Every day the Internet pays lip service to the “apps” “yanked” by Apple. But what happens when something Apple does in the SDK shuts down an entire type of app, namely the camera apps that added interesting new functionality to the phone?
Jared Brown write Quick Shot, an app that added a number of cool features to the iPhone camera.
Apple has decided to strictly enforce their SDK guidelines with the release of 3.0, leaving potentially millions of iPhone users with applications that will not be compatible with iPhone OS 3.0. Maybe you are already aware of this, but I had not seen anything written on Techcrunch and thought it was compelling enough to bring to your attention.
Our company, Code Monkeys at Work, produces an application, Quick Shot. It’s a camera application, not unlike Night Camera. It has been live in the App Store since mid-Feb. When the 3.0 beta came out we updated it to be compatible and submitted it. Each time we submit an update to Quick Shot we cross our fingers, since we always get a different reviewer who takes issue with features/graphics/text that were already approved in earlier versions. Although this time when it got rejected it caught us by complete surprise.
We received this response from Apple,
“Unfortunately, there is no way to work around your rejection at this
time. You were rejected because UIImagePickerController has not been
documented…”Apple decided to stop approving applications/updates that used the UIImagePickerController. Like Night Camera and dozens of other camera apps we hide the UI components of the ImagePicker screen so that we can show our own UI for the camera. The major issue here is that if they do not allow us to update our application it will not be compatible with OS 3.0 and therefore Quick Shot is a ticking time bomb, along with dozens of other camera apps. Other camera apps, such as Night Camera, Darkroom, CameraKit, Camera Zoom, QuadCamera, ProCamera, CameraBag, Pano, Fast Tap Camera, Self-Portrait and many others are also using this method to create their own camera interface as well. This is not something that these apps just started doing. They had all been approved and had numerous updates approved while doing this.
This issue will effect millions of users who have downloaded camera applications that are unable to update their software to be compatible and are now ticking time bombs.
For the others apps who were able to slip their 3.0 compatible update through they will no longer be able to update their apps. Eventually they will fall in popularity. This will snuff out the once fledgling 3rd party camera app community on the iPhone.
We talked with him to figure out what this means for a small coding house like his
CG: Tell me about yourself?
My name is Jared Brown. Computer science major from Purdue U. Graduated in 04. Worked for a few companies out of college, including ChaCha.com (actually was employee #12) - Started my own consulting firm in mid-07 called CriticalPath, LLC. Started Code Monkeys at Work in Dec 08.
So what’s going on with camera apps and 3.0? What’s the issue?
Brown: Last year I messed around with the SDK with the goal of doing a camera app. I was really just trying to understand what would have to be done. I jumped into the iPhone app business back in Jan when I started a small company and contracted an iPhone developer to begin working on a camera application. At the time there were a handful of camera apps that had been approved and in the app store so we were encouraged.
We submitted our application at the end of Jan. It was called Quick Shot. It was short on features at the time but we wanted to submit it early before we spent too much time on the app and it was rejected. There was some back and forth with Apple, we had to change the app’s icon, but they ultimately approved it.
Basically what we do is call the UIImagePicker module. Then we walk through the node tree and hide specific elements and insert our own UI elements. This is really the only way to modify the UI and the reason we thought the app could get rejected.
This is how several other camera apps function as I mentioned in the email and as Stepcase has mentioned on their blog. So we were happily plugging away on development, releasing updates, building a user base when in late Apr we get a simple update rejected. The update fixed some little bug that was slowing down save times. We were used to having the app updates rejected over silly things that we had to work through.
But this time they cited the fact that we were using undocumented methods. Which we are in fact not calling any undocumented methods, we are just traversing the node tree, which is not documented.
This was prior to the requirement that all app update submissions be 3.0 compatible.
So we were still working on our 3.0 update. We finished up the 3.0 update and submitted hoping we’d get some other reviewer and the update would go through. Because we knew by then that if the app wasn’t 3.0 compatible it was subject to removal from the app store when 3.0 came out.
I also started looking for other developers who were getting a similar response from Apple at the time. That’s when I found through Stepcase’s blog that they were getting their updates rejected as well.
