Popular iPhone camera app pulled over "Easter egg" shutter button

1456810

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 188
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    This doesn't equate to the Revolution you know. This is a contract both parties entered into. The developer agreed to abide by the terms of the contract, and then didn't.



    There are more meaning to "break the rules" than you're acknowledging.



    There's the metaphorical meaning, which is what people who come up with new, but legal and moral ways to do something that's better than what was done before. and then there's the ethically and morally reductive act of breaking a contract you entered into when there's no proper reason to do so, e.g. the other side doing something that's was already stretching or breaking the terms. The latter is what happened here.



    I don't think it's all that different. Not living up to a legal contract in most circumstances means breaking the law just as what the founding fathers did. There is always choice. You can choose to not develop iPhone apps or if you are too unhappy with American laws, you can choose to leave or move west if one lived in colonial times.





    I don't know if this is a publicity stunt by taptaptap or not but it seems pretty dumb to get a top app pulled because of this feature. Considering these are supposed to be the ones behind Mac Heist a publicity stunt is entirely possible.



    There are apps, however, that I appreciate breaking the rules because they are unjust such as Handy Light which I managed to pick up before it was pulled. Tethering should be allowed if there is a data cap and it's a cash grab by AT&T because the rules unjustly benefit them.
  • Reply 142 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Can you say "slippery slope" ?



    Yes, and I don't think it is one. Laws are created or controlled by elected officials who can be got rid of if they push their luck. Rules are not.



    To be honest I worry far more about corporations with expensive lawyers restricting our freedoms than I do politicians creating mad laws.



    I anticipate that this will illicit replies of, "if you don't like Apples rules you can always buy Android/Windows/Linux", and I agree with that. But I also feel there is no problem with a company being given a tweak from time to time.
  • Reply 143 of 188
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    I know they are averse to physical controls but a iphone should really have had a dedicated shutter button in the first place. First press launches the camera app of your choice. second press snaps the photo.
  • Reply 144 of 188
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Because if it's in your pocket, you need to have buttons.





    All you need is one button. That is why Steve put only one button on the front of the iPhone. Genius.



    Typical iPhone customers get all hinky when they look at a Blackberry. Look at all those confusing buttons! I can't learn that! It is too confusing!



    But Steve took away all the buttons. Steve knows that they will look at the iPhone, see one button, and press it.



    And then what happens? IT TELLS YOU HOW TO USE IT! SLIDE TO UNLOCK!!!



    One button is the perfect number.
  • Reply 145 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "So after two short months in the App Store, Camera+ has pulled in a whopping half a million dollars," wrote John Casasanta, head of tap tap tap and creator of the MacHeist promotion. "Needless to say, we couldn't be more pleased."



    If I were them I would've been a lot more pleased had I not intentionally screwed up a seriously successful app, and the revenues were still coming in.
  • Reply 146 of 188
    galoregalore Posts: 35member
    Not that I care about a silly camera app but Apple is behaving as if it is still the only option in town.



    With Android's meteoric rise, every time a micro-managing story like this surfaces, Android benefits.



    Is that really a good strategy?
  • Reply 147 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    My experience is exactly the opposite. I find that I have to retake some photos on my iP4 because the act of physically tapping the screen will move the phone ever so slightly. Enough to cause blur in the picture. And no, I don't have a shaky hand and I'm tapping or touching the shutter release button ever so slightly. On my Nikon D-SLR, I've got my right index finger on the shutter, I push it down halfway to lock in the focus and exposure and then the rest of the way to snap the pic. The extra mass of my D-SLR and lens provide extra stability that the light and compact iPhone can't provide. Obviously, I'm not expecting the iPhone to be a replacement for a D-SLR. Personally, having a volume button act as a shutter release while this app is running would have been a good thing, but, to each his own and all that.



    Don't tap!!



    It releases the shutter when you *remove* your finger. There is *no* wobble! I tried the Camera+ hack and it's nice but introduce more wobble/movement.



    Do the people here even own iPhones?
  • Reply 148 of 188
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by galore View Post


    Not that I care about a silly camera app but Apple is behaving as if it is still the only option in town.



    No they aren?t. They have never denied the existence of other competitors out there. Apple is like any other business, they offer a service that you are free to accept or not.
  • Reply 149 of 188
    C'mon AI, where's Camera app-gate?
  • Reply 150 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Yes, and I don't think it is one. Laws are created or controlled by elected officials who can be got rid of if they push their luck. Rules are not.



    What I'm talking about is not who makes the laws/rules .... but rather whether our own individual character allows us to break them without even a modicum sense of decency. In my mind, at least, the only thing that separates rules from laws is not who makes them but rather the severity of the penalty for breaking them..



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    To be honest I worry far more about corporations with expensive lawyers restricting our freedoms than I do politicians creating mad laws.



    So do I, but I fail to see what this has to do with our discussion about a company who tries to circumvent a signed agreement for financial gain. Please, help me out here ....

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I anticipate that this will illicit replies of, "if you don't like Apples rules you can always buy Android/Windows/Linux", and I agree with that. But I also feel there is no problem with a company being given a tweak from time to time.



