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.
Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Exactly. That is what is so puzzling. Apple was always renown for promoting consistency through their ecosystem...forcing inconsistency seems un-Apple-like.
The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
I could swear that pinch to expand is used on charts in iStockManager and nobody had a problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyok
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.
The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.
Hopefully I don't get in trouble for copying this from Apple's dev site:
Gesture Recognizers
Gesture recognizers are objects that you attach to views and use to detect common types of gestures. After attaching it to your view, you tell it what action you want performed when the gesture occurs. The gesture recognizer object then tracks the raw events and applies the system-defined heuristics for what the given gesture should be. Prior to gesture recognizers, the process for detecting a gesture involved tracking the raw stream of touch events coming to your view and applying potentially complicated heuristics to determine whether the events represented the given gesture.
UIKit now includes a UIGestureRecognizer class that defines the basic behavior for all gesture recognizers. You can define your own custom gesture recognizer subclasses or use one of the system-supplied subclasses to handle any of the following standard gestures:
At what point do the anti-trust laws become relevant then? If they have 50% market share? 60%, 90%?
It all seems a little strange to me.
I'm not aware of any cutoff. I think its a matter of a company being large enough so that its anti-competitive behavior really does hurt consumers. If Palm decided that they would refuse to sell the Pre to any network that sells competing products, Palm would just go out of business. But if Microsoft decided that they would not sell Windows to a PC company that sold other operating systems, then it's the PC company that would go out of business, not Microsoft. In that example, both Microsoft and Palm are (hypothetically) doing exactly the same thing, but it's Microsoft that would get into trouble with the FTC or DOJ, not Palm.
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 dow? 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.
Rude remarks like these, especially from a noobe, are uncalled for. I in no way stated an opinion on the merit of the patent, criticized any party or jumped to any radical conclusions. Where you got 'fan boy' from is a mystery to me. I simply suggested possible issues regarding the circumstances of the rejection.
You know, with all the news about how great the ipad is, and with iphone os 4.0 being announced tomorrow, I was starting to get that feeling like maybe these devices are for me. Money isn't the issue, and clearly they are doing something right....
Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.
Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.
Its simple - Picasa = Google ...... Google = Picasa.....
This is a big Steve Flying bird to Google..... and I for one applaud Apple. Why should an app that supports the competion have anything similar to Apple.
Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.
Well, it matters as to whether they have anything like a valid complaint or not. If they implemented it using private APIs, they don't. If they implemented it using 3rd party APIs, they might not, depending on the nature of the API. If it's implemented entirely via published APIs and their own code, they may.
But, in the absence of information on the exact reason for the rejection, it's hard to say.
It's also possible that is was rejected simply because Apple felt it was too much of a knockoff of the Photos app, which they could justify under duplicates functionality, but might reject because, well, because no one likes to see someone just do a knockoff of their software.
I'm starting to wonder if it is not so much the zoom as it is the expand the contents of a gallery.
That would be my take on it.
Not so much, the pinch or the zoom, but how the gallery expands from those actions. If these guys had it expand the images in a different manner, Apple might not have had a problem with it.
You know, with all the news about how great the ipad is, and with iphone os 4.0 being announced tomorrow, I was starting to get that feeling like maybe these devices are for me. Money isn't the issue, and clearly they are doing something right....
Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.
Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.
Who's to say SJ is leaving anytime soon?
And who cares if Apple rejected this? Apple has rejected apps before. Life goes on, and Apple certainly goes on, and keeps getting better.
Is it going to be news each time a developer gets their app rejected, when we have over 100,000 apps on the App Store??
Why are YOU so insulted? Did Apple reject YOUR app? Why should you care? This has no real effect on you, the consumer. If anything, the consumer keeps benefiting from Apple's products. We keep getting great stuff almost yearly.
The reality is that developers are *staying* with Apple, and so are consumers. These piddly rejections here and there amount to next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Developers know that the best platform to develop for bar none continue to be Apple's i-devices. As a developer, if your app is rejected, then fix the damned thing and find another way for it to be competitive before someone else steps in and does what you were't capable of. Apple's ecosystem is a developer's gold mine and there is simply no room for whining.
I dunno, seems like pinch to enlarge (I know, that developer also added "expand" to the list, ought to be as intuitive as Command-C to copy. Apple should be happy just having pinch to enlarge on their platform and not others. Otherwise, how will anyone know how to use it? Pinch to enlarge only in Apple apps, but not others. Yuck!
I dunno, seems like pinch to enlarge (I know, that developer also added "expand" to the list, ought to be as intuitive as Command-C to copy. Apple should be happy just having pinch to enlarge on their platform and not others. Otherwise, how will anyone know how to use it? Pinch to enlarge only in Apple apps, but not others. Yuck!
Sometimes Apple might be a little too quick on the reject button. I bet there are more than a few apps that have been reinstated after originally being rejected. Probably without any explanation for either action.
Is it going to be news each time a developer gets their app rejected,
Probably not.
My guess is that apps get rejected every day for a variety of legitimate reasons. It is generally when apps get rejected for crazy reasons that it makes the news.
And it seems to have happened again and again, but not so frequently in recent months.
Comments
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.
Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.
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.
Exactly. That is what is so puzzling. Apple was always renown for promoting consistency through their ecosystem...forcing inconsistency seems un-Apple-like.
Care to elaborate?
The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.
Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
So?
Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.
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.
Just like before, the APIs are probably not ready for primetime, once Apple feels that the APIs are good and ready I'm sure they'll release them.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.
