6 ms·

It's plainly stated in the terms (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/) Section 10

by millerm 12y ago

It's plainly stated in the terms (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/) 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.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
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.
- bradleyland 12y ago
  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/ 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.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    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.
- radley 12y ago
  It's essentially an Android-like home screen allowing icons & widgets.
  - squeaky-clean 12y ago
    It's not a home screen, but a widget placed in the pull-down notifications bar.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
karl_gluck 12y ago
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.
- petepete 12y ago
  There are plenty of other choices, though.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    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.
    - chaostheory 12y ago
      He sounds like an effective developer with good creativity. I'm willing to bet he'll find something new in the future.
- kijeda 12y ago
  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.
  - pgodzin 12y ago
    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.
smackfu 12y ago
Except it wasn't rejected. It was accepted, sold, and then Apple changed their mind. Did we agree to that fickleness?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  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.
- jarin 12y ago
  I'm willing to bet their approval process is mostly automated these days.
moultano 12y ago
>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.
draker 12y ago
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 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
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  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.
photofriendly 12y ago
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.

by millerm 12y ago

forrestthewoods 12y ago

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.

bradleyland 12y ago
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/ 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.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  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.
radley 12y ago
It's essentially an Android-like home screen allowing icons & widgets.
- squeaky-clean 12y ago
  It's not a home screen, but a widget placed in the pull-down notifications bar.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

karl_gluck 12y ago

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.

petepete 12y ago
There are plenty of other choices, though.
- Zikes 12y ago
  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.
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    He sounds like an effective developer with good creativity. I'm willing to bet he'll find something new in the future.
kijeda 12y ago
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.
- pgodzin 12y ago
  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.

smackfu 12y ago

Except it wasn't rejected. It was accepted, sold, and then Apple changed their mind. Did we agree to that fickleness?

chaostheory 12y ago
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.
jarin 12y ago
I'm willing to bet their approval process is mostly automated these days.

moultano 12y ago

>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.

draker 12y ago

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 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

FireBeyond 12y ago
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.

photofriendly 12y ago

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.