Night Camera seemed to have slipped their 3.0 compatibility through in late April, luckily, so they seem to be OK for now and aren’t saying anything. They are also doing things with Night Camera that clearly break the guidelines of the SDK, like access the camera roll directly for deletion of photos, etc. – so it was surprising on many levels that their update made it through
But to wrap this up, we’re not in a position where we have hundreds of thousands of users who are now realizing that Quick Shot and Quick Shot Lite no longer work when they upgrade to OS 3.0. This is effecting at least a dozen iPhone camera apps. And considering that I doubt Night Camera will be allowed to get any new updates approved, this easily effects a few million iPhone users.
So why your interest in camera apps? What is the benefit to the user?
Light Camera and Camera Zoom have both been #1 selling apps worldwide. For us it was an easy first app to do because your market is potentially every iPhone user. Everyone takes photos. We also felt that the built-in camera app was lackluster and left a lot of room for improvement.
Steady shot, digital zoom, image effects, and Facebook integration are a few of the features that we think make the experience better. I think that this sort of innovation is beneficial to both Apple and the users. If Apple had rejected apps like ours and Darkroom when they were first submitted we wouldn’t be here. But to let this group of applications thrive and then essentially end of life them once they have been downloaded by a large percentage of iPhone users in total brings up a lot of questions I think.
What can Apple do in this situation? What encourages this arbitrary behavior?
ddressing the first question. I was surprised that Apple didn’t facilitate these sort of applications SDK 2.0. This segment of apps was already thriving under SDK 1.0 and had produced a #1 app in the form of Night Camera, which perfectly demonstrated the innovation that could come out of 3rd party camera apps with their steady shot feature. So I think it was missed opportunity to not extend the SDK for these sorts of camera apps. If they are indeed planning on extending the SDK in the future, why not let these apps, which they already approved, continue to fly under the radar for the meantime?
We were all able to update our apps for 3.0. It’s curious to me that the new camera functionality is exclusive to the 3G S. It looks like at least for this iteration of the iPhone they are using an upgraded camera app to help move new units.
Apple has shown in the past that they choose not to yank apps away from users. Two examples: Users who downloaded NetShare, basically tethered your iPhone, were allowed to keep it even though it was yanked from the store.
If an app is found to be doing something wrong, usually Apple just makes you take that out in the updates, but they leave the current, offending version, in the app store and on iPhones
Well, I guess it’s arbitrary because we can always find contradictions. Somewhere, someone will be able to sneak a camera app past the censors.
No doubt. The app store approval process is frustrating due to that.
We have had our apps rejected for some weird reasons. Things that had been in the app for several versions.
Why still build for iPhone? Why not go to WebOS? It seems like a walled garden, right? It’s hard to get in and it’s hard to stay in.
I think everyone keeps fairly quiet and is accepting of the approval process because the iPhone’s scale dwarfs the other phones. Looking at reports on TC of the sales numbers for the 3G S, it’s ~20x more than the Pre. It’s absolutely a walled garden. But it’s one everyone is willing to jump through hoops to be in.
It’s really a frustrating experience working with Apple on the approval process, which is weird, because my other experiences with the company are so good. It’s hard to reconcile that it’s the same company.
Does this process make the market more valuable? The apps better?
I’ve thought about the process as a competitive advantage at times for sure. If I’m in the store and you want to compete with me, it’s going to take you a while to work with Apple to get in.
Does it make the apps better? I would say that the human interface guidelines that you have to adhere to, or atleast are supposed to, can make an app more user friendly. But it goes back to the arbitrary nature of the review process. Some reviewers might notice something that others don’t. Looking at the state of the apps in the store, in general, they’re nowhere near Apple’s personal standards. So I wouldn’t say the process makes better apps. It just protects Apple.
But then you get the situation you’re dealing with, right? Your app is knocked out and that was your bread and butter. It’s like a flea market where the market manager is very vicious.
I’m ultimately not in control of my company’s product and that’s a really big negative.
Luckily I’ve made money off of this and it’s just a hobby for me, but it could be worse.
sounds like it’s more than a hobby for this gentlemen.
