“Just yesterday, however, they revealed (via a message on Twitter that was pulled about 30 minutes after it went out) that this latest build had a hidden feature: by visiting the URL camplus://enablevolumesnap in Mobile Safari, one could make the volume buttons on the side of the iPhone instead act as a camera shutter button — something which Apple had already said was a no-no,” Kumparak reports.
Kumparak reports, “Hidden features and tricks that circumvent Apple’s rulings don’t fly for very long — and sure enough: as of right around midnight this morning, Camera+ has been pulled from the App Store.”
Full article here.
Apple Corp execs are such douchebags. far worse than Microsoft ever was.
They don’t care about there user
And what harm was this doing?
wait…what? An App made it to the App Store with *that* kind of security hole in it?
Jim,
The restrictions are in place to protect the user.
Thanks for the strawman, Jim. I’m sure everyone is lining up to respond to that bullshit.
Let’s go back to the original story. The app originally was fine, with no subversion of Apple’s rules. Why did the devs have to put the feature in sneakily?
Because Apple doesn’t want the iPhone 4’s volume buttons to be used as a camera shutter.
That ridiculous position is the problem here, and if it weren’t for Apple’s inane rules it wouldn’t have come to this. Using the buttons to take pics rather than having to tap the screen is a great idea.
h2a, most likely “none”. That wasn’t the point.
Jim, of the three ways to spell the word, you missed the correct choice … “their”.
One of the reasons Windows is in such a tough situation is that MSFT would like to retain basic compatibility with previous generation software. Quite a bit of which “hit the metal” – was programmed to take advantage of firmware and the like which is not actually part of the OS. You seem to think that Apple is harming their users by protecting them from such foolishness. So … why are you here instead of on a MSFT forum?
If I have music playing while I am taking pictures, I don’t want the volume controls to be hijacked by the camera app.
When it comes to the iPhone, it’s Apple’s world, and we just live in it. And for millions of users around the world (including me), that’s just fine.
If you want an OS you can hack to your heart’s delight, use an Android phone. But then you’re in the position where different programs assign different functions to the same button, which leads to conflicts which leads to crashes.
What if you’re taking a photo in Camera+ while you’re streaming Pandora, or listening to music via the iPod. Are you taking a photo when you lower the volume, or snapping a photo?
I’ll take the Apple way over the anything-goes way (on the other hand, I’d love a remote shutter release that connects via the Dock, so I don’t shake the camera as I try to press the little shutter button).
@@h2a,
That’s why it was originally an optional setting.
@ ‘@h2a’
Yes! You sir, have nailed it!
I completely agree with you.
Was it really worth circumventing the App Store rules for this one feature? Seems this sneaky behavior could pose a real threat for iPhone users. Apple has to be more vigilant if they’re going to continue to be the keepers of the gate.
Jim,
“Apple Corp execs are such douchebags.”
They sure are; wish they’d make The Beatles available for download already!
OT: Apple Inc. owns the fscking App Store. What they say goes. If you don’t like it, you can go fsck yourself with some other platform whose users don’t buy nearly as many apps.
Totally agree with you WriterGuy, why is it seem wrong for a company to control what their device does?
Indeed there are devices out there that allow anyone to do what they want with them, and users have to deal with any shortcomings or bad designs.
Apple want’s to have as much control over what is their devices do, which results in limitations but, from its success I think its safe to say that the general result is a very good one.
Most technical people say “I want to have the choice” regarding features and what you can do with your gadgets, but they don’t realize that the more choices you have, the more complex and annoying it is to use a gadget. In this case, Apple believes that having the choice of changing the volume control is a bad thing… sounds fine to me.
“If I have music playing while I am taking pictures, I don’t want the volume controls to be hijacked by the camera app.”
Then you, like a big boy, can say to yourself “Hmm, y’know, I don’t like this app very much. I’ll delete it from my phone and go back to using the stock camera app.”
Is that so fscking difficult?
Then, hey, the rest of us who don’t have music playing while we take pics (like damn near everybody else on the planet) can still have access to the app! Everyone’s happy instead of suffering at the hands of your ignorance.
@R2: Or maybe allowing apps to repurpose the hardware features of the iPhone opens up a security hole, or makes the device less stable? What if the app crashes, and the volume buttons become useless until the system is rebooted? What if a music program is playing in the background while you’re using the camera program, what takes priority then?
Or maybe Apple spent a lot time getting the hardware to “just work” and isn’t about to let some app developer f*** it all up.
9.5 times out of 10, Apple has a good reason for their positions. I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
——RM
The volume buttons are designed to adjust, well, volume of sound. Not to be fully-mappable generic buttons that developers can use for their applications. Obviously, this app does not surreptitiously send private data out, or jeopardise security in any way. But the developers are clearly going around the rules they agreed to play by when they accepted the developer agreement.
