This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
Has anyone even checked to see if Apple owns any patents on this method? If they do then they have every right to ban developers from using it. It's not silly to protect intellectual property.
How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.
Please stop.
I just took a look at your past few dozen posts. All you seem to do is be constantly negative, regularly get into fights with any number of posters on AI, sound wounded with 'please stop' and 'how I choose to spend time is not on-topic', and keep getting complaints from folks about how you keep derailing threads.
Yes, I will stop, since it's not fair to the others. But you'll carry on the same conversation with many others yet, I guarantee.
How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.
Please stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
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.
"Blather" is an insult. And the fact of the matter is that you have 100% control concerning what you trip over.
Please go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
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.
All these posts is why, I get bored with Appleinsider. The discussion becomes interesting and then someone, who is too sensitive for forum discussion 'cries' that he is being personally attacked and takes up all page posting off the topic comments. Only issue, i read is someone is challenging your opinion and not personal attacks.
P.S. 179 posts to date (7th April) and he joined this month!!
As much as I love Apple, initially rejecting the app for the above stated reason in article, does not sit well with me, since as discussed you are approving inferior product to apps store, since you do not want other people to use a feature provided in your other software.
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.
Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.
As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.
Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.
There wasn't any fiasco. It was forgotten after a few days, and the public barely even knew about it. Apple went on to sell even more apps and attract even more developers.
wow, the apple stickers on your eyes today are even bigger than usual.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.
Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.
As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.
Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.
So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?
The point is that the rules are changed mid-game in ways that are both arbitrary and unpredictable. This causes developers to waste huge amounts of time/money developing apps that fit the rules, but are nevertheless rejected.
Apple has lost several notable developer partners doing just that. It is not a simple "my way or the highway" situation. It is "my future way, which you cannot know" or the highway.
Except that changing the rules mid-game is part of the rules in dealing with Apple. It's very similar in nature to a game I used to play a long time ago called Illuminati. The rules allowed for certain types of cheating during the game which was acceptable as long as you didn't get caught before the next player started their turn. In other words, if the rules allow you to cheat, it isn't really cheating anymore. In the rules of dealing with Apple as a developer is that Apple can change the rules in terms of what apps will be approved.
Developers know (or should know) by now that Apple has the final say on what apps are approved and which ones aren't. Most of them continue to develop under these conditions (voluntarily) because they know that there is the proverbial gold mine at the end of the day. Making good apps for Apple even under their stringent system is very lucrative.
I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.
The point is that the rules are changed mid-game in ways that are both arbitrary and unpredictable. This causes developers to waste huge amounts of time/money developing apps that fit the rules, but are nevertheless rejected.
Apple has lost several notable developer partners doing just that. It is not a simple "my way or the highway" situation. It is "my future way, which you cannot know" or the highway.
The rules did not change. The developer was pushing their luck to begin with.
Apple has streamlined writing software applications and selling them to a relatively painless process with their AppStore for devices like the iPhone and iPad. There are so many people doing it out there now, I wonder how many of them actually have done it the way it was before "App stores" appeared. I doubt very many or the complaints would be next to nothing.
I do believe it was posted on page 1, "Don't like the rules? Then don't play the game!".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder
If you don't like the game and the rules, then don't play it!
People have been able to make tons of money (look at Tap Tap Revenge)(and yes so does Apple) for very simple reason that Apple has made it easy to make and sell those apps. There are lots of other platforms to develop for.
You want to whine? Then go develop for them. Don't want to develop for them? Then don't whine and play by Apple's rules.
So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?
If so, what was the point of your post?
I agree with Josh.B's assertion that it was likely that apps were rejected everyday, which itself was a response to another post asking if it was going to be news everytime a rejection took place. SInce there have been thousands of rejections like the app in question, Josh.B's statement was very reasonable...that we do not hear about the vast majority and it only makes news when it is an unusual rejection.
