7 ms·

Apple yanks Wi-Fi detectors from App Store

48 points by alexandros 17y ago

morisy 17y ago
There's so many possible explanations for why these apps were yanked (battery conservation, legal concerns over war driving, compatibility issues) that the lack of clearly naming at least one is a little frightening. With Apple yanking political apps, scantily clad apps, and now Wi-Fi apps, I really don't get the rush by media companies to secure a place on it.
- Groxx 17y ago
  Well, they were told it's because they were using private frameworks. Which means not-locked-down APIs. That's just inviting them to be yanked at some point, as they're just waiting to break. Frankly, it's surprising they got through at all, Apple was being rather loose with their rules in this area. Plus, they're duplicating functionality, which they've been rather explicit in the past about not allowing.
  - morisy 17y ago
    Not approving apps that are going to break because they use private frameworks makes sense, but pulling a wide variety in one genre after they've been published and found a foothold just sucks. And while Apple has been "explicit" about not allowing "duplicate" functionality, that standard is incredibly vague in practice and incredibly arbitrary in enforcement. In this case, one of what I presume is the banned apps (the article doesn't mention any, grr!) supported some non-duplicative features for war driving assistance, as well as a "radar" view. So yes, some features are duplicated, just like Pandora duplicates some features (playing, pausing music) that iTunes does. WiFiFoFum's product review/description page on MacWorld, with 1,549 reviews: http://bit.ly/bF4gMP http://bit.ly/bF4gMP
    - Groxx 17y ago
      Sucks, yes, I'm not defending the suckiness of the app store. Few can deny that. But its purpose is not to lower suckiness for developers, it's to lower suckiness for consumers. They're merely being consistent in that goal.
bruceboughton 17y ago
"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi Where has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks to access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are breaking. --- Well if they are using private APIs as the quote suggests, there's the rule they're breaking right there. If so, this isn't news, move on.
edd 17y ago
But now even those have vanished as Apple decided they were using a "private framework", and has pulled them off the shelves without explanation or apology. Apple does not like you messing around with the private frameworks. If this is the reason, these developers should have seen this coming.
- cakeface 17y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what a private framework means. Is this like a shared library that they are all using? What is the problem with doing that from Apple's point of view?
  - modoc 17y ago
    It's a non-documented/non-public API. Typically these APIs are either likely to change without warning, haven't been fully tested for 3rd party app use, or can cause issues (battery life, interference with other core iPhone features, etc...). Whether it's the iPhone SDK, or your favorite web app dev framework, using non-public APIs is generally a bad idea.
    - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
      Why not let the market decide? This autocratic policy of actually killing apps is bound to generate speculation, mostly unfavorable. What possible benefit outweighs that?
      - Groxx 17y ago
        QOS (Quality Of Service). Apple thrives on providing a high-quality service. It's nearly their entire business. Using private frameworks / unpublished / not-locked-down APIs is a ticking time-bomb from a stability standpoint. What if it changes?
      - KirinDave 17y ago
        > Why not let the market decide? Apple never lets the market decide. It hasn't since Steve Jobs came back from NeXT. "The market" is incredibly bad at spurring the kind of innovation Apple wants on its own. Because "the market" is largely composed of people who have no fucking clue what they actually want from technology. They couldn't tell you what they really want unless you trained them. Even then, they might not be able to. "The market deciding" is what we've had pre-iPhone with the incredibly conservative and stunted market behind smartphones. Everyone—and I mean everyone in the mobile space—had the technology to create the iPhone. No one did. Why? Because the HTC Crapfest and the Blackberry Eyebleacher sold plenty well. Because instead of taking bold risks and trying for real innovation, companies like Palm and RIM crawled forward with a constant eye towards this quarter's revenue. It's a malaise that has infected so much of the world's business. Apple's approach is frustrating and inconsistent, which is repugnant to the News.Y crowd (myself included). But it's allowed them to continue to shape the AppStore into something they want and something that moves product. It's the foundation for future products as well. So don't ask, "Why not let the market decide," because we all already know the answer. What Apple is doing may be a slipperly slope, it may be doomed to fail long–term and it may be infuriating and alienating to its developer base. But undeniably it's a business strategy that is at the heart of the ascendancy of their products onto a worldwide market.
Hagelin 17y ago
"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi Where has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks to access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are breaking. So Apple told them the removal is due to the use of private frameworks, but they don't know what rule they're breaking?
mtarnovan 17y ago
I'm finding the way Apple handles the App Store less and less acceptable.
- maukdaddy 17y ago
  What is different now? They have never allowed apps that use private frameworks. Some slipped through the cracks and are now being removed. How is this becoming less acceptable? Or are you just buying into the media's knee-jerk reaction each time an app gets removed?
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    That's an awful lot of apps to slip through the holes. The disturbing part is not so much that apps that violate their terms get removed, it's that seemingly nobody is safe. Take the recent removal of adult-themed apps for instance - they in no way violated Apple's developer terms, but were banned anyways. Apple is well within their rights to do it - you're on their platform, but IMHO this sort of thing will encourage developer flight if it continues. If history is any indication, the best cause of dissent and rebellion is inconsistent governance - people may tough it out if there's a 100%-effective way to keep the gestapo from raiding your home at night, but if you introduce enough uncertainty they will run and/or fight. By encouraging this sort of seemingly arbitrary banning, Apple is risking the long-term health of the App Store.
  - beamso 17y ago
