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

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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??





    How much time do you have ?
  • Reply 162 of 188
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post


    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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    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.





    What we have here is a failure to communicate. Simply said there is a contract and the developer violated the tearms of it and his app was pulled. It is not a matter of free choice?if the developer violates the terms of a contract?Apple can terminate the contract or ask that the developer abide by the terms and rewrite the app.



    If iPhone customers aren't happy, they can vote by moving on to another smart phone whose apps and os they prefer.
  • Reply 163 of 188
    I have to side with Apple on this one. I know it seem draconian, but the fact of the matter is - developers are the laziest, dumbest, single minded, opportunistic, twits on the planet. They are the worst, and need to be treated like infants, because they are.



    Just look at the Windows platform. Just full of absolute crap.



    Developers did not make the iPhone, the iPhone made most of the developers - who mostly - before the iPhone came about - didn't make jack crap with their retarded apps. And as soon as iPhone popularity starts to wane you can bet they will be the first to bolt to the next hot platform.



    Suck it up.
  • Reply 164 of 188
    dimwitdimwit Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    What we have here is a failure to communicate. Simply said there is a contract and the developer violated the tearms of it and his app was pulled. It is not a matter of free choice?if the developer violates the terms of a contract?Apple can terminate the contract or ask that the developer abide by the terms and rewrite the app.



    If iPhone customers aren't happy, they can vote by moving on to another smart phone whose apps and os they prefer.



    Exactly. I just don't see why everyone is getting so twisted. Everybody makes choices, that's what freedom is about. Accepting the consequences is a matter of responsibility.

    Dim
  • Reply 165 of 188
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    ... I think the difference between [newbee] 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.



    Well, one does have to make these distinctions, in order to make a rational and moral choice. Not all 'rules' are the same.



    Laws, in general, one ought to, as a good citizen, obey, unless there is an overriding reason not to. (In fact, having an overriding reason may even be an acceptable defense for not obeying a law.) Certain laws one may decide not to obey as an act of civil disobedience, accepting the consequences of one's act in order to bring attention to an unjust law. Certain laws, there may be a tacit understanding regarding flexibility of enforcement -- for example, speed limits -- and some may at times ignore them to a certain extent with impunity.



    Social norms, one violates at one's peril, which peril may vary considerably depending on the particular custom transgressed against and its current importance to the community. One may be ostracized, or simply labeled as being a bit eccentric, or the "penalty" may fall between these extremes. One might even gain standing with certain members of a community for acting out against particular customs.



    Contracts, freely entered into, are, however, a different sort of thing. A contract is essentially a promise to do something in exchange for someone else doing some other thing in return. The key point is that it is a promise, a giving of one's word, that one will undertake certain actions. A person ought not treat a promise freely given lightly. Keeping one's word goes to the heart of one's character and integrity.



    In that light, trying to sneak a feature known to be not allowed, known to be against the terms of the developer agreement, against a promise the developer has made to Apple, into an app as a hidden feature, doesn't look to me as something laudable. It's not just good ol' developers havin' some fun on Apple. It's a broken promise, a demonstration of a lack of integrity, a rather shabby and shameful act, and certainly not something that ought to be celebrated.
  • Reply 166 of 188
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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??



    It's just the whiners who aren't happy unless they're complaining about Apple all day.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    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.



    You really believe that? Your parents must have done a lousy job of rearing you.



    Let's make it simple. Do you agree that I have the right to spend all the money on my savings account on a new car? (Assuming, of course, that I have no legal obligations that have a higher priority). Clearly, if I have money in my savings account, I can spend it on whatever I wish.



    Now, if I spend that money and I want to buy a new house next month, the money's gone, so there are repercussions. Clearly, I had the right to spend the money on a car, but clearly there are repercussions.
  • Reply 167 of 188
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,003member
    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



    It does not. You can also say that in a totalitarian society you also have the right to do whatever you want. You do, just as much as here. But the penalties for doing so, if they go against the "rules", are higher.



    You do not have the "right" to violate contracts. But there's a civil penalty, not a criminal one.



    You certainly don't have the right to commit murder, just because there's a penalty for that.
  • Reply 168 of 188
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,003member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    You really believe that? Your parents must have done a lousy job of rearing you.



    Let's make it simple. Do you agree that I have the right to spend all the money on my savings account on a new car? (Assuming, of course, that I have no legal obligations that have a higher priority). Clearly, if I have money in my savings account, I can spend it on whatever I wish.



    Now, if I spend that money and I want to buy a new house next month, the money's gone, so there are repercussions. Clearly, I had the right to spend the money on a car, but clearly there are repercussions.



    He obviously isn't talking about that kind of decision.
  • Reply 169 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    It's just the whiners who aren't happy unless they're complaining about Apple all day.

    You really believe that? Your parents must have done a lousy job of rearing you.

    Let's make it simple. Do you agree that I have the right to spend all the money on my savings account on a new car? (Assuming, of course, that I have no legal obligations that have a higher priority). Clearly, if I have money in my savings account, I can spend it on whatever I wish.

    Now, if I spend that money and I want to buy a new house next month, the money's gone, so there are repercussions. Clearly, I had the right to spend the money on a car, but clearly there are repercussions.





