Apple is a publisher in this case. Do you think the newspapers should have to publish every opinion piece sent to them to avoid censorship? Censorship is blocking ideas not blocking products or articles published as a product. You are free to complain that an application was blocked from the AppStore, you are not free to force Apple to publish your application.
Thank you, but I was arguing the exact same thing. Not sure why that wasn't clear.
To be more precise, censorship is an official act of suppression. People do tend to get government and corporations kind of balled up in their minds.
If that is the case, then why not let the devs do as they wish with APIs, letting them fix it upon software upgrades? It should not be Apple's priority or job to police if their own APIs are used or not. The developer however, should test their APIs on all iterations of Apple's software to make sure it works, including upgrades when they happen. How many apps have we seen so far that even using Apple's APIs, break upon software upgrades then require the dev. to upgrade themselves?
Unpublished APIs aren't allowed to be used because they are developed by Apple not developers. If Apple changes them then app developers are going to get towie with Apple for changing them without warning when the truth is Apple said not to use them in the first place.
This is much of the reasoning behind Google Voice not being allowed not to mention that Google Voice was actually trying to take over functionality of the iPhone not just mimic it.
Sure changes to the published APIs can cause issues. It happens on Mac OS X as well but they are minimal compared to the unpublished ones. Apple may decide those APIs aren't needed and so get rid of them entirely and then what happens? They're not however going to removed published ones because they know they might actually be in use.
Just imagine Apple doing that with the Mac. Because they will do it with the iPad as well. Time to move to freedom from totalitarism? Linux? Windows? Apple has just died.
I've used WifiTrak since day one with my iPod touch on almost a daily basis as I move around the town.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
Just imagine Apple doing that with the Mac. Because they will do it with the iPad as well. Time to move to freedom from totalitarism? Linux? Windows? Apple has just died.
Remember Apple's slogan used to be 'think different'. Now it may as well be 'don't dare think different'. You do what Jobs says and you had better like it, and continue to like it when he changes the rules on the fly for totally arbitrary reasons.
For the sake of the future of open computing we had better hope Android succeeds.
I think it's humorous that one person mentioned censorship and now it's an all argument about whether or not Apple should be allowed to censor apps.
They are cracking down on apps that blatantly disregard the terms of the contract that each developer has to sign with Apple (I know, I'm one of them). If you choose to cheat, don't complain when you get caught. Do it right, write your own API's, or be more creative and use the ones you have access to.
If you have a great idea, but have to use of prohibited API's to make it work - that's like saying "damn, I could make a lot of money if I just ignore the fact that drugs are illegal to sell."
Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
We are in the minority because most don't know enough to know any better. It doesn't make the majority or Apple right.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
The thing is, this is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is Apple's product, and they can place whatever limits they want on it.
You can either buy the product or not, depending on how you feel about the restrictions.
But it is not a secret that SJ and Apple want to maintain control with their product. It makes their life easier, and it represents an easier sell to people.
If they were to open the OS and their products, they would wind up like MS - having to support and deal with 100s of different hardware companies, and potential combinations, and sloppy coders causing the OS to crash.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
Independent of the issue of whether Apple's action is justified or not, what do these apps give you regarding the list of available wifi in the area that you could not get from 'Settings' --> 'Wifi' --> 'Choose a network'?
I argued against the "overtly sexual apps"' removal, but you know what? I just hope Apple keeps doing what they want however they want. They're always goddamn right anyway, and always making my life easier or more fulfilling. I trust this company like no other.
WHAT? You want the iPhone App ecosystem to be 90% crap like the Windows software ecosystem is? No thanks.
No, I want as many apps as people can come up with, organized properly.
If there are 5, or 50, or 500 apps that do nothing (allegedly) but find WiFi, then instead of deleting them, Apple needs to create a sub category in Utilities called "WiFi Finders", and so on for other single purpose apps.
I think it's humorous that one person mentioned censorship and now it's an all argument about whether or not Apple should be allowed to censor apps.
They are cracking down on apps that blatantly disregard the terms of the contract that each developer has to sign with Apple (I know, I'm one of them). If you choose to cheat, don't complain when you get caught. Do it right, write your own API's, or be more creative and use the ones you have access to.
