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

Apple copies rejected app

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#21

Post by tvon »

pseudonym wrote: post #4

I wish I was surprised, but this seems to happen with a lot of OS-extending apps on the iOS device. I've never heard of a game being banned from the app store, but as soon as it's something that Apple doesn't already have baked into the operating system... It's been said before and it'll be said again: Playing in Apple's walled garden isn't a safe way to make a living.

As a developer it is probably not a good idea to use private APIs to implement a feature that has obviously been on the roadmap since day 1.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#22

Post by jarin »

tmgrhm wrote: post #17
jarin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that 99% of the outrage stems from the similarity of the icons.

I dunno, the headline is "Apple copies rejected app" not "Apple copies rejected app icon". Seems to me that people either don't know how the App Store and its requirements work, or they're just want to be outraged at Apple. Edit: It seems to me that even people commenting here in HN don't realise that the App Store guidelines don't allow for an app to take this kind of access. The icons are similar (despite how shitt…

Oh yeah, I should probably be clear that I personally don't think the icon is a big deal, for the reasons you stated.

I actually don't think anything about it is a big deal. Someone made an app that should have been an OS feature, Apple rejected it for using undocumented APIs, Apple builds the thing that should have been an OS feature, and Apple haters use this sequence of events as evidence that Apple is Evil.

It's basically the same thing as when people enabled multitasking on jailbroken iPhones and then Apple implemented it. Did they "steal" the idea of multitasking?

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#23

Post by tobiasbischoff »

Easily the greatest bullshit i've ever read. This cydia tool was just a hack that activated functions already in place in iTunes and iOS. Just have a look at the 1st gen Apple TV wich had wireless syncing to iTunes since 2006.

I guess they considered it to slow and unreliable in the past to activate it for the iPhone, maybe the iCloud concept, faster processors and wireless networks led to their decision activate it in iOS5.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#24

Post by voxmatt »

tobiasbischoff wrote: post #23

Easily the greatest bullshit i've ever read. This cydia tool was just a hack that activated functions already in place in iTunes and iOS. Just have a look at the 1st gen Apple TV wich had wireless syncing to iTunes since 2006. I guess they considered it to slow and unreliable in the past to activate it for the iPhone, maybe the iCloud concept, faster processors and wireless networks led to their decision activate it…

Seriously. It was always obvious Apple would do this eventually. The kid's app wasn't a novel idea, nor did it have a novel name or icon, it just did something everyone and their mom knew Apple would implement eventually, but just hadn't yet. This app was a hacked stop-over gap to put in place obvious tech. This article is really over the top.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#25

Post by [deleted] »

tvon wrote: post #21
pseudonym wrote: post #4

I wish I was surprised, but this seems to happen with a lot of OS-extending apps on the iOS device. I've never heard of a game being banned from the app store, but as soon as it's something that Apple doesn't already have baked into the operating system... It's been said before and it'll be said again: Playing in Apple's walled garden isn't a safe way to make a living.

As a developer it is probably not a good idea to use private APIs to implement a feature that has obviously been on the roadmap since day 1.

[deleted]

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#26

Post by dhimes »

peteretep wrote: post #2

So to get this straight: the guy who took Apple's icon for syncing and added a wifi symbol thinks Apple ripped him off taking their icon for syncing and adding a wifi symbol? Who'd a thunk.

From the company that is suing over the use of the word "App" it is ironic.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#27

Post by tsycho »

lloeki wrote: post #16
pseudonym wrote: post #4

I wish I was surprised, but this seems to happen with a lot of OS-extending apps on the iOS device. I've never heard of a game being banned from the app store, but as soon as it's something that Apple doesn't already have baked into the operating system... It's been said before and it'll be said again: Playing in Apple's walled garden isn't a safe way to make a living.

In many cases I think it boils down to "we reject your app because not only we have thought about this use case already but we have a solution in the works, and while it's not ready yet it will probably blow anything else you would have thought about because we know the system in and out, so your app would be dead a few months from now anyway. As you're doing an impressive work on it maybe you can join us to contribu…

Well, if they actually wrote that, the developer might not feel as bad.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#28

Post by yardie »

tmgrhm wrote: post #18
yardie wrote: post #12

I tried this app in the past. It was very....slow. Which is why I think Apple rejected it. Their syncing protocol, even over USB, was painfully slow. Over wifi it was dreadful. Apple has a, "do it right or don't do it at all", philosophy. They seemed to have fixed USB syncing in 4.3 because it takes me less time than before. I'm fairly confident that if he submitted his app after 4.3 was released it probably would ha…

I think it's far more likely it was rejected because it uses private APIs and takes lower-level access than App Store guidelines allow.

From what I remember it used the published APIs which Apple then unpublished and rejected his app. This is why the story got so much traction in the first place. If it was another developer doing cool things with unpublished APIs it would have been sold through one of the other appstores and that would have been the end of it.

It was rejected because Apple changed the rules mid-game

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#29

Post by iron_ball »

blownd wrote: post #8
jarin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more fair to say that making things that should/could be OS features isn't a safe way to make a living. Or if you do want to risk it, just be aware that you should have a fallback plan.

Absolutely! I develop Mac window management apps and every time a new OS is released I half expect Apple to come and wipe out my product line.

Just started using OS X heavily at work on a large monitor and started to notice a bit of a window clutter problem. Your app looks like it could be the ticket!

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#30

Post by flogic »

tmgrhm wrote: post #10
rb2k_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the main point is that he created an app that was probably declined because it used private APIs (or required root access?). Also: he produced the first public implementation of what? A wireless syncing software? iSync on OSX came a while before that and I'm sure there have been quite a few before that.

Mhm, so I don't understand why he expected anything different or why people are so outraged it was rejected — that's one of the major benefits of the App Store: sandboxing and access restrictions of apps. Yeah, as far as I know it was the first publicly-released wireless syncing software designed to let you sync iTunes and iOS.

It's not sand-boxing if you use bureaucracy instead of technology.
Post reply on HN