You seemed to disagree with his post, though why is questionable. You asked for numbers. I gave you the numbers that Apple has used, which directly show that in a specific one year period 40k 'rejections' would be expected. Do the math. This would be over 100 rejections a day, if they processed 365 days a year. So, if we hear about 10-20 a year, these are a drop in the bucket.
Do you disagree or were you replying to Josh.B simply to pester him?
Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.
Actually it sounds like exactly what Apple used the pinch for in their photos App for iPad, except it was for Picassa. As soon as I saw the demo I thought that it was a very cool new use of pinch.
If the developers had to write code to recreate the ability to do something (because they weren't allowed access to existing code), then shouldn't they have had a clue that it might be a problem.
I mean whether not allowing them to use the gesture is right or wrong on Apple's part, they still must have realized Apple didn't want them duplicating the function - otherwise Apple would have given developers access to it.
Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.
If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
No kidding. No outside APIs. Thought that was abundantly clear.
Now that these guys complain about it publicly, expect their app to be unceremoniously pulled.
Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.
If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.
From what I am reading, the developer did not use private APIs. They wrote their own code to duplicate a function. So even if the API was changed it would not affect this application.
As far as I am concerned, it is Apple's ballgame, and they can make any rules they want and tell developers exactly how they can program for their devices. If the developers don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Comments
Despite being in accord with the facts.....
The problem is, you are not. (See above).
Why do you waste time with such a source? Nothing better to do with your life?
How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.
Please stop.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
Has anyone even checked to see if Apple owns any patents on this method? If they do then they have every right to ban developers from using it. It's not silly to protect intellectual property.
How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.
Please stop.
I just took a look at your past few dozen posts. All you seem to do is be constantly negative, regularly get into fights with any number of posters on AI, sound wounded with 'please stop' and 'how I choose to spend time is not on-topic', and keep getting complaints from folks about how you keep derailing threads.
Yes, I will stop, since it's not fair to the others. But you'll carry on the same conversation with many others yet, I guarantee.
And, when you do, I'll call you out again.
How I, or any other poster, chooses to spend their time is not on-topic.
Please stop.
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.
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.
"Blather" is an insult. And the fact of the matter is that you have 100% control concerning what you trip over.
Please go away.
Given the source, it could mean any number of things. Including sloppy reporting.
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.
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.
All these posts is why, I get bored with Appleinsider. The discussion becomes interesting and then someone, who is too sensitive for forum discussion 'cries' that he is being personally attacked and takes up all page posting off the topic comments. Only issue, i read is someone is challenging your opinion and not personal attacks.
P.S. 179 posts to date (7th April) and he joined this month!!
As much as I love Apple, initially rejecting the app for the above stated reason in article, does not sit well with me, since as discussed you are approving inferior product to apps store, since you do not want other people to use a feature provided in your other software.
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.
Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.
As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.
Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.
There wasn't any fiasco. It was forgotten after a few days, and the public barely even knew about it. Apple went on to sell even more apps and attract even more developers.
wow, the apple stickers on your eyes today are even bigger than usual.
This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"
I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.
Well, I guess if you had bothered to read my post, the only suitable response is 'duh'.
As I said, and hoped you had read, the 40% was all that were not approved, both those rejected outright and those sent back for revisions. Further, to repeat again, since the app in question here was not rejected outright but returned for modification, this larger set of rejections makes sense as the group to refer to when a person says a number are rejected everyday.
Also, the 40k came from my quote of Apple's statement of having reviewed 200k apps and updates in a year. Hence my use of 'at the time'....I thought that was obvious.
So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?
If so, what was the point of your post?
The point is that the rules are changed mid-game in ways that are both arbitrary and unpredictable. This causes developers to waste huge amounts of time/money developing apps that fit the rules, but are nevertheless rejected.
Apple has lost several notable developer partners doing just that. It is not a simple "my way or the highway" situation. It is "my future way, which you cannot know" or the highway.
