So, it appears that Apple has caved in to the criticism, further illustrating that their approval system is all kinds of messed up. All that aside, I'm just happy it's on it's way. [Twitter]

The app was rejected for risque content, which turned out to be "The Downward Spiral", a song that was available in the app, sort of, as part of a podcast. Trent's NSFW take:

You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

A good point, and one that he elaborates on at length. But then, he quickly softens, and goes all TUAW on everyone:

Everyone - let me be clear. I love Apple products and as goofy and out-of-touch as their app approval process / policy is, I will still use them because they work 1000X better than the competition. This is not a debate, it's a fact. The iPhone is THE most elegant, modern smartphone at this point in time and it's perfect for what we want to do with the NIN app - except for the ludicrous approval process, and that's what I want to draw attention to. Android is cool, but nobody has an Android phone. Blackberry is OK but the hardware is inconsistent and WinMo straight-up sucks balls. If Apple doesn't get it together, we will most certainly make it available to the jailbreak community. I didn't invest in this app to see it languish on the sidelines from an idiotic policy while this tour is in full swing.

Surprise fanboyism aside, his points on censorship are solid: assuming the presence of other apps—Safari, Mail, Twitter, whatever—that provide access to uncensored material, banning one app that provides access to the same objectionable content is kind of pointless. [Trent Reznor via Crunchgear]

And just what was the bad, potty-mouthed content? Why, it was a reference to The Downward Spiral, hence the ridiculous references in the lead of this post.

That's about all we know for now, but sadly this is yet another example of the increasingly wonky Apple App Store approval/rejection process. Late last month, there was the infamous baby shaking app, which inexplicably managed to get through the approval process, before getting quickly pulled.

Perhaps that major gaffe has made Apple's trigger finger a bit more itchy as of late? Perhaps.

Update: Trent Reznor responded to this story with a little more detail in the official NIN forums. Be careful, kids, it gets a bit blue!

Now, "The Downward Spiral" the album is not available anywhere in the iPhone app. The song "The Downward Spiral" I believe is in a podcast that can be streamed to the app.

Thanks Apple for the clear description of the problem - as in, what do you want us to change to get past your stupid fucking standards?

And while we're at it, I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands (including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?

You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.

[Trent Reznor's Twitter via Slashdot]

As I recall, I saw the Head Like a Hole video on MTV and liked the direction they were going in. At this point hair band music was wearing itself out and, for me, it was really time for a change. So, on a whim I picked up the album at a record store (possibly The Wall before it became fye) in the Danbury Fair Mall in Connecticut while on a day trip with my family. I remember playing the hell out of that thing on my Walkman. I liked it so much I even re-bought the album on CD later on.

For me, PHM really set the stage for all the music I loved in the 90's. I really got into it—even worked as one of those smug record store clerks that looked down at everyone's musical tastes. Unfortunately, I have very little to be excited about these days—except NIN iPhone apps and free albums I suppose.

For Gizmodo's week-long Listening Test (a tribute to all things audio), each writer will be sharing his/her first album. In other words, there will be many more to come.

The apps looks like everything that Web 2.0 was promised to be for musicians, wrapped up in an incredibly slick package. The app seamlessly combines streaming music with custom playlists; a Twitter-like social network within Nine Inch Nail's own network (that's location-aware, so you can look up where messages came from in Google Earth on your desktop); fan-submitted images and media from every NIN concert ever (also location tagged); and of course, an iPhone-friendly version of the website within the app.

It sounds a lot like the future of music in a box, if you ask me. The reason he was able to build this, and you don't see something like it coming from the mainstream industry, he says, is that "anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea."

The app will be free should go live in the next couple of days after it gets final approval from Apple. They're already working on Version 2.0 for iPhone 3.0, which will include Google Maps integration and Push notification.

Also, if you didn't know already, he's on Twitter, and actually writes his own tweets, unlike some celebrities. [Underwire]

Concert on September 2nd (5:27 in):

Concert on August 20th (1:04 in):

[Amy Randazzo's Flickr and the NIN Hotline]

"It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do," Yorke told the Hollywood Reporter." I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time."

Yorke and Co. have remained tight-lipped about whether they think the move was a success or not, but the freebie method has been adopted by other artists, notably Nine Inch Nails. The latest group to jump on the freebie bandwagon is Coldplay, aka Radiohead Lite, who announced on Monday that their new single, Violet Hill, would be available for free, and promptly b0rked the interweb* with their selfless gesture. [Reuters]

*The band's official website crashed.

The gist of all the suits against YouTube is that, because it doesn't pro-actively take down or automatically block copyrighted content, it effectively doesn't fall under the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. If Universal, Trent's former record label, hosts a site where a fan pulls a Danger Mouse with Year Zero and Prince's 1999, which Universal doesn't own, they think they'll be opening themselves to the same blasts they're pelting YouTube with. Then their lawsuit would be in jeopardy, and you can't have that.

