Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
What are you even talking (trolling) about here?
In the first case, the issue has nothing to do with "pinch to zoom" which isn't actually patentable. They are talking about the new gesture Apple introduced with the iPhoto app on the iPad.
Pinch to expand, pinch to zoom, whatever. Could be either or, since Apple has no patent on either that can be enforced. My bad. No reason to be a douche and accuse of trolling.
Secondly, what the heck are the "prongs" of which you speak? I can find no reference to them anywhere online.
The end user license agreement that every developer must agree to include 7 criteria (or prongs in legal parlance, since that term has apparently irked you) that Apple will use to judge App Store submissions. The first six cover things like porn, malware, undocumented APIs, etc. (although the first six are in their own right ill defined, as has been proven beforewhat Apple considers "porn" can be wide ranging, from a wiki page about sex to hardcode skinimax). The last criteria is basically "Anything else not covered above is subject to Apple's discretion". There have been apps rejected based soley on this as well:http://www.tipb.com/2009/06/12/apple...ection-policy/
Instead of people saying "this is/isn't allowed by the SDK, why not actually state what you're talking about?
Because I can't, due to Apple's retarded SDK NDA policies. You can only view the criteria for App Store rejection if you are part of the iPhone Developer Program. Disclosing the terms of the EULA agreement are a violation of the NDA. You can basically guess the rules but the "exact" rules are under NDA. That's why Apple has censored the notices that people get back from App Store rejections; posting the e-mail you received explaining why your app was rejected is also a violation of the NDA.http://www.techradar.com/news/portab...rejects-470545
What part of the SDK supposedly forbids this? For those arguing it should be okay, maybe post the part of the SDK that makes you think this is true? All this he said/she said is a useless waste of time without some facts.
As I said, nothing I see in the EULA I see violates what this developer has stated, as long as he isn't using private APIs. But Apple can reject it for no reason, as I stated before, and as they have done before.