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 2

post #41 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:18am
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.

Wow, common sense, imagine that.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Please read the article. They did NOT use a private API, they coded the feature themselves.

I'm pretty sure they can't do that eithier.
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #43 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

I had in mind the fiasco which was precipitated by the rejection of Google Voice apps

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.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #44 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Please read the article. They did NOT use a private API, they coded the feature themselves.

That's probably the answer right there. I'll guess that's a big no-no.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #45 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

People's understanding of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is pretty all over the place.

It's actually for Microsoft abusing their monopoly to push other Microsoft products with windows. Which came the argument that Internet Explorer is not a separate product but an integral part of Windows.

And I think later on came other accusations like Microsoft penalizing PC makers for shipping PC with anything but windows.

Api's did get Microsoft into trouble if I remember rightly with Novell and Windows 95 - some details here - http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....07020819534335
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equpped with 18,000 vaccuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons.
by Popular Mechanics
Reply
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equpped with 18,000 vaccuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons.
by Popular Mechanics
Reply
post #46 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:23am
Devs using private APIs that get their hands slapped are just whining to then complain about it....they knew damn well that they were private APIs.

Devs that write their own custome code to fill gaps in Apple's published API are in the right here. For Apple to slap them down is out of line. For them to claim these UI elements and actions are only for them, regardless of it being a custom implementation, is asinine.

I expect the same people that defend Apple in this case would also be the ones that then blame 3rd parties for inconsistent UIs. I remember when Apple used to promote consistency through the HIG guidelines. I guess even rebels have to grow up.

"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 #47 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

That's probably the answer right there. I'll guess that's a big no-no.

That is the problem. If devs can't write their own code, what is the point? Banning the use of unpublished APIs is acceptable...banning custom code meant to improve user experience is being a bully.

"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 #48 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:33am
This is the first rejection I really disagree with Apple on. It is traditional for Apple to lead the way on its platform attempting to show the best ways for apps to run on their devices. To then punish someone for being consistent with Apple's shining example is detrimental to the platform. It just is.

There may be some specific patent that is being breached here that would weaken their current litigation if they simply let it fly.

I hope it's something technical like that, because the whole POINT of the iPad is to create a new space for hardware and a source of multitouch innovation to lead the way (to create a new market for revenue, of course). If only one or two proprietary apps are allowed to use many features, we don't get that. We get an interface mess with no direction and a mine field of features that developers have to tip toe around.

Fortunately, Apple is beginning to make high level APIs for several accepted multitouch norms.

I wonder if rejections like this could cause devs to patent the stuffing out of multitouch with small specific actions like this to protect themselves. What a mess that would be. I only say that because I'm a dev and the thought occurred to me over a couple of ideas. *sigh* Back to work.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

That is the problem. If devs can't write their own code, what is the point? Banning the use of unpublished APIs is acceptable...banning custom code meant to improve user experience is being a bully.

I agree. Surely the whole point of software writing is to use the API's together in different ways such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. If that whole happens to be similar to something Apple have done, that's pretty common as well.

I assume this lot have used standard API's to add a feature that is similar to one Apple have - that seems like a relatively obvious thing to want to do in my opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Look at it from the other side. those special gestures are what give Apple apps a potential edge. So of course they aren't going to let them go out.

No, they are what gives Apple's platform a potential edge. If Apple wants to be the only dev on the iPhone, fine. If they want to complete directly with their 'partners' and use their ownership of the platform as a kludge to make their 'partners' products inferior, they should be more open about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Also, the API rule is known to all so why anyone would even try it is beyond me.

agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

and frankly I don't see that this Picasa program is really inferior because you can only tap. It's a common and comfortable gesture for many

See your first sentence for the answer.

"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 #51 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:37am
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.

Perhaps you could paste the clause in the SDK that says not to write custom code.

"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 #52 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:39am
let's not forget that there is probably no cheaper way to get publicity than to complain about apple's app approval process...
Tofino
Reply
Tofino
Reply
post #53 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markm49uk View Post

Api's did get Microsoft into trouble if I remember rightly with Novell and Windows 95 - some details here - http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....07020819534335

but i don't think that has anything to do with the government though.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Back to spew more venom I see. I guess the ban is over now? Do you ever say anything positive at all? Do you ever have more insight than just hatred of everything Apple does lately?

Your every post reads like sour grapes.

That post looked fine to me....where are you reading hatred in that one?
He said Apple is in the right on the first line, if the devs use private API's.
He said Apple is being too harsh when devs use their own custom code, and lastly that screws up Apple's intent on having a consistent UI in this case.

