benjamin frost wrote: »
Removing them with a legitimate reason is fine.
It's removing them without a legitimate reason that is questionable.
gtbuzz wrote: »
I do not think having copyrighted material on iCloud is the real problem or reason Apple does not want to permit us to do this. It is deeper than that. It is a security issue.
Moreover people miss an important point. If Apple has a policy in place (like a rule) that says all apps that upload files to the iCloud must have the files created within the app, then so be it. A rule is a rule and you must respect it no matter what, with all the goods and the bads that come with it. If the rule itself is damaging you must change it, but you do so for all. In other words you have to be consistent and not let exceptions become the rule. In fact you must not have exceptions at all ! That's consistency!
Microsoft, Google, Copy, Dropbox an the other similar services upload to their own servers, not iCloud. So they're exempt from this rule.
As far as I know you can decide or not to register your app with iCloud, and then and only if you do will the iCloud icon appear in the share sheet, after all it doesn't appear in most applications. So it is therefore possible to exclude iCloud. On OS X at least there is an API to exclude any provider you don't want, which is useful to exclude the app itself from a sharing menu ( dropbox users don't need to use the sharing menu to share with Dropbox as they can share within the app of course, but they may want to share a dropbox link on Twitter).
In any case Panic have a solution: don't turn on iCloud entitlements.
Here is that OS X API which allows you to choose what appears in the list:
The proposed services are passed in and the returned array is what is shown, so you can edit them.
Odd that they didn't use something similar on iOS.
I understand a bit Apple focus on security but whether you are fed up of iCould Drive file policy, then do the same as me and tell it Apple.
They seem to be more responsive to user feedback then before. You can remind them of claimed post PC era that does not resonate with this.
Panic are divas in my opinion. They recently removed nearly all their apps from the Mac App Store because they didn't like the rules, and now they are caught breaking the iOS App Store rules. And yet somehow thousands of other software houses are able to publish a variety of apps with no problems.
It will come back to bite them in the end because each year half of Mac sales are to users new to the platform. And they mostly come from iOS, so will assume that if something is not in Mac App Store then it doesn't exist.
ascii wrote: »
<p>Panic are divas in my opinion. They recently removed nearly all their apps from the Mac App Store because they didn't like the rules, and now they are caught breaking the iOS App Store rules. And yet somehow thousands of other software houses are able to publish a variety of apps with no problems.</p><p> </p><p>It will come back to bite them in the end because each year half of Mac sales are to users new to the platform. And they mostly come from iOS, so will assume that if something is not in Mac App Store then it doesn't exist.</p>
Certainly it helps publicity.
toukale wrote: »
People are getting pissed at this, but when I look at it from Apple's perspective it makes perfect sense. This is a slippery slope, they are just guarding against people uploading copyrighted materials on icloud drive. We are in a very litigious world where everyone, every companies and every government are looking to get a piece of that $200 billion apple have. So they can't be too careful, it's best to pissed off a few developers then having to deal with a bunch of lawsuits about having copyrighted materials on icloud drive.
Did you ever actually use the App Store version of Coda? It was so irritating the way it had to work around sandboxing limitations. You had to select any folder you wanted to use in the Open dialog, or else drag it from Finder onto the app icon. Most of the negative reviews were about this exact thing and a big part of the reason Panic left the App Store. What good is an App Store if all you can buy is Candy Crush and a million siloed to-do list apps? If you're right about new users, won't the shallowness of the App Store's offerings make them think the Mac only runs toy apps?
I get that Apple wants to protect its users and its platform, but these arbitrary rules are hobbling the utility and quality of apps on the App Store. I was really excited that iOS 8 was finally going to enable rich, useful applications, but Apple's kneecapped developers with these idiotic rules. What's worse, Apple's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. One team is featuring PCalc in the App Store as an editor's choice while another retroactively rejected it for containing a widget they don't like.
"Write the code, change the world" indeed.
Yes. The typical iOS app has it's own custom document format which the user creates instances of and saves (e.g. a drawing, text document, spreadsheet...). Transmit uploads many kinds of documents, none of which were authored in the app. Rightly or wrongly, that is obviously an exception to the way iOS apps usually work, so a non-diva company would have asked Apple about it up front before they started coding.
ascii wrote: »
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/183792/transmit-for-ios-restricted-from-using-icloud-drive-forced-to-delete-all-share-sheet-options#post_2649497" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>singularity</strong> <a href="/t/183792/transmit-for-ios-restricted-from-using-icloud-drive-forced-to-delete-all-share-sheet-options#post_2649497"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />They are divas for breaking an unwritten policy?</div></div><p> </p><p>Yes. The typical iOS app has it's own custom document format which the user creates instances of and saves (e.g. a drawing, text document, spreadsheet...). Transmit uploads many kinds of documents, none of which were authored in the app. Rightly or wrongly, that is obviously an exception to the way iOS apps usually work, so a non-diva company would have asked Apple about it up front before they started coding.</p>
You know there's no channel to "ask Apple about it up front", right? All they will tell you is to write the code, submit the app, and then they'll tell you if it's acceptable or not. I have done this on my clients' behalf and they will not give you any other answer. And again, Apple already approved the app and then rejected it after the fact. These are not the behaviors of a professional company.
The rules aren't arbitrary, they're there to protect user privacy and security. And if developers really cared about their users, instead of the sanctity of their creations, they'd find a way to follow them.
Just read any tech site any day of the week and you should know this is the age of malware. Developers need to adapt to this new reality instead of spitting the dummy at OS security restrictions. The old days when you had access to the entire filesystem will never come back, on Apple or any other platform.
They should be published and developers should be able to get a yes-or-no answer, in writing, from the App Store team before committing resources to it. Instead, Apple's like a bouncer. You have to assume all the cost and risk of getting dressed up for the club and Apple might still turn you away at the door for secret reasons. Or worse, they'll track you after you're already inside and then kick you out, as they've done here.
As an app developer for companies, I've run a few times into issues wth Apple iOS guidelines that are too restrictive compared to other envrionments. This is hurting Apple. I have a customer that decided to stop buying iPad's in the company and to gradually replace them by Android tablets, because one of the key apps I had to develop, did not pass the iOS app store guidelines.
Apple didn't say it was a matter of security or privacy. They said it wasn't an acceptable use of their API's. And if that rule is published somewhere I'd like to see a link to it because it's not on the App Store review guidelines. Again, Apple approved the app and then rejected an already approved app.