or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture - Page 4

post #121 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

I have no hard info on how many times apps have been rejected.

Please stop posting insults. If you consider my posts to consist of blather, then please don't read them.

You don't have soft info either. You're just speculating. And consistently in one direction. That's the problem.

And, while it's unfortunate, but I can't avoid tripping over your blather.
post #122 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

How many times have apps been rejected? Do you know, or are you, again, pulling it out of the same place as all the other blather you post? (We do know that there are approx. 160,000 apps approved).

Apple statement on the matter:
Quote:
Apple generally spends most of the review period making sure that the applications function properly, and working with developers to fix quality issues and software bugs in applications. We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.

So, at that time, that would mean about 40k are not approved. We can debate whether this means rejected out right or send back for revision, but that was the number at the time. Since the app being discussed here was one that was 'rejected' in the submitted form for a correctable 'violation' it is fair to use the larger set that includes both outright rejections and 'needs work' rejections.

At 40k (far higher now), then it is not wrong to expect some number of apps are rejected every day. Since we do not hear about thousands of rejections, it is fair to say we hear about the ones that seem questionable or wrong.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #123 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Apple statement on the matter:


So, at that time, that would mean about 40k are not approved. We can debate whether this means rejected out right or send back for revision, but that was the number at the time. Since the app being discussed here was one that was 'rejected' in the submitted form for a correctable 'violation' it is fair to use the larger set that includes both outright rejections and 'needs work' rejections.

At 40k (far higher now), then it is not wrong to expect some number of apps are rejected every day. Since we do not hear about thousands of rejections, it is fair to say we hear about the ones that seem questionable or wrong.

Actually, Apple did not approve 88,400 (not 40K as you imply), if you had bothered to read your own cut-and-paste. And, if you truly read it, it says "......not approved as originally submitted."

It also simply means that a lot of them are still under review.

The final rejection rate could be 20%, or 2% or 0.2%, you have absolutely no clue.
post #124 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.

Why do you waste time with such a source? Nothing better to do with your life?
post #125 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Despite being in accord with the facts.....

The problem is, you are not. (See above).
post #126 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"

Has anyone even checked to see if Apple owns any patents on this method? If they do then they have every right to ban developers from using it. It's not silly to protect intellectual property.
post #127 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.

Please stop.

I just took a look at your past few dozen posts. All you seem to do is be constantly negative, regularly get into fights with any number of posters on AI, sound wounded with 'please stop' and 'how I choose to spend time is not on-topic', and keep getting complaints from folks about how you keep derailing threads.

Yes, I will stop, since it's not fair to the others. But you'll carry on the same conversation with many others yet, I guarantee.

And, when you do, I'll call you out again.
post #128 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.

Please stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Thanks for the facts of the matter. I was clearly giving a guess when I made my statement, and it turns out to likely have been 100% correct.

Despite being in accord with the facts, it precipitated nasty personal attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Maybe that's why I said "My guess is that ..." Yes indeed, I was speculating, and I made it crystal clear that I was doing so.

Please leave me the hell alone.






"Blather" is an insult. And the fact of the matter is that you have 100% control concerning what you trip over.

Please go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

I have no hard info on how many times apps have been rejected.

Please stop posting insults. If you consider my posts to consist of blather, then please don't read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

If it is patented, it would not. Patents confer a monopoly. Likely other exceptions also exist.

And I guess your question was not sincere; your personal attack seems to betray your motivations.

All these posts is why, I get bored with Appleinsider. The discussion becomes interesting and then someone, who is too sensitive for forum discussion 'cries' that he is being personally attacked and takes up all page posting off the topic comments. Only issue, i read is someone is challenging your opinion and not personal attacks.

P.S. 179 posts to date (7th April) and he joined this month!!

As much as I love Apple, initially rejecting the app for the above stated reason in article, does not sit well with me, since as discussed you are approving inferior product to apps store, since you do not want other people to use a feature provided in your other software.
post #129 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, Apple did not approve 88,400 (not 40K as you imply), if you had bothered to read your own cut-and-paste. And, if you truly read it, it says "......not approved as originally submitted."

It also simply means that a lot of them are still under review.