Where is the problem?
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

People's understanding of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is pretty all over the place.

It's actually for Microsoft abusing their monopoly to push other Microsoft products with windows. Which came the argument that Internet Explorer is not a separate product but an integral part of Windows.

And I think later on came other accusations like Microsoft penalizing PC makers for shipping PC with anything but windows.

Thanks for the clarification - I'll freely admit I don't really understand the antitrust lawsuit!
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stedwick View Post

You guys really need to calm down. Developers aren't allowed to use the private APIs because they aren't READY yet. Watch this 60 second video on Bertrand Serlet on using Apple's private API's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd97us27eSg

He explains everything.

Not really. This is not a case of using unpublished APIs.

"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 #57 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

The SDK terms of use do not have anything in there about "pinch to zoom" being only for Apple applications.

Likely Apple rejected it under the 7th prong, which basically states "We can reject your application for any reason we see fit". The other 6 prongs do not apply here, as the developer didn't do anything like use an undocumented API.

This is just another example of Apple being Appleapproving applications at whim, based on arbitrary rules.

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.

Secondly, what the heck are the "prongs" of which you speak? I can find no reference to them anywhere online. Instead of people saying "this is/isn't allowed by the SDK, why not actually state what you're talking about?

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.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

There is no mystery here. iPhone/iPad apps are not bring your own. You either develop with the built in APIs, or you don't develop. Given that the gesture was not part of the gesture library, it goes without saying that developing your own gesture is not an option. It also does not coincide with the Apple mandates that all apps conform to iPad standards, and not create their own types of gestures and interactions. Including the mimicing of built in features that are not part of the SDK.

Reading the SDK would prevent 99% of App Store rejections.

Could you provide these SDK references? If they are there, fine (though I would not agree with the) the devs are at fault for the rejection. If they are imaginary, then...

"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 #59 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

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.

So if Apple doesn't think of it first, you don't need it?

I know that is how the fanboi seems to think, but to see it admitted in black & white is something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz

Given that the gesture was not part of the gesture library, it goes without saying that developing your own gesture is not an option.

So disgusting, I think everyone needs to read it again.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:46am
Are we going to hear from every app maker that has some minor problem like this? I hope not.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:49am
I think this contradicts Apple's Human Interface Guidelines.

So if Aunt Milly learns how to manipulate photos in the Photos app, she now has to learn a new gesture in another app? To her, it's an iPad and she might not differentiate between Apple and non-Apple apps.

This is the kind of inconsistent crap Apple is getting the reputation for by enforcing these arbitrary Draconian guidelines that nobody knows about. The secrecy thing might be cool for their marketing department, but it's wreaking havoc on everyone/everything else.

We all know what happened to the Roman Empire...when they started denying apps using composed-on-the-fly regulations.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

There is no mystery here. iPhone/iPad apps are not bring your own. You either develop with the built in APIs, or you don't develop. Given that the gesture was not part of the gesture library, it goes without saying that developing your own gesture is not an option. It also does not coincide with the Apple mandates that all apps conform to iPad standards, and not create their own types of gestures and interactions. Including the mimicing of built in features that are not part of the SDK.

Reading the SDK would prevent 99% of App Store rejections.

There are endless games that use this gesture to zoom or do other things, so the gesture is not the issue. And to be clear about this, the "gesture" is simply a multi-touch where the two touches move away from one another. In other words, it's standard functionality.

The issue here is the context in which it is used, which Apple won't like for obvious reasons. And the coding this developer did was simply the animation of the albums opening up.

It's their platform, they can do what they like, but I don't think Apple should get too cocky about what developers will put up with. They won't be the onlyshow in town forever... countless platforms have tried to strong-arm developers into doing things a certain way - Atari were one of the first and look what happened to them.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #63 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Not really. The API's not being available could simply be because Apple's APIs are not yet ready for release. Nothing about that says it is then verboten to implement custom code to do the same thing.

Makes sense. I don't have access to Apple's developer agreements so I assume they make no mention of copying features, etc.?

Possibly an issue with a patent on the gesture then (I think that was mentioned earlier)?

Does the fact that they (Apple in this case) have it implemented in published software give them a copyright "heads up"?
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:52am
The shock and outrage are so overrated. This is the Apple way. They develop a framework or API slowly, first of all for themselves. Eventually, the feature is bug-free, robust, able to be pounded on by everyone, and they release it to developers. Wanting instant release of these private APIs is perpetual, understandable, but not so smart.

