Don't confuse my screen name for an accurate description of me, or my post total here for an accurate approximation of my experience on forums like this one.
Cheers,
Dim
I didn't choose your screen name, you did. If you're having a tough time trying to find a more accurate description of who you are .... try using the synonym function of spellcheck!
I didn't choose your screen name, you did. If you're having a tough time trying to find a more accurate description of who you are .... try using the synonym function of spellcheck!
I've been using this nickname online for about 10 years now. I don't have a problem with it. I have been trying to keep this (entertaining and thought provoking) discussion from becoming a personal attack flamewar, it'd be nice if everyone did.
I've been using this nickname online for about 10 years now. I don't have a problem with it. I have been trying to keep this (entertaining and thought provoking) discussion from becoming a personal attack flamewar, it'd be nice if everyone did.
So, which is a developer agreement? "rule of law" or "rule of society"? When you say law, please tell me when I can expect to hear about an arrest in the heinous case.
Dim
Rules of law are a subset of the rules of society, so technically you are doing both: breaking a rule of society, and breaking a rule of civil, not criminal (thus no arrest), law.
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.
Do you really want to trivialize the American revolution by equating it with a camera app?
Besides, the founding fathers felt they were following a higher law (emphasis mine):
Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Do you really think the Camera+ developer(s) felt he/she/they were acting according to principles which, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," or were they just trying to sneak a feature by Apple?
From my point of view, as long as the technology can really bring convenience and benefit to customers, it rocks...... You bet, it is under the condition that it doesn't violate laws, etc..... I don't think there should be any "so-called standard" in the development of products...... Customers should have prioty over "so-called" rules...... The conservative actions will only hinder its prosperity.....
From my point of view, as long as the technology can really bring convenience and benefit to customers, it rocks...... You bet, it is under the condition that it doesn't violate laws, etc..... I don't think there should be any "so-called standard" in the development of products...... Customers should have prioty over "so-called" rules...... The conservative actions will only hinder its prosperity.....
Customers do have priority over "so-called" rules .... they can reject them, thereby depriving the owner of the technology profits lost on a non sale.
The problem here is ... certain people want the "technology" that Apple provides but without the rules that Apple has every right as the owner to put forth. You can't have it both ways, people. Why is this so hard to understand? ..... color me confused.
btw ... are the conservative actions of Apple hurting it's prosperity?
It got them a lot of attention and it showed that they could do it. If everyone just slavishly follows the rules life becomes a little dull. Jobs himself said it was better to be a pirate than join the navy - stretching what authority says you can do is fun.
But they didn't do it. Apple can even pull the app from our devices if they want, and then allow us to download the newer one without the feature.
So where does that leave them and all the users who did what they said to do?
Right back where they started! And they didn't need the publicity, they were doing far better than they expected to do with this app. It's possible that this will cost them money.
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?
Because if it's in your pocket, you need to have buttons.
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?
Apple hasn't held grudges. When they fix the app, it will be back.
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 understand this. But still, the rules are the rules, and Apple enforces them when they find a violation. Developers know this, and shouldn't be trying to get around them. What if you're listening to music, and suddenly want to take a shot? Very possibly you don't want to stop your music, but after you open this app, you decide to lower the volume while taking pictures. You can't, without getting out of the app, adjusting the volume, and then opening the app again. Even with fast app switching, it's a pain, and you may miss some shots.
You know who will be blamed for that, don't you? Apple. Not the developer. Why? Because most people aren't that smart about these things. So Apple has these rules in place. If they think that doing something will result in a problem for the user, they won't allow it.
It's even likely that Apple played around with a lot of these ideas, and fount most of them to cause more problems for a lot of people than good. So they don't allow it. It's not arbitrary.
so when a developer knows that Apple on't allow something but thinks they can slip it in anyway, that's both stupid and arrogant.
As far as I can tell, this developer didn't do anything wrong to begin with, yes they tried to push the limits of the dev agreement, maybe they were trying to demonstrate that in certain instances, the rules are too tight. Obviously, Apples vaunted app review process let the app through with the code to enable this easter egg in place. Is that not evidence of at least tacit approval on Apples part?
I'll say it again, I have NO problem with Apple pushing back when this egg went public, or with Tap3 putting it in in the first place. It never should have went public, but that's another story.
On the other hand, the fervor this has stirred up on the net has to mean there is more than a little interest in this "feature".
Cheers,
Dim
They weren't trying to "push" the limits of the developer agreement. The broke the rules. That's very different.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Don't confuse my screen name for an accurate description of me, or my post total here for an accurate approximation of my experience on forums like this one.
Cheers,
Dim
I didn't choose your screen name, you did. If you're having a tough time trying to find a more accurate description of who you are .... try using the synonym function of spellcheck!
I didn't choose your screen name, you did. If you're having a tough time trying to find a more accurate description of who you are .... try using the synonym function of spellcheck!