    No, applications using private frameworks are allowed on a case-by-case basis, e.g. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/steve-jobs-intervenes-approves-knocking-streaming-video-app.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/steve-jobs-interve... and http://www.macworld.com/article/144963/2009/12/ustream_iphone.html http://www.macworld.com/article/144963/2009/12/ustream_iphon...
  - mtarnovan 17y ago
    I'm really not "buying" anything. I just don't think they banned those apps on technical grounds. What the hell does that even mean - "private frameworks" ? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that got Microsoft into trouble ? They are just abusing a market position if you ask me. And hiding behind all sort of most absurd excuses (when they bother to give some at all).
asmithmd1 17y ago
I think this is the real reason - just a couple of days ago Microsoft announced they would license a database of geolocated WiFi transmitters from Navizon: http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geolocation.asp http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geoloca... Navizon was able to develop a huge database of geolocated WiFi transmitters by having people run their application on iPhones. They got people to run their app by offering actual cash for number of WiFi transmitters you located
- yumraj 17y ago
  Even if that is the "reason", it still doesn't explain why, or provide a "reason". What has that got to do with Apple yanking such apps. Is Apple now just pissed that its hardware was used to create a valid business for another company? So what if Navizon created that database, and so what if MS purchased that database. What has that got to do with Apple??
  - asmithmd1 17y ago
    One of the very cool things about the iPhone is that it can locate you almost instantly because it uses SkyHook's database of geolocated WiFi locattions (exclusively maybe? anyone else know of a mobile device that uses SkyHook for location?) I see it as Apple trying to defend that instant location feature from Microsoft adding it to it's new mobile OS. Apple isn't suing them, but no sense in helping them make their device work better with an app running on an Apple device.
    - jonknee 17y ago
      GPS and tower triangulation make location by WiFi not as useful on a phone. Phones by law have to be able to know where they are (for e911) and a WiFi database doesn't meet the level of accuracy.
      - asmithmd1 17y ago
        So why do you think Apple use WiFi positioning on the iPhone? GPS can take minutes (or never come back with a location if you are inside) and tower triangulation has never lived up to the accuracy claims that they made.
dthakur 17y ago
I have authored WiFi Hopper for Windows (http://wifihopper.com http://wifihopper.com). iPhone development was in the pipeline -- not any more.
- kylec 17y ago
  You should develop it for Android instead.
- upinsmoke 17y ago
  if you were planning to use the same private method, then you probably shouldn't have put it in the pipeline in the first place.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
If they were using private API's (as many here are claiming), then why didn't the infamous and lengthy app store review process find that before these apps made it to the market? If they can't even find out that an app is using private API's, what are they spending 7-8 weeks reviewing?
- noarchy 17y ago
  This is an issue that needs more attention. The app review process gets plenty of attention as it is, and in this case, deserves more than it is getting.
  - rimantas 17y ago
    It is not review process that gets attention but horror stories associated with it. Nobody cares and nobody talks about the apps which were approved quickly, but review gone badly get too much (imho) attention. Especially from those who most likely will never have to deal with it themselves.
- Zev 17y ago
  You're assuming that the reviewers are programmers; don't. The review process was changed a month or two back; from something along the lines of "Will the app crash? Does it look like its doing anything evil?" to something closer to `automatically scans for private api usage` + "does the app crash doing basic tasks within the app". The review process now takes a lot less than 2 weeks (or 2 months, at worst). I've heard stories of approvals for updates within an hour recently.
  - metachor 17y ago
    "I've heard stories of approvals for updates within an hour recently." For whatever this anecdote is worth: Within the past week I encountered this in the wild. I saw that an update for an app was available and immediately installed it. Later the same day, I saw another update was available for the same app.
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
larsberg 17y ago
I wrote the first WiFi stumbler that hit the app store (WiFinder / WiFi Checker). It was probably the first app to use private APIs, as dubious a distinction as that is. The reviewers rapidly figured out I was using them, told me about their displeasure, and let me know they'd not be approving any updates. They just only now (more than a year later!) got around to removing the other applications using the same APIs. Until now, they were just denying updates but leaving the applications in the store. And occasionally, a new application using the same APIs would squeak through a foreign app review site (I'm looking at you, Japan!). Overall, though, at least this is a set of rules they're trying to be clear on and are finally consistently enforcing. If only they had the ability to, oh, I don't know, check if the submissions were linking against dlopen() instead of expecting the reviewers to guess if private APIs are in use! If only we had the technology... owait...
- jluxenberg 17y ago
  I'm not familiar with development for the iPhone, but the whole public /private API is interesting. Back when Microsoft was getting investigated by the antitrust depth some put forward the argument that MS had internal docs and secret APIs which were not public, and this was considered anticompetitive.
  - gte910h 17y ago
    Only because they had the windows monopoly though, and were using it to build a monopoly in office apps.
    - jcl 17y ago
      I guess that's a valid defense at the moment I'm curious: Does Apple sell any apps of its own in the App Store? And, if so, do they reject other apps for being similar? (Being able to deny OpenOffice access to the Windows platform because it duplicates functionality in Notepad is the kind of power Microsoft can only dream of...)
      - 17y ago
protomyth 17y ago
The sad part was that WiFiFoFum was a great app to diagnose problems with my work network. I really hope this one gets resolved somehow.
dkarl 17y ago
More details here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030402184.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... All apps using a technology called PlaceEngine to estimate location via wifi signals have been banned. Supposedly there's a statement on PlaceEngine's Japanese site (http://www.koozyt.com/?lang=ja http://www.koozyt.com/?lang=ja) saying that Apple changed their policy regarding the way apps access Wi-Fi devices. I don't read Japanese, so I can't verify what it says. Does anything care to translate?

