Apple takes down another indie dev(blog.rollins.io)
blog.rollins.io
Apple takes down another indie dev
http://blog.rollins.io/2014/09/30/the-king-makers-apple-takes-down-an-indie-dev/
26 comments
It's what we "agree" to.
As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there is no other option.
That does not mean it's right.
Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are not allowed".
Microsoft has its pants sued off in court and is almost forced to break up as a company.
I'd argue that Apple has far, far more control that Microsoft ever did, but face no similar consequences for any of their anticompetitive behavior.
That's what upsets me about this.
As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there is no other option.
That does not mean it's right.
Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are not allowed".
Microsoft has its pants sued off in court and is almost forced to break up as a company.
I'd argue that Apple has far, far more control that Microsoft ever did, but face no similar consequences for any of their anticompetitive behavior.
That's what upsets me about this.
Let's keep some perspective here. Apple holds a minority share of the market. One might argue that the money is on the Apple platform. That leads to the question of why? Maybe it's because Apple's carefully curated experience attracts customers who have a large intersection with the group of customers who are willing to spend money.
If we accept that premise, then what's "right" is what builds that user base. You have to take the bad with the good. I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is plenty of history surrounding apps that act as launchers. That singular feature represents a huge overlap with the primary role of the home screen, and the App Store Guidelines clearly spell out that this is a no-no.
Widgets are a new case, because they're not full fledged apps. A widget could not "create an alternate desktop/home screen environment" because it is only a small part of a greater environment itself (Notification Center). However, the intent of guideline 10.4 is pretty clear. Apple wants to control the means by which users launch applications. That goal serves what Apple believes to be the best interest of users. You can disagree with that, but it's not your platform, and you haven't (yet) built a platform upon which millions of dollars are transacted in app purchases every year.
What I'm saying is that Apple isn't exactly clubbing seals here. They're doing what they believe to be best for their platform, and they're doing it in a way that is pretty consistent with past behavior.
If we accept that premise, then what's "right" is what builds that user base. You have to take the bad with the good. I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is plenty of history surrounding apps that act as launchers. That singular feature represents a huge overlap with the primary role of the home screen, and the App Store Guidelines clearly spell out that this is a no-no.
Widgets are a new case, because they're not full fledged apps. A widget could not "create an alternate desktop/home screen environment" because it is only a small part of a greater environment itself (Notification Center). However, the intent of guideline 10.4 is pretty clear. Apple wants to control the means by which users launch applications. That goal serves what Apple believes to be the best interest of users. You can disagree with that, but it's not your platform, and you haven't (yet) built a platform upon which millions of dollars are transacted in app purchases every year.
What I'm saying is that Apple isn't exactly clubbing seals here. They're doing what they believe to be best for their platform, and they're doing it in a way that is pretty consistent with past behavior.
The article essentially chronicles surprise that this app would be rejected. What you describe is you believe the terms are unjust. These are two different things.
I may not agree with the speed limit on the freeway, but I am not surprised if I am ticketed for going over it.
I may not agree with the speed limit on the freeway, but I am not surprised if I am ticketed for going over it.
A big issue is that the app was approved in the first place. If I'm having an emergency and a cop stops me and says it's fine to speed, then tickets me a mile later, I would be surprised.
What happened here, though, is that the cop said it's fine to speed, and then his boss saw you speeding a mile later.
I agree that Apple should have never approved the app in the first place. Once they let it through, there was no good solution.
1. Allow all widget launchers, which they don't want and are explicitly against the TOS.
2. Allow only this widget app to stay, giving it an unfair monopoly. Cue kingmaker article.
3. Allow this version of the widget app to stay, reject all updates. Like #2, but worse in every way.
4. Pull the app off the store; allow it to continue to function for people to have it.
5. Push the big red button to pull the app off the store and every phone.
Any time a flagrant TOS violation sneaks through, whether by App Review oversight or by subterfuge, this happens. Apple always chooses #4.
I agree that Apple should have never approved the app in the first place. Once they let it through, there was no good solution.
1. Allow all widget launchers, which they don't want and are explicitly against the TOS.
2. Allow only this widget app to stay, giving it an unfair monopoly. Cue kingmaker article.
3. Allow this version of the widget app to stay, reject all updates. Like #2, but worse in every way.
4. Pull the app off the store; allow it to continue to function for people to have it.
5. Push the big red button to pull the app off the store and every phone.
Any time a flagrant TOS violation sneaks through, whether by App Review oversight or by subterfuge, this happens. Apple always chooses #4.
