

Apple yanks Wi-Fi detectors from App Store - alexandros
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/04/wifi_stumbling_iphone/

======
asmithmd1
I think this is the real reason - just a couple of days ago Microsoft
announced they would license a database of geolocated WiFi transmitters from
Navizon:

[http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geoloca...](http://www.navizon.com/Microsoft_selects_navizon_for_geolocation.asp)

Navizon was able to develop a huge database of geolocated WiFi transmitters by
having people run their application on iPhones. They got people to run their
app by offering actual cash for number of WiFi transmitters you located

~~~
yumraj
Even if that is the "reason", it still doesn't explain why, or provide a
"reason". What has that got to do with Apple yanking such apps.

Is Apple now just pissed that its hardware was used to create a valid business
for another company?

So what if Navizon created that database, and so what if MS purchased that
database. What has that got to do with Apple??

~~~
asmithmd1
One of the very cool things about the iPhone is that it can locate you almost
instantly because it uses SkyHook's database of geolocated WiFi locattions
(exclusively maybe? anyone else know of a mobile device that uses SkyHook for
location?) I see it as Apple trying to defend that instant location feature
from Microsoft adding it to it's new mobile OS. Apple isn't suing them, but no
sense in helping them make their device work better with an app running on an
Apple device.

~~~
jonknee
GPS and tower triangulation make location by WiFi not as useful on a phone.
Phones by law have to be able to know where they are (for e911) and a WiFi
database doesn't meet the level of accuracy.

~~~
asmithmd1
So why do you think Apple use WiFi positioning on the iPhone?

GPS can take minutes (or never come back with a location if you are inside)
and tower triangulation has never lived up to the accuracy claims that they
made.

~~~
jonknee
It's a nice backup and is very useful in the iPod Touch.

------
bruceboughton
"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi Where
has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks to
access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has
apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are
breaking.

\---

Well if they are using private APIs as the quote suggests, there's the rule
they're breaking right there. If so, this isn't news, move on.

------
larsberg
I wrote the first WiFi stumbler that hit the app store (WiFinder / WiFi
Checker). It was probably the first app to use private APIs, as dubious a
distinction as that is.

The reviewers rapidly figured out I was using them, told me about their
displeasure, and let me know they'd not be approving any updates. They just
only now (more than a year later!) got around to removing the other
applications using the same APIs. Until now, they were just denying updates
but leaving the applications in the store. And occasionally, a new application
using the same APIs would squeak through a foreign app review site (I'm
looking at you, Japan!).

Overall, though, at least this is a set of rules they're trying to be clear on
and are finally consistently enforcing. If only they had the ability to, oh, I
don't know, check if the submissions were linking against dlopen() instead of
expecting the reviewers to guess if private APIs are in use! If only we had
the technology... owait...

~~~
jluxenberg
I'm not familiar with development for the iPhone, but the whole public
/private API is interesting. Back when Microsoft was getting investigated by
the antitrust depth some put forward the argument that MS had internal docs
and secret APIs which were not public, and this was considered
anticompetitive.

~~~
gte910h
Only because they had the windows monopoly though, and were using it to build
a monopoly in office apps.

~~~
jcl
I guess that's a valid defense at the moment

I'm curious: Does Apple sell any apps of its own in the App Store? And, if so,
do they reject other apps for being similar?

(Being able to deny OpenOffice access to the Windows platform because it
duplicates functionality in Notepad is the kind of power Microsoft can only
dream of...)

~~~
allenbrunson
apple does indeed sell apps of its own in the store:

<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/texas-holdem/id284602850?mt=8>

it seems like they are for the most part playing fair: apple's apps don't use
private apis, they are required to compete against other apps the same as the
rest of us, and so on. if there have been any violations of that "gentleman's
agreement," i haven't heard about them, and i pay a lot of attention to the
blogosphere on this subject.

it seems to be only the apps that are installed by default on the device that
get special treatment.

~~~
gte910h
No they're not. Anything too similar to an apple app gets the boot.

~~~
jcl
Can you cite an example where an app has gotten the boot for being too similar
to an Apple app that is sold in the store (i.e. one that does not come
installed by default on the phone)?

------
Hagelin
_"We received a very unfortunate email today from Apple stating that WiFi
Where has been removed from sale on the App Store for using private frameworks
to access wireless information," explains one developer, though Apple has
apparently declined to explain exactly what rule the scanning applications are
breaking._

So Apple told them the removal is due to the use of private frameworks, but
they don't know what rule they're breaking?

------
mtarnovan
I'm finding the way Apple handles the App Store less and less acceptable.

~~~
maukdaddy
What is different now? They have never allowed apps that use private
frameworks. Some slipped through the cracks and are now being removed. How is
this becoming less acceptable? Or are you just buying into the media's knee-
jerk reaction each time an app gets removed?

~~~
mtarnovan
I'm really not "buying" anything. I just don't think they banned those apps on
technical grounds. What the hell does that even mean - "private frameworks" ?
Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that got Microsoft into trouble ? They
are just abusing a market position if you ask me. And hiding behind all sort
of most absurd excuses (when they bother to give some at all).

~~~
upinsmoke
if you don't know what it means, then there's not much point in arguing with
you.

------
edd

        But now even those have vanished as Apple decided
        they were using a "private framework", and has 
        pulled them off the shelves without explanation 
        or apology.
    

Apple does not like you messing around with the private frameworks. If this is
the reason, these developers should have seen this coming.

~~~
cakeface
I'm not exactly sure what a private framework means. Is this like a shared
library that they are all using? What is the problem with doing that from
Apple's point of view?

