Apple approves of British nannies

Picture_3_270x368.png

Taking tight control over what gets on the iPhone and iPod Touch doesn’t come without consequences. After all, everything approved is there because of a decision that someone at Apple made.

Bear this in mind next time you head to the App Store, where you can’t swear, can’t compete with Apple, and can’t sell racy novels, but where you can shake a baby to death for fun! [CNET]

About Rob Beschizza

Rob Beschizza is the Managing Editor of Boing Boing. He's @beschizza on Twitter and can be found on Facebook too. Email is dead, but you can try your luck at besc...@gmail.com
This entry was posted in babies. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Apple approves of British nannies

  1. WalterBillington says:

    Let’s make something clear here, between you and me.

    I have a british nanny. She’s excellent. I freelance, and my wife works a difficult job. So I trust this woman with my childrens’ lives.

    She’s an expert in childcare, has all sorts of great references, is paediatric First Aid qualified (so choking / drowning / breaking etc is all taken care of, as is the recognition of MS and other serious illnesses), has a demeanour and capability way beyond her years, and in her care my children flourish.

    The line you can’t see Rob is that between reality, between real people, their cares and interests, and the silly fantasy world your brain inhabits where this title is ok.

    You didn’t see this coming, becoming you’re careless.

  2. Joel Johnson says:

    BRING IT!

  3. WalterBillington says:

    British nannies? Editorial fail. How distant can you be from minimum social capability?

    This was truly revolting.

  4. dculberson says:

    WalterBillington, he was referring to the Louise Woodward case:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward

    You know, dark humor? Typically a British specialty, too. Along with shaking babies, I guess.

  5. WalterBillington says:

    Rob, no over-reaction is pointless. Point isn’t an ingredient of over-reaction.

    Fair dos, I’ve taken strong offence at this. As for broadcast my assumptions – what you’re failing to see is that the reason you wrote the piece is masked by the high-tension title, and renders your point ambiguous and suspect.

    “Grasping attempts to be as offended as possible” is a neat segue from your earlier accusation that I’m sanctimonious, and falls down for the same reasons. I’m not grasping, these aren’t attempts, and I was offended. So to me, you come across as conceited and arrogant, because your “never say die” attitude means you can’t either accept with grace that you’ve been offensive, or seemingly compute the possibility that someone should or could be offended.

    To the reader aware of this … maybe it’s my mistake, I’ve become interested and intrigued by boingboing. Maybe I’m sitting in a small pool of people. But you’ve illuminated what is surely a classic journalistic mistake: writing to a small audience.

    I had no idea of that reference. You didn’t even infuse into the article the suggestion that there might be a reference.

    All ok with this, and I get the point – “Apple’s hypocrisy and the disinterest it has in meaningful social norms and expectations beyond its empty posing as a changer of lives.”

    Why anyone would ever believe Apple could ever be anything else, I will never know.

    You made a mix, it was volatile and to me somewhat tasteless.

  6. WalterBillington says:

    Actually, I can’t be bothered. Adequate to see you have no response to the challenge, and you’ve paid attention to the fact I’m so offended by the title.

    BB is becoming insular, self-preening. I’ve got a theme going, and that’s that you have become your own monsters – you cite and print all colour of progressive materials and texts, but you yourselves behave in an aloof and disappointing manner.

    So when I say you’re on the wane, I mean it. You’ll sustain influence only in the corners of society impressed by this behaviour, and become less and less relevant over time.

    Shame – it’s a definite transition point for you.

    And I’m British.

  7. WalterBillington says:

    Actually Rob, no I’m not. What I am is unsurprised at your useless rejoinder.

    You, however, are a careless writer.

    Rather than insulting me, why don’t you kindly explain your title? Please outline to me how it’s reasonable.

    I think you’re lacking somewhat in social capability. Don’t you see how joking around issues like this is offensive? You’re writing on a public forum, with untold numbers of readers, and a leading position in its field. And you decide to put that title up.