Not really the right comparison ... more like: you pass a speed control without being flashed and in the next mile you get a ticket. That can happen.
Oh, we most certainly do have a choice, especially as developers. If enough of us don't support their infrastructure or buy their products then we most certainly can effect change and their bottom-line. Don't be upset and powerless, be proactive and don't support Apple in any way.
If you don't develop for Apple because you are under the misapprehension that the Play Store is more open there will be plenty of people willing to take the money.
The Play Store does allow app launchers (alternative home screens and themes are even popular), but they do still ban other non-malicious apps, most notably: pornography, apps that block ads in other apps, and YouTube video downloaders. Though the latter is allowed in the Amazon Appstore, I think.
There are plenty of other choices, though.
Launcher apps have been available on Android since the beginning. I doubt the developer would have seen such a massive initial success on Android unless their app was particularly impressive.
He sounds like an effective developer with good creativity. I'm willing to bet he'll find something new in the future.
at the time Microsoft had > 90% market share of desktop PC operating systems. currently apple doesn't have even close to this market share for mobile handset/tablet operating systems.
remember, the anti-trust laws are meant to curtail abuses of monopolies. they are almost powerless when a company is not actually a monopoly. that's by design. when a company is not a monopoly the remedy to their abuses is to simply buy from their competitor.
remember, the anti-trust laws are meant to curtail abuses of monopolies. they are almost powerless when a company is not actually a monopoly. that's by design. when a company is not a monopoly the remedy to their abuses is to simply buy from their competitor.
As far as I know Windows never contained such terms. You should likely make it clear that that is a hypothetical.
In answer to your point, the likely reason Apple can do it but Microsoft could not is two things:
- Microsoft was a monopoly, iOS is not.
- At the time Microsoft was competing against browser vendors who licensed their software for a fee (e.g. Netscape cost between $30-69) and not only utilised their monopoly to squish that entire industry ($0 browser) but also created an uncompetitive market in another field (leveraged their OS monopoly to squish the browser market). That isn't similar to the 2014 browser market.
In answer to your point, the likely reason Apple can do it but Microsoft could not is two things:
- Microsoft was a monopoly, iOS is not.
- At the time Microsoft was competing against browser vendors who licensed their software for a fee (e.g. Netscape cost between $30-69) and not only utilised their monopoly to squish that entire industry ($0 browser) but also created an uncompetitive market in another field (leveraged their OS monopoly to squish the browser market). That isn't similar to the 2014 browser market.
>>As in, we have no other choice.
Of course you do. Android, Windows Phone, even Blackberry if that's your thing.
Of course you do. Android, Windows Phone, even Blackberry if that's your thing.
Are you being forced to develop on iOS?
Ehh I'm not sure I'd consider this either an "alternate desktop/home screen environment" or something that "simulate(s) multi-App experiences".
It's a collection of action shortcuts. iOS 8 does something similar when you double tap the home button. It shows recent contacts at the top and tapping one expands into actions such as call or text.
I mean I get it. Apple is King and if you stand too close to the line they play it over conservative and pull you over. But I don't think it breaks the rules you mentioned. It doesn't matter what you or I think though, of course.
It's a collection of action shortcuts. iOS 8 does something similar when you double tap the home button. It shows recent contacts at the top and tapping one expands into actions such as call or text.
I mean I get it. Apple is King and if you stand too close to the line they play it over conservative and pull you over. But I don't think it breaks the rules you mentioned. It doesn't matter what you or I think though, of course.
As a developer, you've got to be able to assess risk in a more nuanced way than this is/isn't violating the guidelines. It is startlingly obvious that Apple's Guidelines are full of gray areas. Just read the introductory bullet points:
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
"We'll know it when we see it."
If that isn't a clear indication that Apple takes broad latitude in the judgement of what is acceptable, I don't know what is.
It's obvious to me that the launcher widget fell in a gray area. Any app that launches other apps overlaps with the functionality of the home screen.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
"We'll know it when we see it."
If that isn't a clear indication that Apple takes broad latitude in the judgement of what is acceptable, I don't know what is.
It's obvious to me that the launcher widget fell in a gray area. Any app that launches other apps overlaps with the functionality of the home screen.
I agree. Like I said Apple plays it safe and if you are near the line you might as well be over. There have been countless stories of this happening.
There are also countless stories of Apple changing their mind when there is enough public outcry. So it's a calculated risk and blog posts like this are part of the plan if things don't initially go your way.
