

$500k Selling Camera+ pulled from AppStore over 'Easter Egg' - ajg1977
http://www.9to5mac.com/camera%20-makes-500k-now-pulled-from-store

======
msy
$500k Selling Camera+ politely pulled from AppStore with explanation, over
deliberate attempt to circumvent ban on functionality that had been explicitly
denied. An easter egg is putting a flight simulator in a spreadsheet program,
this was just hiding a feature that had previously got the app rejected and
then bragging about it.

That they did so after talking about how other apps tried to sneak things past
and it was a stupid idea boggles the mind.

 _When Apple finds out about these incidents, they tend to crack down pretty
hard on them, sometimes going so far as completely banning the developers from
the App Store. So this is definitely not the smart way to go._ \-
<http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/>

~~~
dieterrams
I'm getting tired of these publicity stunts. Developers who knowingly try to
pull a fast one should have all their apps pulled and their developer license
suspended for a year. It's just too easy to leverage the review process to
game the media.

~~~
jrockway
I agree with this. The faster Apple kills off their closed dying platform, the
better.

There's a reason that Android outsold Apple last quarter, and it wasn't
antennagate.

~~~
gamble
Yeah, it was Verizon pushing Android in exchange for a cop-out on net
neutrality.

------
jokermatt999
Although I generally dislike App Store model, I'd say this is a fair ban in
the context of Apple's rules. They'd outlawed that functionality, so they
removed the app when they tried to sneak it back in. This is perfectly
logical.

 _However_ , if users want the functionality enough to bother going to secret
URL to enable it, perhaps the rule is a bad one. Users clearly want something
as simple as using a physical button to take a picture, but Apple won't let
them because it violates their guidelines. On one hand, this means apps are
consistent and follow Apple rules, but on the other hand, it means you simply
cannot have a ridiculously simple feature simply because Apple says so. Would
you rather have consistency or freedom?

~~~
kristiandupont
I agree - the fact that you have to actively unlock this feature should mean
that you are aware what you are doing and thus, the risk of confusion is not
an issue.

------
jacquesm
<http://www.eeggs.com/items/43501.html>

What's good for the goose...

Apple really goes out of their way to tell developers that they can be
penalized for circumventing their restrictions, but if both developers _and_
end users want to circumvent the restrictions you really have to wonder as a
company if you are on the right path.

The bad press that Apple has gotten because of stuff like this in the last
year is really starting to add up, and I think this is one of the best
examples to date of why such control is wrong.

Strictly speaking this is not an 'easter egg' but a user interface policy
violation, presenting it as an easter egg including a very difficult
activation sequence should prove beyond doubt to Apple that these users are
going to be perfectly happy with their volume control not working in the Apple
dictated way. It is _their_ volume control button after all (the users', not
Apples).

~~~
mechanical_fish
_if both developers and end users want to circumvent the restrictions you
really have to wonder as a company if you are on the right path_

And most people _do_ wonder, and then they cave. Which explains the dynamic
that drives 90% of the designs out there:

CUSTOMER: "I want to be able to receive email from inside my blog."

DEVELOPER: "No, really, you don't. Email is a complex beast. It will make your
blog software much bigger and more complicated and fragile. You will spend a
lot more to develop it and a lot more to maintain it. It will be hard to
design in such a way that it's easy to learn and understand. And you may think
you need it, but you don't."

[five minutes pass]

CUSTOMER: "The most important missing feature is: I want to be able to receive
email from inside my blog."

DEVELOPER: "We talked about that five minutes ago. It is a really bad idea!"

[iterate fifty times]

CUSTOMER: "I want to be able to receive email from inside my blog."

DEVELOPER: "Okay! Okay! I want that, too, so that I can charge you money to
implement it instead of fending off the request every five seconds."

[two months later]

CUSTOMER: "Why is my blog software so difficult for my new employees to learn,
and why is it so complicated, and why does it cost so much to maintain?"

DEVELOPER: [stabs self with pen]

\---

Design integrity is hard. Hard on everyone. Maybe that's why so few products
have it.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, but in this case the feature was dead simple, developers _and_ users were
on the same page but the vendor of the hardware (and the distributor of the
software) nixed it.

Your example sounds like things I've been through multiple times, the best way
we ever improved software was by leaving infrequently used features out. At
some point we had blue-screening and stereo images in the webcam software, I
don't think anybody ever used those except us for a demo of how cool the
software was.

It made it quite difficult to get people back to 'normal' after a round of
random clicking on settings to see what they do.

This sort of frustration is not just limited to the software world, in
industrial design similar things happen.

Good design is usually tied to someone that knew as much or more about
removing stuff than it is about adding stuff.

Personally I'm a big fan of the old 'Braun' designs. Someone ought to start
using that sort of design for websites.

