Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#31

Post by dieterrams »

alex_c wrote: post #24
Timmy_C wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think these types of stories are scaring off anybody since we've been reading about App Store rejections for the last two years and it seems that companies and developers continue to want to make apps for iPad/iPod/iPhone. It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines. Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively. They made an app that was too much like a des…

Trying hard not to downvote just because I disagree so strongly, I don't even know if it's possible to find some common ground for discussion. It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines. I'm getting really sick of that defense for Apple. How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame…

> How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"?

When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop.

I feel sorry for the guys, because it was certainly unintended. The path they took to adding value to their picture frame app unfortunately shifted the gestalt from picture frame to desktop, and when you're moving in that direction, you might fail to notice the shift. But it is entirely reasonable for Apple to disallow apps that can confuse the UI hierarchy for the user. Obviously, none of us on this site are going to be confused by it, but they have to take a much broader demographic of users into account.

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#32

Post by acangiano »

steveklabnik wrote: post #19
stcredzero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mindshare is The foundation. Apple squanders it. Google gets this part right.

There are lots of complaints about how Android version incompatibilities makes it a pain for developers. The iPhone is a joy to program for, but the app store policy sucks. Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great. I'd say they're about neck and neck.

> Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great.

The Android Market policy is only great if you are from one of the few countries that can publish app on it. It amazes me that this aspect is always left out while discussing the topic.

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#33

Post by steveklabnik »

acangiano wrote: post #32
steveklabnik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of complaints about how Android version incompatibilities makes it a pain for developers. The iPhone is a joy to program for, but the app store policy sucks. Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great. I'd say they're about neck and neck.

> Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great. The Android Market policy is only great if you are from one of the few countries that can publish app on it. It amazes me that this aspect is always left out while discussing the topic.

Us Americans can be notoriously American-centric. But you're right. I'll have to remember that for future discussions, thanks.

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#34

Post by alex_c »

dieterrams wrote: post #31
alex_c wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying hard not to downvote just because I disagree so strongly, I don't even know if it's possible to find some common ground for discussion. It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines. I'm getting really sick of that defense for Apple. How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame…

> How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"? When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop. I feel sorry for the guys, because it was certainly unintended. The path they took to adding value to their picture frame app unfortunately shifted the gestalt from picture frame to desktop, and when you…

>When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop.

Can you actually point me to anything in the existing developer agreements or interface guidelines that disallows this? I just looked, and I haven't been able to find anything - but it's not exactly hard to miss something.

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#35

Post by hboon »

chmike wrote: post #29
blhack wrote: post #13

Does apple not see how this will end up badly for them? Apple, you're scaring off talented developers; soon the only people who will be left are people who can afford to have gobs and gobs of apps rejected.

The most amazing is that developpers have to pay to develop for Apple. I won't.

That's just a cost of business. Minute in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you are arguing about freedom to put apps on your own device. That's a different discussion

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#36

Post by Raphael »

gte910h wrote: post #27
blhack wrote: post #13

Does apple not see how this will end up badly for them? Apple, you're scaring off talented developers; soon the only people who will be left are people who can afford to have gobs and gobs of apps rejected.

Honestly, I'd love too see android be a viable competitor, but until it is, Apple is going to continue reigning. Android is still ultrafragmented, and none of the tablets are out yet (nor will necessarily be that good when they come). Half the iPad development I'm seeing looked for is for B2B apps, not consumer apps.

And how will business apps be viable if you aren't allowed to install your own software?

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#38

Post by wwortiz »

acangiano wrote: post #32
steveklabnik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of complaints about how Android version incompatibilities makes it a pain for developers. The iPhone is a joy to program for, but the app store policy sucks. Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great. I'd say they're about neck and neck.

> Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great. The Android Market policy is only great if you are from one of the few countries that can publish app on it. It amazes me that this aspect is always left out while discussing the topic.

Well at least you have the option to publish an app outside of the market, like on it's own website.

Though I know it really doesn't solve the problem the fact that you aren't completely locked out of legitimate phones is nice.

Re: Apple: Make a desktop, your iPad app is toast

#39

Post by dieterrams »

alex_c wrote: post #34
dieterrams wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"? When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop. I feel sorry for the guys, because it was certainly unintended. The path they took to adding value to their picture frame app unfortunately shifted the gestalt from picture frame to desktop, and when you…

>When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop. Can you actually point me to anything in the existing developer agreements or interface guidelines that disallows this? I just looked, and I haven't been able to find anything - but it's not exactly hard to miss something.

From the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines - Creating a Great User Interface:

"As you design your application, be aware of the metaphors that exist in iPhone OS and don't redefine them."

I wasn't aware of this specific guideline/rule until just now, having looked for it in response to your question. But I do think it's an easily intuited rule, given a basic understanding of usability. Still, I don't think these guys knowingly violated the rule. It's a weird case.

Even while I think it's reasonable for Apple to reject the app on these grounds, they could certainly do a better job clarifying how rules are applied and reduce developer risk. The most effective way would just be to maintain a listing of all rejections and the rationale behind them.

Post reply on HN