3 ms·

"Lucky"?? This is why I'm glad I'm not an iOS app developer. So the app with the "volume button as camera" feature was rejected, then within a year Apple turne

by akent 15y ago

"Lucky"?? This is why I'm glad I'm not an iOS app developer. So the app with the "volume button as camera" feature was rejected, then within a year Apple turned around and implemented the same feature themselves. Even if they didn't directly steal the idea, it seems like a pretty slimy tactic to me. EDIT: Re-read the original rejection of the Camera+ feature here: http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/ http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/

alanfalcon 15y ago
>>EDIT: Re-read the original rejection of the Camera+ featur It's kind of insane that they wrote that blog post explaining what other developers are doing (and the penalties they face for doing it) and then turned around and included "Volumesnap" through a back-door anyway. So yes, they're quite lucky they were able to resubmit the app later. There's no doubt they knew exactly what they were doing.
somebear 15y ago
You might say it's slimy, but turning it on its head (and without looking at the new APIs, etc.): Apple realised with Camera+ that there was a need for a physical button for taking a picture, the inclusion in iOS5 of this feature means that all camera apps (presumably) get the ability to use the physical button, rather than the camera apps hacking it in. Again, I don't know if Apple is opening this up, so I won't describe it as slimy or not. Someone like Red Pop [1], however, might be worse off though... Edit: Re-reading the rejection notice from your link [2], it seems clear that Apple won't be able to reject people based on that clause again. At least, using the volume button for camera now seems to be pretty standard (IANAL so YMMV). [1] http://www.red-pop.com/ http://www.red-pop.com/ [2] »Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7«
- akent 15y ago
  Will be interesting to see if the Human Interface Guidelines are amended appropriately, then. Further discussion here too: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2625950 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2625950
demallien 15y ago
Slimy? What exactly would you have had them do? If they let the app through using a non-public API, they have to explain why some apps are allowed to use private APIs and some not, opening a can of worms which it is easy to understand they would prefer to keep closed. They couldn't change the public APIs until the next release of the software, which is exactly what they did, and I imagine that Camera+ will be able to benefit from that API much as any other app. Doesn't look too slimy to me.
- akent 15y ago
  Is it about the use of a private API or just the violation of the Human Interface guidelines? Everything I've read has said it's just about the guidelines, not because an API needed changing. For me it's all about the timing. They should have relaxed the guidelines and/or policy about reusing the volume buttons for other purposes (not just for use as a camera shutter, presumably) at some point before they released an implementation of the exact same idea as a third party.

by akent 15y ago

alanfalcon 15y ago

>>EDIT: Re-read the original rejection of the Camera+ featur It's kind of insane that they wrote that blog post explaining what other developers are doing (and the penalties they face for doing it) and then turned around and included "Volumesnap" through a back-door anyway. So yes, they're quite lucky they were able to resubmit the app later. There's no doubt they knew exactly what they were doing.

somebear 15y ago

You might say it's slimy, but turning it on its head (and without looking at the new APIs, etc.): Apple realised with Camera+ that there was a need for a physical button for taking a picture, the inclusion in iOS5 of this feature means that all camera apps (presumably) get the ability to use the physical button, rather than the camera apps hacking it in. Again, I don't know if Apple is opening this up, so I won't describe it as slimy or not. Someone like Red Pop [1], however, might be worse off though... Edit: Re-reading the rejection notice from your link [2], it seems clear that Apple won't be able to reject people based on that clause again. At least, using the volume button for camera now seems to be pretty standard (IANAL so YMMV). [1] http://www.red-pop.com/ http://www.red-pop.com/ [2] »Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7«

akent 15y ago
Will be interesting to see if the Human Interface Guidelines are amended appropriately, then. Further discussion here too: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2625950 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2625950

demallien 15y ago

Slimy? What exactly would you have had them do? If they let the app through using a non-public API, they have to explain why some apps are allowed to use private APIs and some not, opening a can of worms which it is easy to understand they would prefer to keep closed. They couldn't change the public APIs until the next release of the software, which is exactly what they did, and I imagine that Camera+ will be able to benefit from that API much as any other app. Doesn't look too slimy to me.

akent 15y ago
Is it about the use of a private API or just the violation of the Human Interface guidelines? Everything I've read has said it's just about the guidelines, not because an API needed changing. For me it's all about the timing. They should have relaxed the guidelines and/or policy about reusing the volume buttons for other purposes (not just for use as a camera shutter, presumably) at some point before they released an implementation of the exact same idea as a third party.