Everybody was screaming for multi tasking- these rules are in place to allow that. If you are running the iPod or Pandora how would you be able to change volume if you needed to while using this app?
BTW, the clicker on your earbuds works just fine for that.
I don't think I agree with this app pull. I understand that they need to draw a line, but when the default mode of the App follows Apple's human interface guidelines that should be enough. This feels more like they are setting an example because the developer didn't ask for permission first. Instead of the URL enabler, I bet Apple would allow it in the App settings as long as it wasn't the default option.
You don't agree with Apple enforcing its rules - the one the developer agreed to beforehand?
i really don't get people that call apple nazis for this. if you don't like their terms, make the same app and sell it on android or whatever. or, instead, you could let apple know of your easter egg, and be happy.
also it seems that every time apple bans an application there's a pandemonium...probably google paying journalists to write shit about apple...
They screwed over their customers by means of producing an app they never intended to support and by taking an approach to app sales that basically says: "Milk em for every dime they got then pull up stakes and disappear." These kind of hijinks also puts a chilling effect on all the other apps in the store.
It's dumb, it's deceitful, and the needs of the actual customer is the furthest thing from the minds of people like this. The fact that they are now crowing to everyone who will listen about how much money they made off of this stunt is the proof of what their real intentions were.
Well that's a very good point.
Who knows what other taptaptap apps or updates will or won't be approved after this? (I currently own three of their apps, though I'm still on 3.0.1 so I'm sort of used to being passed over for app updates...)
Would Apple pull their developer license over something like this? Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if that happened. But what other "big hammer" does Apple have?
I use to have the same problem until I realized that you could "hold down" the shutter button and when you want to take the picture, you release it. That caused much less shake from actually tapping the button.
You don't agree with Apple enforcing its rules - the one the developer agreed to beforehand?
Nice!
I agree that Apple should enforce the rules. Even though this is a minor offender, it is best not to encourage easter eggs. I can also understand that they wouldn't want buttons remapped. Easter eggs are banned, as far as I know remapping buttons is not clearly stated. You can remap them with public API. I just think this is a good case to make an exception for the volume button as long as it wasn't default behavior. If the developer asks for it and is denied, that is a different story. As far as I can tell, they didn't ask for it. First they made it default behavior, then they put it in an easter egg. I can see Apple having a problem with both of those options.
These arrogant developers have to stop trying to work around rules that they agree to follow. They knew that this wasn't allowed, that's why they tried to work around it in a stupid way.
The fact that there was some incentive to do it also demonstrates that the approved method of executing the shutter, i.e. a button on the screen, is not really that convenient. Maybe the entire screen should be the button, however that would be a non-standard interface as well. Currently when you have your shot composed, you have to refocus your attention on the button instead of the shot, often moving the camera in the process. On a real camera you can hold your finger at the ready on a physical switch while concentrating on the composition. With the iPhone, not so much.
I agree that Apple should enforce the rules. Even though this is a minor offender, it is best not to encourage easter eggs. I can also understand that they wouldn't want buttons remapped. Easter eggs are banned, as far as I know remapping buttons is not clearly stated. You can remap them with public API. I just think this is a good case to make an exception for the volume button as long as it wasn't default behavior. If the developer asks for it and is denied, that is a different story. As far as I can tell, they didn't ask for it. First they made it default behavior, then they put it in an easter egg. I can see Apple having a problem with both of those options.
From the horse's mouth:
"Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7"
My question is this: Why does a device that shuns buttons (i.e. a keyboard) have buttons to begin with? Why not a tap on the screen to open the window that opens anyway and have a slider to adjust the volume? I have always wondered that. Everything else on the phone (control wise anyway) is done by sliding. The phone would only have a on / off button, and the mute function could be added to a profile function accessed from the home button. Double click and hold the home button, get a profile drop down, select the style of ringer you want, and done. The notion of the "buttonless" phone is not being fully explored here. The fact that the screen can be whatever you want on it is amazing. The fact that Apple thinks the millions of iPhone buyers are just too dumb to figure out these things is just stupid. The bottom line of this is that it gave you the OPTION of using the button, and, ONLY in this app. If Grandma is more at ease tapping the screen, fine. She wouldn't have bought this app in the first place. Score ANOTHER one for BlackBerry. On THEIR phones, you can make the buttons do what you want. Guess what Jobs is saying is that BB owners are smarter?