    We're talking about "breaking rules" .... not "spending our own money".
    Also, what's with the need for a personal criticism about me or my parents just because you don't agree with me. .... That's as bad as if I took a look at your complete lack of understanding of the discussion at hand and said something like, i don't know .... "please try to keep up. ok" ? See how that works? ....
  • Reply 170 of 188
    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You really believe that? Your parents must have done a lousy job of rearing you.



    Jragosta, I'd just like to draw to your attention the pleasant way Newbee and I managed to bring our discussion to a close, vs. your unprovoked and personal attack on someones parents.



    Just because you have a different opinion to someone doesn't make you better than them.
  • Reply 171 of 188
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Only with Steve Jobs, where adding useful functionality for free with no harm done is considered an offense worthy of removal.



    "Think Different" indeed.
  • Reply 172 of 188
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    Only with Steve Jobs, where adding useful functionality for free with no harm done is considered an offense worthy of removal.



    "Think Different" indeed.



    You need to re-evaluate your "no harm done" assumption.



    There's a reason Apple considers messing with designated hardware features a no-no.
  • Reply 173 of 188
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Contracts, freely entered into, are, however, a different sort of thing. A contract is essentially a promise to do something in exchange for someone else doing some other thing in return. The key point is that it is a promise, a giving of one's word, that one will undertake certain actions. A person ought not treat a promise freely given lightly. Keeping one's word goes to the heart of one's character and integrity.



    In that light, trying to sneak a feature known to be not allowed, known to be against the terms of the developer agreement, against a promise the developer has made to Apple, into an app as a hidden feature, doesn't look to me as something laudable. It's not just good ol' developers havin' some fun on Apple. It's a broken promise, a demonstration of a lack of integrity, a rather shabby and shameful act, and certainly not something that ought to be celebrated.



    This is the issue. You enter into a contract freely. If you choose to violate the terms of the contract you suffer the consequences--pull the app.



    Personally I think that the app seems functional--however they should have worked with Apple to incorporate it into their app rather than to sneak it in.



    You might not like Apple's rules and procedures--but they have the right to exclude the apps or programers who violate the terms of the contract--and the consumer has the right to buy the iPhone or other smart phone.
  • Reply 174 of 188
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    Only with Steve Jobs, where adding useful functionality for free with no harm done is considered an offense worthy of removal.



    "Think Different" indeed.



    Issue is that they violated the terms of the contract, or does the contract that the programer sign mean nothing Has nothing to do with "Think Different"



    Apple has the right to protect their system and Apple has always been tight and controlling about their OS's.
  • Reply 175 of 188
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Contracts, freely entered into, are, however, a different sort of thing. A contract is essentially a promise to do something in exchange for someone else doing some other thing in return. The key point is that it is a promise, a giving of one's word, that one will undertake certain actions. A person ought not treat a promise freely given lightly. Keeping one's word goes to the heart of one's character and integrity.



    And, yet, in another thread, you are arguing that the government should unilaterally break their promise when they granted licenses to telcos and ISPs. Why should the government be able to break their contract by adding new restrictions?
  • Reply 176 of 188
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    I can turn any button into my shutter button on my WM phone. In fact, I can turn any button into anything I want pretty much. I like this, and I'm not alone.



    I guess what people like isn't what Apple views as what they need, and in order to maintain the simplest "no-thinking-involved" type of phone possible, they don't allow such things, and they can't budge now because they already set those rules up. That's the downside to setting up rules like that, but in the end, the goal is reached, and the phone is exactly how they want.
  • Reply 177 of 188
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    I can turn any button into my shutter button on my WM phone. In fact, I can turn any button into anything I want pretty much. I like this, and I'm not alone.



    I guess what people like isn't what Apple views as what they need, and in order to maintain the simplest "no-thinking-involved" type of phone possible, they don't allow such things, and they can't budge now because they already set those rules up. That's the downside to setting up rules like that, but in the end, the goal is reached, and the phone is exactly how they want.



    A strategy which seems to be paying off. A lot.
  • Reply 178 of 188
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    http://taptaptap.com/blog/a-sneak-peek/



    How cool is that!



    Truly, truly, truly a shame, though. I mean, this app is just brilliant and I use it regularly with my iPhone 4.



    But no matter how much I love it, I can't side with the developers on this one. It's a very cut-and-dried case, and if Apple lets it slide this time, they'll then have to let it slide for everyone. One of the chief complaints about Apple's policies re the App Store was that there was no consistency. At least here, Apple *is* being consistent with their policies.



    All it takes is for the devs to remove that feature, which was hardly critical. Granted, developers have made the App Store what it is, but without Apple's tools everyone hoping to make it big in the App Store is dead in the water. Apple has provided a killer platform and an amazing set of tools. Why shoot yourself in the foot by messing with the rules?



    Really, it's a simple process: comply with the Agreement and continue raking in the cash.
  • Reply 179 of 188
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    Only with Steve Jobs, where adding useful functionality for free with no harm done is considered an offense worthy of removal.



    "Think Different" indeed.



    Can I conclude from this that your a fan of the "no harm, no foul" approach?
  • Reply 180 of 188
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    And, yet, in another thread, you are arguing that the government should unilaterally break their promise when they granted licenses to telcos and ISPs. Why should the government be able to break their contract by adding new restrictions?



    1. You are misrepresenting what "promises" were made to the telcos by the government.



    2. As I argued in that thread, one is sometimes faced with moral dilemmas where choosing the lesser of two evils is the correct choice, a situation that doesn't apply here at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.