Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture

15791011

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 214
    foobarfoobar Posts: 108member
    It's not "Apple" rejecting the app, it's an Apple employee. Clearly some of them are quite reasonable, and some of them are dicks (or certainly make mistakes). That's why, no matter what the reason for rejection, there are always counterexamples of already approved apps.



    The problem is really that there is no proper way of escalating such an issue. Sure, you can write to Jobs, and in his infinite wisdom he might decide you should just rename your app, but there is no formal process. You can't argue your side, you can't look at precedents and you can't predict the decisions. That makes Apple an unreliable partner.



    It's hard to feel sorry for the developers, though, as the publicity from this story alone will probably make them more money than that feature. As a user (and as a share holder) I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 122 of 214
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,759member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foobar View Post


    I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...



    You've gotta be kidding . . .
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 123 of 214
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    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.



    maybe. I took this to mean they did not use Apple's private APIs and coded it themselves.

    Quote:

    Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves



    Certainly, I am only inferring from this that they mean that then did not use Apple's API, private or published. But it seems to be what they meant, if they said Apple's API did not provide a way to do the gesture they needed.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    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.



    Possibly. That particular reason gets under my skin. A platform is a platform. Apple should ensure all devs, including themselves, have a level playing field on the platform.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 124 of 214
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,617member
    This dev needs to suck it up and just get over it. Boo f'n Hoo!! They thought they were being smart asses by copying a gesture from one of Apples apps which Apple have kept the API for private. Seriously what were they expecting, a medal?



    Devs like this need to spend time making apps and stop pissing and moaning when they get caught out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 125 of 214
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foobar View Post


    It's not "Apple" rejecting the app, it's an Apple employee. Clearly some of them are quite reasonable, and some of them are dicks (or certainly make mistakes). That's why, no matter what the reason for rejection, there are always counterexamples of already approved apps.



    The employee is, constructively, Apple. The lack of consistency as you suggest does not make it any less an Apple decision.



    Quote:

    The problem is really that there is no proper way of escalating such an issue. Sure, you can write to Jobs, and in his infinite wisdom he might decide you should just rename your app, but there is no formal process. You can't argue your side, you can't look at precedents and you can't predict the decisions. That makes Apple an unreliable partner.



    There is a formal process, it's just so simple, and so arbitrary, and so heavily tilted in Apple's favour that you may as well lob an app over the fence and await the outcome. This is effectively what happens, right?



    Quote:

    It's hard to feel sorry for the developers, though, as the publicity from this story alone will probably make them more money than that feature. As a user (and as a share holder) I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...



    I guess it's the price you pay for developing for the one of the most popular mobile platforms out there. But just because you're playing in someone else's sandbox doesn't make their decisions automatically right. If you develop your own gesture recognition using the APIs properly available to you then you can't really point to an objective reason as to why the app was rejected. The article does suggest the foregoing. There seems to no concrete explanation on Apple's part as to the grounds for rejection.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 126 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steffi View Post


    Do me a favour. Patenting a gesture is obscene. ...... blah blah



    Do me a favor. Take it up with the office that grants these patents.



    Here's how/where to contact them: http://www.uspto.gov/about/contacts/
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 127 of 214
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 7,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    ... I am only inferring from this that they mean that then did not use Apple's API, private or published. But it seems to be what they meant, if they said Apple's API did not provide a way to do the gesture they needed.



    The article is completely ambiguous on this point. Obviously, they used some APIs, otherwise they are writing directly to the hardware, which is unlikely to say the least. The question is, exactly which APIs did they use? They seem to have not really answered this question, or the reporting just isn't clear.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 128 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    If it also stifles competition, it will arouse the interest of the antitrust regulators.



    How does it stifle competition if it's protecting a patent? Please explain.



    In a previous thread, you were waxing eloquent on sampling statistics; then you went on regarding an FTC ruling; now you are taking on competition, seemingly, in each instance not having a clue, as far as I can tell.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 129 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    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.