Trent's thoughts:

While I am profoundly perturbed with this stance as content owners continue to stifle all innovation in the face of the digital revolution, it is consistent with what they have done in the past. So... we are challenged at the last second to find a way of bringing this idea to life without getting splashed by the urine as these media companies piss all over each other's feet. We have a cool and innovative site ready to launch but we're currently scratching our heads as to how to proceed.

Pearl Jam and The Doors have been offering direct DRM-free MP3 downloads of material for a while now in a mix-and-match format, though not with the highest ease of use factor; Prince just gave his last album away (though not digitally); and Public Enemy's giving away How You Sell Soul To A Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul for free on P2P networks, albeit loaded with ads. And loathe as I am to credit Phish for anything, they directly sold MP3s way back in the Stone Age of 1999.

Ultimately Radiohead was only wading around the kiddie pool wearing floaties, those being its plans to distribute the album on vanilla CDs next year, possibly through one of the Big Four in North America, ensuring their experiment held little possibility of sinking them (or their cash haul).

The release was brilliant: Fanboys latched onto the $80 superfan package, casual or sympathetic fans threw a couple bucks its way for middling but DRM-free MP3s, and the band cleaned up on positive press, only to have another shot to do it again in a couple months with a regular release riding a wave of hype.

Saul Williams proves to be an interesting test case for independent digital distribution: He's not a household name, but he is forcefully backed by someone who is. In truth, without Trent's involvement, it's doubtful many people would be writing about this at all. Regardless, the release strategy is bolder and closer to what people want out of digital distribution: no DRM, easy access, solid bitrates whether you paid or not, and choices (FLAC or MP3, free or flat, reasonable fee). And while there could be a CD release of Niggy Tardust, given Trent's stance on the major labels, it's highly doubtful it'll be through one of the Big Four.

It's been asked what's up with the hate for physical media and trumpeting of digital releases. I don't hate CDs. I buy a ton of them. The issue is choice. People can buy an album on CD, buy it DRM'd to hell and of mediocre bitrate from a number of online stores or grab it for free in whatever quality they want without DRM from an equally large number of quasi-(il)legal outlets. Trent Reznor and Saul Williams are simply recognizing that piracy is a legitimate, or at least a real consumer choice, and they are cutting out the middlemen—both the labels and the pirates.

What I'm arguing is that the future of the music industry is in offering up music in as many avenues as possible, as easily and cheaply as possible. It's not so much advice as it is inevitability—it's just where things are going. The hard reality is that people place a different value on that content now than they did before—it's absurd to me to pay for news, for instance, despite being in the industry—and no matter how many people the industry sues, that won't change.

To me, five bucks is reasonable for a digital copy of an album at a good bitrate, ten for a real CD. But it might be three bucks and six for the guy next to me on the bus. Or nothing at all, but he'll drop thirty bucks go to a concert. Maybe he just spreads the word to someone who will. The music industry fits in here by offering reasonable choices and formats to accommodate all of those situations—at prices people will pay (or not) in each of them—of which there are, actually, more of than ever.

Radiohead didn't go far enough because they didn't really believe in their online release as a genuine choice. (Witness the quote from their management, "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing.") On the flip side, Trent told people to steal his music because CD prices are too high, and will probably release his next album in much the same way Saul did.

Radiohead gives samples away to try to keep people from stealing it. Saul is giving his album away so they don't have to. In that way, Radiohead's step forward is an almost equal one back, while Saul's is one that's firmly forward, even if he ends up stumbling along the way.

Nine Inch Nails Trent Reznor applauded Radiohead for their courage in going forward with the new business model, but he believes that that the low numbers could be partially due to problems with their execution. Problems he hopes to overcome by offering customers the option of paying nothing or $5 for Saul Williams' new album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust, which he produced. If customers want the free version, they will have to settle for a 192kbps MP3 bitrate which might lure audiophiles to pony up some cash for the 320kbps MP3 or FLAC lossless version. So will a new approach help or are music fans just hopelessly cheap? Only time will tell. [Crave]

While he kind of dodged the question in the famed interview he revealed he was a former OiNK member, this feels like a pointer toward where the release of the next NIN album is heading. I'd still prefer a physical CD, personally, but this kind of digital release I can get behind—the price and the format are right. The rest of the industry would do well to pay close attention to how this turns out—or not, and simply follow suit. [Niggy Tardust]

If two of the biggest acts in the industry can see the digital writing on the wall and totally embrace it—that the old way of doing business is broken—why can't the labels? What Radiohead and NIN are showing is that the business model "of the future" feared by entrenched interests isn't arriving some time in the horizon. It's touching down now. [NIN, Flickr]