gaahh, all this apple shit, so 2009
Apple copies rejected app
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#32I 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.
well, maybe it's actually all about timing, the article implies he's grossed in the neighborhood of $500k so far (minus the impact of "sales")
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess that 99% of the outrage stems from the similarity of the icons.
Only problem is, that's about as generic an icon as you could get by mixing Apple's default iOS icon style with a standard WiFi and Sync icon. Not that unique...
So is an apple with a bite out of it.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Copied from another HN comment, but if this is true it'd explain why there's so much furor about it on the boards:
> yardie 36 minutes ago | link
> From what I remember it used the published APIs which Apple then unpublished and rejected his app.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 If it was another developer doing cool things with unpublished APIs it would have been sold through one of the other appstores and that would have been the end of it.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#35Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter.
The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the works for quite some time?
Based on what I've read, this sync app was only possible because of some low-level sync frameworks that were already present in iOS. The feature wasn't ready by Apple Standards, but Apple didn't want a poor implementation of what should be a system-level feature in the wild. One could argue that the rejection of his app was an act of protecting the user experience. This is something Apple does regularly. If you don't want the protection, you should head over to another platform.
Acting shocked at any of these facts just shows that you haven't been paying attention.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#36Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter. The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the work…
I had a feeling this would get voted down on the basis of it being ad hominem, but in the context of journalism, an author's history of editorial bias is important.
If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#37I 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.
It's right there in App Store Review Guidelines:
"All your app are belong to us."
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That certainly does change the angle of my story — have you got a source for that?
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#39Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter. The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the work…
Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#40Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter. The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the work…
Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.
If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement?
I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewer are further from the core. That's not to say you shouldn't develop a to-do app, but you should A) plan your product ramp in a way that you recover your investment quickly, and B) not be surprised when Apple announces a simple, integrated to-do solution.