The final rejection rate could be 20%, or 2% or 0.2%, you have absolutely no clue.

Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.

As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.

Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #130 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"

Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.
post #131 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

There wasn't any fiasco. It was forgotten after a few days, and the public barely even knew about it. Apple went on to sell even more apps and attract even more developers.

wow, the apple stickers on your eyes today are even bigger than usual.
post #132 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"

I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #133 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.

As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.

Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.

So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?

If so, what was the point of your post?
post #134 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

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.

Except that changing the rules mid-game is part of the rules in dealing with Apple. It's very similar in nature to a game I used to play a long time ago called Illuminati. The rules allowed for certain types of cheating during the game which was acceptable as long as you didn't get caught before the next player started their turn. In other words, if the rules allow you to cheat, it isn't really cheating anymore. In the rules of dealing with Apple as a developer is that Apple can change the rules in terms of what apps will be approved.

Developers know (or should know) by now that Apple has the final say on what apps are approved and which ones aren't. Most of them continue to develop under these conditions (voluntarily) because they know that there is the proverbial gold mine at the end of the day. Making good apps for Apple even under their stringent system is very lucrative.
post #135 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.

I agree. Perhaps for far less (e.g., ¢10).
post #136 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture

So?

Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.

No kidding. No outside APIs. Thought that was abundantly clear.

Now that these guys complain about it publicly, expect their app to be unceremoniously pulled.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #137 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

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.

The rules did not change. The developer was pushing their luck to begin with.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #138 of 192
Apple has streamlined writing software applications and selling them to a relatively painless process with their AppStore for devices like the iPhone and iPad. There are so many people doing it out there now, I wonder how many of them actually have done it the way it was before "App stores" appeared. I doubt very many or the complaints would be next to nothing.

I do believe it was posted on page 1, "Don't like the rules? Then don't play the game!".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

If you don't like the game and the rules, then don't play it!

People have been able to make tons of money (look at Tap Tap Revenge)(and yes so does Apple) for very simple reason that Apple has made it easy to make and sell those apps. There are lots of other platforms to develop for.

You want to whine? Then go develop for them. Don't want to develop for them? Then don't whine and play by Apple's rules.
post #139 of 192
Weird, I have PhotoStudio on my iPhone & it let's me pinch to zoom.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #140 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?

If so, what was the point of your post?

I agree with Josh.B's assertion that it was likely that apps were rejected everyday, which itself was a response to another post asking if it was going to be news everytime a rejection took place. SInce there have been thousands of rejections like the app in question, Josh.B's statement was very reasonable...that we do not hear about the vast majority and it only makes news when it is an unusual rejection.

You seemed to disagree with his post, though why is questionable. You asked for numbers. I gave you the numbers that Apple has used, which directly show that in a specific one year period 40k 'rejections' would be expected. Do the math. This would be over 100 rejections a day, if they processed 365 days a year. So, if we hear about 10-20 a year, these are a drop in the bucket.

Do you disagree or were you replying to Josh.B simply to pester him?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #141 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.

Actually it sounds like exactly what Apple used the pinch for in their photos App for iPad, except it was for Picassa. As soon as I saw the demo I thought that it was a very cool new use of pinch.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #142 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

If the developers had to write code to recreate the ability to do something (because they weren't allowed access to existing code), then shouldn't they have had a clue that it might be a problem.

I mean whether not allowing them to use the gesture is right or wrong on Apple's part, they still must have realized Apple didn't want them duplicating the function - otherwise Apple would have given developers access to it.

Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.

If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

No kidding. No outside APIs. Thought that was abundantly clear.

Now that these guys complain about it publicly, expect their app to be unceremoniously pulled.

How is using the pinch gesture an "outside API"?
post #143 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.

If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.

From what I am reading, the developer did not use private APIs. They wrote their own code to duplicate a function. So even if the API was changed it would not affect this application.

As far as I am concerned, it is Apple's ballgame, and they can make any rules they want and tell developers exactly how they can program for their devices. If the developers don't like it, go play somewhere else.
post #144 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture

So?

Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.

Here here. Well said
post #145 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The rules did not change. The developer was pushing their luck to begin with.

