Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
Apple refused to accept one iPad application to its App Store until the proprietary "pinch to expand" multi-touch gesture, which is found in Apple's own Photos application, was removed, a developer has told AppleInsider.
Scott Sykora and Eugene Kaneko are the creators of Web Albums HD (App Store, $2.99), an iPad application that accesses photos saved to Google's Picasa Web albums. The software was initially rejected from the App Store, Sykora said, because it employed the pinch to expand gesture to "peek" at photo albums, in the same manner as Apple's own native Photos application for the iPad.
Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves. The feature was even demonstrated in a promotional video the developers created for Web Albums HD through the iPad SDK.
"When we submitted it to Apple, we were stunned by their response," Sykora said. "Apparently the tap and pinch to expand is only for native Apple apps."
When the application was initially rejected from the App Store, Apple sent a letter to the developers noting that the pinch to expand feature is "associated solely with Apple applications." The form letter-like e-mail also mistakenly named another application, leading Sykora to assume that Web Albums HD is not the only software that has been rejected for its use of pinch to expand.
"After a few vague follow-up e-mails, we learned the 'update appropriately' meant removing the feature completely," he said. "We removed the pinch expand, leaving just the tap to expand. We were approved but ended up having an inferior product."
In addition, earlier this week, Instapaper and Tumblr developer Marco Arment noted that Apple's own App Store application, iBooks, relies on a number of private APIs not available to third-party software developers. He said his software cannot have a "true brightness control," even though it is featured in the iBooks application.
"This app's undocumented API use wouldn't pass the App Store submission process, yet developers need to compete with it for App Store attention," Arment wrote. "One of the great potential failures of an app-review system is inconsistent or unfair enforcement of the rules."
Criticism of the App Store and Apple's strict control of it has been a constant topic of scrutiny among developers, users and pundits alike. Last summer, stories of long delays and a lack of communication on Apple's part inspired Apple executive Phil Schiller to personally respond to some pundits and developers. The public moves were uncharacteristic of Apple, which is notorious for being a quiet, secretive company. But as bad publicity continued to grow, Schiller felt compelled to personally intervene.
Earlier this year, Apple streamlined its review process for the App Store, resulting in much faster turnaround times for developers. But the launch of the iPad has led to an influx of applications being submitted to the App Store, with developer interest nearly tripling after the product was announced in late January.
Sykora said he is hopeful that Apple can improve its approval process in the future to communicate better with developers such as himself when they are waiting for the App Store approval process.
Scott Sykora and Eugene Kaneko are the creators of Web Albums HD (App Store, $2.99), an iPad application that accesses photos saved to Google's Picasa Web albums. The software was initially rejected from the App Store, Sykora said, because it employed the pinch to expand gesture to "peek" at photo albums, in the same manner as Apple's own native Photos application for the iPad.
Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves. The feature was even demonstrated in a promotional video the developers created for Web Albums HD through the iPad SDK.
"When we submitted it to Apple, we were stunned by their response," Sykora said. "Apparently the tap and pinch to expand is only for native Apple apps."
When the application was initially rejected from the App Store, Apple sent a letter to the developers noting that the pinch to expand feature is "associated solely with Apple applications." The form letter-like e-mail also mistakenly named another application, leading Sykora to assume that Web Albums HD is not the only software that has been rejected for its use of pinch to expand.
"After a few vague follow-up e-mails, we learned the 'update appropriately' meant removing the feature completely," he said. "We removed the pinch expand, leaving just the tap to expand. We were approved but ended up having an inferior product."
In addition, earlier this week, Instapaper and Tumblr developer Marco Arment noted that Apple's own App Store application, iBooks, relies on a number of private APIs not available to third-party software developers. He said his software cannot have a "true brightness control," even though it is featured in the iBooks application.
"This app's undocumented API use wouldn't pass the App Store submission process, yet developers need to compete with it for App Store attention," Arment wrote. "One of the great potential failures of an app-review system is inconsistent or unfair enforcement of the rules."
Criticism of the App Store and Apple's strict control of it has been a constant topic of scrutiny among developers, users and pundits alike. Last summer, stories of long delays and a lack of communication on Apple's part inspired Apple executive Phil Schiller to personally respond to some pundits and developers. The public moves were uncharacteristic of Apple, which is notorious for being a quiet, secretive company. But as bad publicity continued to grow, Schiller felt compelled to personally intervene.
Earlier this year, Apple streamlined its review process for the App Store, resulting in much faster turnaround times for developers. But the launch of the iPad has led to an influx of applications being submitted to the App Store, with developer interest nearly tripling after the product was announced in late January.
Sykora said he is hopeful that Apple can improve its approval process in the future to communicate better with developers such as himself when they are waiting for the App Store approval process.
Comments
In addition, earlier this week, Instapaper and Tumblr developer Marco Arment noted that Apple's own App Store application, iBooks, relies on a number of private APIs not available to third-party software developers. He said his software cannot have a "true brightness control," even though it is featured in the iBooks application.