Up until iOS4.0 a double tap of the home button brought up a volume slider (very useful when I snagged my volume control and sheered it off!). Actually some buttons are nice to feel in your pocket and adjust the volume for example. There does have to be a limit somewhere - but I can't help feeling a function button would be nice too. In iPod it could be skip/play/pause in a torch(flashlight) app it would be on/off in Camera it's the shutter...
I think what Jobs is saying though that 98%* of users just want stuff to be simple and work. Most PC owners never upgrade their machines at all - perhaps a USB hard drive - so why the big case, gazzillion ports and expansion slots?
"I was told that overriding the volume controls is one of the most common reasons for app rejection."
it's unclear whether the developer knew this before developing the app or not.
look, when you enter into an agreement like apple's, you are legally bound to adhere to it. it should be no surprise to anyone that this app was rejected. i suppose if apple allowed this, they would be getting calls from customers who've remapped their buttons, but can't figure out how to disable it. big waste of time on apple's part.
i'm wondering what all the google/fandroids think of the google/verizon marriage and their proposed tier scam for the internet. who's the big evil corporation now?
I understand both sides of the argument. You don't want developers willy-nilly remapping the use of buttons that are used for other things. On the other hand it is nice to have a button (or two) that are re-definable. HP did this on there early computers for quite a while and it was a nice feature (in its day). User interface design has moved on though and I think the Apple model is they way to go.
Apple has shown with its GUI (say as opposed to Windows) that consistency in user experience is very valuable. It is one big reason that the Mac has been so successful. I would have to side with Apple on this (although they will do as they please either way ).
That's the ONLY side of the argument that matters. Developers have to agree to do it Apple's way before submitting their app. If they don't like Apple's way, they're free to develop for Android.
Apple has a business model based on simplicity and consistency - and has every right to use that model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
No shock that they pulled it, but I admire this company for what they did...
You admire a company for being too stupid to read the rules? Or to comprehend that the first time they were rejected for remapping buttons that they should listen?
It was rejected once and they did it again, anyway. Hard to figure out how that earns admiration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proximityeffect
Everybody was screaming for multi tasking- these rules are in place to allow that. If you are running the iPod or Pandora how would you be able to change volume if you needed to while using this app?
Whats the big deal? They released a buggy app in which you could enable the volume key as a shutter key, in breach of their agreement with Apple.
Apple were right to remove their app and i hope that their is a clause in the developer agreement whereby Apple can refund the money back to the purchasers so that the dev gets nothing. This is the only way to teach them to play nice.
"Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7"
I guess if they spell it out, the developer was asking for it.
Well, at least the judge in Cali said you can pretty much jailbreak your iPhone and run programs like this, if you wish. Apple may not need to distribute it.
But, effectively, they are saying "shut up and assume the position!" a little too often, that's all.
"when you enter into an agreement like apple's, you are legally bound to adhere to it."
Not really. You retain a great many freedoms that supercede various parts of any vendor contract. For example, they could write "you may never use this product while practicing Judaism," which would be legally intelligible but in practice, just words on a screen, not anything valid.
Didn't you know that using a device in a non-standard way, violates the first law of 'think different'?
So what you're saying is if Android did the same it would be fine?
Apple has rules. Think what you will. If you and other customers aren't happy, return the device and jump on another platform, but as we've seen in recent weeks Android has been pulling apps out as well. Lets not even get started on the lock down the providers have on what can or can not be done Android phones.
The fact that there was some incentive to do it also demonstrates that the approved method of executing the shutter, i.e. a button on the screen, is not really that convenient. Maybe the entire screen should be the button, however that would be a non-standard interface as well. Currently when you have your shot composed, you have to refocus your attention on the button instead of the shot, often moving the camera in the process. On a real camera you can hold your finger at the ready on a physical switch while concentrating on the composition. With the iPhone, not so much.
Comments
Everybody was screaming for multi tasking- these rules are in place to allow that. If you are running the iPod or Pandora how would you be able to change volume if you needed to while using this app?