Exactly. The pinch to expand gesture is a private API, and not yet available for public use. Writing a code to circumvent the Apple's private API is prohibited.

Macworld just posted a great article that might help explain the issue. Not that most here will read and understand it.
Quote:
For its part, Apple has always been very clear on the fact that private framework usage isn't allowedeven going so far as developing automated tools that scan software destined for the App Store for the use of unpublished functionality. In fact, Apple's own use of private frameworks in apps that can be downloaded from the App Store seems to be limited to what is strictly necessary, with much of that functionality eventually ending up becoming public.*

And concludes with
Quote:
In its defense, it's worth noting that Apple does seem to keep an eye on what developers want from its frameworks and eventually makes more and more functionality available to them. For example, the camera access framework has been opened up considerably since the release of iPhone OS 2.1 to allow developers to create their own interfaces and augment the capabilities of the built-in Camera app. Similarly, a number of previously-private frameworkssuch as those that allow a developer to tell whether a device is docked and how much battery charge remainshave been made available for public consumption, lending credence to the fact that Apple's motives are fuelled by a desire to control its platform rather than to necessarily maintain a competitive edge.

Moreover, with a sneak peek at the future of the iPhone OS just around the corner, it's highly likely that more functionalitymuch of it perhaps specific to the iPad and forthcoming models of the iPhonewill soon be released to developers. Perhaps, therefore, all that developers need is a bit of patience as the Apple development machine gets around to finalizing the private frameworks and opening them up.

In the end, private frameworks remain edge cases; the vast majority of apps that are submitted to the App Store are either approved or rejected on a basis other than private framework usage, and the numbers clearly indicate that this issue has not prevented the formation of a vibrantand profitablesoftware ecosystem around iPhone OS.*

*http://www.macworld.com/article/1504...vate_apis.html
post #146 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Macworld just posted a great article that might help explain the issue. Not that most here will read and understand it.

Thanks.

And, yes, you are, unfortunately, correct.
post #147 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

From what I am reading, the developer did not use private APIs. They wrote their own code to duplicate a function. So even if the API was changed it would not affect this application.

...That's my point, thanks for pointing it out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

As far as I am concerned, it is Apple's ballgame, and they can make any rules they want and tell developers exactly how they can program for their devices. If the developers don't like it, go play somewhere else.

Obviously I'm talking to a brick wall.

I honestly find it depressing. If Adobe or Microsoft or Google pulled this kind of thing the response would be very different. It's no bloody wonder people think everyone with an Apple product is a coolaid guzzler when this kind of insanity is defended.

Edit: To quote the article;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article

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.

Ergo, they did not use private APIs. So either they're lying (and unless Apple states so, it can't be proven) or they duplicated the functionality which is not against the rules. Just like Peeps and the CoverFlow shenanigans.
post #148 of 192
Think different. We're artist. - Apple

This is pretty lame of apple. These guys didn't use the API, they coded the gesture themselves.

Regardless of the sdk, I am so glad apple did not become that repressive company in the commercial they made back in the 1980's. Soooo glad...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #149 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

...That's my point, thanks for pointing it out?


Obviously I'm talking to a brick wall.

I honestly find it depressing. If Adobe or Microsoft or Google pulled this kind of thing the response would be very different. It's no bloody wonder people think everyone with an Apple product is a coolaid guzzler when this kind of insanity is defended.

Well I guess you didn't make your point very well. You have no idea what I would say if MS or Google did "this kind of thing". I'm sorry you find it depressing, maybe things like this shouldn't be so important in your life.

Why should you have the right to write software that does anything you want on Apple's phone, or MS's phone, or Google's phone, or whatever product from whatever company. If they want to allow that and accept the results, so be it. If they want to keep the experience up to their standards, it is their product.

If people don't like the rules, and stop developing for it, then it won't be around for long. Apple (or whoever) doesn't owe you anything.
post #150 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly View Post

I'm pretty sure they can't do that eithier.

Based on what? Does the SDK say that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Wanting instant release of these private APIs...

Can't people read? These guys did NOT use a private API.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

Bottom line, because it is Apple's platform, and they make the rules.