    Well, you can use semantics to give an action a more acceptable view but.... calling an attempt to circumvent a signed agreement to further your financial gain is not the same as "giving a company a tweak" , at least not in my book.



    I suspect that if you were the owner of a product/service that someone else was trying steal .... you might not be so forgiving of this action.



    Let me put it this way. Apple has spent millions of dollars and an untold amount of energy creating a brand name and a brand image. This brand name/image is worth millions of dollars and is built on product "ease of use" and customer satisfaction that's largely based based on that philosophy. This fact, IMHO, cannot be disputed. Apple has been very diligent in "protecting" this image, as they should be. This camera app has done something that, in Apples opinion, at least, threatens to diminish Apple's brand/image by potentially causing confusion over the function of a certain button. Whether we agree with Apple on this point or not does not matter. It is not our decision to make. If an individual wants to jailbreak their iPhone is one thing, but this developer wants to use Apple's App Store for financial gain (over 500K to date) without following the rules that they willingly agreed to by signing the damn agreement in the first place. How in hell this action can even be considered to be morally correct is beyond me. To even have to argue this point mystifies me. What kind of a society do we wish to live in if this kind of action is not only allowed, but encouraged. What a message to be sending our kids. ...... rant over ....
  • Reply 151 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by galore View Post


    Not that I care about a silly camera app but Apple is behaving as if it is still the only option in town.



    With Android's meteoric rise, every time a micro-managing story like this surfaces, Android benefits.



    Is that really a good strategy?



    Is there an inverse relationship between Apple's UI consistency and Android benefitting? I didn't realize the world worked like that. I must have missed this memo. So consistent, malware-free Apps that do what they advertise on the iPhone benefits Android OS? Uh, no, I think iPhone wins on that one.



    Android fans have perpetuated the myth that iPhone fans are sheep living in a walled garden. And if they just knew the freedom that awaited them on the other side of The Matrix, they'd want it (yeah, right). Well, they're not sheep. They are affluent, educated consumers who made a choice. Apple has never misrepresented what the App Store was about: it's a walled garden. And a lot of consumers want in.



    Android fans also believe that the smartphone world has boiled down to a polar struggle between iPhone and Android, which way oversimplifies reality. Just ignore everything else. Ignore Blackberry, ignore Symbian, ignore Windows. They don't benefit. The only alternative to Coke is Pepsi, says Pepsi. So if Coke loses a customer, Pepsi wins. No one else wins, says Pepsi. And only sheep believe that.
  • Reply 152 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    What I'm talking about is not who makes the laws/rules .... but rather whether our own individual character allows us to break them without even a modicum sense of decency. In my mind, at least, the only thing that separates rules from laws is not who makes them but rather the severity of the penalty for breaking them..





    So do I, but I fail to see what this has to do with our discussion about a company who tries to circumvent a signed agreement for financial gain. Please, help me out here ....





    Well, you can use semantics to give an action a more acceptable view but.... calling an attempt to circumvent a signed agreement to further your financial gain is not the same as "giving a company a tweak" , at least not in my book.



    I suspect that if you were the owner of a product/service that someone else was trying steal .... you might not be so forgiving of this action.



    Let me put it this way. Apple has spent millions of dollars and an untold amount of energy creating a brand name and a brand image. This brand name/image is worth millions of dollars and is built on product "ease of use" and customer satisfaction that's largely based based on that philosophy. This fact, IMHO, cannot be disputed. Apple has been very diligent in "protecting" this image, as they should be. This camera app has done something that, in Apples opinion, at least, threatens to diminish Apple's brand/image by potentially causing confusion over the function of a certain button. Whether we agree with Apple on this point or not does not matter. It is not our decision to make. If an individual wants to jailbreak their iPhone is one thing, but this developer wants to use Apple's App Store for financial gain (over 500K to date) without following the rules that they willingly agreed to by signing the damn agreement in the first place. How in hell this action can even be considered to be morally correct is beyond me. To even have to argue this point mystifies me. What kind of a society do we wish to live in if this kind of action is not only allowed, but encouraged. What a message to be sending our kids. ...... rant over ....



    I don't think you're wrong in anything you say, but I see things from a slightly different angle.



    Maybe you're right and I'm not as moral of a person as you are, but my assessment of this is nobody has been hurt (except possibly the developer, who I suspect knew their app would get pulled when Apple found out what they had done), and the developers are probably having a laugh about the time they got one over the mighty Apple, even if it was only for a short time. Heck, I'd like to think that even Apple are having a chuckle about someone pulling something that cheeky.



    I think the difference between you and me is that I do differentiate between the important rules and laws, and the ones that I think can be stretched a little, whereas you obviously accept the need to follow everything you are told to the letter.



    You say, "it is not our decision to make" and I say as free people that it is. You can decide if you want to obey or the rules or not. If you decide not, you will probably get caught and that will have consequences, but you might have some fun whilst doing it. That doesn't mean I think if it's fun, do it, because if you having fun might have a seriously negative effect on others, you shouldn't. To reference your original point, I could decide to speed, and going at 150MPH would be tremendous fun, but I might kill someone, so that's not close to acceptable.



