Connect with us


Apple Sinks to New Low with Baby Shaker App



This goes beyond simply head scratching and into the realm of just what were they thinking. Apple seems to enjoy toilet humor and worse when it comes to approving novelty apps for its very successful App Store that is about to crest the 1 Billion App Downloaded mark. After things seemed to settle down from the obnoxious cloud of apps featuring various methods of creating the sounds of flatulence, Apple seems to be once again approving apps that have questionable value and taste.

Lately there is an app that features the sounds of urination and now comes one that goes beyond frat boy immaturity and crosses way over the line. The latest questionable taste app allows you to shake a crying baby until its eyes are replaced with X’s. Yeah, you read that right. Again, way over the line and how something like this gets approved is beyond me. Makes you wonder just who is minding the store.

Jennifer Dickens, a mother who had a child who experienced brain damage from being shaken by his father, and the founder of a national organization for Shaken Baby Syndrome brought this to CNet’s attention and I’m glad she did. Apple should be ashamed and pull this offensive app.

And to think there is some sort of delay with the SlingPlayer app

Via TechCrunch and CNet

UPDATE: According to CNet, Apple has come to its senses and pulled the app from the store.



  1. Tim

    04/22/2009 at 2:56 pm

    I think most of those following the tech news will agree that Apple is rediculously inconsistent in their decisions. I’m of the opinion that the only consideration in whether or not something is allowed (outside of malicious software, but then again OSX is virus proof isn’t it?) into the App Store is whether or not in encroaches on Apple’s turf. There have been numerous reports of products that function as alternative browsers, media players, etc being delayed or withheld access.

    Personally, I don’t think Apple should be picking what it allowed and what isn’t. Outside of disallowing malicious software, all submitted apps should be allowed into the store. If people want them, they will buy them. Otherwise they won’t. By having this ridiculous approval process, Apple has too many opportunities for abuse. Suppose they are a short time away from announcing a new feature that will pull in more money, but somebody submits an app with that feature earlier. Apple can decide not to allow it, so that the app doesn’t encroach on their market share. Likewise, what if Apple copies someone’s code or ideas from a submission? Most home developers aren’t getting legal coverage for their work, and definitely don’t have a legal team to match up to Apple’s.

    But, from a company that is notoriously restrictive, what do you expect?

  2. JC

    04/22/2009 at 3:19 pm

    Are you seriously arguing for unfettered access to the app store as a response to a blog entry about how Apple should remove an app Warner doesn’t like? You’re basically saying, “And yeah, Apple should allow developers to put up even more apps Warner doesn’t like” in response to his being offended by this one app.

  3. Anonymous Reader

    04/22/2009 at 4:02 pm

    There’s a reasonable argument for consistent enforcement of policies.

    A South Park application for viewing episodes on the iPhone was denied for crude content, but these apps are allowed?

    That’s disingenuous.

    Apple is restricting what programs can be run on their platform based on an arbitrary set of “guidelines”.

    Which is the same complaint they had about the carriers when they first tried to launch the iPhone.

    The most consistent policy would be to allow the market to decide what apps succeed, and only disallow apps that harm the hardware or software of the device they’re run on.

  4. Jeff in Chicago

    04/22/2009 at 4:11 pm

    It’s official. The author has completely run out of actual problems to complain about.

  5. sfwrtr

    04/22/2009 at 4:21 pm

    If you look at the App Store vetting process, with this as a sample, you begin to see that part of the process is probably automated. With so many apps, how could it not be? Yes, a code reader AI program might be able to easily pick out apps that are browsers or GPS navigation programs, but baby shakers? It’s probably something like IRS audits, you know, special indicators bubble an app up to a human to make a final decision and others don’t.

    It would be interesting to find out what Apple is doing…

  6. Clayton

    04/22/2009 at 4:32 pm

    This is preposterous! Why would you even MAKE something like that?

  7. Tim

    04/22/2009 at 4:53 pm

    @JC – yes the point of the article is that its silly that Apple allowed such an app through. However, the article doesn’t have a basis if Apple doesn’t filter content. In that case the argument: 1) Doesn’t really make any news because its a random guy who caused it, not Apple and 2) Becomes why would someone make this as opposed to why would someone allow this?

  8. Warner Crocker

    04/22/2009 at 5:04 pm

    Jeff in Chicago,

    I’ve still got plenty of actual problems to complain about. Don’t worry.

  9. Sumocat

    04/22/2009 at 9:31 pm

    Yep, everyone hates Apple’s control until they want Apple to control something.

  10. Virtuous

    04/23/2009 at 5:07 pm

    I’ve always liked Apple’s control of the iTunes Store. Now they need to remove all of fart apps.

  11. SAM

    04/23/2009 at 11:14 pm

    What would be even worse, is to find out how many programs were sold…

  12. Collin

    04/29/2009 at 2:39 pm

    My god. This has got to be one of the worst articles I have ever read. Does the author have some vendetta with Apple or the iPhone? It is so caustic and negative and serves absolutely no point other than to tell Apple, that they need to do more CENSORING.

    Who is this idiot and who gave him this platform?

  13. Xavier

    04/29/2009 at 6:55 pm

    @Colin – Sorry you don’t agree with Warner’s point of view.
    He’s actually a Mac/iPhone user and I assure you he doesn’t have a vendetta against Apple.

    I guess I’m the idiot that’s responsible for publishing his articles- should I send you a refund?

  14. Stephen

    05/04/2009 at 10:31 am

    Wow. While you’re at it Warner, why don’t you censor the entire internet for what you think is offensive. And also go to the library and burn all the books you don’t like. Awful article. Awful author. And yes, Xavier, I’d like a refund… For the time i just wasted reading this trash. I hope your Web site fails as much as you do at life Warner Crocker.

  15. Warner Crocker

    05/04/2009 at 11:47 am

    So, Stephan,

    Just a question. Do you find this inoffensive? I’m just curious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.