Except that changing the rules mid-game is part of the rules in dealing with Apple. It's very similar in nature to a game I used to play a long time ago called Illuminati. The rules allowed for certain types of cheating during the game which was acceptable as long as you didn't get caught before the next player started their turn. In other words, if the rules allow you to cheat, it isn't really cheating anymore. In the rules of dealing with Apple as a developer is that Apple can change the rules in terms of what apps will be approved.
Developers know (or should know) by now that Apple has the final say on what apps are approved and which ones aren't. Most of them continue to develop under these conditions (voluntarily) because they know that there is the proverbial gold mine at the end of the day. Making good apps for Apple even under their stringent system is very lucrative.
I bet this is more about making sure this company doesn't have this functionality with the iPad and then take that same functionality to a tablet pc version of its software. What Apple should do is simply license the gesture to any application for $1 and make sure it stays an Apple gesture that can not be used on a tablet pc.
I agree. Perhaps for far less (e.g., ¢10).
Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture
So?
Perhaps the developer should have read the SDK.
No kidding. No outside APIs. Thought that was abundantly clear.
Now that these guys complain about it publicly, expect their app to be unceremoniously pulled.
The point is that the rules are changed mid-game in ways that are both arbitrary and unpredictable. This causes developers to waste huge amounts of time/money developing apps that fit the rules, but are nevertheless rejected.
Apple has lost several notable developer partners doing just that. It is not a simple "my way or the highway" situation. It is "my future way, which you cannot know" or the highway.
The rules did not change. The developer was pushing their luck to begin with.
I do believe it was posted on page 1, "Don't like the rules? Then don't play the game!".
If you don't like the game and the rules, then don't play it!
People have been able to make tons of money (look at Tap Tap Revenge)(and yes so does Apple) for very simple reason that Apple has made it easy to make and sell those apps. There are lots of other platforms to develop for.
You want to whine? Then go develop for them. Don't want to develop for them? Then don't whine and play by Apple's rules.
So, you do agree with my original post that none of us has a clue about how many are actually rejected by Apple?
If so, what was the point of your post?
I agree with Josh.B's assertion that it was likely that apps were rejected everyday, which itself was a response to another post asking if it was going to be news everytime a rejection took place. SInce there have been thousands of rejections like the app in question, Josh.B's statement was very reasonable...that we do not hear about the vast majority and it only makes news when it is an unusual rejection.
You seemed to disagree with his post, though why is questionable. You asked for numbers. I gave you the numbers that Apple has used, which directly show that in a specific one year period 40k 'rejections' would be expected. Do the math. This would be over 100 rejections a day, if they processed 365 days a year. So, if we hear about 10-20 a year, these are a drop in the bucket.
Do you disagree or were you replying to Josh.B simply to pester him?
Since the article isn't that clear, that may be the problem. Maybe the pinch gesture was not being used for what it is consistently used for.
Actually it sounds like exactly what Apple used the pinch for in their photos App for iPad, except it was for Picassa. As soon as I saw the demo I thought that it was a very cool new use of pinch.
If the developers had to write code to recreate the ability to do something (because they weren't allowed access to existing code), then shouldn't they have had a clue that it might be a problem.
I mean whether not allowing them to use the gesture is right or wrong on Apple's part, they still must have realized Apple didn't want them duplicating the function - otherwise Apple would have given developers access to it.
Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.
If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.
No kidding. No outside APIs. Thought that was abundantly clear.
Now that these guys complain about it publicly, expect their app to be unceremoniously pulled.
How is using the pinch gesture an "outside API"?
Functionality has nothing to do with it - Apple doesn't support applications using private APIs because they are not meant for developer use. They might change or be removed and do not want people to potentially have to remove an application from the store because it can no longer function or give the impression iPhone OS is unstable because applications relying on the private API crash.
If functionality was the issue, Peeps would not have been accepted on the app store for duplicating cover flow without relying on private APIs.
From what I am reading, the developer did not use private APIs. They wrote their own code to duplicate a function. So even if the API was changed it would not affect this application.
As far as I am concerned, it is Apple's ballgame, and they can make any rules they want and tell developers exactly how they can program for their devices. If the developers don't like it, go play somewhere else.