5 ms·

For Apple, Yesterday's Banned Apps Are Tomorrow's Great New Feature

13 points by akent 15y ago

jtchang 15y ago
In a way I find Apple to have something akin to brutal ingeniousness. I hate them for basically using their developers like sheep but love them for creating such a great product and ecosystem.
aneth 15y ago
Both of the examples in this article are about products that contain obvious solutions for core functions of an iPhone. Just because a developer builds a feature before Apple gets around to it doesn't mean Apple is evil for implementing a similar feature. Does anyone think the creators of the iPhone never thought of using the volume button to take pictures or wifi sync? These are features every engineer who bought an iPhone for the last three years thought of on the first day. The whole premise of this whine-fest is bunk.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  But why did they ban them then? Just so they don't have competition when they do launch it? think Apple's thought process is a bit like a communist's. Why allow 3rd parties to build something when we can build it ourselves?
  - lurch_mojoff 15y ago
    Because Apple don't allow the use of private APIs and the modification of the function of physical buttons. Both for a good reason - if they allow those they lose control over user experience and set up things to break horribly down the road.
  - gte910h 15y ago
    They don't ban them just to ban them. There is a list of things you can do on the phone. It's the approved public API. Stuff that does things calling other functions are banned. Things that change how the device behaves in an unpredictable manner are rejected out of course. This makes it pretty foolproof to make apps not hurt other apps. This is a feature that makes iPhones tons easier for your mom to use (and to freely install apps on) than Android phones. Lots of these things that use non-public functions are detected with a scanner that looks for calls to non-public functions. For the camera functionality in particular, they were told to take it out, they did, but hid it in a secret portion of the app. Apple banned them for abuse there. For every neat app like Camera+, there are 35 utterly phone breaking apps out there that would do stuff like this. And it's not like those apps don't have a place to go. People who care (possibly you) often jailbreak and buy apps there.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    A corporation cannot be communist, because it has no rule of law over its users. Product platforms are not governments, they're not countries, and there is no expectation of public access. The "communist" argument is completely irrelevant. Think of iOS hardware and software as a giant amusement park. I'm going with Disney World, because it's familiar. Disney allows plenty of third-party corporations inside its parks. Various rides are "sponsored by" third-party corporations, and those corporations are heavily involved in the process of making these rides happen. However, Disney corporation has final say on what goes. End of story. Apple views the iOS ecosystem like an amusement park in which they are the curator. They open the doors and allow third-parties in, but they hold unilateral decision making power over the user's experience while at the park. Maybe you're not in to amusement parks. I certainly get that, but there are other options. No one is forcing anyone to sign up for the Appleland trip. It just so happens that consumers really like the curated experience, so if you want in on the action, you have to understand what you're getting in to on the way in the door.
karipatila 15y ago
Wasn't the volume key snapshot feature in Camera+ done as an undocumented easter egg? Apple's developer guidelines at the time clearly stated that you have to list all hidden features upon submitting the app for review. I believe you had to visit an URL in Mobile Safari to activate the feature. It was also well understood that you couldn't alter the functionality of the hardware controls. I'm inclined to think that a physical camera button is not something Apple couldn't come up on its own. Just like wi-fi sync, it was listed as a missing feature on quite a few review. That said, the matter naturally becomes quite different if they still disallow 3rd party developers access to the volume rocker. It's disappointing to see that Wired is repeating the wi-fi sync story.

13 points by akent 15y ago

In a way I find Apple to have something akin to brutal ingeniousness. I hate them for basically using their developers like sheep but love them for creating such a great product and ecosystem.

aneth 15y ago

Both of the examples in this article are about products that contain obvious solutions for core functions of an iPhone. Just because a developer builds a feature before Apple gets around to it doesn't mean Apple is evil for implementing a similar feature. Does anyone think the creators of the iPhone never thought of using the volume button to take pictures or wifi sync? These are features every engineer who bought an iPhone for the last three years thought of on the first day. The whole premise of this whine-fest is bunk.

nextparadigms 15y ago
But why did they ban them then? Just so they don't have competition when they do launch it? think Apple's thought process is a bit like a communist's. Why allow 3rd parties to build something when we can build it ourselves?
- lurch_mojoff 15y ago
  Because Apple don't allow the use of private APIs and the modification of the function of physical buttons. Both for a good reason - if they allow those they lose control over user experience and set up things to break horribly down the road.
- gte910h 15y ago
  They don't ban them just to ban them. There is a list of things you can do on the phone. It's the approved public API. Stuff that does things calling other functions are banned. Things that change how the device behaves in an unpredictable manner are rejected out of course. This makes it pretty foolproof to make apps not hurt other apps. This is a feature that makes iPhones tons easier for your mom to use (and to freely install apps on) than Android phones. Lots of these things that use non-public functions are detected with a scanner that looks for calls to non-public functions. For the camera functionality in particular, they were told to take it out, they did, but hid it in a secret portion of the app. Apple banned them for abuse there. For every neat app like Camera+, there are 35 utterly phone breaking apps out there that would do stuff like this. And it's not like those apps don't have a place to go. People who care (possibly you) often jailbreak and buy apps there.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  A corporation cannot be communist, because it has no rule of law over its users. Product platforms are not governments, they're not countries, and there is no expectation of public access. The "communist" argument is completely irrelevant. Think of iOS hardware and software as a giant amusement park. I'm going with Disney World, because it's familiar. Disney allows plenty of third-party corporations inside its parks. Various rides are "sponsored by" third-party corporations, and those corporations are heavily involved in the process of making these rides happen. However, Disney corporation has final say on what goes. End of story. Apple views the iOS ecosystem like an amusement park in which they are the curator. They open the doors and allow third-parties in, but they hold unilateral decision making power over the user's experience while at the park. Maybe you're not in to amusement parks. I certainly get that, but there are other options. No one is forcing anyone to sign up for the Appleland trip. It just so happens that consumers really like the curated experience, so if you want in on the action, you have to understand what you're getting in to on the way in the door.

karipatila 15y ago

Wasn't the volume key snapshot feature in Camera+ done as an undocumented easter egg? Apple's developer guidelines at the time clearly stated that you have to list all hidden features upon submitting the app for review. I believe you had to visit an URL in Mobile Safari to activate the feature. It was also well understood that you couldn't alter the functionality of the hardware controls. I'm inclined to think that a physical camera button is not something Apple couldn't come up on its own. Just like wi-fi sync, it was listed as a missing feature on quite a few review. That said, the matter naturally becomes quite different if they still disallow 3rd party developers access to the volume rocker. It's disappointing to see that Wired is repeating the wi-fi sync story.