This was my thinking as well. Apple may not want developers generating code that copies a function it plans to release in the SDK in the future.
Although, Apple could just accept it now, and reject an update later when Apple's code is generally available.
"If", "might": conditionals.
Yes. Correct. That is why I used those words.
So far, "No."
Is that true? I thought that Android was growing much faster than iPhone OS.
And what would it have said in the SDK?
Care to elaborate?
The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.
Hopefully I don't get in trouble for copying this from Apple's dev site:
Gesture Recognizers
Gesture recognizers are objects that you attach to views and use to detect common types of gestures. After attaching it to your view, you tell it what action you want performed when the gesture occurs. The gesture recognizer object then tracks the raw events and applies the system-defined heuristics for what the given gesture should be. Prior to gesture recognizers, the process for detecting a gesture involved tracking the raw stream of touch events coming to your view and applying potentially complicated heuristics to determine whether the events represented the given gesture.
UIKit now includes a UIGestureRecognizer class that defines the basic behavior for all gesture recognizers. You can define your own custom gesture recognizer subclasses or use one of the system-supplied subclasses to handle any of the following standard gestures:
Tapping (any number of taps)
Pinching in and out (for zooming)
Panning or dragging
Swiping (in any direction)
Rotating (fingers moving in opposite directions)
Long presses
If it also stifles competition, it will arouse the interest of the antitrust regulators.
At what point do the anti-trust laws become relevant then? If they have 50% market share? 60%, 90%?
It all seems a little strange to me.
I'm not aware of any cutoff. I think its a matter of a company being large enough so that its anti-competitive behavior really does hurt consumers. If Palm decided that they would refuse to sell the Pre to any network that sells competing products, Palm would just go out of business. But if Microsoft decided that they would not sell Windows to a PC company that sold other operating systems, then it's the PC company that would go out of business, not Microsoft. In that example, both Microsoft and Palm are (hypothetically) doing exactly the same thing, but it's Microsoft that would get into trouble with the FTC or DOJ, not Palm.
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 dow? 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.
Rude remarks like these, especially from a noobe, are uncalled for. I in no way stated an opinion on the merit of the patent, criticized any party or jumped to any radical conclusions. Where you got 'fan boy' from is a mystery to me. I simply suggested possible issues regarding the circumstances of the rejection.
Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.
Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.
This is a big Steve Flying bird to Google..... and I for one applaud Apple. Why should an app that supports the competion have anything similar to Apple.
The Weather Channel app seems to be able to do pinch to expand (although it does not work exactly as you would expect). I wonder how they did that...
I'm starting to wonder if it is not so much the zoom as it is the expand the contents of a gallery.
Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.
Well, it matters as to whether they have anything like a valid complaint or not. If they implemented it using private APIs, they don't. If they implemented it using 3rd party APIs, they might not, depending on the nature of the API. If it's implemented entirely via published APIs and their own code, they may.
But, in the absence of information on the exact reason for the rejection, it's hard to say.
It's also possible that is was rejected simply because Apple felt it was too much of a knockoff of the Photos app, which they could justify under duplicates functionality, but might reject because, well, because no one likes to see someone just do a knockoff of their software.
I'm starting to wonder if it it not so much the zoom as it is the expand the contents of a gallery.
Its the same gesture... just a different screen effect.
One increases the size of a single image
The other takes a stack of images and expands it out to fill the screen
The gesture itself is a zoom in, and if you look at what its doing, technically you are still zooming in to see more details
I'm starting to wonder if it is not so much the zoom as it is the expand the contents of a gallery.
That would be my take on it.
Not so much, the pinch or the zoom, but how the gallery expands from those actions. If these guys had it expand the images in a different manner, Apple might not have had a problem with it.
You know, with all the news about how great the ipad is, and with iphone os 4.0 being announced tomorrow, I was starting to get that feeling like maybe these devices are for me. Money isn't the issue, and clearly they are doing something right....
Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.
Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.
Who's to say SJ is leaving anytime soon?
And who cares if Apple rejected this? Apple has rejected apps before. Life goes on, and Apple certainly goes on, and keeps getting better.
Is it going to be news each time a developer gets their app rejected, when we have over 100,000 apps on the App Store??
Why are YOU so insulted? Did Apple reject YOUR app? Why should you care? This has no real effect on you, the consumer. If anything, the consumer keeps benefiting from Apple's products. We keep getting great stuff almost yearly.
The reality is that developers are *staying* with Apple, and so are consumers. These piddly rejections here and there amount to next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Developers know that the best platform to develop for bar none continue to be Apple's i-devices. As a developer, if your app is rejected, then fix the damned thing and find another way for it to be competitive before someone else steps in and does what you were't capable of. Apple's ecosystem is a developer's gold mine and there is simply no room for whining.
I dunno, seems like pinch to enlarge (I know, that developer also added "expand" to the list, ought to be as intuitive as Command-C to copy. Apple should be happy just having pinch to enlarge on their platform and not others. Otherwise, how will anyone know how to use it? Pinch to enlarge only in Apple apps, but not others. Yuck!
Sometimes Apple might be a little too quick on the reject button. I bet there are more than a few apps that have been reinstated after originally being rejected. Probably without any explanation for either action.
Is it going to be news each time a developer gets their app rejected,
Probably not.
My guess is that apps get rejected every day for a variety of legitimate reasons. It is generally when apps get rejected for crazy reasons that it makes the news.
And it seems to have happened again and again, but not so frequently in recent months.