When I read articles like this it makes me glad that i have not yet spent the time and money to move one of our applications from Windows Mobile to iPhone, as the app that we want to do – Apple may suddently decide to limit that area as well (maps) – and make it that only google maps is allowed.
Pre and Blackberry looking better and better :)
there is phonegap (and others) that allow you to make javascript-based apps on the iphone without messing w/ ObjC. However, it seems it’s a matter of time before apple also rejects this framework.
The best chance developers have is for phone makers to start making massive quantities of Android phones. Android is slick, easy and you don’t have to mess with the world’s most capricious company.
@Stephen: If you like the Pre then go for it. If I actually had an application, however, I think I’d consider the difference between marketing to an installed base of 200K vs. 45 million or so.
That’s less than half of one percent…
This is very interesting! That must suck for him. Looks like a good app. Anyway, I have faith that they will lighten up soon; after they get through their current mess. They have more important things to deal with than this. For example, the push notifications!!!
This is the one negative to Apple and their products. Sure they create some of the easiest, pretiest apps and products, but Stevie needs to control every last bit of them and doesn’t allow for any innovation outside of his/Apple’s own.
Unforutnately, the popularity of the phone for the millions of users that don’t care about innovation, per se, allows Stevie to continue doing whatever he wants and getting away with it.
The head of the nail has been hit.
Sure, except for the fact that there are many more negatives, not just the one.
I agree Apple’s approval process is sometimes backwards, and that it seems their current move isn’t that bright, however Brown knew from the get go he is doing something Apple officially does not approve, he knew that for every update he is at a mercy of a reviewer not being strict about the guidelines, so this should hardly be a surprise for him.
I am however very surprised to hear that Apple didn’t open the camera API on all models.
There are really only 2 solutions to this problem: One, market pressure. Consumers need to stop buying closed platforms, no matter how cool they are, and buy open ones instead, thereby forcing the closed platform vendor to be more open. Two, government regulation to make closed platforms illegal. This has not happen in the computer and electronics industry to date, but it has happened in a few other industries, such as with auto parts.
This is the downfall of Apple……Mac in the 1980’s anyone?
It is a shame that Apple blocks the ability to create modifications to its built-in interfaces. That said, Apple has made it very clear to developers that if they use undocumented API’s that they might break or not be supported in future versions of the OS. Anyone making apps that rely on undocumented APIs are putting their users as risk by their own choice. Apple rejects perfectly good apps with no explanation at all. That’s news. Not people that get rejected for things that are clearly listed as prohibited by Apple.
This sucks, but he (and all other camera app vendors) knew what they were getting into since they were essentially violating the app developer agreement by using the SDK in an unauthorized way.
Apple should add direct camera access to the SDK, but you really can’t complain when they don’t let your app in if you are violating the rules you signed up to play by.
As someone who has dealt with Apple’s approval process, I can tell you that they are getting more and more strict about what can be done. A lot of it, in my opinion, is due to the fact that other companies and developers are producing better innovations in certain areas than Apple is and they don’t like it. Lets not forget about Podcaster which was rejected on the basis that it will compete with iTunes. In the case of the camera application, Apple is most likely taking notes and will eventually copy the functionality. If an app was never approved, the developer will have a hard time coming back and suing apple.
But as the article states, the numbers that Apple produces in terms of number of people using the iPhone is enough for developers to stay quiet and just roll with the punches.
As far as night camera goes, I think Apple is still going to let apps like that go through because enough people downloaded it and are using it. I doubt that their approval process does not take into account the app’s popularity when it comes to the approval of items like these. Google’s app is still allowed in the store even though it uses a method that is not allowed by apple to detect when the phone is raised to the face.
I find it interesting because we all used to gripe about Microsoft being Microsoft while everyone wanted open software and platforms and, meanwhile, Apple became the closed off platform that no one can touch with the closed APIs while Microsoft became more and more open. Windows Mobile couldn’t care less about what apps a developer is developing and which classes they are overriding.
i’m not sure if the apps i’m about to speak of are getting the same treatment as this one, but when i updated to 3.0, there were close to 5 applications that i didn’t have any use for because of the new funtionality of 3.0. i guess it was good while it lasted. and maybe there is still market out there based on how many people don’t update their phone’s os.
