'Send To' function expected to arrive in Transmit for iOS after Apple changes course

Posted:
in iPhone edited December 2014
Apple has apparently changed its mind on allowing "Send to iCloud Drive" functionality within apps, and has asked for the popular FTP application Transmit for iOS to be resubmitted to the App Store.


Panic is unable to simply remove Transmit from the iOS Share Sheet


The change was announced by developer Panic Inc. to its official Twitter account Thursday afternoon. The company revealed that it received a "nice call from Apple" on Wednesday, and as a result of their talks, Transmit for iOS has been resubmitted to the App Store with the "Send To" function restored.

The comments suggest that the update to Transmit will be approved by Apple, and the feature will in fact appear in the iOS app.

The update from the developer comes a few days after Apple blocked Panic from adding the standard iOS Share Sheet to Transmit. The opposition apparently stemmed from an unwritten policy that "forbids apps from uploading content to iCloud Drive unless the content was created in the app itself."

However, creating a problem for Transmit and other applications is the fact that it's not possible for developers to selectively disable the ability to send files to iCloud Drive, because iOS creates the Share Sheet itself. Therefore, the "Send to iCloud Drive" feature was not specifically inserted by Panic.

Removing the Share Sheet function prevented other services like Dropbox, Box, Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive from being integrated into Transmit.

Apple's App Store Review Guidelines make no mention of iCloud Drive, and the section on Extensions only references iOS Data Storage policies related to iCloud Backups.

Core Data and iCloud Backup seek to limit the amount of data that needs to be shuttled back and forth between users' devices and Apple's iCloud servers, meaning that Transmit's file transfer features could result in an unanticipated server load, given that iOS intends to use iCloud Drive as a repository for users' active documents that are actively backed up and kept in sync.

Apple's evolving policies for App Store titles have sometimes created unanticipated issues with developers as the company cultivates a strictly managed "walled garden" of apps that are free from the rampant spyware, malware and quality issues that affect other platforms.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13

    I like the new and responsive Apple

  • Reply 2 of 13
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member

    There's been a lot of good discussion of this on Accidental Tech Podcast and on marco.org.

    The app world at Apple seems to be divided into 3 separate kingdoms. Development, the approval team,  and the store itself.

    Development comes up with all of these great new features and tells developers to go out and use them (benefiting Apple.)

    But the overwhelmed approvers seem to get conflicting or vague standards, and communications between the app store and developers seems to be intentionally remote (due to the massive number of apps no doubt.)

     

    The whole app world needs to be unified under a single tower and VP.

     

    Moreover, Apple needs to understand that the notifications or share sheets are self-limiting environments. If I want to put a calculator and launcher into it, I've done so intentionally. There isn't any reason to 'protect' us... lightweight users aren't even very aware that the feature exists and there are only so many wigits that anyone is going to put in themselves.

  • Reply 3 of 13

    Panic has been a devoted Mac OS developer over the years.

  • Reply 4 of 13
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gqb wrote: »
    There's been a lot of good discussion of this on Accidental Tech Podcast and on marco.org.
    The app world at Apple seems to be divided into 3 separate kingdoms. Development, the approval team,  and the store itself.
    Development comes up with all of these great new features and tells developers to go out and use them (benefiting Apple.)
    But the overwhelmed approvers seem to get conflicting or vague standards, and communications between the app store and developers seems to be intentionally remote (due to the massive number of apps no doubt.)

    The whole app world needs to be unified under a single tower and VP.

    Moreover, Apple needs to understand that the notifications or share sheets are self-limiting environments. If I want to put a calculator and launcher into it, I've done so intentionally. There isn't any reason to 'protect' us... lightweight users aren't even very aware that the feature exists and there are only so many wigits that anyone is going to put in themselves.

    What you said. You should send this to Tim Cook.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

     

    I like the new and responsive Apple


     

    c'mon now, we can find a way to paint this correction in a bad light. "They shouldnt have made the mistake in the first place! They should never make mistakes! Rar!"

  • Reply 6 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GQB View Post

     

    Moreover, Apple needs to understand that the notifications or share sheets are self-limiting environments. If I want to put a calculator and launcher into it, I've done so intentionally. There isn't any reason to 'protect' us... lightweight users aren't even very aware that the feature exists and there are only so many wigits that anyone is going to put in themselves.


