3 ms·
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 priv
by 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 agoIs 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.