To be fair, Apple have made it pretty clear right from the start that undocumented calls (in whatever capacity) are against the rules, so, while I sympathize, the developers concerned should play within the rules outlined by Apple.
Of course, that being said, Apple really do need to sort out their submission and update processes and add a level of consistency to their dealings with developers too.
Android is the way forward man.
To the developer.
After having so many approval issues why do you still stay on the apple bandwagon. Then don’t complain about being screwed. That’s how they play.
Your lucky they have not copied the funtionality of your app., In my opinion the main reason for the approval process.
.peace
Well it doesn’t hurt to complain and point out the frustrations developers are having and at the same time continue to “roll with the punches” in order to get the product into more hands.
Developers are consumers of the product as well and a good consumer is one that complains. Arguing his point will hopefully find a receptive ear in Apple.
Somebody please explain to me why is Apple wrong in *enforcing the rules all developers have to agree to* when they sign up?
If this hadn’t been in the agreement and then suddently Apple came down on the developers, I can understand, but…why the hell do people complain about stuff that is *against the signed agreement*??
It’s absolutely beyond my understanding.
Thank God for GetJar. The only real, open sourced app store ;)
Jared Brown says, “Each time we submit an update to Quick Shot we cross our fingers, since we always get a different reviewer”
I am not sure why the customer relations departments at companies such as Apple and e-Bay just don’t seem to understand the concept of a “conversation”.
It’s not fucking difficult. But they FAIL to get it.
E-bay is tanking because of it. Apple now appears to be struggling with it. How difficult is this?
Apple. Ebay. Listen carefully:
When a customer contacts you, AND YOU ASK FOR a follow up, and he/she kindly follows-up with you…
ROUTE THE CUSTOMER’S REPLY TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENT.
Who is the proper agent. The original agent? Yeah, probably! OMG! Unless you have managed to hire personnel who have the IQ to take proper case notes. WHICH YOU HAVEN’T.
When I restored my iPhone, NetShare (a purchased app) was indeed taken from me.
You probably removed it on your own, or didn’t sync it properly. Mine synced just fine, and is even on my new GS.
Jared Brown willfully sold a defective product. He knew that Quick Shot violated the contract he signed with Apple (developer agreement), and that the product would break in future releases, but choose to accept users’ money for it anyway.
Apple’s review process is ridiculous, but in this case, the developer is clearly in the wrong. He duped users and snuck the product past Apple, and now he’s being called on it.
We (Phanfare) also pulled the features that modified the camera view from our Phanfare Photon app because Apple told us, through the review process, that such modifications are no longer allowed.
I agree the review process lacks transparency, as does most of what Apple does, but I think that lack of transparency is part of Apple’s mystique and helps them sell products.
My personal opinion is that the tightening up of the rules around the camera view was due to concerns on Apple’s part that apps that modified the view would not work correctly on all hardware.
Remember that they tightened up the rules before the release of the 3GS, which exposed certain visual elements in the camera view that were not evident before the hardware release.
My real beef with Apple’s support for third party developers of photography apps is that the interface we are forced to use is much so slower than Apple’s built in camera interface and hence no third party camera app can truly compete with Apple in the acquisition of photos. Many of the hacks to the camera view were aimed at improving performance to simply equal that provided by the built-in camera app.
Nevertheless, its hard to argue with Apple’ s success in creating a new mobile platform that has enjoyed incredible consumer adoption and provides, overall, the most convenient and compelling user experience ever delivered on a mobile device.
We are considering removing the camera from our app entirely. Consumers can just use the built-in camera app and import photos and videos into Phanfare Photon.
Andrew,
The iPhone platform is an incredible platform whose potential is amazing. That said, it is not without its issues and the biggest issue is that Apple keeps on deliberately crippling developers in providing inferior classes and tools. That is generally done so that apps like the ones discussed in this post can not compete. There can not be any other reason. Apple’s reason for not approving video capturing application is hardware related but in reality, one of the devices that i use is jailbroken and running a video capture application for the last year without a single issue. So what is the real reason? They don’t want competition. For web video, the jailbroken app works perfectly. The video is the same size and the camera is doing just fine. So really what is the reason?
