because they want a cup of coffee from a nice normal person, and don't want to have to listen to a bunch of Marxists talk down to them while waiting in line or (perceive that they are being) condescended to by a Barista.
The book case simile is fictional, but Starbucks appropriating only the completely inoffensive parts of the canonical local coffee shop is a perfect parallel example.
Something like "Want a huge catalog of high-quality Apps curated by a company with good taste? Get an iPhone."
It makes sense because IT WORKED. People DO associate certain high-quality Apps with the iPhone, even when those apps are made available on Android at some point.
Just because you (or I) disagree with it doesn't mean it's not a policy that makes good sense. It gave a huge boost their their product's reputation...
[Citation needed]
But anecdotally, most people I know who own an iPhone and aren't Apple devouts chose it because "the software is better". I assume the typical consumer lumps Apps in with OS, because I doubt they are making purchasing decisions based upon the quality of the OS kernel or the quality of the background processes...
[1]. http://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/article/ctw/...
US society has moved past moral panic over books and music. We're still in the thick of it with software (Brown vs. EMA was decided in 2011). Apple already chose to make themselves a certifying authority for software on other axes, so I don't find it surprising they sanitize content in the US-flavor of "family friendly" similar to other game consoles.
edit: slightly rephrased.
An app with pictures of classic paintings that happen to include nipples will not be approved for sale.
After all, if you really want that kind of stuff, you can always install a different package manager and use someone else's selection of apps.
Oh, wait.
In practice all games that contain forbidden symbols get a German version in which these are replaced for example in the Wolfenstein franchise (that were not censored due to violence).
There is a very reasonable expectation of this changing at some point in the future.
A lot of gamers seem to be happy with versions that have these symbols replaced and everyone else simply imports them (which is as simple as ordering from amazon.co.uk instead of amazon.de). Publishers have simply no incentive to pursue this and because violence in games can be censored, publishers censor a lot of games on their own already anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that there are companies even profiting from the current situation.
(Even though, imo, the dude outright lies by stating that their interpretation of the law is what the law factually says.)
Also, do note that i said at some point in the future.
Nevertheless to my understanding if a publisher were to get a game censored by the OLJB due to forbidden symbols, the publisher could go to court and I think they would have a decent chance at winning such a case.
Are you agreeing with the law exactly as it is written? (I am.) Are you agreeing with the interpretation of the law as it applies to computer games? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should be allowed the usage if the usage serves the art? (I do.)
It depends on the context. The computer game should not facilitate identification with Nazism (e.g. by the player flying that flag in a RTS or being a member of it in an FPS) or downplay the disastrous results of Nazism. So potentially I would be okay with a Wolfenstein-like game where the player operates strictly against these powers/symbols, but doing this consequently in online multi-player games seems difficult.
Exactly that is my point. :)