I recently twittered "Corporate censorship kills creative innovation because some great ideas aren't seen as great until much later" but some people were confused, which isn't surprising given that I could have fully explained what I meant if I'd just used all 140 characters.

So to clarify, I'll do a full post but due to how I have MySQL set up, I'll need to keep to under two billion characters.  Hopefully that will be enough this time.

When I was talking about "Corporate Censorship", I wasn't talking about the relationship between a game developer and a publisher.  That's a unique relationship because one party (the publisher/employer) is paying the other party (the developer/employee) and I do think if you're funding something, you do have the right to exert some control over what is being made.  You are paying for it after all.  In a good and healthy publisher/developer relationship both parties respect what the other brings to the venture and they let the other do what they do best with minmal interference, but that's not what I was talking about.

Although my current frustration in this (soon to be explained) matter is directed at Apple, it can also be attributed to Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Comcast, AT&T or just about any other company that maintains some level of blanket creative control over a medium, whether it be the iPhone, the XBox, the PS3, a cable box or a printing press.

I've been a huge supporter and cheerleader of Apple over the years.  While I did not grow-up programming the Apple II (C64 rules!), I have owned a Mac non-stop since 1985 and have always had a huge amount of respect for the company and their creative and technical innovations.

But all that changed for me in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone.  I love my iPhone.  I bought one day-one and continue to own one and an iPad.  They are truly amazing devices, and in my opinion, there are none better.

But Apple has maintained an almost North Koreanish dictatorial control over the devices, becoming the arbitrator over what is good and bad, what is allowed and not allowed.

They don't have this control over the Mac because it is a real computer and an open device, but they can do this with the iPhone because we (as consumers) were convinced by the cell phone carriers that they needed this control to protect their networks (in the same way they wouldn't let us own our own telephones in the 70s) and Apple was happy to jump on that ship because they could finally control everything that went on the device and we bought it into it.

Apple apologists say that Apple needs this control to maintain the "specialness" of the device.  I say that's a load of crap.  Anyone that uses a Mac will tell you that much of the software (completely out of Apple's control) is beautiful and highly functional, unlike the sea of garbage that finds its way onto Windows.  Apple set a high aesthetic standard and challenges people to follow it and it's worked great.  No one tells me what I can or can not buy and use on my Mac, yet it's all lovely and special.

Apple apologists will also say that Apple needs this control to protect me from malicious software.  Once again, I call bullshit.  I'm an adult.  My Mac doesn't need someone to watch over my shoulder and make sure no one takes advantage of me, and I can guarantee you that I have more personal information on my Mac (i.e. the Secret of Monkey Island) than I do my iPhone and I'm pretty sure that's true for almost anyone.

Apple apologists criticize anyone that claims the iPhone or the iPad is a device for consumption and not creation.  They will point to wonderful art or music that was made on the device as proof, but I maintain that these wonderful things were created in spite of the device, not because of it.

Back when I was working with Steve Purcell on Monkey Island, he would sit in team meetings and create to most incredible jaw dropping pictures on an Etch-A-Sketch, but that doesn't mean it was suddenly a serious tool for the creation of art.

The truly sad part of what keeps the iPad from being a serious tool for creation and not just a toy for consumption is Apple's pathological control over the device.  Why can't there be a common Documents folder that any application can save documents to?  Why must all applications be locked into a sandbox, unable to communicate with each other in unthought of and creative ways without using some kludgy URL scheme?

To protect us Apple will say.  Bullshit I say.

Why can't Pages load and save files to Dropbox like I can on my Mac?  Why must I use iTunes to transfer documents from the iPad to my computer?  Why doesn't it just mount this Documents folder like any other drive when I plug it in?

Artists I know who try and use the iPad to create art love it's portability, but hate transferring images that are often automatically compressed and resized because that's what Apple thought we (the stupid consumers) need it to do.  Yes, you can get around all this my jumping though hoops and tricking the device, but why should we be subjected to that.

I'm an adult.

Which brings us to the creative argument.

Apple recently relaxed the "rules" for the iPhone's App Store which was cheered by many and criticized by others, but I think it really begs the question: why do they maintain any creative control?  They aren't paying me to make the game.  It isn't a contract job.  It's my game.

Apple famously used Fart Apps as an example of something there was too much of.  Who cares?  Why should I or anyone else trust Apple to recognize the genius of my Fart App?  But that's what we're relying on them to do, but not just for fart apps.  Genius isn't aways recognized from the outset.  Van Gogh wasn't seen as a genius until after his death and I don't want to trust Apple or any corporation to recognize the genius of a game based on playing it for 5 minutes.

Ideas are often censored not because they are bad, but because they are not understood and mistaken for bad.  The damage here is that truly brilliant ideas can take a while before their importance and genius is truly appreciated or that people are ready for them.  Ideas can also be upsetting and disruptive to the status quo, the very institutions that have the power to censor.

Apple banned a photography App because it used the physical volume button on the side of the phone to snap the picture.  Anyone who's tried to use the iPhone camera will attest to the awkwardness of trying to press the virtual button on the screen.  Using one of the volume buttons to snap the picture was pure genius, but Apple banned the App, saying that it was to avoid consumer confusion.

Really?  But I'm an adult.

What finally prompted my twitter post was reading the news that Adidas is pulling out of the iAds program:

Adidas supposedly pulled its $10+ million ad campaign from the iAd program because Apple CEO Steve Jobs was being too much of a control freak. According to one industry exec, Adidas decided to cancel its iAds after Apple rejected its creative concept for the third time.

I don't really care one way or another about iAds, Adidas or ads in general, but it's the creative control that corporations are exerting more and more over creators and user because technology allows them to.  It's wrong and it's unhealthy.

Most of this post is about Apple, but the same thing can be said of Microsoft and how they control what gets onto XBLA or Sony and PSN or Nintendo or Comcast and new an innovative cable boxes.  It can be said of just about any large corporation that finds itself in a positon to be a censor of what you get to see, all the while claiming that it's for your own good.

If Gutenberg's press could have be shackled with DRM and technology to prevent anything unauthorized from being printed, you know it would have been.  And then where would be be today?

I don't need corporations to protect me and limit what I can or can not create, express or enjoy.

I'm an adult.