BTW, the clicker on your earbuds works just fine for that.
I don't think I agree with this app pull. I understand that they need to draw a line, but when the default mode of the App follows Apple's human interface guidelines that should be enough. This feels more like they are setting an example because the developer didn't ask for permission first. Instead of the URL enabler, I bet Apple would allow it in the App settings as long as it wasn't the default option.
You don't agree with Apple enforcing its rules - the one the developer agreed to beforehand?
Nice!
i really don't get people that call apple nazis for this. if you don't like their terms, make the same app and sell it on android or whatever. or, instead, you could let apple know of your easter egg, and be happy.
also it seems that every time apple bans an application there's a pandemonium...probably google paying journalists to write shit about apple...
They screwed over their customers by means of producing an app they never intended to support and by taking an approach to app sales that basically says: "Milk em for every dime they got then pull up stakes and disappear." These kind of hijinks also puts a chilling effect on all the other apps in the store.
It's dumb, it's deceitful, and the needs of the actual customer is the furthest thing from the minds of people like this. The fact that they are now crowing to everyone who will listen about how much money they made off of this stunt is the proof of what their real intentions were.
Well that's a very good point.
Who knows what other taptaptap apps or updates will or won't be approved after this? (I currently own three of their apps, though I'm still on 3.0.1 so I'm sort of used to being passed over for app updates...)
Would Apple pull their developer license over something like this? Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if that happened. But what other "big hammer" does Apple have?
I use to have the same problem until I realized that you could "hold down" the shutter button and when you want to take the picture, you release it. That caused much less shake from actually tapping the button.
Good tip, I'll have to try it next time.
You don't agree with Apple enforcing its rules - the one the developer agreed to beforehand?
Nice!
I agree that Apple should enforce the rules. Even though this is a minor offender, it is best not to encourage easter eggs. I can also understand that they wouldn't want buttons remapped. Easter eggs are banned, as far as I know remapping buttons is not clearly stated. You can remap them with public API. I just think this is a good case to make an exception for the volume button as long as it wasn't default behavior. If the developer asks for it and is denied, that is a different story. As far as I can tell, they didn't ask for it. First they made it default behavior, then they put it in an easter egg. I can see Apple having a problem with both of those options.
My question is this: Why does a device that shuns buttons (i.e. a keyboard) have buttons to begin with?
My theory: Accessibility and so that you can adjust it without unlocking the device and firing the screen.
These arrogant developers have to stop trying to work around rules that they agree to follow. They knew that this wasn't allowed, that's why they tried to work around it in a stupid way.
The fact that there was some incentive to do it also demonstrates that the approved method of executing the shutter, i.e. a button on the screen, is not really that convenient. Maybe the entire screen should be the button, however that would be a non-standard interface as well. Currently when you have your shot composed, you have to refocus your attention on the button instead of the shot, often moving the camera in the process. On a real camera you can hold your finger at the ready on a physical switch while concentrating on the composition. With the iPhone, not so much.
I agree that Apple should enforce the rules. Even though this is a minor offender, it is best not to encourage easter eggs. I can also understand that they wouldn't want buttons remapped. Easter eggs are banned, as far as I know remapping buttons is not clearly stated. You can remap them with public API. I just think this is a good case to make an exception for the volume button as long as it wasn't default behavior. If the developer asks for it and is denied, that is a different story. As far as I can tell, they didn't ask for it. First they made it default behavior, then they put it in an easter egg. I can see Apple having a problem with both of those options.
From the horse's mouth:
"Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7"
My question is this: Why does a device that shuns buttons (i.e. a keyboard) have buttons to begin with? Why not a tap on the screen to open the window that opens anyway and have a slider to adjust the volume? I have always wondered that. Everything else on the phone (control wise anyway) is done by sliding. The phone would only have a on / off button, and the mute function could be added to a profile function accessed from the home button. Double click and hold the home button, get a profile drop down, select the style of ringer you want, and done. The notion of the "buttonless" phone is not being fully explored here. The fact that the screen can be whatever you want on it is amazing. The fact that Apple thinks the millions of iPhone buyers are just too dumb to figure out these things is just stupid. The bottom line of this is that it gave you the OPTION of using the button, and, ONLY in this app. If Grandma is more at ease tapping the screen, fine. She wouldn't have bought this app in the first place. Score ANOTHER one for BlackBerry. On THEIR phones, you can make the buttons do what you want. Guess what Jobs is saying is that BB owners are smarter?