~~~
msy
They do, it's called vitsoe.com. The thing is, the feature _isn't_ dead
simple. Implementing it would completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the
iPhone. The quality of the UX on the iPhone exists because of those rules,
just because something may seem like a good idea doesn't mean it is. Allow
this and they're not volume buttons anymore, they're just general purpose
buttons whose action is context specific.

 _I'd like to reduce the volume of my music but I'm in the NYTimes app so that
will favorite the article instead._

~~~
pyre

      > The thing is, the feature isn't dead simple. Implementing it would
      > completely break a solid rule of the HIG of the iPhone. The
      > quality of the UX on the iPhone exists because of those rules
    

I'm sorry, but if the HIG is Apple's 'ten commandments,' then they are guilty
of multiple mortal sins. I can't comment much on the iPhone, but Apple has
consistently (since the inception of OSX at least) broken their _own_ HIG in
their own applications. If Apple can't even play by their own rules, then why
should everyone else?

~~~
jokermatt999
Could you point out some examples? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't
know of any because I'm generally not a Mac user.

~~~
oasisbob
If memory serves, Apple's OS X guidelines stated that the brushed-steel app
chrome was only to be used for apps that mimiced physical objects.

... Then iTunes and Quicktime started using it.

------
marknutter
When I saw the first pictures of the new iphone and heard about its camera, I
looked at the volume buttons and automatically assumed that they would be used
to take the picture; just like a real camera. The fact that you can't really
baffles me. Touching a software button on the screen that you are trying to
line up for a good shot is awkward and inelegant. Good for the camera+ guys
for trying to include this feature. I only wish I had heard about it sooner so
I could have gotten a copy. Maybe it is yet again time for me to jailbreak my
phone.

~~~
jws
Touching a button still will jiggle the unit. Better yet, use the microphone
and let the photographer say "click" to take a picture.

~~~
marknutter
Your finger will already be resting on the volume buttons, just like they
naturally would on any point and shoot camera. You just compress the button to
take the picture and it won't jiggle. You're not awkwardly pressing down on
the button with the tip of your finger like you're pressing an elevator
button.

~~~
glhaynes
There's a lot more resistance on the volume buttons on the iPhone 4 than on a
P&S camera.

------
pistoriusp
IMHO it seems fair for Apple to have removed the app.

I can only imagine how many more copies they are going to sell once the app is
added again.

The people from TapTapTap/ MacHeist are incredibly smart. I think they planned
it to go exactly this way.

------
corin_
While it was dumb of the developer to try and do it behind Apple's back, and
they should have known they would get caught...

The logic behind Apple's rule that volume buttons cannot be used to control
anything other than volume is that it may confuse users. Surely based on that,
the fact that users had to go out of their way to enable the feature (more so
than even changing settings within the application), the feature is only
accessible to users who won't get confused.

Of course, once they discovered it, Apple did have to take the action they did
(or risk opening themselves up to all developers taking the same risk), but
they should consider allowing an exception to the rule for developers who make
it hard enough to enable that kind of feature, while also providing users with
valid warnings, documentation and an option to disable it again that is far
easier than it was to enable it.

------
aw3c2
Slightly Off-Topic: How safe are those application controlling URLs? Can one
do a CRSF like <img src="camplus://enablevolumesnap" /> ?

~~~
cmelbye
It's not an HTTP server, so that example wouldn't work. The URL needs to be
visited (with an anchor or just by typing into the Safari address bar), and
Safari will close and open the application associated with the URL scheme.

------
bryanlarsen
This just goes to show how user-unfriendly Apple is. I understand why they
have their HIG, and why they reject apps for breaking it. However, when a user
goes to the trouble of entering in a secret URL they obviously want the secret
feature very badly and are not going to get "confused" by it.

~~~
tjogin
This ban has nothing to do with the _user_.

This is the _developer_ circumventing the AppStore reviewers, including
functionality that they know for a _fact_ isn't permitted.

~~~
bryanlarsen
If the user can't buy an app the user wants to buy, then the user is being
screwed just as much as the developer is. Maybe it's the developer's fault
that the user is being screwed, but I argue that the developer was giving the
users their most requested feature, and Apple is the one being user-
unfriendly.

~~~
gaius
Am I "screwed" because I can't swap the brake and the clutch on my car?

~~~
shabble
is there a legal requirement to have them in a particular order? Otherwise,
I'm fairly sure you could have a mechanic do that, although it could end up
being fairly expensive.

To extend your analogy to the issue at hand, Apple are in the position of
owning every mechanic shop around, and explicitly forcing them not to offer
this service or risk being shut down.

------
skalpelis
They just cannot please everybody. There was a fuss when they were being
arbitrary with their rejections and now there's a fuss when they reject an app
for not following the rules.