    How many times have apps been rejected? Do you know, or are you, again, pulling it out of the same place as all the other blather you post? (We do know that there are approx. 160,000 apps approved).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 130 of 214
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    How does it stifle competition if it's protecting a patent? Please explain.



    In a previous thread, you were waxing eloquent on sampling statistics; then you went on regarding an FTC ruling; now you are taking on competition, seemingly, in each instance not having a clue, as far as I can tell.





    If it is patented, it would not. Patents confer a monopoly. Likely other exceptions also exist.



    And I guess your question was not sincere; your personal attack seems to betray your motivations.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 131 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foobar View Post


    As a ... a share holder.... I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...



    Yeah. Apple is (irreversibly) doomed!?



    Sell!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 132 of 214
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    How many times have apps been rejected? Do you know, or are you, again, pulling it out of the same place as all the other blather you post? (We do know that there are approx. 160,000 apps approved).





    I have no hard info on how many times apps have been rejected.



    Please stop posting insults. If you consider my posts to consist of blather, then please don't read them.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 133 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    If it is patented, it would not. Patents confer a monopoly. Likely other exceptions also exist.



    And I guess your question was not sincere......



    What do you think the word 'proprietary' in the first para of the article means?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 134 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    I have no hard info on how many times apps have been rejected.



    Please stop posting insults. If you consider my posts to consist of blather, then please don't read them.



    You don't have soft info either. You're just speculating. And consistently in one direction. That's the problem.



    And, while it's unfortunate, but I can't avoid tripping over your blather.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 135 of 214
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    How many times have apps been rejected? Do you know, or are you, again, pulling it out of the same place as all the other blather you post? (We do know that there are approx. 160,000 apps approved).



    Apple statement on the matter:

    Quote:

    Apple generally spends most of the review period making sure that the applications function properly, and working with developers to fix quality issues and software bugs in applications. We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.



    So, at that time, that would mean about 40k are not approved. We can debate whether this means rejected out right or send back for revision, but that was the number at the time. Since the app being discussed here was one that was 'rejected' in the submitted form for a correctable 'violation' it is fair to use the larger set that includes both outright rejections and 'needs work' rejections.



    At 40k (far higher now), then it is not wrong to expect some number of apps are rejected every day. Since we do not hear about thousands of rejections, it is fair to say we hear about the ones that seem questionable or wrong.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 136 of 214
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    What do you think the word 'proprietary' in the first para of the article means?



    Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 137 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Apple statement on the matter:





    So, at that time, that would mean about 40k are not approved. We can debate whether this means rejected out right or send back for revision, but that was the number at the time. Since the app being discussed here was one that was 'rejected' in the submitted form for a correctable 'violation' it is fair to use the larger set that includes both outright rejections and 'needs work' rejections.



    At 40k (far higher now), then it is not wrong to expect some number of apps are rejected every day. Since we do not hear about thousands of rejections, it is fair to say we hear about the ones that seem questionable or wrong.



    Actually, Apple did not approve 88,400 (not 40K as you imply), if you had bothered to read your own cut-and-paste. And, if you truly read it, it says "......not approved as originally submitted."



    It also simply means that a lot of them are still under review.



    The final rejection rate could be 20%, or 2% or 0.2%, you have absolutely no clue.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 138 of 214
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    You don't have soft info either. You're just speculating.




    Maybe that's why I said "My guess is that ..." Yes indeed, I was speculating, and I made it crystal clear that I was doing so.



    Please leave me the hell alone.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post






    And, while it's unfortunate, but I can't avoid tripping over your blather.



    "Blather" is an insult. And the fact of the matter is that you have 100% control concerning what you trip over.



    Please go away.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 139 of 214
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Apple statement on the matter:







    At 40k (far higher now), then it is not wrong to expect some number of apps are rejected every day. Since we do not hear about thousands of rejections, it is fair to say we hear about the ones that seem questionable or wrong.



    Thanks for the facts of the matter. I was clearly giving a guess when I made my statement, and it turns out to likely have been 100% correct.



    Despite being in accord with the facts, it precipitated nasty personal attacks.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 140 of 214
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.



    Why do you waste time with such a source? Nothing better to do with your life?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.