▲ 164 points
back
80 comments
It's plainly stated in the terms (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.
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.
Let's keep some perspective here. Apple holds a minority share of the market. One might argue that the money is on the Apple platform. That leads to the question of why? Maybe it's because Apple's carefully curated experience attracts customers who have a large intersection with the group of customers who are willing to spend money.
If we accept that premise, then what's "right" is what builds that user base. You have to take the bad with the good. I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is plenty of history surrounding apps that act as launchers. That singular feature represents a huge overlap with the primary role of the home screen, and the App Store Guidelines clearly spell out that this is a no-no.
Widgets are a new case, because they're not full fledged apps. A widget could not "create an alternate desktop/home screen environment" because it is only a small part of a greater environment itself (Notification Center). However, the intent of guideline 10.4 is pretty clear. Apple wants to control the means by which users launch applications. That goal serves what Apple believes to be the best interest of users. You can disagree with that, but it's not your platform, and you haven't (yet) built a platform upon which millions of dollars are transacted in app purchases every year.
What I'm saying is that Apple isn't exactly clubbing seals here. They're doing what they believe to be best for their platform, and they're doing it in a way that is pretty consistent with past behavior.
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.
Oh, we most certainly do have a choice, especially as developers. If enough of us don't support their infrastructure or buy their products then we most certainly can effect change and their bottom-line. Don't be upset and powerless, be proactive and don't support Apple in any way.
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.
Except it wasn't rejected. It was accepted, sold, and then Apple changed their mind. Did we agree to that fickleness?
>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.
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.
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
>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
It's as if history is repeating itself:
Apple rolls out new features/platform.
Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
Development community cries out.
Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
I don't mean to lay the blame entirely at the feet of the developer in this case, but it's hard to argue that there isn't history here. Remember when iOS apps first hit and there were a whole slew of "home screen" apps that displayed things like the weather, calendars, etc? Apple banned all those apps too. The reason given was that Apple doesn't want apps to usurp the home screen. Apple wants to control that part of the user experience, because Apple knows best.
> Instead, Apple is being Apple and aggressively protecting things that do not need to be protected. They do so with inscrutable and nebulous reasons that leave all involved feeling dismayed.
This is purely a matter of opinion. Apple feels that they need to control the user experience. Just read the introduction to the App Store Review Guidelines [1]. Apple's stance is really clear: they control what happens on their platform. They've made some efforts to make the process a bit less lopsided (the appeal board), but it's still crystal clear that Apple holds the reigns.
If, as a developer, you disagree with that philosophy, you have to decide how to best effect change. I would argue that continuing to develop for the Apple platform is about the worst way one can affect change. Proselytizing the developer community is a fool's errand. Look at the case of the larger iPhone. What drove that? Apple looked at the market landscape and decided that they could no longer ignore the trend.
IMO, your best choice as a developer is cast your lot with the platform that best reflects your philosophy.
> It's as if history is repeating itself:
> Apple rolls out new features/platform.
> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
> Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)
> Development community cries out.
> Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even if they are often unclear or inconsistent).
You missed the last step - one iOS version later, Apple copies the killer feature it originally rejected as a misuse of the platform, and makes it its own.
> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps).
You make it sound like being in a grey area is a bad thing. Most things worth pursuing are probably a little grey in some sense, otherwise they're probably just a 'me-too'. That this app was downloaded so much indicates a strong desire for it. Retrospectively coming up with policies will always create ire.
While I disprove strongly with Apple's policies, that article is hugely apologist. They act like it is a peppy lone developer underdog stepped on for no reason and it is an utter surprise!
Sorry but Apple's app store policies are pretty clear in this area. They have also squished tons of similar apps previously (which was well publicized).
Plus according to the article Apple contacted the developer essentially saying "Do X and Y or we'll pull you!" and the developer didn't do X and Y so consequently got pulled. They say the developer "compromised" but the way it is worded I have to assume it was a one-sided "compromise" (as in, he never got Apple's approval before submitting an update that clearly didn't fix the issues raised).
I honestly would have had more sympathy if the article wasn't so manipulative. Now it has just got my back up and I'm more on Apple's side than the developers.
PS - Apple's policies are dumb. I dislike them. I'm all for protecting user privacy and security, but many Apple policies are essentially "don't compete with us!" which is dumb when app installation is entirely voluntary.
It's right in the app store guidelines, you can't make an app launcher thing. The guideline describes exactly this.