Wasn't this one of the things Microsoft were getting in trouble for (the idea that there were hidden API's that things like Microsoft Office could use, but others couldn't). I might be wrong, but I thought that was part of the anti-trust ruling?
If I'm right, why are Apple allowed to get away with it?
I think the objection has to do with what the gesture is used for, not that it is used. (Its hard to tell for sure from the article - it starts saying it is used for one thing then another then saying the letter said only Apple could use it. WTF?
I hope you do something about it.
Wasn't this one of the things Microsoft were getting in trouble for (the idea that there were hidden API's that things like Microsoft Office could use, but others couldn't). I might be wrong, but I thought that was part of the anti-trust ruling?
If I'm right, why are Apple allowed to get away with it?
Because Apple is not a monopolist, that's why. There is no market where Apple has as high of a marketshare as Microsoft has with Windows. Not even remotely close.
This is a common misunderstanding of anti-trust laws. Things that are illegal for monopolists can be perfectly legal for everyone else. The purpose of anti-trust law is not to mindlessly enforce some grade-school concept of "fairness". It's to mindfully enforce an econ grad-school concept of fairness.
IMHO there are already several ways that already exist that would allow a suitable gesture.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.
Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves. The feature was even demonstrated in a promotional video the developers created for Web Albums HD through the iPad SDK.
...
"We removed the pinch expand, leaving just the tap to expand. We were approved but ended up having an inferior product.
I wonder if future historians will use the word "hubris" to describe these sorts of decisions by Apple.
So?
Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.
--
Interlaced - Apple Support, Training, Consultation for San Diego County
http://www.interlacedinc.com
Just like before, the APIs are probably not ready for primetime, once Apple feels that the APIs are good and ready I'm sure they'll release them.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.
That's not the issue. The developer didn't use the private API calls, they coded their own for achieving the same functionality. Apple blocked it based on the behavior being the same as what is associated with their own apps.
"This app's undocumented API use wouldn't pass the App Store submission process, yet developers need to compete with it for App Store attention," Arment wrote. "One of the great potential failures of an app-review system is inconsistent or unfair enforcement of the rules."
Apple does this with numerous applications in the App Store. It is however their platform - they are aware of limitations to the API that (we) developers may not be. They also often have plans to make an API available through some framework in a new version of the OS. This keeps everything working, and avoids most of the "me app broke when I updated the bleeding OS to 5.1".
There are several things that developers would like to have available via an API now (that we now how to call privately) but Apple's timeline is not always ours. In their defense every API they expose is something that ultimately ends up having to be supported. This does not come without expense - as an Apple Engineer you typically have the ability to go look at source and maybe talk to the Engineer(s) that authored the code (since the public documentation is not there) and maybe even have it modified for you need if you're lucky and it is not frozen. As a 3rd party developer you don't have this luxury and things would become much more fragile if Apple allowed everyone to call any private API they wanted. It also becomes a security issue since some these APIs have not been vetted for security.
I would like to have several things available now - but I will wait and file a report in Radar asking that it be made public (and asking for support from other 3rd parties in the forums for the same).
If you don't like the game and the rules, then don't play it!
The point is that the rules are changed mid-game in ways that are both arbitrary and unpredictable. This causes developers to waste huge amounts of time/money developing apps that fit the rules, but are nevertheless rejected.
Apple has lost several notable developer partners doing just that. It is not a simple "my way or the highway" situation. It is "my future way, which you cannot know" or the highway.
Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
So?
Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.
yeah, what's shocking is that the developer was "shocked" by the rejection.
Because Apple is not a monopolist, that's why. There is no market where Apple has as high of a marketshare as Microsoft has with Windows. Not even remotely close.
This is a common misunderstanding of anti-trust laws. Things that are illegal for monopolists can be perfectly legal for everyone else. The purpose of anti-trust law is not to mindlessly enforce some grade-school concept of "fairness". It's to mindfully enforce an econ grad-school concept of fairness.
At what point do the anti-trust laws become relevant then? If they have 50% market share? 60%, 90%?
It all seems a little strange to me.
At what point do the anti-trust laws become relevant then? If they have 50% market share? 60%, 90%?
It all seems a little strange to me.
It rests on the ability to exercise monopoly power. A straight percentage is not the determining factor.
The ability to exercise monopoly power, in turn, rests upon a definition of the relevant market.
If the CE market is the relevant market, for example, Apple has no monopoly power. if the relevant market is the App Store (and I have no opinion whether the market should be defined in that manner) then Apple does indeed have monopoly power, and different rules would apply to their actions.
None of it is strange, but it is very complicated; it is the realm of economists drawing complex graphs.
Is this only the case for iPad apps? The Facebook iPhone app uses pinch to zoom for photos.
I don't think that's the same API. This pinch to zoom as a preview option is making a quick look into a photo album. Pinch to zoom to change the scale of a picture is open to developers to use.