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?
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.
I had in mind the fiasco which was precipitated by the rejection of Google Voice apps. My recollection is that several prominent developers jumped ship. I'll take a quick look and see what I come up with for background info...here's a couple:
"Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare," said Kafasis. "The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough,"
Ah yes I remember now. In terms of the bigger picture though a couple of developers jumping ship is neither here nor there - I wouldn't be surprised to see them quietly returning to the fold now the iPad is here.
Regardless of how oppressive they find the App approval process at the end of the day as long as you go into the development process understanding this is part and parcel of the package then surely it's better to be on the inside of this growing market then on the outside ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Also, the API rule is known to all so why anyone would even try it is beyond me.
agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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
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.
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!
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.
Comments
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?
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.
I had in mind the fiasco which was precipitated by the rejection of Google Voice apps. My recollection is that several prominent developers jumped ship. I'll take a quick look and see what I come up with for background info...here's a couple:
"Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare," said Kafasis. "The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough,"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/16922..._look_bad.html
?"My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies.? ? Joe Hewitt"
http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/11/joe...s-the-project/
Ah yes I remember now. In terms of the bigger picture though a couple of developers jumping ship is neither here nor there - I wouldn't be surprised to see them quietly returning to the fold now the iPad is here.
Regardless of how oppressive they find the App approval process at the end of the day as long as you go into the development process understanding this is part and parcel of the package then surely it's better to be on the inside of this growing market then on the outside ?
Does the SDK actually say that doing what they did is forbidden?
You guys really need to calm down. Developers aren't allowed to use the private APIs because they aren't READY yet.
Please read the article. They did NOT use a private API, they coded the feature themselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, the API rule is known to all so why anyone would even try it is beyond me.
agreed
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.