Apple’s App Store says yes to pot, no to guns

“Apple’s definition of morality is on display this week with a couple of changes to its policies regarding App Store submissions,” Sarah Perez reports for TechCrunch. “pparently, Apple’s App Store is now okay with marijuana-themed applications, which were previously restricted, but it’s also now enforcing a policy requiring game developers to remove images of guns from their App Store screenshots.”

“For weeks now, a number of marijuana advocacy groups and mobile developers, including social networking app MassRoots, have been petitioning Apple to change its stance on banning drug-themed applications from the App Store,” Perez reports. “Going forward, the app has to perform a geolocation check that prevents users outside of authorized areas from accessing its network. Those permitted areas are the 23 U.S. states where marijuana use has been legalized.”

“Meanwhile, another recent change to App Store policies impacts app developers whose games include gun violence. While these apps are still allowed in the App Store (when properly rated), those who submit their apps with screenshots that depict the guns being used are now being rejected,” Perez reports. “Some developers have responded by removing guns from screenshots while others are blurring them out.”

Read more in the full article here.

44 Comments

      1. As a pro 2nd amendment constitutionalist, I agree. This is not a second amendment issue. Apple is free to not include gun related software on their network. Including books and periodicals. Apple is also free to push pot on their network.

        I will defend Apple’s freedoms and everyone else’s to my last breath. I humbly ask that similar recognition of my freedoms be given. That’s all. I don’t expect you to buy guns or smoke pot. If you do though, that is your business.

        1. I have to say, MDN’s headline (actually, in all fairness, TechCrunch headline) was clearly crafted in a way to incite most possible clicks and responses. After all, it is precisely this type of traffic (two-way) that advertisers love the most.

      2. Merely stating a fact. Apple can, of course, do whatever they want with their App Store, because:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

        1. That one is perhaps a bit more relevant than the first one (insomuch that it allows Apple to do whatever they want with their store, as well as you to say whatever you wish, relevant to the discussion or not).

  1. I have an admittedly unreasonable number of firearms and a ridiculous amount of ammunition in my home (it just happened..not really sure how 🙂 but I have “0” issue with not showing guns on adverts for games. Guns are NOT toys or playthings.

    However you can have mine when you pry them from my cold dead hands…

  2. So what if we just started throwing massive amounts of bales of pot and ZigZag papers into ISIS/Al Qaeda strongholds? I mean massive amounts. I’m sure this has been thought of.

  3. I am a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, carry a concealed firearm, used to run a gun store about 40 years ago, and I have always been opposed to the shoot-em-up video and computer games that tend to de-sensitize anyone who plays them to killing anything that is in front of them. Perhaps it is these target rich mass killing games that engender the age of target rich mass killing reality of reality challenged teen-agers or mentally ill sociopaths who want to realize their fantasies in real life when they shoot up their schools, work-places, or malls.

    In the game’s virtual-reality fantasy world, it is rinse and repeat, killing the miraculously resurrected victims/aggressors over and over again for a vicarious pleasure of the ever greater and more realistic violence. In the real world—surprise!—one cannot die and go back and do that level over again. The opponents do not just pop back up, whole and healthy again, to be shot and bleed once again.

    A real hunter and shooter understands killing, death, and dying. A virtual killer does not. It is so much fantasy. Glory with out the cost, the pain, the angst of having killed another living thing. The blood is bloodless, it is absent the mess, the smell, there is not clean up, no repercussions. No guilt. Rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. Why is that child in front of their gun any different from the zombie they just shot in the game?

    I know what a gun is for. I shoot to improve my skills with my weapon. I carry it for my and my family member’s protection, as well as for those around me. I have seen close up the damage a firearm can do to a human being. Three times in my life I have pulled a gun and pointed it at another human being and thank God did not have to pull the trigger. I know i could if called on to do so. It is not something I would wish to do to a fellow human, but I will to save those dear to me or to safe my life.

    1. That sounds great and I’m with you. But there are far too many loose cannons and fucking jerks who don’t have one iota of common sense or the attitude of responsibility and respect for the weapon and others that you describe. Then we have all the stupid idiots whose children have shot themselves or a friend with a weapon that was loaded and lying around. If all gun owners were like you, I don’t think we’d be having any of the many problems that currently – unfortunately – exist!

      1. Sorry, but we HEAR about these accidents because our news media believes in “If it bleeds, it leads.”

        The facts are that if you teach children about guns and teach them to shoot, they will respect guns and know how to handle them. These accidents occur because of curiosity from children who have not been taught. . . and will reach for a gun when they find one because of that curiosity.

        Gun accidents are DOWN and deaths among children in particular. There will always be accidents. . . but we do not make policy on the outlying possibilities. There are far more possibilities of being assaulted than for these accidents. Guns are used 1.3 million times a year to prevent crimes. Most times without a shot being fired. The mere presence of a firearm will prevent things from escalating. That was the case in my three incidents. Three times I was able to save lives because I had a firearm on me. If i had not had it, someone would have died. That trumps your what-if scenarios every time. I KNOW those people are alive today.

        1. @Swordmaker: I am curious about your source of information regarding gun accidents. I inquire not so much to challenge you, but determine how you came to to make the claim that gun accidents are down. In general, I find credible statistics on the subject to be scarce, and almost always dated.

  4. Let me get this straight.

    Illegal pot in most states is blessed by the Apple Store. Flip side of that coin Second Amendment rights to the Constitution are curtailed.

    Fine, Apple. Your right, certainly. Upside down Animal Farm and a major misstep in judgement.

    But your hanging with the liberal cool kids these days, so not surprised.

      1. So, NOT asking developers to stop glamorizing illegal drug use to children in the majority of the U.S. is OK with you?

        Firearms rights are protected by the Second Amendment. Mary Jane is not. An FDA unregulated drug that has has carcinogenic levels that make cigarettes look tame by comparison.

        Big mistake by Apple allowing foolish worship of illegal drugs over the right to own a gun and use it responsibly.

        Animal Farm.

          1. General practice is to worship God and certainly not inanimate objects like guns or Mary Jane.

            Legal guns are GOOD. Illegal drugs are BAD.

            What part do you not understand?

      1. Good to hear I’m right as rain. 🙂

        All you know is you don’t know. My first name is George and last begins with B.

        Sorry to break your serial delusional fixation. Help is a phone call away. Good luck.

      1. Um…no. Limiting what you sell is not the same as limiting to whom you sell to. No if you’re talking about bakeries selling only cupcakes and not cannelloni; that would be a fair comparison.

      2. Um no. Limiting what you sell is not the same as limiting to whom you sell. Now if your talking bakeries selling only cupcakes and not cannelloni; That would be a fair comparison.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.