There are also countless stories of Apple changing their mind when there is enough public outcry. So it's a calculated risk and blog posts like this are part of the plan if things don't initially go your way.
It's essentially an Android-like home screen allowing icons & widgets.
It's not a home screen, but a widget placed in the pull-down notifications bar.
Except it wasn't rejected. It was accepted, sold, and then Apple changed their mind. Did we agree to that fickleness?
That's the price you pay for an ecosystem of users and a base platform with minimum fragmentation. It's just the risk of doing business when the base platform isn't yours. It's not like there wasn't any historical precedent for this... and history tends to repeat itself.
I'm willing to bet their approval process is mostly automated these days.
>So, like it or not, it's what we agree to
I believe the point of the article is that we don't like it. Terms of Service are not the ultimate arbiter of ethics.
I believe the point of the article is that we don't like it. Terms of Service are not the ultimate arbiter of ethics.
Then why was it accepted in the first place? This specific instance goes to show they are not really checking what they are approving. Instead, probably just making sure it "looks" like it follows the iOS design guidelines. After the app started to get more attention is when Apple started to look into this is what it seems like.
[deleted]
Are you trolling?
Your profile states:
>my AppleTV runs XBMC
Which breaks the terms of your Apple TV software agreement. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/appletv.pdf
>You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of open-source components that may be included with the Apple Software).
>BY USING YOUR APPLE TV, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE TV IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE TV.
So, like it or not, it's what you agree to when buying an Apple TV. You should probably return or not use your Apple TV
Your profile states:
>my AppleTV runs XBMC
Which breaks the terms of your Apple TV software agreement. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/appletv.pdf
>You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of open-source components that may be included with the Apple Software).
>BY USING YOUR APPLE TV, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE TV IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE TV.
So, like it or not, it's what you agree to when buying an Apple TV. You should probably return or not use your Apple TV
I'm fairly certain you're trolling. If my Apple TV, hardware I purchased, is running XBMC, it's not running Apple software.
Reverse engineering and installing third party software in addition to, or over OEM software, has been widely held as legal, in addition.
Reverse engineering and installing third party software in addition to, or over OEM software, has been widely held as legal, in addition.
It's as if history is repeating itself:
Apple rolls out new features/platform.
Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
Development community cries out.
Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
I don't mean to lay the blame entirely at the feet of the developer in this case, but it's hard to argue that there isn't history here. Remember when iOS apps first hit and there were a whole slew of "home screen" apps that displayed things like the weather, calendars, etc? Apple banned all those apps too. The reason given was that Apple doesn't want apps to usurp the home screen. Apple wants to control that part of the user experience, because Apple knows best.
> Instead, Apple is being Apple and aggressively protecting things that do not need to be protected. They do so with inscrutable and nebulous reasons that leave all involved feeling dismayed.
This is purely a matter of opinion. Apple feels that they need to control the user experience. Just read the introduction to the App Store Review Guidelines [1]. Apple's stance is really clear: they control what happens on their platform. They've made some efforts to make the process a bit less lopsided (the appeal board), but it's still crystal clear that Apple holds the reigns.
If, as a developer, you disagree with that philosophy, you have to decide how to best effect change. I would argue that continuing to develop for the Apple platform is about the worst way one can affect change. Proselytizing the developer community is a fool's errand. Look at the case of the larger iPhone. What drove that? Apple looked at the market landscape and decided that they could no longer ignore the trend.
IMO, your best choice as a developer is cast your lot with the platform that best reflects your philosophy.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Apple rolls out new features/platform.
Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
Development community cries out.
Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
I don't mean to lay the blame entirely at the feet of the developer in this case, but it's hard to argue that there isn't history here. Remember when iOS apps first hit and there were a whole slew of "home screen" apps that displayed things like the weather, calendars, etc? Apple banned all those apps too. The reason given was that Apple doesn't want apps to usurp the home screen. Apple wants to control that part of the user experience, because Apple knows best.
> Instead, Apple is being Apple and aggressively protecting things that do not need to be protected. They do so with inscrutable and nebulous reasons that leave all involved feeling dismayed.
This is purely a matter of opinion. Apple feels that they need to control the user experience. Just read the introduction to the App Store Review Guidelines [1]. Apple's stance is really clear: they control what happens on their platform. They've made some efforts to make the process a bit less lopsided (the appeal board), but it's still crystal clear that Apple holds the reigns.
