Apple rejects iPad app for pinch-to-expand

The folks behind Web Albums HD promptly removed the feature, and their app was subsequently approved on the store (which is why it's there now), but before you go spend the $2.99, know that even the devs think that they've "ended up having an inferior product" out there. Of course Apple has definitely limited the functionality of apps in the past by disallowing certain APIs, but now it seems replicated functionality of something they deem Apple's domain can also fall under their banhammer.
Share
Categories
We've heard all kinds of reasons for rejected apps on the App Store, but this one seems new to us. An iPad app called Web Albums HD has...
Add a Comment
Apple did NOT "invent" this gesture, or at least did not do so uniquely. If anyone deserves credit for it, it is Jeff Han, whose demo at TED was such a hit. You can find a video of Jeff's presentation at http://trunc.it/79rcg
Clearly Jeff, Apple, and others all considered the pinch-to-expand gesture to be the most intuitive way to achieve this expansion goal in a multitouch environment. As others have said, that just lends weight to the proposition that Apple should encourage use of consistent gestures, not suppress it!
Does Apple get anything out of this besides looking bad? Why are they pushing whizbang 3rd party apps to other platforms?
April 08 2010 at 10:37 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyTheoretically, they gain a minor competitive advantage by being able to do something in their applications that customers like (maybe - it depends on how important this gesture actually is to users) but which other developers cannot. I highly doubt that this gesture is really that important but I also doubt that they lose very much with this story either.
April 08 2010 at 11:26 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyInteresting, because the Facebook app has the same functionality...
April 08 2010 at 8:42 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyConsidering that all developers ride on the back of Apple's tens, probably hundreds of thousands of man years of endeavour with Xcode and the SDK, have access to an excellent worldwide distribution system, and might receive thousands of dollars of free marketing out of the blue, it isn't too much to expect that now and then Apple might like to hold on to their unique and original ideas for a while before as always they are copied and imitated.
It was a novel feature, very much a two fingered imitation of how one might spread a few photos out on a table, as such it is patentable.
The article mentioned that their implementation was hand-coded. I wonder if OS 4.0 will offer this interface in an API and Apple would like devs to use that implementation for stability and performance reasons. It's really the only good reason I can think of for this decision... I hope one of these developers sue Apple for anti-competitive behavior and just put an end to all this nonsense. I appreciate the fact that apps are reviewed for basic security and stability, but at some point they're going to have to learn to play nice with the other kids.
April 08 2010 at 7:15 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThey probably wanted to emphasis that the devs did not access a hidden API in the SDK to implement that feature which is something that Apple has repeatedly disapproved apps for. In this case however the issue is the gesture itself that was deemed problematic.
T.
Yhis is the true face of Apple, make no mistake, they will restrict anything and everything if they have the power. Steve jobs talking about open standards in web makes my blood boil
April 08 2010 at 5:27 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyEr, I think that's going a bit far, isn't it? If Apple really wanted to be restrictive then they wouldn't have introduced the App Store and web applications would have been banned.
April 08 2010 at 11:24 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThey put a lot of work into that app. I think there should be some sort of predesign approval from apple. Then they would not of coded the feature that then had to be removed.
April 08 2010 at 5:12 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyBOOOO!!!
I think that about covers things. Suffice to say that this action is totally unjustifiable. Does the App Store have any form of appeals process yet to address stupidity like this?
You know, 'Boo' as in 'I'm scaring you' and 'Booo' as in 'That's lame' is very hard to distinguish without the assistance of vocal inflection.
April 08 2010 at 10:17 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyAssume it's "Boo" scary when it's Halloween and "Boo" displeasure at other times.
April 08 2010 at 10:36 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyCrap like this is pushing me toward Android, unless the 4.0 announcement tomorrow and the inevitable new hardware knock me off my feet.
If I invested a lot of time into creating an application and paid for the privilege of doing so, I'd be furious if it was rejected for this or any other petty reason.
Hot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- miFrame Picture Frame Dock for iPad for $64 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Apple iPod nano 8GB MP3 Player for $99 + free shipping, 16GB for $119
- Bling Diamond Snap-On Shell Case for iPhone 4 / 4S for $2 + $2 s&h
- Hannspree Apple-Shaped 28" 1080p LCD HDTV for $270 + free shipping
- Philips wOOx Alarm Clock Radio for Apple iPod / iPhone for $60 + free shipping
- iWatchz Elemetal Collection Bracelet for iPod nano for $75 + free shipping
Software Updates
more updates- EFI Firmware Update brings Lion Internet Recovery to 2010-model Macs
- OS X Lion 10.7.3 released with Safari 5.1.3, Wi-Fi bug fix
- Aperture updated to 3.2.2, addresses Photo Stream issue
- Apple updates Keynote to address Lion issues
- Google Search app gets new look on iPad
- Apple releases Apple TV Software Update 4.4.3



43 Comments