48 points by alexandros 17y ago

There's so many possible explanations for why these apps were yanked (battery conservation, legal concerns over war driving, compatibility issues) that the lack of clearly naming at least one is a little frightening. With Apple yanking political apps, scantily clad apps, and now Wi-Fi apps, I really don't get the rush by media companies to secure a place on it.

Groxx 17y ago
Well, they were told it's because they were using private frameworks. Which means not-locked-down APIs. That's just inviting them to be yanked at some point, as they're just waiting to break. Frankly, it's surprising they got through at all, Apple was being rather loose with their rules in this area. Plus, they're duplicating functionality, which they've been rather explicit in the past about not allowing.
- morisy 17y ago
  Not approving apps that are going to break because they use private frameworks makes sense, but pulling a wide variety in one genre after they've been published and found a foothold just sucks. And while Apple has been "explicit" about not allowing "duplicate" functionality, that standard is incredibly vague in practice and incredibly arbitrary in enforcement. In this case, one of what I presume is the banned apps (the article doesn't mention any, grr!) supported some non-duplicative features for war driving assistance, as well as a "radar" view. So yes, some features are duplicated, just like Pandora duplicates some features (playing, pausing music) that iTunes does. WiFiFoFum's product review/description page on MacWorld, with 1,549 reviews: http://bit.ly/bF4gMP http://bit.ly/bF4gMP
  - Groxx 17y ago
    Sucks, yes, I'm not defending the suckiness of the app store. Few can deny that. But its purpose is not to lower suckiness for developers, it's to lower suckiness for consumers. They're merely being consistent in that goal.

bruceboughton 17y ago

"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi Where has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks to access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are breaking. --- Well if they are using private APIs as the quote suggests, there's the rule they're breaking right there. If so, this isn't news, move on.

edd 17y ago

But now even those have vanished as Apple decided they were using a "private framework", and has pulled them off the shelves without explanation or apology. Apple does not like you messing around with the private frameworks. If this is the reason, these developers should have seen this coming.