If, as a developer, you disagree with that philosophy, you have to decide how to best effect change. I would argue that continuing to develop for the Apple platform is about the worst way one can affect change. Proselytizing the developer community is a fool's errand. Look at the case of the larger iPhone. What drove that? Apple looked at the market landscape and decided that they could no longer ignore the trend.
IMO, your best choice as a developer is cast your lot with the platform that best reflects your philosophy.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
> It's as if history is repeating itself:
> Apple rolls out new features/platform.
> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
> Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
> Development community cries out.
> Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
You missed the last step - one iOS version later, Apple copies the killer feature it originally rejected as a misuse of the platform, and makes it its own.
> Apple rolls out new features/platform.
> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
> Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
> Development community cries out.
> Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
You missed the last step - one iOS version later, Apple copies the killer feature it originally rejected as a misuse of the platform, and makes it its own.
Another missed step - Apple approved the "gray area" app in the first place.
That's the thing I don't like about this. If they approve an app in the first place they should only then remove it under extreme circumstances. This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.
>This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.
Is that really true? This has been going on since day one and yet the platform is thriving.
Is that really true? This has been going on since day one and yet the platform is thriving.
I wouldn't say the app market is thriving. It's been dominated by the same gimmicky IAP games for a long time, is full of hacky junk apps, and noticeably devoid of serious productivity apps. More and more prominent indies are throwing in the towel and taking jobs, which probably means less innovation.
And usage stats show user engagement for new apps at half of what it was a year ago.
Even a cheerleader like Marco Arment has expressed serious doubts about the health of the iOS app ecosystem lately.
And usage stats show user engagement for new apps at half of what it was a year ago.
Even a cheerleader like Marco Arment has expressed serious doubts about the health of the iOS app ecosystem lately.
These two things can be true at the same time:
> This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.
> The platform is thriving.
It is difficult to argue that this kind of activity on Apple's part creates uncertainty. Apple weighs this as a trade-off. What is consistent about Apple is that they err on the side of the user; or at least what they perceive to be of benefit to the user.
That is what many of these disagreements come down to.
> This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.
> The platform is thriving.
It is difficult to argue that this kind of activity on Apple's part creates uncertainty. Apple weighs this as a trade-off. What is consistent about Apple is that they err on the side of the user; or at least what they perceive to be of benefit to the user.
That is what many of these disagreements come down to.
>It's been dominated by the same gimmicky IAP games for a long time, is full of hacky junk apps, and noticeably devoid of serious productivity apps.
These things are a turn off for us, but that doesn't mean that the market is failing.
These things are a turn off for us, but that doesn't mean that the market is failing.
>bad for the platform
It's nothing Apple Damage Control can't handle.
It's nothing Apple Damage Control can't handle.
Apple isn't a single infallible guy. I am sure that reviewer got reprimanded, and told to escalate anything that ground breaking in the future.
Is each app really reviewed by only one person?
If the terms are so easy to understand that this dev should have known better in creating a "gray area" app, shouldn't the reviewer(s) be expected have an even better understanding?
This has happened so extremely often that it's become a meme. This is now considered standard behavior for Apple. When I think of iPhone development, my very first thought is of the uncertain and fickle nature of their app approval process.
If the terms are so easy to understand that this dev should have known better in creating a "gray area" app, shouldn't the reviewer(s) be expected have an even better understanding?
This has happened so extremely often that it's become a meme. This is now considered standard behavior for Apple. When I think of iPhone development, my very first thought is of the uncertain and fickle nature of their app approval process.
I don't know anything about the internal process, but I can't imaging that they have many people look at each app. Its actually impressive to me that they are paying an employee good money to test free apps.
You probably won't get an answer to that here from anyone who knows. The only Apple employee I knew at school was really weird about it. When I asked what she did I got "Apple employs sales, technical and engineering staff in the Boston area". Perhaps some of the folks in CA are a little more open/laid back.
You probably won't get an answer to that here from anyone who knows. The only Apple employee I knew at school was really weird about it. When I asked what she did I got "Apple employs sales, technical and engineering staff in the Boston area". Perhaps some of the folks in CA are a little more open/laid back.
> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
You make it sound like being in a grey area is a bad thing. Most things worth pursuing are probably a little grey in some sense, otherwise they're probably just a 'me-too'. That this app was downloaded so much indicates a strong desire for it. Retrospectively coming up with policies will always create ire.