    Shall we do an experiment, and see how populations sensitive to this kind of title respond to your editorial choice? Guild of journalists, association of UK nannies, the shaken baby help groups?

    You’re welcome to call me a sanctimonious twit again. Bring it. I rather think you should be called to account for your appalling journalistic choice.

  8. WalterBillington says:

    Let’s make something clear here, between you and me.

    I have a british nanny. She’s excellent. I freelance, and my wife works a difficult job. So I trust this woman with my childrens’ lives.

    She’s an expert in childcare, has all sorts of great references, is paediatric First Aid qualified (so choking / drowning / breaking etc is all taken care of, as is the recognition of MS and other serious illnesses), has a demeanour and capability way beyond her years, and in her care my children flourish.

    The line you can’t see Rob is that between reality, between real people, their cares and interests, and the silly fantasy world your brain inhabits where this title is ok.

    You didn’t see this coming, becoming you’re careless.

  9. Rob Beschizza says:

    “You didn’t see this coming, becoming you’re careless.”

    Walter, you’re sputtering like an angry drunk at a party.

    Your pointless over-reaction does nothing except broadcast your assumptions: about me, about why I wrote this piece, and about the value of your own grasping attempts to be as offended as possible.

    “Bring it” is just sad. Bring what, exactly? Cake for breakfast?

    The title refers to an episode of “Family Guy,” in which Stewie demands: “Shake me, shake me like a British Nanny!” Family Guy and South Park are (or were) only available on the iPhone through Cydia, because Apple found them too offensive to approve. To the reader aware of this (and many of our readers will be) this hints at Apple’s hypocrisy and the disinterest it has in meaningful social norms and expectations beyond its empty posing as a changer of lives.

    I’m British too!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Actually I think that this app is brilliant. The implication that you either quit the game or kill the baby puts this square in the hands of the person who owns the game.

    Don’t know if this is meant to be provocative in a positive way or if it is just a cynical move to make money but it puts the dilemma of violence in the hands of the ipod owner, which is actually a very interesting move.

    Kind of reminds me of Super Columbine Massacre.

  11. Anonymous says:

    C’mon man, it’s a baby tenderizing sim. You don’t want that virtual baby to be hardhearted or headed, do you?

    Captcha: Schnell son. Hmm.

  12. Sean Eric FAgan says:

    And as the CNet article shows, it’s been pulled already.

    Who knows if it would have been pulled (or how quickly) if it hadn’t been for the publicity.

  13. Halloween Jack says:

    everything approved is there because of a decision that someone at Apple made.

    According to the Guardian article, Apple had “recently relaxed its requirements”. Funny, how not only did this make it onto the App Store so quickly, but that it happened at the same time as Apple counting down to the billionth download.

    But, hey, nothing like this will ever happen to the Android Store, or the Pre app store, or the BlackBerry store, or…

  14. WalterBillington says:

    Dark humor … but why british? The reference is thoroughly irrelevant, tasteless and insulting. For “humor” (let’s go with humour) to apply, there must be some minimal degree of heightened relevancy.

    The suggestion, you see, dear author and dear #6, is made that only british nannies shake babies to death. How silly! Shaken baby “syndrome” is a global phenomenan. I imagine in the US vs UK stakes, we have more shaken babies in the colony. And that per head of population.

    The humour here is juvenile and simplistic, one notch above spitting in the face of these professionals who care for the most precious elements of many people’s lives.

    I appreciate greatly the bringing to my attention of the app, but request and require that in future, this kind of matter is handled respectfully and with care.

    And I think, therefore, an apology should be issued.

    You see – we shouldn’t play with fire, unless we want to be burned. BB might just be sliding down a hole.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I am British, and like #5 and #7 find myself in the extremely unusual position of being offended by a Boing Boing article.

    =(

  16. Rob Beschizza says:

    Walter, you’re a sanctimonious twit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

More BB

Boing Boing Video

Flickr Pool

Digg

Wikipedia

Advertise

Displays ads via FM Tech

RSS and Email

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the United States and other countries.

FM Tech