I've been using this nickname online for about 10 years now. I don't have a problem with it. I have been trying to keep this (entertaining and thought provoking) discussion from becoming a personal attack flamewar, it'd be nice if everyone did.
These arrogant customers must be stopped from using their product and having fun.
LOL no doubt!... Right Apple, pressing one physical button is going to "confuse customers." Give me a break.
I've been using this nickname online for about 10 years now. I don't have a problem with it. I have been trying to keep this (entertaining and thought provoking) discussion from becoming a personal attack flamewar, it'd be nice if everyone did.
Really?
Post81
You need to shut up. Your ignorance is showing.
Cheers,
Dim
Really?
Post81
You need to shut up. Your ignorance is showing.
Cheers,
Dim
I let him slide with that one. The next time he won't be so lucky.
E-fight!!!!
So, which is a developer agreement? "rule of law" or "rule of society"? When you say law, please tell me when I can expect to hear about an arrest in the heinous case.
Dim
Rules of law are a subset of the rules of society, so technically you are doing both: breaking a rule of society, and breaking a rule of civil, not criminal (thus no arrest), law.
When did Apple users start becoming so moronic. What a shame.
It happened around the time the iPhone was unveiled. I mean that in all seriousness.
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.
Do you really want to trivialize the American revolution by equating it with a camera app?
Besides, the founding fathers felt they were following a higher law (emphasis mine):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Do you really think the Camera+ developer(s) felt he/she/they were acting according to principles which, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," or were they just trying to sneak a feature by Apple?
From my point of view, as long as the technology can really bring convenience and benefit to customers, it rocks...... You bet, it is under the condition that it doesn't violate laws, etc..... I don't think there should be any "so-called standard" in the development of products...... Customers should have prioty over "so-called" rules...... The conservative actions will only hinder its prosperity.....
Customers do have priority over "so-called" rules .... they can reject them, thereby depriving the owner of the technology profits lost on a non sale.
The problem here is ... certain people want the "technology" that Apple provides but without the rules that Apple has every right as the owner to put forth. You can't have it both ways, people. Why is this so hard to understand? ..... color me confused.
btw ... are the conservative actions of Apple hurting it's prosperity?
It got them a lot of attention and it showed that they could do it. If everyone just slavishly follows the rules life becomes a little dull. Jobs himself said it was better to be a pirate than join the navy - stretching what authority says you can do is fun.
But they didn't do it. Apple can even pull the app from our devices if they want, and then allow us to download the newer one without the feature.
So where does that leave them and all the users who did what they said to do?
Right back where they started! And they didn't need the publicity, they were doing far better than they expected to do with this app. It's possible that this will cost them money.
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?
Because if it's in your pocket, you need to have buttons.
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?
Apple hasn't held grudges. When they fix the app, it will be back.
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 understand this. But still, the rules are the rules, and Apple enforces them when they find a violation. Developers know this, and shouldn't be trying to get around them. What if you're listening to music, and suddenly want to take a shot? Very possibly you don't want to stop your music, but after you open this app, you decide to lower the volume while taking pictures. You can't, without getting out of the app, adjusting the volume, and then opening the app again. Even with fast app switching, it's a pain, and you may miss some shots.
You know who will be blamed for that, don't you? Apple. Not the developer. Why? Because most people aren't that smart about these things. So Apple has these rules in place. If they think that doing something will result in a problem for the user, they won't allow it.
It's even likely that Apple played around with a lot of these ideas, and fount most of them to cause more problems for a lot of people than good. So they don't allow it. It's not arbitrary.
so when a developer knows that Apple on't allow something but thinks they can slip it in anyway, that's both stupid and arrogant.
So, I should look forward to an arrest?
As far as I can tell, this developer didn't do anything wrong to begin with, yes they tried to push the limits of the dev agreement, maybe they were trying to demonstrate that in certain instances, the rules are too tight. Obviously, Apples vaunted app review process let the app through with the code to enable this easter egg in place. Is that not evidence of at least tacit approval on Apples part?
I'll say it again, I have NO problem with Apple pushing back when this egg went public, or with Tap3 putting it in in the first place. It never should have went public, but that's another story.
On the other hand, the fervor this has stirred up on the net has to mean there is more than a little interest in this "feature".
Cheers,
Dim
They weren't trying to "push" the limits of the developer agreement. The broke the rules. That's very different.
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.
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.
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.
Use the self timer...no tap shutter control.
Really?
Post81
You need to shut up. Your ignorance is showing.
Cheers,
Dim
In all fairness to me, I did say "trying"
In all fairness to me, I did say "trying"
I agree, very trying. ..... Sorry, couldn't resist that huge straight line you gave me.
No, I don't think that at all. I can differentiate between breaking the law and breaking the rules.
Can you say "slippery slope" ?