You make it sound like being in a grey area is a bad thing. Most things worth pursuing are probably a little grey in some sense, otherwise they're probably just a 'me-too'. That this app was downloaded so much indicates a strong desire for it. Retrospectively coming up with policies will always create ire.
While I disprove strongly with Apple's policies, that article is hugely apologist. They act like it is a peppy lone developer underdog stepped on for no reason and it is an utter surprise!
Sorry but Apple's app store policies are pretty clear in this area. They have also squished tons of similar apps previously (which was well publicized).
Plus according to the article Apple contacted the developer essentially saying "Do X and Y or we'll pull you!" and the developer didn't do X and Y so consequently got pulled. They say the developer "compromised" but the way it is worded I have to assume it was a one-sided "compromise" (as in, he never got Apple's approval before submitting an update that clearly didn't fix the issues raised).
I honestly would have had more sympathy if the article wasn't so manipulative. Now it has just got my back up and I'm more on Apple's side than the developers.
PS - Apple's policies are dumb. I dislike them. I'm all for protecting user privacy and security, but many Apple policies are essentially "don't compete with us!" which is dumb when app installation is entirely voluntary.
Sorry but Apple's app store policies are pretty clear in this area. They have also squished tons of similar apps previously (which was well publicized).
Plus according to the article Apple contacted the developer essentially saying "Do X and Y or we'll pull you!" and the developer didn't do X and Y so consequently got pulled. They say the developer "compromised" but the way it is worded I have to assume it was a one-sided "compromise" (as in, he never got Apple's approval before submitting an update that clearly didn't fix the issues raised).
I honestly would have had more sympathy if the article wasn't so manipulative. Now it has just got my back up and I'm more on Apple's side than the developers.
PS - Apple's policies are dumb. I dislike them. I'm all for protecting user privacy and security, but many Apple policies are essentially "don't compete with us!" which is dumb when app installation is entirely voluntary.
It's right in the app store guidelines, you can't make an app launcher thing. The guideline describes exactly this.
10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
Which part of that is describing this exactly? Is this extension really a home screen alternative? Is this extension showing widgets that simulate multiple apps?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is the purpose of the home screen not launching applications? Is there not significant overlap between this function and that of Launcher? Shall we have a conversation composed entirely of rhetorical questions?
The purpose of the home screen is to have a screen to constantly return to, as a home for the device. This is a pull-down app launcher. You have to swipe down to access it, and it's accessible from any view/page, not just a single screen that you return to when exiting applications.
So no, it's not related to being a home screen at all. The fact that a home screen also launches apps does not make it a home screen.
So no, it's not related to being a home screen at all. The fact that a home screen also launches apps does not make it a home screen.
Is Apple being intentionally obtuse? If they want to ban app launchers, ban app launchers, not "home screen replacements."
I mean, how is Launch Center Pro allowed (for years now) if app launchers are so clearly banned? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/launch-center-pro/id53201636...
I mean, how is Launch Center Pro allowed (for years now) if app launchers are so clearly banned? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/launch-center-pro/id53201636...
> Apple takes down another indie dev
More factual title: "Launcher removed from App Store".
More factual title: "Launcher removed from App Store".
This is the world Richard Stallman predicted, and "we" [1] - developers with the most power and the most to lose - are leading the charge head-first. I am just old enough to remember the Bad Old Apple of the mid-90s, and this nonsense does not surprise at all. Apple has had a good run playing the Unix card; developers buy Macbooks in droves because "it's like a Linux that just works". But just wait a few more years until the Terminal is apptimized away. The waffling non-open-sourcing of Swift should have been the final clue.
[1] the only apple product I own is a 2nd generation iPod in a drawer somewhere. I still hold myself responsible.
[1] the only apple product I own is a 2nd generation iPod in a drawer somewhere. I still hold myself responsible.
As much as how cool the app may be, it does violate what apple's terms are, which include making effective replacements of their components.
This is why "browsers" like Chrome on the iPad still use the webkit components and it just adds password-management and bookmark syncing on top.
This is why "browsers" like Chrome on the iPad still use the webkit components and it just adds password-management and bookmark syncing on top.
Well, that's a different rule.
2.17 Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript
2.17 Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript
I think one day will come, OS manufacturers will be the only one actually releasing applications for their systems.
Computers will just turn into consoles.
To be honest, apple just makes computers that work like consoles.
Computers will just turn into consoles.
To be honest, apple just makes computers that work like consoles.
Russell Kirsch (inventor of the 1st programmable computer) agrees with you - http://impossiblehq.com/an-unexpected-ass-kicking
If it was against the policy then how was it approved in the start??