If you have a great idea, but have to use of prohibited API's to make it work - that's like saying "damn, I could make a lot of money if I just ignore the fact that drugs are illegal to sell."
Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
It's OK, the reason is pretty clear. But what's about removing an application "contains minimal user functionality."?
I am most distressed about the direction Apple is taking lately concerning the App Store.
If a app uses undocumented API's it shouldn't have been accepted it the first place. Ditto for the racy apps, but then allows the big names in porn, like Sports Illustrated swimsuit and Playboy, because they publish magazines...
Apple allow apps and then take them away, so what is really going on?
Flexing their muscles? for the media giants? publishers? schools?
Disney influence?
It's seems to me that Apple is now is just cherry picking it's future customers for a closed and controlled ecosystem.
You don't like it, go elsewhere for your open computing needs.
Also, the App Store needs it's apps on a web page, with a short description for each app, a hundred apps to a page. This way people can scan all those apps better.
So it's better presentation, not selection and deletion that's needed.
Apple hates people accessing private APIs or underlying hardware. It prevents them from changing the implementation.
A likely reason may be that iPhone 4.0 changes the private API that the wifi apps are using. Rather than having them all break when 4.0 comes out, making the release look bad, Apple bans them now over the access violation.
Since there is clearly a need and desire for access to the private API, Apple will probably clean it up and add it to the public APIs. Then the apps will return.
The whole point of Cocoa Frameworks Private APIs are for them to be flushed out and later when they have matured and deemed stable become Public APIs for all to consume.
You're correct in stating that Private APIs change constantly.
This approach has been the approach since NeXT first released NeXTStep.
Comments
Apple is a publisher in this case. Do you think the newspapers should have to publish every opinion piece sent to them to avoid censorship? Censorship is blocking ideas not blocking products or articles published as a product. You are free to complain that an application was blocked from the AppStore, you are not free to force Apple to publish your application.
Thank you, but I was arguing the exact same thing. Not sure why that wasn't clear.
To be more precise, censorship is an official act of suppression. People do tend to get government and corporations kind of balled up in their minds.
If that is the case, then why not let the devs do as they wish with APIs, letting them fix it upon software upgrades? It should not be Apple's priority or job to police if their own APIs are used or not. The developer however, should test their APIs on all iterations of Apple's software to make sure it works, including upgrades when they happen. How many apps have we seen so far that even using Apple's APIs, break upon software upgrades then require the dev. to upgrade themselves?
Unpublished APIs aren't allowed to be used because they are developed by Apple not developers. If Apple changes them then app developers are going to get towie with Apple for changing them without warning when the truth is Apple said not to use them in the first place.
This is much of the reasoning behind Google Voice not being allowed not to mention that Google Voice was actually trying to take over functionality of the iPhone not just mimic it.
Sure changes to the published APIs can cause issues. It happens on Mac OS X as well but they are minimal compared to the unpublished ones. Apple may decide those APIs aren't needed and so get rid of them entirely and then what happens? They're not however going to removed published ones because they know they might actually be in use.
I understand why they're upset, but I'm not going there.
I agree with what you say, and also feel that these various grumblers are in a distinct minority.
We are in the minority because most don't know enough to know any better. It doesn't make the majority or Apple right.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
A perfect expression geek pride.
Please, nobody clue this person in. This stuff is just too much fun.
I've used WifiTrak since day one with my iPod touch on almost a daily basis as I move around the town.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
Just imagine Apple doing that with the Mac. Because they will do it with the iPad as well. Time to move to freedom from totalitarism? Linux? Windows? Apple has just died.
Remember Apple's slogan used to be 'think different'. Now it may as well be 'don't dare think different'. You do what Jobs says and you had better like it, and continue to like it when he changes the rules on the fly for totally arbitrary reasons.
For the sake of the future of open computing we had better hope Android succeeds.
They are cracking down on apps that blatantly disregard the terms of the contract that each developer has to sign with Apple (I know, I'm one of them). If you choose to cheat, don't complain when you get caught. Do it right, write your own API's, or be more creative and use the ones you have access to.