Apple will eventually learn that it will need to open its platform. But that will only happen when enough developers, bloggers, tech writers, and hackers will make enough noise about it. Until then, it is their platform to do with as they wish.
Using undocumented APIs is a newbie trap. If your entire product and your entire business hangs on an API which can and will change without notice then you’re setting yourself up for failure. You can’t blame Apple for that.
Now, there are legitimate complaints against app store approvals and bringing those out into the open is beneficial for developers. Hey, maybe even Apple is listening. Hopefully we can see more of those postings here.
Somehow I’m just never able to really muster any sympathy for these developer sob stories about how they poured their time, effort, and money into a product for a closed, tightly controlled platform and ended up getting screwed. Just like the guy last week whose Commodore 64 emulator was rejected after working on it for a year. Boo hoo.
These very same developers are the very ones who are enabling Apple to continue these policies in the first place. Without them, Apple’s “there’s an app for that” marketing would vanish.
Yes, the allure of making a quick buck and replicating the hit-the-lottery stories of developers pulling in 6 or 7 figures from a single app is surely enticing, but as long as they enable Apple to continue these policies nothing will change.
You use private API calls, after being told not to? You put your own terrible UI on top of what Apple tells you not to modify or cover? You deserve whatever rejection they send.
There are numerous examples of startups pushing the envelope in terms of accepted convention, rules and and even the law to build a company.
Back in 1993, when I worked at Silicon Graphics, many of us were not even sure that it was legal to use the internet for commercial purposes (remember that parts were called Arpanet).
YouTube certainly stretched the bounds of legality on copyright and lived to tell about it (well, the story is not over yet). But of course, for every YouTube, there is a napster counter-story.
This article is a fairly obvious attempt to bring Apple changing policies into the light, hopefully to either pressure or embarrass Apple into making changes.
But we all know that Apple is not so easily manipulated and feels quite secure in their authority to make decisions about the iPhone platform.
The good news is that stifling innovation generally just opens up the marketplace to potential competitors, which is good for the overall market and for the consumer.
I agree, its hard to get too bent out of shape over Apple not allowing developers (including us) to modify the camera view. If your only value add is in modifying the camera view, you truly are a one trick pony.
I generally agree with this and other comments in this thread. But I think some people are missing the point. This is not a case of sour grapes. And it’s not even so much a rant about Apple’s approval process. The take away from this is that Apple is willing to strand potentially millions of iPhone users who downloaded applications like Quick Shot instead of working with the developers to find a solution. In the process a segment of the iPhone app market, which was providing innovation will be allowed to die.
“Apple is willing to strand”??? Come on! It’s *your* app that’s the problem, not Apple’s doing.
Fix your app and it’ll get approved…and if it doesn’t get approved and it complies with all the known guidelines and the developer contract, *then* bitch about it and I’m sure that (as it almost always happens) the internet will bitch about it with you.
The “leaving stranded” thing is not on Apple’s court, it’s on yours…you are the one who can fix the appe.
Just to be clear. We aren’t calling undocumented methods. We are traversing the structure of the UI and hiding/inserting elements. We are also creating and sending trigger events. This is more of a grey area than black and white. Google’s search app for instance uses code that receives the undocumented proximity sensor events. Again, another grey area, which they are allowed to exploit until Apple decides otherwise.
Why you always report rejected app but leave others good app in the cold?
The best photo editing iPhone App in the store :
Vihgo
@ Vihgo (Tony) ~ Why should they report about your app?
1 – You went from having everyones praise & support to deleting the FULL app that you released FREE & then Re-released it as a New FULL app charging $1.99 (instead of allowing original users to get it as a free update). Then release a ridiculous Lite (free) version that now ONLY contains your two new additions & removed every other filter. That is the worst attempt at self promotion & having users remain a fan of your product when you had endless users promoting your app for free… word of mouth was your best friend & you KILLED THAT !
2 – Your endless lack of interest in communication from outside sources who attempted to contact you to help, promote & beta test your app for free to give you the edge you needed. You are truly a piece of work.