But that's the issue - is there a rule that forbids doing this? Has apple actually TOLD devs they can't do this? Or is it just apple making up the rules as they go along without spelling them out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

They thought they were being smart asses by copying a gesture from one of Apples apps which Apple have kept the API for private.

And WHY would that not be allowed? Is it forbidden by the SDK? If it's not I don't see any reason to expect devs not to do it.
post #151 of 192
I don't really care whether this is legal or Apple is on moral high ground (seems shaky to me).

It just plain looks bad... it's unclear, goes against the platform and looks childish in my opinon.

I also don't see this decision being changed at all given their stance on HTC and multitouch; I fear this will erode Apples platform, which is sad, as they are the innovator here and everyone else are the copycats.

They could clear this up really quickly by providing an API to do this appropriately.
post #152 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.

If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.


How is using the pinch gesture an "outside API"?

But they didn't do that according to the article. They wrote their own code that interacted with the pinch gesture. Apple does expose an API to pinch but it is intended for zooming the view not providing alternate functionality. This is where I think the developer got into trouble. Although Apple reserves the right to use the pinch gesture in any implementation they want, third party developers are restricted to using pinch only to enlarge the view not to trigger some other event. Also I don't think Apple wants developers to start interpreting raw touch events in their own code.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #153 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

Well I guess you didn't make your point very well. You have no idea what I would say if MS or Google did "this kind of thing".

I made my point fine, you just felt the need to reiterate it for some bizarre reason. You said;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso

If the developers had to write code to recreate the ability to do something (because they weren't allowed access to existing code), then shouldn't they have had a clue that it might be a problem.

So according to you, every application that uses a custom view to replicate a default one should be rejected - and there are a lot of people doing this to speed up their apps. Every application that coded their own gestures to replicate built in ones for specific purposes should be rejected. Custom controls duplicate functionality of native ones. And so on. Your argument is asinine and a pretty blatant 'Apple can do no wrong'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

I'm sorry you find it depressing, maybe things like this shouldn't be so important in your life.

Oh gee "get a life" card. Quite amusing from someone who's post history reads like a sycophant.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Although Apple reserves the right to use the pinch gesture in any implementation they want, third party developers are restricted to using pinch only to enlarge the view not to trigger some other event.

If a user becomes used to, as an example, this pinch-to-expand gesture from Photos and sees a similar application, and then tries to use it the same way unsuccessfully - because the gesture is 'reserved' - who is at error? Just to note: I agree misusing gestures is absolutely a great reason to reject applications. This doesn't read like misuse to me.
post #154 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Based on what? Does the SDK say that?



Can't people read? These guys did NOT use a private API.



But that's the issue - is there a rule that forbids doing this? Has apple actually TOLD devs they can't do this? Or is it just apple making up the rules as they go along without spelling them out?



And WHY would that not be allowed? Is it forbidden by the SDK? If it's not I don't see any reason to expect devs not to do it.

I can't tell you if this particular thing was spelled out or not. But, it doesn't matter. If Apple changes the rules in the middle of the game, they have the right to do that (and I'm not talking things that might be considered legal issues). It may not be smart. It may not be good for business, but it is their right. If doing this frustrates developers, and they stop developing for the platform, then Apple will have to deal with the consequences of their actions (losing business, sales, etc.).

Why would that not be allowed? Because Apple created that action and has the right to allow it or not. People get up in arms "you can't patent a gesture" - they are really patenting what the gesture does as input for the computer. No, you can't patent pinching your fingers together, but why can't you patent pinching your fingers together on a touch screen to make a photo gallery expand in a certain way? That is what separates one product from another - the user experience.
post #155 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

I made my point fine, you just felt the need to reiterate it for some bizarre reason. You said;

So according to you, every application that uses a custom view to replicate a default one should be rejected - and there are a lot of people doing this to speed up their apps. Every application that coded their own gestures to replicate built in ones for specific purposes should be rejected. Custom controls duplicate functionality of native ones. And so on. Your argument is asinine and a pretty blatant 'Apple can do no wrong'.


Oh gee "get a life" card. Quite amusing from someone who's post history reads like a sycophant.