It's not like they don't warn developers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd97us27eSg
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Back to spew more venom I see. I guess the ban is over now? Do you ever say anything positive at all? Do you ever have more insight than just hatred of everything Apple does lately?

Your every post reads like sour grapes.

Come of Gazoobee, get over it. You received a ban (and humorously created this alt to defend your other alt-sort of like bidding on you own auction, no?), but it doesn't seem you learned from it. (Did you think I was banned? I didn't call anyone names, that was you, remember?...I should change my sig to "12 years and no bans"...could you?).

Do I say anything positive about Apple? Often. But I will not be quiet when their actions are out of line. I hold them to a higher standard. I find it unfortunate that some will apologize or defend the actions, regardless of what they are.

Take a breath and calm down. You don't want to lose your temper and get another alt banned.

"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 #66 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:55am
[QUOTE=PaulMJohnson;1606996]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?

Anti-trust laws apply to monopolies. For Microsoft, the charge was that used their 95% OS share to force dominance in application areas. Apple is still a minority of the computer market, a minority of the phone market. They can set whatever rules they like for their own stores.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:57am
[QUOTE=Amdahl;1607126]So if Apple doesn't think of it first, you don't need it?

I know that is how the fanboi seems to think, but to see it admitted in black & white is something else.


Not sure where you got that from. As I said - putting aside if Apple is correct or not in allowing them to use the function, shouldn't they have realized it would be a problem. I was not defending Apple in any way. But, to your point, in this case Apple did think of it first, and the developer wrote his own code to duplicate the function.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 192
4/7/10 at 11:57am
Just stick to developing more fart sounds, flashlights and tip calculators.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:01pm
Apple will always use private APIs before they move them to the public space.

That's nothing new.

These same developers will become silent when iPhone OS 4 comes out and they have access to pinch.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Not really. This is not a case of using unpublished APIs.

He's not talking about "unpublished" APIs. He's talking about "private" APIs.

The exact same thing was experienced, over and over again, by Unsanity, who make some really handy haxies for OS X. However, they were warned by Apple at the beginning that their programming technique relied on a part of the code which was liable to change at any time. They went ahead. They've had to fix the haxies over and over and over, and if you update without first disabling them, you're liable to start getting some mysterious malfunctions until you realize that the culprit was the haxie.

On the iPhone, imagine the derision and loss of reputation that this kind of software behavior would have. The software update arrives, you install it, and it breaks three or four of your apps, some in a way that interfere with you making or receiving calls. You like that? I don't.

Verizon has been scoring points over the often abysmal AT&T phone service, but the AT&T protocol at least allows you to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time, while Verizon doesn't. Pick your poison.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:04pm
I swear, the comments here are by a bunch of know-nothing idiots at times. It only takes reading the announcement of the 3.2 SDK to see that custom gestures are on the feature list.

Regarding custom gestures:
YES you can create custom gestures. You know why?
Apple specifically added to the *PUBLIC* APIs objects to make utilizing custom gestures easier in OS 3.2 than in previous versions. Custom gestures were always possible, just easier with the iPad version of the OS.

I could only imagine they want to keep this gesture specific to the Apple Photos app, but I think thats a mistake. UI uniformity is what makes great platforms vs crap
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooso View Post

Not sure where you got that from. As I said - putting aside if Apple is correct or not in allowing them to use the function, shouldn't they have realized it would be a problem. I was not defending Apple in any way. But, to your point, in this case Apple did think of it first, and the developer wrote his own code to duplicate the function.

Why should a developer think that the user is only allowed to touch their app in the ways Apple approves? It is like saying only Apple apps can use the Z key, or press Alt-X, or whatever. It is a touch interface. INFINITE possibilities. Are the games going to have the same restrictions, or do they get to do anything?

The bottom line is there are no rules. Apple makes them up as they go along, and you better be a mediocre little doggy or else.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:07pm
It's not really clear to me, from reading over the AI article, whether they were using private APIs or not. It does seem clear that there is no support for this in the API, but whether they rolled their own using only their own code and published APIs, or rolled their own using private APIs doesn't seem to be addressed.

It would seem in Apple's interest to promote a common gestural interface among iPhone apps, so it's also not entirely clear to me why they would discourage that out of hand. It could be that their are IP issues involved, and that they believe allowing developers to roll their own support for gestures covered under IP protections might weaken potential cases against other platforms. Obviously, if there were a published API, the issue would not be there as developers would then effectively be using Apple's gesture handling.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

He's not talking about "unpublished" APIs. He's talking about "private" APIs.