Use you head next time before you continue to make ridiculously stupid mistakes that will only shoot you in the foot. Word of mouth can make or break you & at this rate it will kill your app soon enough. Your lack of communication & people skills & then the addition of greed $$$ got the better of your technical skill.
So really cry me a river… your app is only a “good” app there are far more “great” apps to discuss here.
Meh!
OK, I am commited to make Vihgo a “Great App”. Let’s see who laugh at last. Gold always shines!
Who’s greed? $1.99 is a pretty good price for customer, consider how much efforts I have spent.
@ Vihgo – You are missing the point!
You screwed over your fan base & supporters. So why in the hell would you think anyone wants to support your app? Why would your original supporters ever turn around & pay you $1.99 for what they had already for FREE!!! You dropped the ball on that one & your screwed over everyone who happily supported you.
As well your “lack” of communication to all those who have emailed you endless time to no have no reply is just ridiculous !!!
You want our support yet you can’t acknowledge any of ours?
Sorry but you are a joke !
Meh
This is a very interesting article and I may have more to say about it, but to focus on a nitpick: please don’t use “effect” when the proper word is “affect”. I think this was in Mr. Brown’s responses but it’s fair to make editorial corrections for such errors.
I’d really like to take pictures using the Volume button.
@immorak That was the original premise of Quick Shot. We figured out a clever way of doing it and submitted that functionality for approval back in Jan. However Apple stated that it broke the human interface guidelines all applications must adhere to. So sadly I don’t think this feature is possible in the current App Store.
@Jared Brown
Ridiculous — “traversing the structure of the UI and hiding/inserting elements” is NOT gray area. The structure of the UI is undocumented (and hence “private API”), changes across releases, and if you needed an even more obvious indicator that you shouldn’t be doing it — your code broke across releases and Apple rejected it for using private API.
Hand-waving wishy washy “it’s not *reaaally* private API” is a bunch of hooey, and if you actually believe that, I suggest you think about it a bit harder before writing another application. If Apple doesn’t document it, then it isn’t guaranteed to keep working, and you can’t rely on it as per the contract you signed.
@Craig Kip and similar remarks – you and others like you are missing the real point. Of course Jared Brown used a “non-standard” technique.
Newsflash #1: Apple approved it anyway! By approving the app they implicitly sanctioned it, and they should have observed that the functionality of the app COULD NOT have been achieved in a “standard” way!
Newsflash #2: Apple made money from this “non-standard” app!
Newsflash #3: Jared’s customers benefited from this app!
Apple should, rather than bitching and whining and petulantly stating the obvious and backpedaling on their own prior approvals, simply expose the required functionality to make Jared’s (and similar) apps simply work in a documented way. It is the height of total bureaucratic stupidity to take a functional app that’s made money and people enjoy and break it because somebody at Apple doesn’t want to take a week (or a few days) to write a public API that doesn’t involve the kind of hack described.
@Phil
So Apple it’s the culpable party since they did not immediately catch a developer who decided to break their contract and do something the developer knew would break in the future? Apple can’t be on the hook to provide an API for every possible use case, always — once an API documented, Apple has to support any applications that use the API *forever*. Of course there will be some missing pieces on the new platform.
Whine about Apple all you want, but the developer knew what they were doing was wrong. If they wanted Apple to provide an API, they should have requested one, instead of trying to see what they could get away with without one.
Sorry, I don’t have *ANY* sympathy for developers who clearly ignored their contract and screwed over their users.
If the developers in question hadn’t tried to skirt the rules, then perhaps users would have demanded a camera API from Apple, and we wouldn’t be here to debate it.
apple is getting stricter? yawning.
As a consumer who buys apps, I am really disappointed the way apple is treating us. Apps I bought through the Apple Store no longer work because of the update – and now they will not allow improvements – they have ripped me off and I’m not happy. Dialer apps are also having the same problem – if it went against the SDK then they should never have been for sale – but they were and Apple should let the ones who made it through continue to support and update the apps – “grandfather” them in. Apple says they are all about apps but then the go screwing around with them and their customers. I love my iphone but I am made at Apple. Knowing what I know now I would not have upgrade to OS 3.0.
Quick Shot was great and now I am mad!