cakeface 17y ago
I'm not exactly sure what a private framework means. Is this like a shared library that they are all using? What is the problem with doing that from Apple's point of view?
- modoc 17y ago
  It's a non-documented/non-public API. Typically these APIs are either likely to change without warning, haven't been fully tested for 3rd party app use, or can cause issues (battery life, interference with other core iPhone features, etc...). Whether it's the iPhone SDK, or your favorite web app dev framework, using non-public APIs is generally a bad idea.
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    Why not let the market decide? This autocratic policy of actually killing apps is bound to generate speculation, mostly unfavorable. What possible benefit outweighs that?
    - Groxx 17y ago
      QOS (Quality Of Service). Apple thrives on providing a high-quality service. It's nearly their entire business. Using private frameworks / unpublished / not-locked-down APIs is a ticking time-bomb from a stability standpoint. What if it changes?
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      > Why not let the market decide? Apple never lets the market decide. It hasn't since Steve Jobs came back from NeXT. "The market" is incredibly bad at spurring the kind of innovation Apple wants on its own. Because "the market" is largely composed of people who have no fucking clue what they actually want from technology. They couldn't tell you what they really want unless you trained them. Even then, they might not be able to. "The market deciding" is what we've had pre-iPhone with the incredibly conservative and stunted market behind smartphones. Everyone—and I mean everyone in the mobile space—had the technology to create the iPhone. No one did. Why? Because the HTC Crapfest and the Blackberry Eyebleacher sold plenty well. Because instead of taking bold risks and trying for real innovation, companies like Palm and RIM crawled forward with a constant eye towards this quarter's revenue. It's a malaise that has infected so much of the world's business. Apple's approach is frustrating and inconsistent, which is repugnant to the News.Y crowd (myself included). But it's allowed them to continue to shape the AppStore into something they want and something that moves product. It's the foundation for future products as well. So don't ask, "Why not let the market decide," because we all already know the answer. What Apple is doing may be a slipperly slope, it may be doomed to fail long–term and it may be infuriating and alienating to its developer base. But undeniably it's a business strategy that is at the heart of the ascendancy of their products onto a worldwide market.

Hagelin 17y ago

"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi Where has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks to access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are breaking. So Apple told them the removal is due to the use of private frameworks, but they don't know what rule they're breaking?

mtarnovan 17y ago

I'm finding the way Apple handles the App Store less and less acceptable.

maukdaddy 17y ago
What is different now? They have never allowed apps that use private frameworks. Some slipped through the cracks and are now being removed. How is this becoming less acceptable? Or are you just buying into the media's knee-jerk reaction each time an app gets removed?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  That's an awful lot of apps to slip through the holes. The disturbing part is not so much that apps that violate their terms get removed, it's that seemingly nobody is safe. Take the recent removal of adult-themed apps for instance - they in no way violated Apple's developer terms, but were banned anyways. Apple is well within their rights to do it - you're on their platform, but IMHO this sort of thing will encourage developer flight if it continues. If history is any indication, the best cause of dissent and rebellion is inconsistent governance - people may tough it out if there's a 100%-effective way to keep the gestapo from raiding your home at night, but if you introduce enough uncertainty they will run and/or fight. By encouraging this sort of seemingly arbitrary banning, Apple is risking the long-term health of the App Store.
- beamso 17y ago
  No, applications using private frameworks are allowed on a case-by-case basis, e.g. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/steve-jobs-intervenes-approves-knocking-streaming-video-app.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/steve-jobs-interve... and http://www.macworld.com/article/144963/2009/12/ustream_iphone.html http://www.macworld.com/article/144963/2009/12/ustream_iphon...
- mtarnovan 17y ago
  I'm really not "buying" anything. I just don't think they banned those apps on technical grounds. What the hell does that even mean - "private frameworks" ? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that got Microsoft into trouble ? They are just abusing a market position if you ask me. And hiding behind all sort of most absurd excuses (when they bother to give some at all).