~~~
biafra
Which rule of the developer agreement disallows using volume controls for
anything else than volume control?

~~~
skalpelis
Don't know and don't care much about it, but it says in the article that
sneaking in undisclosed easter eggs is verboten and that is why [this version
of] the app was rejected.

------
daleharvey
was this post written in a sarcacstic tone or did they really call it
"backstabbing"?

that is almost creepy

------
statictype
I would have bought the app just to be able to use a hardware button to take
photos.

I'm a bit confused though: If Apple doesn't want to let Apps override the
behavior of the volume keys, why did they even make it possible?

~~~
markkanof
I assume the API provides notifications when the volume buttons are pressed so
that an app that has music/sound can adjust it's own volume. Of course there
is no way for apple to determine programatically that the app is using those
notifications for some other purpose. So features like this end up being in
the app, until a human spots it and rejects the app.

------
demallien
Huh. So you can access the volume buttons without using a private API? Or did
Apple's tools somehow fail to pickup that the app was linking to a private
API? _That_ would be news!

~~~
PanMan
I guess you can read the volume change without using a private API (like, a
music player could use that function). If the volume changes, the user pressed
the volume button. Makes you wonder if this app also works with the volume on
the iphone remote..

------
markstahler
I wonder how long their next app will take to get 'reviewed', if ever.

------
jsz0
I want my volume buttons to _always_ be volume buttons. I don't know if that's
an unreasonable way of looking at the world or not. Having the ringer on/off
switch helps but there are lots of times when you're wearing headphones that a
sudden burst of loud sound (either on a call or un-normalized MP3s) is very
uncomfortable. I don't want my SmartPhone to cause me pain.

~~~
shasta
If you want your volume buttons to stay volume buttons, I recommend not going
out of your way to reprogram them. Or did you mean that you want MY volume
buttons to stay volume buttons?

------
10char
If anyone is interested, I whipped up a stand-alone app this morning that does
the same thing: <http://github.com/clayallsopp/VolumeCamera>

Made it pretty quick, so YMMV

------
joey_bananas
The policy outlined in the submission tip image seem pretty reasonable to me.
With so many people building apps for iOS, one has to assume that some of them
are malicious assholes.

------
jrockway
Hey look, yet another problem that Android developers and users don't have.
Make any button do anything. And the antenna works.

------
mkramlich
And developer/producer interest in the Android platform just notched up a
little farther.

------
rmc
What's interesting is that Apple's App Review process clearly did not know
that that functionality is in the programme. I thought they were supposed to
be evaulating and testing apps to ensure they are high quality?

------
thewileyone
Doesn't seem much of a "backstab" ... Apple's Easter Egg policy is shit.

~~~
geedee77
Maybe it is shit, but it's also documented and the punishments for ignoring
the policy are clearly laid out.

As much as you or I may think it's a bit dumb that Apple won't allow the
easter egg, we can't be surprised by their reaction to it once they knew about
it.

~~~
apgwoz
Apple _will_ allow easter eggs, but you have to disclose them to the review
team (they promise to keep them confidential). This "easter egg" wasn't
disclosed, and was an attempt to get a feature into the phone that was
rejected by Apple before.

Right or wrong, this violated Apple's documented restrictions--this shouldn't
even be a story.

~~~
andrew1
> this shouldn't even be a story.

If people are interested in the issue then of course it should be. Just
because a law or rule exists doesn't mean that people should be happy with it,
or accepting of it. If my government passed a law that I didn't agree with and
prosecuted someone for breaking it, then I'd be happy for that issue to be
discussed in the media. It doesn't matter whether the person knowingly broke
the law or not, I'd still want the issue to get publicity.

~~~
apgwoz
The story isn't about that though. The story is about how someone created an
Easter Egg and Apple took the app down--exactly like they said they would.

If this story was "$500K worth of users want to use the volume button to take
pictures, but Apple won't let us" now you have a story that _might_ actually
be worthy. Until then, no story.

I'm getting awfully annoyed at all these stories about how the App Store
sucks, and the approval process sucks. Non-developers don't care about this.
They buy the apps that are approved and follow Apple's guidelines. Apple
doesn't care because its vetting process _protects_ its users, and its brand.
Only developers care. And if developers care, they shouldn't waste their time
writing software for the platform. And they shouldn't use it either. Force
Apple to change by voting against them. Until then, they'll only see it as
good exposure, and find another app that users will tolerate.

