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 Apple?approving 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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 ?
It depends. If other markets are bigger or growing faster, then being in the other markets might be better.
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.
[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.
[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.
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.
These sorts of personal attacks ruin the experience of other forum readers.
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.
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
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.
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.
Comments
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 Apple?approving 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
It's not like they don't warn developers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd97us27eSg
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 ?
It depends. If other markets are bigger or growing faster, then being in the other markets might be better.
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?
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.
There wasn't any fiasco.
Please substitute the less specific word "situation" (or any other) if you prefer.
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.
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.
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.
These sorts of personal attacks ruin the experience of other forum readers.
That's nothing new.
These same developers will become silent when iPhone OS 4 comes out and they have access to pinch.
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.
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
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.
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.