Confirmed: Google was naughty, broke App Store rules with iPhone app

Okay, any talk that consistency in Apple's approval process for the App Store has improved definitely has to be put on hold at this point; first we had that BdEmailer situation that duplicates functionality (albeit shoddily) of the iPhone's own email capabilities, and now we have official confirmation that Google did a no-no when it slipped its voice-powered search through the checkpoint. The problem is that enabling the automatic voice detection requires use of an undocumented API call for the proximity sensor that Apple neither guarantees nor approves use of, meaning firmware updates can break it at will. In and of itself, that's not a huge indiscretion on Google's part since they're probably committed to keeping it up-to-date, but the real issue is that this violates an explicit rule of the App Store that bans the use of undocumented calls. Apple, guys, seriously: if you want to be jerks about what gets through and what doesn't, fine -- but at least do it consistently so it doesn't look like you're favoring companies run by members of your own executive board (or in the case of BdEmailer, companies that are doing a bang-up job of making your own products look better).

[Via mocoNews]

[Curtis Joslin @ Nov 26th 2008 1:30PM]

I wish Apple would just open the damn phone up to everyone..

[John @ Nov 26th 2008 1:32PM]

This is why the phone isnt a 'smartphone'

[Techie @ Nov 26th 2008 1:37PM]

That's why people lean towards different smart phones like the HTC Touch Diamond/Pro, G1 and i900 from Samsung. The iPhone is not your only option but most Americans just don't know that.

[roole @ Nov 26th 2008 2:13PM]

@techie, sure, Americans must be dumb, and that could possibly be the only reason why the iPhone is currently the best-selling non-dumbphone here.

[Patriks7 @ Nov 26th 2008 2:29PM]

And I wish they would offer the same damn apps in all of their stores :|
I live in Slovakia, therefore have to use the Slovak iTunes store and we have none of the good apps, this one included..

[roole @ Nov 26th 2008 3:00PM]

Heh heh, I should also have added, the predictable 'low rank' for any comment seen as being partial towards Apple was a 'gimme.' Dr. Pavlov would be proud!

And, you all get one more chance to prove it. Go for it...... then again, maybe not?
;-)

[James @ Nov 26th 2008 3:28PM]

@roole:

I thought they all low ranked you because you called Americans dumb not because you said anything negative about Apple. Though I could be wrong and am completely underestimating Fanboyism...

Let me try something...

America is so great, it should ban all crappy products like the iphone!

...now we just sit and wait...

[Goatee Man @ Nov 27th 2008 12:40AM]

@Roole:

I don't side with Apple or Microsoft, but I downranked you for being a prick.

[FuzzyCat @ Nov 27th 2008 4:10AM]

@Patriks7

follow these instructions for setting up an account without a credit card in one of the countries you want

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2534

All you'll need is an address in that country (just search for one, something like a high street bank/charity etc will do if you don;t know anyone in that country)

You wont be able to buy apps but at least you will be able to get the free ones that aren't available in some countries - I'm looking at you last.fm

[roole @ Nov 27th 2008 2:47PM]

@goatee man, it's spelt s-a-r-d-o-n-i-c.

But then.....

[utahnkid @ Nov 27th 2008 11:01PM]

Mark my words, the day they open up the iPhone is the day you can go shopping for "Norton Antivirus - iPhone Edition".

I would MUCH rather have a "default fail" form of security rather than the currently accepted "default pass" system found in our security riddled Windows OS's. Do some research into different takes on computer security if you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about.

Are you honestly surprised that Google was allowed to do this over the other po-dunk software companies? Of course they'll be given more freedom then the other developers - being a multi BILLION dollar company can get you those kinds of perks.

[David Cook @ Nov 26th 2008 1:31PM]

Aloha Chris:

Actually, this is not totally factual. Apple will not reject an app because it uses undocumented API calls. Rather, you are not allowed to user any Private Frameworks. Use of a Private Framework WILL get your app rejected.

However, as long as it is a Public Framework (iPhone), you can use an undocumented call, it is just simply not recommended because OS/firmware updates could possible break it (causing you to rewrite or rework your application).

Mahalo nui loa!

[Smart People Play Tuba @ Nov 26th 2008 1:33PM]

@ David Cook

My wife totally digged you on Idol. But I gotta say . . . Get a haircut, hippie.

[Chris Ziegler @ Nov 26th 2008 1:35PM]

David - actually, there is an explicit statement in the agreement that applications may not make use of unpublished APIs.

[David Cook @ Nov 26th 2008 1:47PM]

Aloha Again Chris:

Yes, but apps are not being rejected for using undocumented calls in public frameworks.

