Apple kills iPhone app, claiming API violation
Landon Fuller's Peeps application was rejected from the App Store for supposedly breaking rules that Google was allowed to violate.
(Credit: Plausible Labs)
Apple has rejected an iPhone application that supposedly uses off-limits technology just like Google's mobile application--only the developer swears it's not true.
Landon Fuller, who developed a photo contact management system called Peeps, said on his blog that Apple had rejected Peeps from the App Store because, "Peeps cannot be posted to the App Store due to the usage of a non-public API. Usage of non-public APIs, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.1, is prohibited." The thing is, Fuller insists that Peeps does not use any programming tools but the public ones Apple exposes to developers as part of the iPhone SDK, saying "the last thing I would do is deliver time-bomb code to a paying customer." (Thanks to Daring Fireball for the link.)
APIs are tools that applications use to exploit parts of a computer's operating system. Operating system developers usually label some proportion of the various APIs in the OS as "public," meaning they'll support the use of those APIs well into the future to ensure applications will not break with future OS updates.
There are usually lots of other APIs lying around that the OS vendor doesn't make public, but that developers can see if they poke around a little bit. Google used such an API to trigger a voice prompt from the iPhone's proximity sensor in its Google Mobile application, which the company admitted was against the rules of the App Store.
Fuller seems to believe this is all just a misunderstanding, since his application looks an awful lot like Apple's Cover Flow feature but doesn't actually use the same implementation Apple does to display album covers in iTunes. Maybe he just needs a bigger market cap: Google Mobile is still available on the App Store, and a Google representative said he had no updates on whether Apple had ordered any changes to Google Mobile or if Google planned to make any changes on its own. An Apple representative did not return a call seeking comment, but Apple representatives have never returned any calls seeking comment about the App Store approval process.
Sometimes it really does seem that getting your iPhone application approved or rejected for the App Store comes down to whether or not you draw Inspector No. 1 or Inspector No. 2 that day.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
1) Apple Needs to point out the misused API to the developer so that he knows which one it was and he in turn should be able to reply with the proof that he thought it was a published API
2) Google, of course, SHOULD be able to use unpublished API. I say this for two reasons
a) They are More likely than other developers to be included in further Firmwares than other Developers. Maps is already there search is still in it's infancy and therefore while not firmware worthy still is more viable.
b) Google is less likely to create an app that will misuse (or even leave API open for misuse) than other developers. While this may not be true in a real world, it is true in a corporate world which is where Google and Apple live and joe developer (no matter how small the developer community is) does not.
Can you give me evidence that this is true rather than just asserting it's true? Exactly how is it that Google is less likely to create an app that will misuse and API? Isn't using an unpublished API to take control of the proximity sensor on the iPhone a misuse? And after all, they developer said, "the last thing I would do is deliver time-bomb code to a paying customer." That means he doesn't want his application breaking just because he used an unpublished API.
/snark
Palm, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile have been completely opened for years. Sharp had a Linux phone. Of course such a novelty as Android will be even more open that completely open.
It is not like Google will save the earth. Symbian going open source and J2ME being GPL will save it.
Sadly whether fair or not, this smaller developer does not have that kind of leverage and does not impact one way or the other on the future of the device. So welcome to the real world where the concept of fairness is of small consequence in the bigger picture. Time for the guy to reinvent the product and try again.
I just wonder why this is "news".
Kim Jong-il? Really?
If I were him, I would make use of several J2ME 3d APIs or Symbian stuff and ship the exact app to ALL platforms except iPhone, in a weeks time. He can do it and it would be the only way Apple would understand.
With such a community who apologises for Apple in every chance, Apple won't really bother with open letters or anything. If such state of art code ships for ALL mobile platforms, they would indeed take it serious.
"There are over 10,000 apps in the store and a lot of developers are rushing to get their apps finished to join those masses. Oppressive? Really? Developers are making money in the app store. You are just experiencing a knee jerk reaction..."
Well said setgo... My thoughts exactly. The number of cases like this is probably well under half a percent! I just started using the App Store for the first time 2 weeks ago on an iPod Touch and absolutely LOVE it! I wish the ENTIRE application installation process for Mac/PC was like this (or at least had an option to be like this)! It works incredibly well. You can buy/download/install apps with 2 touches, typically in less than 20 seconds and the App Store icon automatically alerts you to updates which take seconds to download and install.
Then, on top of that, you sync up with iTunes on your computer and can use these applications on any other iPod Touch/iPhone you own.
I believe, if done right, the App Store could revolutionize the entire application distribution market! In the case for the Mac/iTablet (or whatever it'll be called) Apple could offer this distribution model to developers as an option. Even though Apple would get a small cut, it would save the developer $$ in marketing, packaging, internet bandwidth, and even tech management costs of software licensing. Software sold through the App Store would be tied to the user/company iTunes account helping with the complexities, lost $$, and hardships of pirating and licensing issues.
Hopefully Apple will support this model and allow enterprises to have their own iTunes account and software distribution method. IT could turn the entire software market and IT management on it's head!
You could replace the "I'm a PC Guy" in the commercials.
What a dud.
Grow up Apple!
We have two hopes for open applications
a) Apple sees the light - makes open rules and follow them
b) The GPhone, Microsoft Phone etc etc get as good as the iPhone
Besides I think an undocumented API is unfair, it is how Microsoft keeps its monopoly and stops people from making WINE or ReactOS run 100% Windows applications and drivers. Plus it gives Microsoft and Apple a big advantage no other software developer has which is what a monopoly means and is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Hell with Goodwin law, really.
I am an avid Apple user, but to allow this behavior is unconscionable. This developer spent time and resources developing his application; Apple should not be permitted to destroy the results of his efforts in such a demonstrably arbitrary and unaccountable way.
Of course Google gets special treatment. Think about it. Without YouTube support, the iPhone would have been a lot less appealing since it can't play flash videos. Google did Apple a huge favor by re-encoding videos in QuickTime friendly format for the iPhone, not to mention Maps.
================
Don't kid yourself Google... you'll see ads soon enough on your iPhone You Tube videos.
In fact, if you bother and buy Coreplayer, you can view the Youtube DESKTOP videos, the exact ones you can see with your browser.
It seems Apple plays to lack of publicity from Sun and Symbian (Nokia) and so far it succeeds.
Also, the standard "no response from Apple"
Well, of course. You can't get anything from Apple because Steve Jobs micro-manages them and you can't get a comment for Jobs unless you're willing to give a job.
Heh, maybe Apple rejected Peeps because it duplicates the functionality of their "Contacts" app.
If not, then this is just another example of Apple's arbitrary application rejection process that needs to be corrected, yet we all know, Apple won't be changing their ways any time soon.
Any word on if Android has had similar problems?
He also shipped Java 6 months before Apple saving them from a major shame.
This is exactly why I will stay on Symbian platform while being a complete Apple user in other areas. Whoever runs that iPhone app store is not the Apple we know, really.
- by Endbringer December 16, 2008 5:14 AM PST
- I cannot believe the comments on here are actually defending Apple for having two sets of standards; one for the big, rich developer and another for the small time, poor developer. Legally, Apple can be trouble for doing this because the license does not differentiate between developers. They have to treat everyone equally based on their OWN rules that they make developers follow.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by random truth December 20, 2008 2:33 PM PST
- Yes there is. There is a 4 versions of the sdk one that is free, the standard which is $99 a year, the enterprise with is $299 a year and the scholarship one. Each one has a different license.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (49 Comments)