Remember when Camera+ used the volume button as a shutter and Apple struck it down like they were literally hitler? And then Apple later incorporated it into their own camera app?
And then revised the rules to allow anyone to do it. Apple rules regarding app design and development and what's allowed and what isn't are fluid. That was a pretty over the top decision though.
I wish the title was more accurate rather than going for Grade A Linkbait
If you call up developer support and ask if a particular thing you want to do complies with their rules, they won't give you an answer.
I tried to do this when I was implementing subscription payments within my app. There are two ways to do subscriptions on iOS, and I wanted to know which one I was supposed to use for my app. The support rep I spoke to said I should go ahead and implement one of them and submit it, and that was the only way to find out.
Turns out I chose the wrong method, and had to re-do a whole bunch of work, which could have been avoided if they'd just give me a straight answer. At least I finally got it accepted - I feel terribly sorry for this guy.
I tried to do this when I was implementing subscription payments within my app. There are two ways to do subscriptions on iOS, and I wanted to know which one I was supposed to use for my app. The support rep I spoke to said I should go ahead and implement one of them and submit it, and that was the only way to find out.
Turns out I chose the wrong method, and had to re-do a whole bunch of work, which could have been avoided if they'd just give me a straight answer. At least I finally got it accepted - I feel terribly sorry for this guy.
Most of my friends making a phone choice choose the iPhone because it has the 'best' apps and apps come to the iPhone first. Most of my friends making apps choose to develop for the iPhone because that's where the money is. I sincerely hope that the open ecosystem wins in the phone market to allow for truly innovative mobile experiences. I think we are well on our way to disrupt the cycle, but only time will tell.
Dave Winer (in 2007): “Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.”
As usual, it's all written in the bible http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html
As usual, it's all written in the bible http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html
[deleted]
I'm one of the people that bought Launcher when I first heard about it. I often switch between one of several bluetooth devices and adding a link that takes me straight to the bluetooth settings from the notification center was a huge speed boost for me.
Eventually an alternative app market free from apple or Google oversight and copyright infringement nonsense will come out. It's about time someone made a significant effort to establish it. Such a market will be profitable too.
[deleted](1)
"Apple enforces terms of agreement" isn't as bait-y is it?
Apple is slowly beginning to rot.
This seems like a pretty clear case of "not obeying the spirit of the rule":
"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action."
It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to sidestep the rule.
"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action."
It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to sidestep the rule.
Does it really matter what his compromise is? His app is a Today widget app launcher. Apple decided after initially approving it that you can't make Today widget app launchers. The end.
I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.
I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.
Yes, and the iron grip Apple has on their own platform's application market is not a secret, nor have they been secretive about having an iron grip.
I am totally on board with the mindset that Apple needs to loosen their grip: I think it's long-term-detrimental to their platform and it keeps a lot of really innovative ideas out. And if this blog post had said "I wanted to do something really innovative, but I can't because Apple holds an iron grip", I'd be 100% behind the author. But Apple has the right to run their marketplace as they see fit, and developers who sign on and expect that Apple will not act as they always have, and as their ToS says they will, are deluding themselves.
I am totally on board with the mindset that Apple needs to loosen their grip: I think it's long-term-detrimental to their platform and it keeps a lot of really innovative ideas out. And if this blog post had said "I wanted to do something really innovative, but I can't because Apple holds an iron grip", I'd be 100% behind the author. But Apple has the right to run their marketplace as they see fit, and developers who sign on and expect that Apple will not act as they always have, and as their ToS says they will, are deluding themselves.
So many people here fail to recognize that this app essentially reproduced some functionality and elements (quick launch contacts from multitasked, springboard replicated) in the OS that could be confusing for users.
This article is another one of those sensationalized "I know best, Apple is wrong!". I don't doubt that Apple makes mistakes, they are run by humans (for now...), but this definitely isn't one.
This article is another one of those sensationalized "I know best, Apple is wrong!". I don't doubt that Apple makes mistakes, they are run by humans (for now...), but this definitely isn't one.
This is the first iOS 8 widget I would have been interested in using - but the opportunity is gone.
What a terrible policy to have in place.
Does anyone know what happens to the money involved in an action like this? Does he keep the sales from before the app was pulled?
Think Different.
Relevant Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-employee-fired-for-th...
but if you think differently than what's different, is it still different ? or is it back to the same thing ? but the same thing compared to what ?
Section 10:
10. User interface
10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.