The exact same thing was experienced, over and over again, by Unsanity, who make some really handy haxies for OS X. However, they were warned by Apple at the beginning that their programming technique relied on a part of the code which was liable to change at any time. They went ahead. They've had to fix the haxies over and over and over, and if you update without first disabling them, you're liable to start getting some mysterious malfunctions until you realize that the culprit was the haxie.

On the iPhone, imagine the derision and loss of reputation that this kind of software behavior would have. The software update arrives, you install it, and it breaks three or four of your apps, some in a way that interfere with you making or receiving calls. You like that? I don't.

Verizon has been scoring points over the often abysmal AT&T phone service, but the AT&T protocol at least allows you to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time, while Verizon doesn't. Pick your poison.

Unpublished and private are different terms for the same thing. In this thread, they are Apple APIs for iPhone OS development that 3rd party apps do not have access to.

And all of this has nothing to do with a developer writing custom code, thereby avoiding the use of the API in question, and still getting hammered for it.

"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 #75 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

I swear, the comments here are by a bunch of know-nothing idiots at times. It only takes reading the announcement of the 3.2 SDK to see that custom gestures are on the feature list.

Regarding custom gestures:
YES you can create custom gestures. You know why?
Apple specifically added to the *PUBLIC* APIs objects to make utilizing custom gestures easier in OS 3.2 than in previous versions. Custom gestures were always possible, just easier with the iPad version of the OS.

I could only imagine they want to keep this gesture specific to the Apple Photos app, but I think thats a mistake. UI uniformity is what makes great platforms vs crap

Another way to say the above:

Hey, guys, here is an excerpt from the SDK for you: "....area filled with facts..."

If those of you out there were interested in learning something new, here ya go!

A lot of us here aren't paid software developers; doesn't make us idiots.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:12pm
Apple probably doesn't have the API ready yet, and they can't let other people code their own pinch-peak gesture because they have a patent to protect.

If they allow somebody else to code it without protecting it, other platforms could use it.

They probably just need it added to their APIs, and then everything will be good to go.

4.0 is right around the corner.... That is likely going to clear this issue up (I'd hope.)

Certainly, Apple needs to let other iPhone/iPad/iPodT applications use the same gestures, but they need to own these gestures in the API/Development kit, so they can't be legally transferred to other platforms.

But until their new pinch/peak gesture is put in the API, Apple has to protect it.

-IQ78
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Another way to say the above:

Hey, guys, here is an excerpt from the SDK for you: "....area filled with facts..."

If those of you out there were interested in learning something new, here ya go!

A lot of us here aren't paid software developers; doesn't make us idiots.

I didn't name names, you must have assumed I was referring to someone in particular
Anyways.... I'm sorry, too many people comment about things they don't know about and sling mud back and forth.... its called reading people..... there are several ways to legitimately mimic the gesture using the published APIs in an approved way by Apple, I see no reason that these guys would have gone around these APIs when they are EASY TO USE.

Everyone who's throwing mud at the developer for using private APIs to do a basic gesture is speculating way beyond their knowledge - there is too much of that in our society as it is.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's not really clear to me, from reading over the AI article, whether they were using private APIs or not. It does seem clear that there is no support for this in the API, but whether they rolled their own using only their own code and published APIs, or rolled their own using private APIs doesn't seem to be addressed.

It would seem in Apple's interest to promote a common gestural interface among iPhone apps, so it's also not entirely clear to me why they would discourage that out of hand. It could be that their are IP issues involved, and that they believe allowing developers to roll their own support for gestures covered under IP protections might weaken potential cases against other platforms. Obviously, if there were a published API, the issue would not be there as developers would then effectively be using Apple's gesture handling.

Bingo!

+1
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:15pm
I believe Apple has applied for a patent on Pinch gesture (not sure about whether it was granted or not). Even though Droid uses it, Apple doesn't seem to be ready to take on that battle just yet. It is easy enough to reject an App that uses Apple patented technology. That pinch / zoom patent will need to be tested in court at some point.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #80 of 192
4/7/10 at 12:16pm
So what we'e seeing here is an attempted duplication and implementation of a private API?

In that case I can also understand. If it's Apple's baby and a key feature of their OS, then they're not going to allow someone else to attempt to reproduce it and implement it in ways Apple did not intend.

Is this what we have here?
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
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