@ckilkelly01 you shouldn’t be “made”(sic) at apple…you should be mad at the dumbass developers who insist on using non-public APIs even tho their *legally binding contract* that allows them to actually publish apps on the app store says they shouldn’t use non-public APIs…the dumbass developers who do that and then get their apps killed when apple decides to make them abide by the rules are the ones who ripped you off, not apple.
As for the “grandfathering” thing…bullshit. No developer should be given special privileges just because they are breaking their contract and nobody had called them on it until now.
If you use an undocumented API and your app breaks or gets rejected by apple…IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT, nobody else’s.
Clear enough?
@vox
“Cute with the typo and sic.”
As I stated before, I am a consumer, not a developer. All I did was buy an app that was approved and in the Apple store. I don’t know how it got there or why. I just know I can no longer use an app that was Apple approved and that Apple sold to me through their store. So I am PISSED AT APPLE!!
The “granfathering” idea was so developers who found a loophole and developed using that loophole, then the customers who purchased said apps could continue to use/buy them. Close the loophole, I don’t care. But don’t punish me because a developer or 15 “slipped” apps by.
Regarding your attitude, as I stated, I was consumer – I just purchase the apps. Undocumented API? What am I supposed to do, break down code before I purchase? How am I to know developers are breaking the contract? I count on Apple to police the developers and not punish me – THE CONSUMER.
So, to make sure you understand, it is NOT MY FAULT!!! It is Apple’s fault. Maybe a developers – BUT NOT MINE, the CONSUMER!!!!
CLEAR ENOUGH?
You should be pissed at the developer for selling you a product they *knew* was faulty.
Apple simply can’t monitor every developer’s behavior all the time and ensure that they never, ever violate the legally binding contract that they signed.
Apple doesn’t break applications on purpose — in fact, they work very hard to keep all applications working, as long as they use official API. Breaking applications that use private API is simply an inadvertent result of the development process, and the reason why developers are forbidden by contract and common sense from using private API.
As a user, none of this is your fault, but you should be placing the blame fully on the developers who sold you a product they *knew* to be defective.
Craig, I see your point – well made.
But how about this analogy: I drive a Mercedes. I buy a part through Mercedes but it is not made by Mercedes but made for them – let’s say the stereo. It works. Then, when I go to get an oil change, Mercedes tells me they no longer work with that company and they “turn off” that part. So, I no longer have a stereo that works. Now I have to buy a new stereo they DO support (and are they going to support that for a long period of time?) or live without music. Who am I going to be ticked at – the part maker (who may or may not have done something wrong – I have no idea) or Mercedes, for selling me the part and then no longer “supporting” it? For me, the answer is Mercedes. All I did was go get my oil changed and now I have no stereo – driving without music – that is brutal.
I see this Apple situation as the same. Again, I LOVE MY iphone – but both my camera apps and my dialer apps do not work with the update – I was not even given the option to update knowing what apps would and would not work. So now I have my iphone without the dialer I loved nor any of my Camera apps – I am too shaky for the Apple camera app.
Again, I see your point – developers have some of the burden; but how am I to know that until it is too late…I never knew this was an issue. I even wrote Apple about it and the told me no decisions have been made as of yet regarding Camera apps.
I don’t believe them, though.
But I still think this is Apples’s fault – though I LOVE my iphone!
No, it’s not your fault as consumer (tho…legally it is :) But it is *not* apple’s fault in any way either…they put the rules out and the developers have to follow them…and the first rule of developing on somebody else’s platform with their APIs is…don’t use undocumented APIs, even if everybody else does.
BTW, I’m not a developer either, nor work for Apple or anybody afiliated with them…I’m a linux dude with years watching this kind of thing happen, and…the only way to fix it *for the consumer* is for the developers to fix their app so it’ll get approved…that’s that.
As for your Mercedes analogy…it’s wrong :) If your tire (which has its maker prominently displayed, just like an app in the app store) uses a non-standard pressure sensor and Mercedes changes the way their travel computer reads the pressure sensors so only pressure sensors that follow the right API work, then you go and tell Mercedes “hey, my tire pressure isn’t displayed anymore” they’ll tell you “ah, the-idiot-tire-maker used an undocumented API for their tire pressure sensor…go yell at them, they’ll change the sensor because they know they’ll get sued if they don’t”…and that’s exactly what happens.