~~~
modoc
It's a non-documented/non-public API. Typically these APIs are either likely
to change without warning, haven't been fully tested for 3rd party app use, or
can cause issues (battery life, interference with other core iPhone features,
etc...). Whether it's the iPhone SDK, or your favorite web app dev framework,
using non-public APIs is generally a bad idea.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Why not let the market decide? This autocratic policy of actually killing apps
is bound to generate speculation, mostly unfavorable. What possible benefit
outweighs that?

~~~
KirinDave
> Why not let the market decide?

Apple _never_ lets the market decide. It hasn't since Steve Jobs came back
from NeXT. "The market" is incredibly bad at spurring the kind of innovation
Apple wants on its own. Because "the market" is largely composed of people who
have _no fucking clue_ what they actually want from technology. They couldn't
tell you what they really want unless you trained them. Even then, they might
not be able to.

"The market deciding" is what we've had pre-iPhone with the incredibly
conservative and stunted market behind smartphones. Everyone—and I mean
_everyone_ in the mobile space—had the technology to create the iPhone. No one
did. Why? Because the HTC Crapfest and the Blackberry Eyebleacher sold plenty
well. Because instead of taking bold risks and trying for real innovation,
companies like Palm and RIM crawled forward with a constant eye towards this
quarter's revenue. It's a malaise that has infected so much of the world's
business.

Apple's approach is frustrating and inconsistent, which is repugnant to the
News.Y crowd (myself included). But it's allowed them to continue to shape the
AppStore into something they want and something that moves product. It's the
foundation for future products as well. So don't ask, "Why not let the market
decide," because we all already know the answer. What Apple is doing may be a
slipperly slope, it may be doomed to fail long–term and it may be infuriating
and alienating to its developer base. But undeniably it's a business strategy
that is at the heart of the ascendancy of their products onto a worldwide
market.

------
morisy
There's so many possible explanations for why these apps were yanked (battery
conservation, legal concerns over war driving, compatibility issues) that the
lack of clearly naming at least one is a little frightening. With Apple
yanking political apps, scantily clad apps, and now Wi-Fi apps, I really don't
get the rush by media companies to secure a place on it.

~~~
Groxx
Well, they were told it's because they were using private frameworks. Which
means not-locked-down APIs. That's just inviting them to be yanked at some
point, as they're just waiting to break. Frankly, it's surprising they got
through at all, Apple was being rather loose with their rules in this area.

Plus, they're _duplicating functionality_ , which they've been rather explicit
in the past about not allowing.

~~~
morisy
Not approving apps that are going to break because they use private frameworks
makes sense, but pulling a wide variety in one genre after they've been
published and found a foothold just sucks.

And while Apple has been "explicit" about not allowing "duplicate"
functionality, that standard is incredibly vague in practice and incredibly
arbitrary in enforcement.

In this case, one of what I presume is the banned apps (the article doesn't
mention any, grr!) supported some non-duplicative features for war driving
assistance, as well as a "radar" view. So yes, some features are duplicated,
just like Pandora duplicates some features (playing, pausing music) that
iTunes does.

WiFiFoFum's product review/description page on MacWorld, with 1,549 reviews:
<http://bit.ly/bF4gMP>

~~~
Groxx
Sucks, yes, I'm not defending the suckiness of the app store. Few can deny
that.

But its purpose is not to lower suckiness for _developers_ , it's to lower
suckiness for _consumers_. They're merely being consistent in that goal.

------
theBobMcCormick
If they were using private API's (as many here are claiming), then why didn't
the infamous and lengthy app store review process find that _before_ these
apps made it to the market? If they can't even find out that an app is using
private API's, what are they spending 7-8 weeks reviewing?

~~~
Zev
You're assuming that the reviewers are programmers; don't.

The review process was changed a month or two back; from something along the
lines of "Will the app crash? Does it look like its doing anything evil?" to
something closer to `automatically scans for private api usage` + "does the
app crash doing basic tasks within the app".

The review process now takes a lot less than 2 weeks (or 2 months, at worst).
I've heard stories of approvals for updates within an hour recently.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
I'm certainly not assuming the reviewers are programmer. However, it'd be
super simple to create an automated tool that would scan an app to see if it
uses any private API's.

Am I suggesting Apple should do this? Not really. I don't actually see that
much value in it. What I _do_ think is interesting is that people often try to
justify Apple's ridiculous, lengthy, and arbitrary review process by implying
that the review process is someone keeping iPhone users safe from viruses or
other malevolent programs. But clearly that's not the case. If the App Store
approval process isn't sophisticated enough to identify apps that are using
private API's _before_ those apps are approved and released on the market,
then clearly the approval process isn't going to identify malware of any
reasonable level of sophistication.

------
dthakur
I have authored WiFi Hopper for Windows (<http://wifihopper.com>).

iPhone development was in the pipeline -- not any more.

~~~
kylec
You should develop it for Android instead.

------
dkarl
More details here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/03...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030402184.html)

All apps using a technology called PlaceEngine to estimate location via wifi
signals have been banned. Supposedly there's a statement on PlaceEngine's
Japanese site (<http://www.koozyt.com/?lang=ja>) saying that Apple changed
their policy regarding the way apps access Wi-Fi devices. I don't read
Japanese, so I can't verify what it says. Does anything care to translate?

------
protomyth
The sad part was that WiFiFoFum was a great app to diagnose problems with my
work network. I really hope this one gets resolved somehow.