If you have a great idea, but have to use of prohibited API's to make it work - that's like saying "damn, I could make a lot of money if I just ignore the fact that drugs are illegal to sell."
Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
We are in the minority because most don't know enough to know any better. It doesn't make the majority or Apple right.
If this trend continues, the tech crowd will eventually move away from the iPhone. If they go, the rest will follow.
The thing is, this is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is Apple's product, and they can place whatever limits they want on it.
You can either buy the product or not, depending on how you feel about the restrictions.
But it is not a secret that SJ and Apple want to maintain control with their product. It makes their life easier, and it represents an easier sell to people.
If they were to open the OS and their products, they would wind up like MS - having to support and deal with 100s of different hardware companies, and potential combinations, and sloppy coders causing the OS to crash.
Indeed, WifiTrak is a very useful app. When there are multiple WAPs in the vicinity, these scanning apps make it very easy to figure out which ones to try and which ones are a waste of time.
I previously used WiFinder, but it looks like the author has given up developing iPhone apps. Shame.
Independent of the issue of whether Apple's action is justified or not, what do these apps give you regarding the list of available wifi in the area that you could not get from 'Settings' --> 'Wifi' --> 'Choose a network'?
WHAT? You want the iPhone App ecosystem to be 90% crap like the Windows software ecosystem is? No thanks.
No, I want as many apps as people can come up with, organized properly.
If there are 5, or 50, or 500 apps that do nothing (allegedly) but find WiFi, then instead of deleting them, Apple needs to create a sub category in Utilities called "WiFi Finders", and so on for other single purpose apps.
I think it's humorous that one person mentioned censorship and now it's an all argument about whether or not Apple should be allowed to censor apps.
They are cracking down on apps that blatantly disregard the terms of the contract that each developer has to sign with Apple (I know, I'm one of them). If you choose to cheat, don't complain when you get caught. Do it right, write your own API's, or be more creative and use the ones you have access to.
If you have a great idea, but have to use of prohibited API's to make it work - that's like saying "damn, I could make a lot of money if I just ignore the fact that drugs are illegal to sell."
Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
It's OK, the reason is pretty clear. But what's about removing an application "contains minimal user functionality."?
If a app uses undocumented API's it shouldn't have been accepted it the first place. Ditto for the racy apps, but then allows the big names in porn, like Sports Illustrated swimsuit and Playboy, because they publish magazines...
Apple allow apps and then take them away, so what is really going on?
Flexing their muscles? for the media giants? publishers? schools?
Disney influence?
It's seems to me that Apple is now is just cherry picking it's future customers for a closed and controlled ecosystem.
You don't like it, go elsewhere for your open computing needs.
Also, the App Store needs it's apps on a web page, with a short description for each app, a hundred apps to a page. This way people can scan all those apps better.
So it's better presentation, not selection and deletion that's needed.
Why have many people here, including the app developer in question, missed this vital piece of the puzzle? (regarding use of unauthorized APIs):
A few notables have. Others ignore it, in order to seize the opportunity to espouse their subjective agendas.
It's OK, the reason is pretty clear. But what's about removing an application "contains minimal user functionality."?
Again, it is Apple's product. If they want to they can. Then people will decide whether or not to stay with the product or not.
Heck, they could shut the whole store down if they wanted.
It's seems to me that Apple is now is just cherry picking it's future customers for a closed and controlled ecosystem.
You don't like it, go elsewhere for your open computing needs.
That pretty much sums it up.
Apple hates people accessing private APIs or underlying hardware. It prevents them from changing the implementation.
A likely reason may be that iPhone 4.0 changes the private API that the wifi apps are using. Rather than having them all break when 4.0 comes out, making the release look bad, Apple bans them now over the access violation.
Since there is clearly a need and desire for access to the private API, Apple will probably clean it up and add it to the public APIs. Then the apps will return.
The whole point of Cocoa Frameworks Private APIs are for them to be flushed out and later when they have matured and deemed stable become Public APIs for all to consume.
You're correct in stating that Private APIs change constantly.
This approach has been the approach since NeXT first released NeXTStep.