    The ability to make these decisions are the fundamental nature of freedom in my opinion.
  • Reply 153 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    .... but my assessment of this is nobody has been hurt Heck, I'd like to think that even Apple are having a chuckle about someone pulling something that cheeky.



    As I previously stated, Apple has decided that this app harms their brand/image. Yea, they're laughing so hard they pulled the app.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    You say, "it is not our decision to make" and I say as free people that it is. You can decide if you want to obey or the rules or not.



    That's not quite true .... as an individual living in a free society, we don't have the "right" to disobey rules, regulations, and/or laws .... we only have the ability to "do or not do". Trying to wrap our ability (to make up our own minds about what laws and such to obey or disobey) in the cloak of freedom does a disservice to the discussion, imo.



    The issue, I think, is simply this .... do we think the developer's attempt to ignore an agreement they signed on to is morally correct or not .... I think not. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  • Reply 154 of 188
    dimwitdimwit Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    That's not quite true .... as an individual living in a free society, we don't have the "right" to disobey rules, regulations, and/or laws .... we only have the ability to "do or not do". Trying to wrap our ability (to make up our own minds about what laws and such to obey or disobey) in the cloak of freedom does a disservice to the discussion, imo.



    The issue, I think, is simply this .... do we think the developer's attempt to ignore an agreement they signed on to is morally correct or not .... I think not. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.



    I have to disagree with you on this one. Living in a free society does mean you can do whatever you want to do. It doesn't mean there won't be repercussions... I can do 90 mph in a school zone, but I'll likely face the consequences of losing the right to exercise that freedom for a while.

    Dim
  • Reply 155 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post


    I have to disagree with you on this one. Living in a free society does mean you can do whatever you want to do. It doesn't mean there won't be repercussions... I can do 90 mph in a school zone, but I'll likely face the consequences of losing the right to exercise that freedom for a while.

    Dim



    The simple fact that there are repercussions tells me that we don't have the right to do whatever we want ...... if we had the right .... there would not be repercussions.



    There is a huge difference between having the ability and having the right to do anything. Anyone who can make a decision can decide to obey laws or not ... it has nothing whatsoever to do with living in a free society .... hell, you can live under a dictatorship and break laws ... the same way you can in a free society ..... ability does equal right, pure and simple.
  • Reply 156 of 188
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.



    I'll agree with you 100% on that!



    I would like to say it's been nice to have a disagreement of opinion with someone on this site in such a civilised way. That seems an increasingly infrequent thing to me.
  • Reply 157 of 188
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    What rules did our founding fathers break? They were willing to KILL for a little freedom. This nation was founded by rebels who were willing to stand up to authority and BREAK RULES. you spineless sheep have a right to blindly follow whomever you wish, but don't think you are what this nation is about. And BTW, Jobs and Woz broke plenty of rules, as did most innovators.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    My point is simply this. Imho, the developer was in the wrong here and to romanticize that behavior by using the rebel label sends an inappropriate message that that behavior should be encouraged. I think that's a poor message to send. \





    Have to agree with nb here. First, a developer has the right to enter into an agreement with Apple to develop apps for the iPhone or to take their business elsewhere?BB, Android, Palm????. By signing the agreement, he/she agrees to abide by the terms of the agreement. Whether Apple's agreement is draconian is not relevant. The developer has a choice whether or not to accept or reject the terms or to negotiate with Apple for better terms (as if this will happen?but who knows).



    It's Apple's system and if they want control what goes in the App store is their choice. In the long run, the consumer will decide if Apple has made the right choices?iPhone, Black Berry or Android?their choice.



    FYI some information regarding Apple's Developers' Agreement:



    ?Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing, no interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple?s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, with Apple?s prior written consent, an Application may use embedded interpreted code in a limited way if such use is solely for providing minor features or functionality that are consistent with the intended and advertised

    purpose of the Application.?

    http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...ore-inclusive/



    All Your Apps Are Belong to Apple: The iPhone Developer Program License Agreement

    Legal Analysis by Fred von Lohmann

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03...-agreement-all



    Apple Developer Agreement:



    ?3.3.2\tAn Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built- in interpreter(s).

    3.3.3\tWithout Apple?s prior written approval or as permitted under Section 3.3.19, an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store.?



    http://www.eff.org/files/20100127_iphone_dev_agr.pdf



    I was going to post this last night but I lost my Internet connection
  • Reply 158 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I'll agree with you 100% on that!



    I would like to say it's been nice to have a disagreement of opinion with someone on this site in such a civilised way. That seems an increasingly infrequent thing to me.





    I echo those comments to you as well ..... have a great weekend.
  • Reply 159 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post




    I was going to post this last night but I lost my Internet connection



    Glad to see we're on the same page and that you got your internet back again.
  • Reply 160 of 188
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Developer entered into an agreement with Apple by choice.



    Details of agreement were fully disclosed to developer.



    Developer went ahead and developed an app.



    Developer violated agreement down the road.



    Developer's app gets pulled.







    So what's all the debating about??
Sign In or Register to comment.