Edit:
If a user becomes used to, as an example, this pinch-to-expand gesture from Photos and sees a similar application, and then tries to use it the same way unsuccessfully - because the gesture is 'reserved' - who is at error? Just to note: I agree misusing gestures is absolutely a great reason to reject applications. This doesn't read like misuse to me.

Not capable of a civil debate, are you? Where exactly am I trying to please anyone in my posts - I simply speak what I have to say - and, unlike you, I can usually do it in a civil way (that can change).

The point is they are duplicating it exactly. Same gesture, creating the same action, for the same result. All they probably had to do was change the animation of the gallery to look different, so it wasn't a direct duplicate of Apple's software feature. I never said Apple can do no wrong, funny how you only saw Apple in their when other companies were mentioned. It may not be good for business, but Apple has the right to do what they want, as does every other company. That is the point you are missing, jackass.

By the way, exactly how does a sycophant read?
post #156 of 192
IMO Apple should be actively encouraging the proper & full use of the multi-touch, not suppressing it.

What if, in 1984, Apple told developers "You cannot duplicate any functionality, including UI, that's already present in MacPaint, MacWrite, and Finder".
WTF?? The Mac never would've gotten off the ground.

Anyway I don't think we're getting the full story here; Apple should be thrilled that a developer would want to implement pitch-zooming.
post #157 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

* apple polishing
* arse kissing
* ass licking
* bootlicker
* brown nosing
* crawler
* fawning
* flunky
* groveling
* hanger-on
* kowtowing
* lackey
* lickspittle
* sucking up
* toady
* yes man

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

Thanks, Josh.
Funny, you always cry when someone doesn't talk nice to you. But sure are quick to come to the aid of jackasses who are incapable of a civil discussion.
post #158 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

If a user becomes used to, as an example, this pinch-to-expand gesture from Photos and sees a similar application, and then tries to use it the same way unsuccessfully - because the gesture is 'reserved' - who is at error? Just to note: I agree misusing gestures is absolutely a great reason to reject applications. This doesn't read like misuse to me.

I don't think that the gesture itself is misused because it is the exact same functionality that Apple employs in the Photo App. It is more the implementation that was misused in their App. The API for interpreting raw touch events is already exposed and these guys didn't use it. It is sort of a case of undermining the API provided and finding a way to work around the methods approved by Apple.

There will likely be a public API for this functionality coming soon.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #159 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Exactly. The pinch to expand gesture is a private API, and not yet available for public use. Writing a code to circumvent the Apple's private API is prohibited.

Care to explain how writing custom code, that provides functionality missing from the published API is 'circumventing' their API? If the API doesn't do it, you really are left to do it yourself. Sort of the point of programming, no? If Apple hasn't made their API for this available, they will have their reasons. Perhaps it isn't ready, perhaps it will be in iPhone OS4. As far as it being private, then to a developer, it is though it doesn't exist. This then means rolling your own. That simple. This isn't circumventing anything. Not publishing an API is not the same as forbidding the function. Using the API itself if forbidden, but it is a leap to assume that means the functionality is...until now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Macworld just posted a great article that might help explain the issue. Not that most here will read and understand it.

Unfortunately, for those of us that do understand it, we are left wondering why you state that it might explain the issue. The issue is writing custom code so as to specifically avoid using Apple's unpublished API. The article does a great job explaining why APIs might not be published and why devs shouldn't use them. Nothing at all to do with explaining if an API being private means never being able to implement custom code. Two very, very different things.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #160 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Care to explain how writing custom code, that provides functionality missing from the published API is 'circumventing' their API? If the API doesn't do it, you really are left to do it yourself. Sort of the point of programming, no? If Apple hasn't made their API for this available, they will have their reasons. Perhaps it isn't ready, perhaps it will be in iPhone OS4. As far as it being private, then to a developer, it is though it doesn't exist. This then means rolling your own. That simple. This isn't circumventing anything. Not publishing an API is not the same as forbidding the function. Using the API itself if forbidden, but it is a leap to assume that means the functionality is...until now.

Certain gestures are defined. Apple probably doesn't want defined touch events to be accessed any other way than through the API. So these guys are circumventing the pinch gesture by circumventing the touch API and gaining access to the raw touch events rather than calling functions in the UI library

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture