Google Mobile for iPhone breaks App Store rules

Google Mobile lets you search the Web using your voice in a way that is technically off-limits to iPhone developers, according to a report.

(Credit: Apple (App Store))

If Google wasn't Google, there's a fair chance that its new mobile application for the iPhone wouldn't be allowed in the App Store.

That's because Google Mobile is tapping into iPhone technology that is supposed to be off-limits to third-party developers, according to research done by Daring Fireball's John Gruber and Ars Technica's Erica Sadun.

The latest version of the search giant's mobile iPhone application has been well received, but it might be impossible to duplicate or improve upon the application, unless developers are willing to break Apple's rules for iPhone applications.

When you make a phone call on the iPhone, a proximity sensor detects when the phone is right next to your head, and it turns the screen off to prevent you from inadvertently hanging up the phone with your face.

Google's application also uses the proximity sensor to detect when the phone approaches your head. That is is kosher under the iPhone application guidelines given to developers, as long as it is used solely for that on-off functionality. But Google uses it to let you search the Web with your voice, just as if you were making a phone call.

Google's application both activates the proximity sensor and delivers an audible prompt to voice your search terms, and the only way it can do this is by using an API that isn't part of the public list Apple has put together for developers, according to Gruber. Think of an API as helpful code that an operating system shares with an application to make it easier for that application to get things done.

Apple lets developers create applications that access some parts of the iPhone--such as the accelerometer for spacial controls and GPS for navigation--but it considers other parts of the phone's technology off-limits to anyone but Apple. Nonetheless, Sadun observes that there are tons of applications within the App Store that do what Google has done with its mobile application: take advantage of technology that is accessible, such as the proximity sensor, but go beyond the basic things you're allowed to do with that technology by using "unpublished" APIs that exist but are not publicized by Apple.

Sadun compares this to jaywalking: Sure, you might get hit by a bus, but you probably won't, if you're careful. And the cops aren't exactly going to launch a three-state manhunt for you, if you make it across the street.

But further research done by Sadun shows that Google is actually going beyond its use of unpublished APIs in the Google Mobile application to call on so-called "private" frameworks that are supposed to be strictly off-limits to anyone but Apple, an offense that can result in banishment from the App Store. A framework is a more general set of building blocks for an application that requires more custom development work than an API.

Of course, Google Mobile can still be found on the App Store. A Google representative said the company had no immediate comment on the reports, and an Apple representative did not return a call seeking comment.

So what can we conclude?

One, as we already knew, the App Store approval process doesn't make sense: applications that don't violate any public guidelines are rejected for nebulous reasons, while applications that violate the rules sail through.

Last week, Apple rejected an update to an application called CastCatcher that had already been approved three times, and then this week, it approved the update without requiring any substantial changes, according to the developer.

Two, if you play by the rules of the developer program, your application won't be able to compete against those created by developers who violate the rules and get away with it because either Apple missed the violation or because they are politically connected industry titans.

"If regular developers are forced to play by the rules, but Google is allowed to use private APIs, just because they're Google, the system is rigged," Gruber wrote.

Three, since Apple is under no obligation to support applications that make use of unpublished APIs or private frameworks, future firmware updates or operating-system releases could break those applications.

iPhone applications are streaming into Apple; CEO Steve Jobs told financial analysts last month that he's never seen anything like it in his career. So it's not hard to believe that Apple is simply overwhelmed and does not have the manpower to comb through each application to make sure that it is toeing the line. However, that was the main selling point for Apple's strategy to completely control iPhone application distribution; that it would be able to prevent poorly written or insecure applications from poisoning the iPhone by vetting every single application.

Google, of course, is a little different than your average iPhone developer. CEO Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's board of directors, and the company has received favorable treatment before from Apple with regards to the iPhone, such as Apple's decision to grant YouTube and Google Maps prominent placement on the home screen of the iPhone before the device was officially open to third-party developers.

Based on most accounts, Google Mobile is an excellent iPhone application. But would a similar application created by an average developer have been allowed to make it onto the App Store?

It seems that Apple has been rejecting applications that compete with its future plans. Might the company also be extending that courtesy to favored partners?

[d-2nice]

The Note2Self application for the iPhone has been using the proximity sensor to detect when the phone approaches your head to start recording a voice note. That has been around for months. Google was not the first one to use the proximity in this fashion.

[ironcladmvtm]

From what i understand this is incorrect the software uses the accelerometer to trigger the voice search NOT the proximity sensor. at least thats what it says in the video google put out to explain how the app. works.

[Tom Krazit]

The video just says the prompt is triggered by the motion of the iPhone, it doesn't say whether the proximity sensor or the accelerometer is used to trigger the prompt. But it makes sense that the proximity sensor would be used in order to ensure that the search terms were understood as clearly as possible by the microphone. If you just move the phone up toward your head, but don't get close enough to trigger the proximity sensor, you won't get the beep that prompts you to start speaking.

[professionaladventurer]

This sure sounds like a "sore loser article". What's you point? A giant company get's to do stuff little guys can't. Uh, we know that already.

The information is useful, the presented format and complaint, not so much.

[loose_screw]

Yup, Apple doesn't play by their own rules. What's new?

[Rants&Raves]

Apple: Either you have a bona fide market where everyone can play equally, or you have a private party. I'm not going to invest a ton of money to write a cool app if my app can get rejected for doing exactly what an already-accepted app does. Publish the damn guidelines already; Android does and has my attention.

[Seaspray0]

"It seems that Apple has been rejecting applications that compete with its future plans. Might the company also be extending that courtesy to favored partners?"

I'd say yes after reading this article. And favoratisim can be dangerous. It certainly didn't help microsoft during their monopoly lawsuit by charging different depending on the OEM or controlling what shortcuts could be made on the desktop. What apple is doing now is very similar in effect.

[monkeyfun14]

Have any of you thought that Google is probably just a tab bit less likely to be malicious compared to some unknown developer?

Slow news day?

[brian.lee]

Ever consider that maybe Apple lets the apps through that break the rules as a stop gap solution until they can get their own version out? Kinda of like testing the waters but someone else is doing it for you. For example apps like "Tuner" which is an internet radio streamer could probably be built into the iPod functionality. And as a reward they get to charge for their app.

[igal_alkon]

i agree, nothing new here, if Google is apple's partner, i see no problem of them doing just that, i would even call it a smart move. Google wants phone calls to be free. and that's good for me. and apple with their iPhone would be the perfect partner for this.

apple never was some kind of Open-Source company (neither is google), they what to keep the quality of their applications and don't want any iPhone Viruses and stupid software fly around. and with the loads if crap on the web i think its very understandable.

[DrtyDogg]

This is off topic, but I was wondering. If my work was to ever consider deploying the iPhone we would have to re-write all of our existing WinMo apps. What, if any is the procedure for distributing them in house. I mean we wouldn't want it available to anybody not employed, so hosting it on the app store is out of the question, nor would we really want Apple taking a peak at the source, "for our own good."

I guess it boils down to this, can you deploy an app for the iPhone at all without going through Apple?

[dvdsmth00]

Who cares about the rules. This Google App is really good. Best voice recognition results I've seen so far. Far better than any of the dialer solutions on the Apps store.

This app will prevent many car crashes this year and is the future of simple surfing and search. All Iphone users should give it a try. It could be better but is a glimpse of the future. Good Job Google.

[allex083]

Interesting topic indeed!
Does anyone need offshore iPhone app development?
If yes, pls reach me at:
[e-mail]

[geo11101]

Eric Schmidt is the biggest Mafia puppet in the US. He is bad news for apple users. http://endmafia.com