This has also been noted by Erica Sadun (TUAW) in her book "The iPhone Developers Cookbook" where she discusses several undocumented calls in public frameworks.

Mahalo from paradise

P.S. "Smart People Play Tuba" - if your wife totally dug me, why would I want to get a haricut? :) Or - if I did get a hair cut, would YOU totally dig me? ;)

[Slaven @ Nov 26th 2008 3:05PM]

As I just mentioned elsewhere Note2Self has had that feature for months now, it uses it to record voice notes when you bring the phone to your ear. And it's also available at the app store, so I don't see a big conspiracy here...

[DU @ Nov 26th 2008 1:31PM]

I've got a brilliant idea - why doesn't Apple document the API. Then Google wouldn't be breaking any rules and we can continue using the auto-voice feature (which is really cool IMHO).

[tpadekar @ Nov 26th 2008 2:49PM]

you see, this is the kind of thinking that's got the economy in such a mess!

[Dopefish @ Nov 26th 2008 1:38PM]

Sorry but what do you expect when the CEO of google is on the apple board of directors!?

[dBs @ Nov 26th 2008 1:38PM]

*hides his iPhone in shame*

[pavlindrom @ Nov 26th 2008 1:57PM]

from your iPhone? Of course, since you didn't capitalize any letter except the "P" in you iPhone, which is automatic.

[dBs @ Nov 26th 2008 3:05PM]

Actually no, it was on my laptop. It was one of those "internet actions" so I figured a sentence capitalization pointless. Ill also clue you in that the iPhone capitalizes the first letter of any message as well. Now youre an informed individual, congratulations!

[holycow @ Nov 26th 2008 5:03PM]

"Ill also clue you in that the iPhone capitalizes the first letter of any message as well."
Not after the '*' it doesn't. Now you're an informed individual as well, congratulations!

[dBs @ Nov 26th 2008 5:35PM]

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on that, you payed attention! =D

[Maztec @ Nov 26th 2008 1:43PM]

Not to defend Apple, but rather put some blame on them. By not being open they require human review of the policies. Human review is fundamentally flawed because humans are fundamentally flawed. It seems that Apple's reviewers each have their own agenda and apply it. As a result the decisions of what gets in or not really waives around wildly.

What it seems that Apple needs is some type of appeal to the review process. . . or more confident reviewers. :\

[KarlW @ Nov 26th 2008 4:17PM]

Or more competent reviewers. AFAIK the source code isn't sent. That means you're relying on the reviewers having a good understanding of the iPhone SDK and frameworks, and being able to identify on sight features which are not allowed. My guess is that there's quite a lot of room for judgement in these situations.

That said, it's pretty easy to identify use of undocumented code. You just hook it up to a debugger, and tell it to flag calls not in the SDK symbols and not originating from a legitimate API call.

[utahnkid @ Nov 27th 2008 11:07PM]

Ha, that's the first thing I thought..

It's COMPETENT genius, not "confident"

What was that about human flaws you were going on about?

[Maztec @ Nov 28th 2008 12:16AM]

@utahnkid: We did see the sarcastic smiley face, correct? My apologies, sarcastic jokes really do transmit poorly across the internet. :(

[Fred @ Nov 26th 2008 1:49PM]

I wish I understood all your big words. From a user standpoint, it works, it's pretty cool, and that's all I need to know.

[tpadekar @ Nov 26th 2008 2:44PM]

Fred:

Engadget's looking at it from the Developer's point of view. Apple's selection/rejection policy for Apps has been highly inconsistent, and there have been a lot of developers who feel like their hard work has been wasted on a platform whose selection policy is flawed.

As a result, if Apple doesn't stick to it's own rules, then Developers would soon start giving up on that platform, and you won't get any new apps for your shiny phone!

So, yeah... it does matter to the consumer in the end!

[Ivo @ Nov 26th 2008 5:57PM]

Actually, I am a developer and I can tell you you are getting subpar quality apps and games exactly due to this policy. One infamous example is 2D performance. Due to Apple's restrictions any developer wanting to manipulate individual pixels is screwed. Apple provides no (official) way of quickly doing a screen update (aka "blit"). This is resulting in slow/choppy frame rates or developers abandoning games/apps/functionality alltogether.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8174014

[Argot @ Nov 26th 2008 1:53PM]

Apple and Arbitrary exclusion sitting in a tree, K, I, S, S, I, N, G......

[avirji @ Nov 27th 2008 1:46AM]

The photoshopped Santa strikes again.