asmithmd1 17y ago

I think this is the real reason - just a couple of days ago Microsoft announced they would license a database of geolocated WiFi transmitters from Navizon: http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geolocation.asp http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geoloca... Navizon was able to develop a huge database of geolocated WiFi transmitters by having people run their application on iPhones. They got people to run their app by offering actual cash for number of WiFi transmitters you located

yumraj 17y ago
Even if that is the "reason", it still doesn't explain why, or provide a "reason". What has that got to do with Apple yanking such apps. Is Apple now just pissed that its hardware was used to create a valid business for another company? So what if Navizon created that database, and so what if MS purchased that database. What has that got to do with Apple??
- asmithmd1 17y ago
  One of the very cool things about the iPhone is that it can locate you almost instantly because it uses SkyHook's database of geolocated WiFi locattions (exclusively maybe? anyone else know of a mobile device that uses SkyHook for location?) I see it as Apple trying to defend that instant location feature from Microsoft adding it to it's new mobile OS. Apple isn't suing them, but no sense in helping them make their device work better with an app running on an Apple device.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    GPS and tower triangulation make location by WiFi not as useful on a phone. Phones by law have to be able to know where they are (for e911) and a WiFi database doesn't meet the level of accuracy.
    - asmithmd1 17y ago
      So why do you think Apple use WiFi positioning on the iPhone? GPS can take minutes (or never come back with a location if you are inside) and tower triangulation has never lived up to the accuracy claims that they made.

dthakur 17y ago

I have authored WiFi Hopper for Windows (http://wifihopper.com http://wifihopper.com). iPhone development was in the pipeline -- not any more.

kylec 17y ago
You should develop it for Android instead.
upinsmoke 17y ago
if you were planning to use the same private method, then you probably shouldn't have put it in the pipeline in the first place.

theBobMcCormick 17y ago

If they were using private API's (as many here are claiming), then why didn't the infamous and lengthy app store review process find that before these apps made it to the market? If they can't even find out that an app is using private API's, what are they spending 7-8 weeks reviewing?

noarchy 17y ago
This is an issue that needs more attention. The app review process gets plenty of attention as it is, and in this case, deserves more than it is getting.
- rimantas 17y ago
  It is not review process that gets attention but horror stories associated with it. Nobody cares and nobody talks about the apps which were approved quickly, but review gone badly get too much (imho) attention. Especially from those who most likely will never have to deal with it themselves.
Zev 17y ago
You're assuming that the reviewers are programmers; don't. The review process was changed a month or two back; from something along the lines of "Will the app crash? Does it look like its doing anything evil?" to something closer to `automatically scans for private api usage` + "does the app crash doing basic tasks within the app". The review process now takes a lot less than 2 weeks (or 2 months, at worst). I've heard stories of approvals for updates within an hour recently.
- metachor 17y ago
  "I've heard stories of approvals for updates within an hour recently." For whatever this anecdote is worth: Within the past week I encountered this in the wild. I saw that an update for an app was available and immediately installed it. Later the same day, I saw another update was available for the same app.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago

larsberg 17y ago

I wrote the first WiFi stumbler that hit the app store (WiFinder / WiFi Checker). It was probably the first app to use private APIs, as dubious a distinction as that is. The reviewers rapidly figured out I was using them, told me about their displeasure, and let me know they'd not be approving any updates. They just only now (more than a year later!) got around to removing the other applications using the same APIs. Until now, they were just denying updates but leaving the applications in the store. And occasionally, a new application using the same APIs would squeak through a foreign app review site (I'm looking at you, Japan!). Overall, though, at least this is a set of rules they're trying to be clear on and are finally consistently enforcing. If only they had the ability to, oh, I don't know, check if the submissions were linking against dlopen() instead of expecting the reviewers to guess if private APIs are in use! If only we had the technology... owait...

jluxenberg 17y ago
I'm not familiar with development for the iPhone, but the whole public /private API is interesting. Back when Microsoft was getting investigated by the antitrust depth some put forward the argument that MS had internal docs and secret APIs which were not public, and this was considered anticompetitive.
- gte910h 17y ago
  Only because they had the windows monopoly though, and were using it to build a monopoly in office apps.
  - jcl 17y ago
    I guess that's a valid defense at the moment I'm curious: Does Apple sell any apps of its own in the App Store? And, if so, do they reject other apps for being similar? (Being able to deny OpenOffice access to the Windows platform because it duplicates functionality in Notepad is the kind of power Microsoft can only dream of...)
    - 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

The sad part was that WiFiFoFum was a great app to diagnose problems with my work network. I really hope this one gets resolved somehow.

dkarl 17y ago

More details here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030402184.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03... All apps using a technology called PlaceEngine to estimate location via wifi signals have been banned. Supposedly there's a statement on PlaceEngine's Japanese site (http://www.koozyt.com/?lang=ja http://www.koozyt.com/?lang=ja) saying that Apple changed their policy regarding the way apps access Wi-Fi devices. I don't read Japanese, so I can't verify what it says. Does anything care to translate?