You may consider this harmless, but the rule does exist to prevent malicious development.
and Jim,
Apple put these restrictions for a purpose: they’re there to protect their users. (notice the difference between they’re, there and their).
“What if the app crashes, and the volume buttons become useless until the system is rebooted? What if a music program is playing in the background while you’re using the camera program, what takes priority then?”
It was an optional feature, my Lord.
But let’s say after going out of your way to enable that feature, and going out of your way to download the app which had that feature listed as one of the biggest reasons to purchase that app in its App Store description, you still come under assault by this whacky feature as you take pics while listening to Maroon 5 on the beach one day. You totally forgot about it and you’re very, very angry.
THEN DELETE THE FSCKING APP FROM YOUR PHONE, AND GO BACK TO THE STOCK CAMERA APP, OR DOWNLOAD ANOTHER FROM THE APP STORE, YOU FSCKING SIMPLETON!
This type of thing frustrates me so much because Apple tries to come across as the throw-back “Hippie” from the 60’s and “we’re so cool” but in reality Steve Jobs in one of the worst “Capitalist Pig” there is right now.
Take Flash for instance, is there better technologies available, absolutely, but why does Apple feel SO compelled NOT to allow the people who buy iPads and iPhones to use flash?
Simple, because if apple allowed flash to be used then people would be using the millions of free web apps available online the require flash, and do you know what those people would be doing a whole lot less? Correct, BUYING apps from the APP Store.
It’s buying new Honda Civic but not being allowed to put in an aftermarket stereo or new rims. That’s why I say screw you to Apple I bought the damn phone and ipad I should be able to do what I want to it.
At least the Government agrees, I hope they bitch slap Apple with a hefty tax and since Apple already charges a premium they would just have to absorb it.
Oh, and I did spell “their” correctly but my iphone inadvertently spell checked and “Corrected” it.
“why is it seem wrong for a company to control what their device does?”
– Quite simply, from the moment you purchase it, it is no longer their device.
@Jim – Flash is a buggy, battery sucking resource hog. It’s no loss. Get over it and yourself.
Psst – Spell checkers don’t change correctly spelled words. They also don’t correct context.
If Apple let everyone take control of the H/W as they desired and what seemed to be good ideas, then Apple products would fall to the same fate as Mircosoft products have over the years … endless configurations issues and ever challenging hardware problems … Remember Windows ME or Vista
More justification for tight control to insure a high quality product experience as the product was originally intended.
So, you are claiming that the spell checker replaced a correct word with another correct word because the correct word was incorrect?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Apple has a statement stating on how Easter eggs are supposed to be used (they do understand developers like to throw these in). They need to be documented, testable, etc. Apple then states that if an app is found to have an undocumented Easter egg the app will be removed from the store.
You can argue all you want about the feature itself not causing harm, causing harm, confusing users, etc. The simple fact is: the developer broke the rules they signed up for and paid the price.
This issue is more complex than it seems. On the surface it’s easy to say that this was an optional feature and caused no harm. Likewise, there shouldn’t be the mentality of “Apple is always 100% right and we must comply 100% or shoot ourselves in the head”.
However at issue here is that in a walled garden that is the iPhone, a developer broke the rules by 1) sneaking in a feature and 2) modifying how the core functionality of the iPhone works (the volume buttons).
From Apple’s perspective, it’s a bit like issuing a traffic ticket for speeding. The driver didn’t cause an accident, but they broke the law. The officer doesn’t issue a ticket on the basis of thinking they’re *directly* preventing a *specific* accident. They never make that evaluation.
Apple, with it’s bazillions of apps to approve, doesn’t necessarily evaluate whether each violation of its rules is inherently a problem for the user, the carriers, content providers, other developers or Apple itself. Instead, it created a set of rules to protect all those interests and then pulls or disapproves apps that violate those rules. Rules are re-evaluated and exceptions are made, but the process is what takes priority over individual circumstances.
Personally, what I’d love to see is Apple come up with a way to allow jailbreaking in order to allow advanced users out of the walled garden.
“”why is it seem wrong for a company to control what their device does?”
– Quite simply, from the moment you purchase it, it is no longer their device.”
– Quite simply, from the moment you purchased it, the hardware is no longer theirs; however, the software you licensed is still theirs.
How is this so hard to understand. Buy the device and throw it in a blender; Apple does not care. Jailbreak the phone and Apple does not care. (Really! Of course they will not go out their way to make sure any future updates work with the jailbroken phones.) Install Android on it. In short, do what you want with the hardware you now own. However, by buying from the App store you are accepting the rules set forth by Apple for applications. If you do not agree to this you simply do not buy the device or you jailbreak it and buy from Cydia et al or you buy another brand.