[Vincent Ferrari]

http://www.plausiblelabs.com/peeps/

"Peeps is not currently available in iPhone App Store - the application was rejected because Apple believes we are using their private Cover Flow implementation. We actually wrote our own implementation of Cover Flow, so we're hoping the decision will be overturned."

Apple rejected Peeps because the developer claimed he was using Coverflow.  Apparently his implementation was good enough (along with his claim of using it in his app) that it got his app rejected.  I'm not a fan of Apple rejecting apps (see the previous post about Pull My Finger) but in reality, if you claim to use a private API and your app gets rejected, you shouldn't be surprised.  Of course, if you're Google, you have the right to use whatever API you want and your app will be warmly received and featured, but that's Google and, as unfair as it is, we're not.

[Vincent Ferrari]

http://www.plausiblelabs.com/peeps/

"Peeps is not currently available in iPhone App Store - the application was rejected because Apple believes we are using their private Cover Flow implementation. We actually wrote our own implementation of Cover Flow, so we're hoping the decision will be overturned."

Apple rejected Peeps because the developer claimed he was using Coverflow.  Apparently his implementation was good enough (along with his claim of using it in his app) that it got his app rejected.  I'm not a fan of Apple rejecting apps (see the previous post about Pull My Finger) but in reality, if you claim to use a private API and your app gets rejected, you shouldn't be surprised.  Of course, if you're Google, you have the right to use whatever API you want and your app will be warmly received and featured, but that's Google and, as unfair as it is, we're not.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

Apple rejected Peeps because the developer claimed he was using Coverflow.  Apparently his implementation was good enough (along with his claim of using it in his app) that it got his app rejected.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where did the developers claim they used CoverFlow? The part you quoted said they wrote their own version, not that they used some private API.

As a programmer, I think reverse engineering a User Interface is fair game (unless the UI is copyrighted).

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

I'm not a fan of Apple rejecting apps (see the previous post about Pull My Finger) but in reality, if you claim to use a private API and your app gets rejected, you shouldn't be surprised.  Of course, if you're Google, you have the right to use whatever API you want and your app will be warmly received and featured, but that's Google and, as unfair as it is, we're not.

Yes, but in that article you also said that Apple should be consistent. If they reject Small Company for using an API but allow Big Company to use it, how is that consistent?

Furthermore, using private APIs is iffy. I believe Microsoft's use of private Windows APIs was one of the things used against them in the anti-trust lawsuit. They certainly had to disclose certain classes of APIs as part of the settlement.

While Apple probably can't be sued for anti-trust, what about restraint of trade? Apple makes their store the only place people can legitimately get apps from (which is bad enough), then places restrictions (and inconsistent ones at that) on developers. Sounds like a class action suit to me.

If Microsoft did that with Windows Mobile, I bet a lot of people would be hooting at them....

Steve

[Vincent Ferrari]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

Maybe I'm missing something, but where did the developers claim they used CoverFlow? The part you quoted said they wrote their own version, not that they used some private API.

As a programmer, I think reverse engineering a User Interface is fair game (unless the UI is copyrighted).

Their original post called it CoverFlow and mentioned nothing of building their own implementation. It has since been changed due to the controversy.

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

Yes, but in that article you also said that Apple should be consistent. If they reject Small Company for using an API but allow Big Company to use it, how is that consistent?

I don't believe I said it was, but arguing "that's not fair" isn't going to change the fact that Apple will treat Google differently than John Q. Developer and that's the reality of the business world. Unfair or not, inconsistent or not. In an ideal world, they'd be consistent, just like I said.

FYI: Private APIs aren't iffy, they're expressly forbidden for App Store apps. Those are the rules of the game and they're defined from day one. Microsoft did the same thing with Kernel patching and antivirus apps, only to succumb and allow vendors to patch the Kernel just to shut them up. Microsoft did it for Symantec and McAffee, Apple did it for Google. Like I said, they should be consistent, but that doesn't mean they are, or will be.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

FYI: Private APIs aren't iffy, they're expressly forbidden for App Store apps. Those are the rules of the game and they're defined from day one.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that. I meant that Apple using "private" APIs is iffy. That's why I brought up Microsoft's legal troubles.

Steve