In this case….go yell at the developer whose name is right there in the app store’s page for the app, and he’ll either fix it or…whatever you want :)
quick shot ….!!!
Well I stumbled on the right thread, damn informative.
I’m just a customer I don’t know the tech end of this
problem. But I have 9 paid camera apps 7 are broken
completly two sorta knida work alright. And I just discovered this evening that half of iRetouch is broken and half of it works. I hope this is resolved. For the benefit of all. But mainly for me. I would probably rather see Apple get more strict (jeez look at all the Crap Apps that get approved) but they shouldn’t stop in mid stream! But then I haven’t heard their side!
I’m still looking forward to useing Quick Shot again!
I have also developed an app using the UIImagePicker module and used all the documented methods. Apple rejected my app because we used “undocument and private API” which we clearly did not. I’m not sure what apple’s problem is when it comes to doing things with the camera, and just cause you only use part of a published API does not mean you are using a private version. We are currently resubmitting our app and documenting our case, but from what I have been told it is like talking to a brick wall. If this doesn’t work I’m out tens of thousands of dollars on development. It is quite frustrating.
I found quick shot actually made the Iphone 3G camera usable. Prior to quick shot the photos were almost always blurry. This is really a iphone limitation.
I have migrated from a Windows environment to Mac. I moved from MS to APPle. This is like moving from one thief to another.
It does appear I will be migrating to Netbooks with Linux for under $300 each, and look forward to using Android based phones. I have no love for Google, but they are so smart. Tons of app’s by having a contest, and they have a Linux based OS, provide the API and OS to all phone OEM’s with no charges, or royalties.
Someone has to let Jobs know they took down the “Iron curtain”, and their “Wonderful iphone” is no longer the “only game in town”. Apple has made
mega $$$ on what is really a “front end” to X-Server called “COCO”. At the lowest level is Linux. Drop virtualization like parallels and you can run windows. (Don’t need a Mac for that).
Add nice features like screens and expose (as MS added to Vista that previously only existed in Mac OS X, drop these in a Linux X-windows GUI, and you sell tons of Netbooks with free linux and this API. I will happily toss my Mac’s in the trash.
I have NO intention of ever buying a MAC based machine again. Linux Netbooks and Android is the future.
Sad, my first computer was a Imsai 8080. My first with a GUI was a Apple II. It is time to turn the page on Apple.
Its obvious that they’ve seen that additional apps are a goldmine and intend to pursue specific markets without any competition, either through licensing agreements with the big players like Adobe for Photo apps, or by offering them outright through the store as ‘official’ Apple, how’s iApps sound? From a development standpoint there’s no obvious reasons for them deny access to the camera modules. But I’m sure the Apple lovers out there will find a way to blame Microsoft for it. Lawlz
People who would be stark raving mad at Microsoft for similar tactics are defending it when it comes from the golden apple.
As a developer, I find myself wondering why Apple feels the need to punish developers for flaws in their platform. If the functionality should not be accessed, then the API should not make it accessible. If the functionality should be accessed, then it should be in the API and documented.
I think the biggest issue is that developers cannot only use documented interfaces to do many of the things customers demand. This places us at an impossible place where we spend countless hours, only to realize that a critical api for our app is not completely documented with no workaround.
In other words: “There cannot be an app for that!”
I noted the reason for wanting to develop for the iPhone platform; because of its current scope (meaning popularity -> userbase).
My question would be; why not create for another platform? Symbian for example. The market is much, much bigger than iPhone market and has been around for a decade.
Or would you consider the opportunities in Symbian (for example) to be slimmer due to it being a more mature application environment?
The insane inconsistency continues.
How the h*ll did Camera Zoom get approved recently? It’s a complete SLASH FEST of the UIImagePickerController.
Meanwhile, others who don’t even their precious layout get instant rejection, repeatedly, without clarification, without a single non-robotic response from Apple, Inc.
It’s too bad how Apple rejects apps based of a certain criteria like the one Jared talks about. The camera app sounds quite useful and unique. I kind of wish I had the chance to try it out for myself.