He's not talking about "unpublished" APIs.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Unpublished and private are different terms for the same thing.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.
I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a personality flaw or a personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.
At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.
Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.
While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply personal and directed more at the other poster, or the other organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?
Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being right, we all suffer.
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?
The gesture is not a private API, but it seems the animation might be.
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.
Angry much? Bottom line, because it is Apple's platform, and they make the rules. Like it or not. And maybe for UI uniformity.
Which is besides the point. I was not defending or condemning either side. I was saying that if the developers had to go out of their way to duplicate a function, then they had to have some inkling that there might be a problem.
I'm confused. Did they use Private APIs or not? If not then Apple's telling them how they can use public APIs? It's not hard to code gestures using public APIs no?
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.
Perhaps, but these guys in particular did not use a private API.
And, no, I didn't make any assumptions. What I meant was don't jump on the "mud-slinging" bandwagon, there is no need. There are better ways to help the community as a whole, than to say parts of said community are idiots.
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.
I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.
Do me a favour. Patenting a gesture is obscene. Maybe I'll patent the finger and make some money.
I'm offended that any company thinks they can patent the use of a gesture when they advocate multitouch devices. Apple gets gestures but others can just tap tap tap. Who owns the patents on mouse up and mouse down? They must be the richest people in the world.
Stop giving Apple a pass just because you're a fan boy. I love AAPL too but they are showing and proving that they have and exercise way too much control during the app submission process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
Obviously more to their rejection than "pinch to expand" on a photo app, because I just used that gesture on Photogene, which is not an Apple app. I do agree that Apple should allow all apps to use the gestures.
Could have something to do with this app's connection to Picasa and Google. Who knows.
It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.
I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a personality flaw or a personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.
At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.
Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.
While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply personal and directed more at the other poster, or the other organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?
Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being right, we all suffer.
I shouldn't bother replying to your attacks anymore, but sometimes it is necessary.
Mr. Pot please meet Mr. Kettle. You have done a great jobs of projecting your posting habits onto me. Really the only edit required is that part about not crossing into personal attacks. You do so often and this resulted in your last ban. Looking at the posting history of your new alt, I am a little surprised you have not had this alt banned as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Not actually a personal attack.
Of course it was. It wasn't even obfuscated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.
Gazoobee, acknowledging multiple alts isn't an insult. You really are getting carried away looking for insults where none exist.
Let's bothreturn to the discussion like adults, shall we?
It depends. If other markets are bigger or growing faster, then being in the other markets might be better.
"If", "might": conditionals. So far, "No." There wouldn't be all this blabber over this little API thing if Apple's dev environment wasn't as attractive as it is.
All these whiners consistently miss the point, that being: Apple is holding the line on its policy in order to ensure the best possible user experience for not only its products but for third-party products which run on them.
This mutual dependency therefore has to be continually policed. Some people bristle over any perceived "control", "lack of freedom", or "unfairness," conveniently ignoring the concept of the necessity of "policy" in order to enjoy any degree of standardness.
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.
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.
It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.
It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
Exactly, Apple can implicity allow use of their patents on their devices. Nothing says you have to go after patent violators or lose your patent (That is trademarks), you can pick and choose. You can choose who you license to, and it could be written in the SDK license that all iphone/ipad apps have a license to use Apple's patented gestures as part of the UI standardization
Comments
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.
I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a personality flaw or a personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.
At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.
Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.
While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply personal and directed more at the other poster, or the other organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?
Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being right, we all suffer.
These sorts of personal attacks ruin the experience of other forum readers.
Not actually a personal attack.
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?
The gesture is not a private API, but it seems the animation might be.
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.
Angry much? Bottom line, because it is Apple's platform, and they make the rules. Like it or not. And maybe for UI uniformity.
Which is besides the point. I was not defending or condemning either side. I was saying that if the developers had to go out of their way to duplicate a function, then they had to have some inkling that there might be a problem.
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.
Perhaps, but these guys in particular did not use a private API.
And, no, I didn't make any assumptions. What I meant was don't jump on the "mud-slinging" bandwagon, there is no need. There are better ways to help the community as a whole, than to say parts of said community are idiots.
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.
I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.
I'm offended that any company thinks they can patent the use of a gesture when they advocate multitouch devices. Apple gets gestures but others can just tap tap tap. Who owns the patents on mouse up and mouse down? They must be the richest people in the world.
Stop giving Apple a pass just because you're a fan boy. I love AAPL too but they are showing and proving that they have and exercise way too much control during the app submission process.
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.
Could have something to do with this app's connection to Picasa and Google. Who knows.
It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.
I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a personality flaw or a personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.
At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.
Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.
While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply personal and directed more at the other poster, or the other organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?
Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being right, we all suffer.
I shouldn't bother replying to your attacks anymore, but sometimes it is necessary.
Mr. Pot please meet Mr. Kettle. You have done a great jobs of projecting your posting habits onto me. Really the only edit required is that part about not crossing into personal attacks. You do so often and this resulted in your last ban. Looking at the posting history of your new alt, I am a little surprised you have not had this alt banned as well.
Not actually a personal attack.
Of course it was. It wasn't even obfuscated.
I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.
Gazoobee, acknowledging multiple alts isn't an insult. You really are getting carried away looking for insults where none exist.
Let's bothreturn to the discussion like adults, shall we?
It depends. If other markets are bigger or growing faster, then being in the other markets might be better.
"If", "might": conditionals. So far, "No." There wouldn't be all this blabber over this little API thing if Apple's dev environment wasn't as attractive as it is.
All these whiners consistently miss the point, that being: Apple is holding the line on its policy in order to ensure the best possible user experience for not only its products but for third-party products which run on them.
This mutual dependency therefore has to be continually policed. Some people bristle over any perceived "control", "lack of freedom", or "unfairness," conveniently ignoring the concept of the necessity of "policy" in order to enjoy any degree of standardness.
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.
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.
It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.
It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
Exactly, Apple can implicity allow use of their patents on their devices. Nothing says you have to go after patent violators or lose your patent (That is trademarks), you can pick and choose. You can choose who you license to, and it could be written in the SDK license that all iphone/ipad apps have a license to use Apple's patented gestures as part of the UI standardization