     

    eh...thats basically the whole point of the app store tho -- curation of quality. if they let any crappy widget in then the whole place suffers until the customers experience universally crappy....even if they picked them themselves or didnt realize it was crappy. is it perfect? hell no. does that mean they shouldnt even try? hell no.

  • Reply 7 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GQB View Post

     

    There's been a lot of good discussion of this on Accidental Tech Podcast and on marco.org.

    The app world at Apple seems to be divided into 3 separate kingdoms. Development, the approval team,  and the store itself.

    Development comes up with all of these great new features and tells developers to go out and use them (benefiting Apple.)

    But the overwhelmed approvers seem to get conflicting or vague standards, and communications between the app store and developers seems to be intentionally remote (due to the massive number of apps no doubt.)

     

    The whole app world needs to be unified under a single tower and VP.

     

    Moreover, Apple needs to understand that the notifications or share sheets are self-limiting environments. If I want to put a calculator and launcher into it, I've done so intentionally. There isn't any reason to 'protect' us... lightweight users aren't even very aware that the feature exists and there are only so many wigits that anyone is going to put in themselves.




    Rene Ritchie mentioned this also. Apple needs a cross-departmental "App Czar".

  • Reply 8 of 13
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    eh...thats basically the whole point of the app store tho -- curation of quality. if they let any crappy widget in then the whole place suffers until the customers experience universally crappy....even if they picked them themselves or didnt realize it was crappy. is it perfect? hell no. does that mean they shouldnt even try? hell no.

    But the things they rejected weren't crappy. This has nothing to do with quality, but certain parts of Apple still being control freaks when it comes to functionality.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    But the things they rejected weren't crappy. This has nothing to do with quality, but certain parts of Apple still being control freaks when it comes to functionality.



    How do you know that? When an app breaks sandboxing requirements which is a mandatory rule for apps submitted to the App Store, then we have a problem of security.  A rule is a rule and when/if you start to allow exceptions then there will be consequences. So in essence everything has to do with quality of service, be it from customer experience or from customer protection and data protection.

  • Reply 10 of 13



    It's a shame that the App Store process is such a clusterf#¢k, there should be a way for a developer to write out a small outline of what the app will do and get it approved BEFORE they spend countless hours coding it.

     

    That being said, I like the shoot first-ask questions later approach by Apple in most cases. I think it's probably better for the user in the end to remove the app while debating whether or not an app is going to mess something up (though in many cases such as Transmit, there was no "danger" to the user).



    Personally, I like that Apple appears to be (for the most part) standing its ground on the Notification Center apps. I don't want a second full-blown app environment, I just want notifications in there.

  • Reply 11 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    But the things they rejected weren't crappy. This has nothing to do with quality, but certain parts of Apple still being control freaks when it comes to functionality.

     

    im not referring to this item. the other items (calcs, notepads, etc), are, arguably, deterimental to the good, simple UX apple has in mind in the widget pulldown.

  • Reply 12 of 13
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    im not referring to this item. the other items (calcs, notepads, etc), are, arguably, deterimental to the good, simple UX apple has in mind in the widget pulldown.

    But the Pcalc decision was reversed. So I guess that now fits Apple's definition of a good simple UX for the Today view? Or Apple is confused and reverses decisions once they get a lot of negative attention.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    andreid wrote: »

    How do you know that? When an app breaks sandboxing requirements which is a mandatory rule for apps submitted to the App Store, then we have a problem of security.  A rule is a rule and when/if you start to allow exceptions then there will be consequences. So in essence everything has to do with quality of service, be it from customer experience or from customer protection and data protection.

    So why was this decision reversed then? And what sandboxing rule did Pcalc break? Seems like Tim Cook needs to get engineering and marketing in a room and sort this out. Personally I think developer relations and app review should be part of software engineering, not marketing. But wherever it resides they need to be in sync with the team that runs the App Store so you don't get apps being promoted and then a week later are removed bcause they were rejected by app review.

    I've seen a few developers on Twitter say they're thinking of focusing on Android and others say they're in no rush to develop for ?Watch because they don't want to spend a lot of time working on something that ends up being rejected. iOS devices are nothg without great apps. Apple should be doing everything in its power to ensure iOS is THE platform developers want to develop for. Don't take them for granted.
Sign In or Register to comment.