Up until iOS4.0 a double tap of the home button brought up a volume slider (very useful when I snagged my volume control and sheered it off!). Actually some buttons are nice to feel in your pocket and adjust the volume for example. There does have to be a limit somewhere - but I can't help feeling a function button would be nice too. In iPod it could be skip/play/pause in a torch(flashlight) app it would be on/off in Camera it's the shutter...
I think what Jobs is saying though that 98%* of users just want stuff to be simple and work. Most PC owners never upgrade their machines at all - perhaps a USB hard drive - so why the big case, gazzillion ports and expansion slots?
* I made this up but you get the jist
it's unclear whether the developer knew this before developing the app or not.
look, when you enter into an agreement like apple's, you are legally bound to adhere to it. it should be no surprise to anyone that this app was rejected. i suppose if apple allowed this, they would be getting calls from customers who've remapped their buttons, but can't figure out how to disable it. big waste of time on apple's part.
i'm wondering what all the google/fandroids think of the google/verizon marriage and their proposed tier scam for the internet. who's the big evil corporation now?
I understand both sides of the argument. You don't want developers willy-nilly remapping the use of buttons that are used for other things. On the other hand it is nice to have a button (or two) that are re-definable. HP did this on there early computers for quite a while and it was a nice feature (in its day). User interface design has moved on though and I think the Apple model is they way to go.
Apple has shown with its GUI (say as opposed to Windows) that consistency in user experience is very valuable. It is one big reason that the Mac has been so successful. I would have to side with Apple on this (although they will do as they please either way
That's the ONLY side of the argument that matters. Developers have to agree to do it Apple's way before submitting their app. If they don't like Apple's way, they're free to develop for Android.
Apple has a business model based on simplicity and consistency - and has every right to use that model.
No shock that they pulled it, but I admire this company for what they did...
You admire a company for being too stupid to read the rules? Or to comprehend that the first time they were rejected for remapping buttons that they should listen?
It was rejected once and they did it again, anyway. Hard to figure out how that earns admiration.
Everybody was screaming for multi tasking- these rules are in place to allow that. If you are running the iPod or Pandora how would you be able to change volume if you needed to while using this app?
Exactly. Apple likes consistency for a reason.
it's unclear whether the developer knew this before developing the app or not.
This isn't the first time this app has been rejected for this very feature.
Good tip, I'll have to try it next time.
......
Apple were right to remove their app and i hope that their is a clause in the developer agreement whereby Apple can refund the money back to the purchasers so that the dev gets nothing. This is the only way to teach them to play nice.
From the horse's mouth:
"Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7"
I guess if they spell it out, the developer was asking for it.
But, effectively, they are saying "shut up and assume the position!" a little too often, that's all.
"when you enter into an agreement like apple's, you are legally bound to adhere to it."
Not really. You retain a great many freedoms that supercede various parts of any vendor contract. For example, they could write "you may never use this product while practicing Judaism," which would be legally intelligible but in practice, just words on a screen, not anything valid.
Didn't you know that using a device in a non-standard way, violates the first law of 'think different'?
So what you're saying is if Android did the same it would be fine?
Apple has rules. Think what you will. If you and other customers aren't happy, return the device and jump on another platform, but as we've seen in recent weeks Android has been pulling apps out as well. Lets not even get started on the lock down the providers have on what can or can not be done Android phones.
The fact that there was some incentive to do it also demonstrates that the approved method of executing the shutter, i.e. a button on the screen, is not really that convenient. Maybe the entire screen should be the button, however that would be a non-standard interface as well. Currently when you have your shot composed, you have to refocus your attention on the button instead of the shot, often moving the camera in the process. On a real camera you can hold your finger at the ready on a physical switch while concentrating on the composition. With the iPhone, not so much.
But this isn't a real camera.