[jared @ Nov 26th 2008 1:56PM]

Folks, preferential treatment for companies like Google is the way of the past, present, and future. You don't have to like it, and it's fine to point it out when it happens, but the whole "hey Apple, at least do X" routine just underscores how ridiculous all this breathless "shocked, SHOCKED" commentary is.

[jaysins @ Nov 26th 2008 1:57PM]

Apple is really dropping the ball with this imo. Let developers use the phone to it's fullest and they will come up with some incredible apps making apple and the developers money and especially us consumers happy. I understand they like a controlled ecosystem for their devices but come on, this is so much wasted potential.

[John M @ Nov 26th 2008 2:01PM]

Actually I'm pretty sure it uses the accelerometer to figure out when you bring it to your head or at very least it is in involved. It seems to detect being raised and the motion of it hitting your ear instead of using the proximity sensor.

If you go to voice mail and cover the proximity sensor it blanks the screen, if you hold it to a piece of glass it does not blank the screen.

Now go to the Google app and cover the proximity sensor, it doesn't trigger the voice recognition. Hold it upright and cover the proximity sensor and it doesn't activate. Make the same motion as you were moving it to your ear and hit it to a piece of glass instead of your head and it triggers voice recognition even though the proximity sensor is not covered.

So in summery, it's not just the proximity sensor, the accelerometer is involved for sure. Th proximity sensor might be involved as well but near as I can tell it's just a really, really clever accelerometer trigger that recognizes the motion of the phone being moved to your head and the phone hitting your ear instead of utilizing the proximity sensor and thas should be totally allowed in the SDK.

[KarlW @ Nov 26th 2008 4:04PM]

I think you're right. I tried the app when the voice update hit, and I expected it to use the proximity sensor. I actually didn't get it working because of that, and had to push the button.

I wish it used the proximity sensor.

[Rick Astley @ Nov 26th 2008 5:54PM]

It uses a combination of both, actually. I just posted a video showing how to trick the proximity sensor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdQ4mebesFM

[Decoy @ Nov 27th 2008 4:47AM]

@ Rick


... your name is Rick Astley, how can we trust your youtube links?

[Doug Deep @ Nov 26th 2008 2:21PM]

If stories like this continue, Apple will lose their developer base. I've already decided to develop my next phone app on Android, simply because of it's excellent Eclipse based SDK tools. Of course, Android's documentation sucks in part because Google thinks that anything they do different is better than before (javadoc).

[Aaron @ Nov 26th 2008 3:12PM]

What app might that be? Light 3.0? Stop the FUD, people aren't abandoning this platform.

[LaMu @ Nov 26th 2008 2:34PM]

Wait... does this mean that the screen is supposed to turn off when I go to say something to the google app (while using the voice search feature)? Because I haven't seen that happen on my iPhone. Phooey.

[Quikboy @ Nov 26th 2008 2:37PM]

Luckily, I can still continue to use voice search for Live Search on my WinMo phone with no problems :)

[m.edgar @ Nov 26th 2008 2:39PM]

I still don't get the 'no duplicating of functionality' clause. If it turns out worse, no-one uses it. If it's better, all iphone users can get a better experience...so wtf is the problem? Or is it just that Apple wants to be able to steal ideas which pop up in WinMob/Android devices, but could get into legal hot water if they steal the same ideas from programs which were programmed by others for the iphone?

Damn, that must be the reason...

Well, screw that; everything broken in the iphone is going to remain so by dint of Apple's requirements. Here I come, WinMob/Android phone!

[sodapop @ Nov 26th 2008 3:43PM]

So what? Google isn't selling the software. Additionally, if an upgrade breaks it, its not Apple's responsibility to fix the software. Sheesh. Focus on real problems.

[douchey_McDouche @ Nov 26th 2008 3:46PM]

Why not just hack the phone and put whatever apps you want on it? Screw apple.

[michaelportent @ Nov 26th 2008 3:56PM]

Yeah, I don't really see Apple's need to stifle good uses of their application platform - especially when they're backed by either really smart companies or really reputable companies.

[Ashley Allen @ Nov 26th 2008 3:59PM]

They need to open up a little, imagine the killing some would make with an iPhone spam filter?

[Didou @ Nov 26th 2008 4:35PM]

Does that mean they're going to use the "KillSwitch" for this application ? ;-)

[Y3k-Bug @ Nov 26th 2008 4:45PM]

Conspiracy? There are at least 3 other programs on the App Store that uses the undocumented proximity sensor call.

One of which I've been using for months now. None of the 3 have anything to do with Google.

GG for not doing thorough reporting before laying out accusations.