10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
Which part of that is describing this exactly? Is this extension really a home screen alternative? Is this extension showing widgets that simulate multiple apps?
> Apple takes down another indie dev
More factual title: "Launcher removed from App Store".
This is the world Richard Stallman predicted, and "we" [1] - developers with the most power and the most to lose - are leading the charge head-first. I am just old enough to remember the Bad Old Apple of the mid-90s, and this nonsense does not surprise at all. Apple has had a good run playing the Unix card; developers buy Macbooks in droves because "it's like a Linux that just works". But just wait a few more years until the Terminal is apptimized away. The waffling non-open-sourcing of Swift should have been the final clue.
[1] the only apple product I own is a 2nd generation iPod in a drawer somewhere. I still hold myself responsible.
As much as how cool the app may be, it does violate what apple's terms are, which include making effective replacements of their components.
This is why "browsers" like Chrome on the iPad still use the webkit components and it just adds password-management and bookmark syncing on top.
Well, that's a different rule.
2.17 Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript
I think one day will come, OS manufacturers will be the only one actually releasing applications for their systems.
Computers will just turn into consoles.
To be honest, apple just makes computers that work like consoles.
Russell Kirsch (inventor of the 1st programmable computer) agrees with you - http://impossiblehq.com/an-unexpected-ass-kicking
If it was against the policy then how was it approved in the start??
Remember when Camera+ used the volume button as a shutter and Apple struck it down like they were literally hitler? And then Apple later incorporated it into their own camera app?
And then revised the rules to allow anyone to do it. Apple rules regarding app design and development and what's allowed and what isn't are fluid. That was a pretty over the top decision though.
I wish the title was more accurate rather than going for Grade A Linkbait
Stories like these are exactly why I won't even touch an iOS device. It's the wrong app ecosystem for creative innovation and freedom.
Good thing for Apple the alternatives are windowsphone and linuxjava.
If you call up developer support and ask if a particular thing you want to do complies with their rules, they won't give you an answer.
I tried to do this when I was implementing subscription payments within my app. There are two ways to do subscriptions on iOS, and I wanted to know which one I was supposed to use for my app. The support rep I spoke to said I should go ahead and implement one of them and submit it, and that was the only way to find out.
Turns out I chose the wrong method, and had to re-do a whole bunch of work, which could have been avoided if they'd just give me a straight answer. At least I finally got it accepted - I feel terribly sorry for this guy.
Most of my friends making a phone choice choose the iPhone because it has the 'best' apps and apps come to the iPhone first. Most of my friends making apps choose to develop for the iPhone because that's where the money is. I sincerely hope that the open ecosystem wins in the phone market to allow for truly innovative mobile experiences. I think we are well on our way to disrupt the cycle, but only time will tell.
Dave Winer (in 2007): “Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.”
As usual, it's all written in the bible http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html
I'm one of the people that bought Launcher when I first heard about it. I often switch between one of several bluetooth devices and adding a link that takes me straight to the bluetooth settings from the notification center was a huge speed boost for me.
Eventually an alternative app market free from apple or Google oversight and copyright infringement nonsense will come out. It's about time someone made a significant effort to establish it. Such a market will be profitable too.
"Apple enforces terms of agreement" isn't as bait-y is it?
Apple is slowly beginning to rot.
This seems like a pretty clear case of "not obeying the spirit of the rule":
"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action."
It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to sidestep the rule.
Does it really matter what his compromise is? His app is a Today widget app launcher. Apple decided after initially approving it that you can't make Today widget app launchers. The end.
I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.
So many people here fail to recognize that this app essentially reproduced some functionality and elements (quick launch contacts from multitasked, springboard replicated) in the OS that could be confusing for users.
This article is another one of those sensationalized "I know best, Apple is wrong!". I don't doubt that Apple makes mistakes, they are run by humans (for now...), but this definitely isn't one.
This is the first iOS 8 widget I would have been interested in using - but the opportunity is gone.
What a terrible policy to have in place.
Does anyone know what happens to the money involved in an action like this? Does he keep the sales from before the app was pulled?
I know HN is full of Apple zealots, but even they can't defend this kind of stuff.
One of them zealots being a downvoter, huh?
Think Different.
Relevant Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-employee-fired-for-th...
but if you think differently than what's different, is it still different ? or is it back to the same thing ? but the same thing compared to what ?