Has anyone considered an open source Objective C based template for at
least the basic external URL loading in UIWebView? I'd do it myself
but am the worst programmer I know - which is how I found PhoneGap to
begin with.
At least the ones with external sites to load would still get in the
store.
Disclaimer: this request is very self-serving.
On May 15, 10:52 am, Jonathan <jonathan.mulc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just got rejected again, this time with a new application I
> submitted. And this was one of the apps I 'cleaned' of all phonegap
> references. I received this notice from apple this morning:
> ------------------------------
> Upon review of your application, rMote Lite cannot be posted to the
> App Store due to the usage of private API. Usage of such non-public
> API, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.2 is
> prohibited:
> " An Application may not itself install or launch other executable
> code by any means, including without limitation through use of a plug-
> in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise.
> No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application
> except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs
> and built-in interpreter(s).
> The PhoneGap API implemented in your application is an external
> framework.
> Regards,
> ---------------------------
> I replied back calling them out on thier assessment asking again, what
> exactly they have a problem with, but I don't expect an answer. That's
> the 3rd release I've had rejected this week, 2 updates and a new app.
> I've released 8 PhoneGap apps to the app store since February, and
> never had a problem. I still have 4 more pending updates this week, if
> they all get rejected, I think I'll have to moveon from PhoneGap :(
It seems to me that the only sensible thing to do as a community is to responds as a community, with outrage and loud complaints in every forum that will hear it.
If the community genuinely feels that Apple's rejections are unfounded, then it seems to me that the steps should be:
* document a reasonable, cogent & concise rebuttal to Apple's rejections * place this in an obvious & easy to access place (not in a forum or hidden somewhere else) * enlist every single member of the community to widely object to Apple's actions, contact every blogger & journalist they know and refer them to above mentioned article. * get articles published in every developer journal, web site, blog & magazone that we can, pointing out the preposterous nature of Apple's stance
PhoneGap has made a big splash in many online communities and yet I have not heard any mention of these "rejections" in any place apart from this forum.
Yes Apple makes the rules, you are supposed to like it or lump it, but we all know that things can be changed if enough community support is harnessed.
I think the issues needs a lot more publicity than it is currently getting.
J. Matthew Pryor wrote: > It seems to me that the only sensible thing to do as a community is to > responds as a community, with outrage and loud complaints in every > forum that will hear it.
> If the community genuinely feels that Apple's rejections are > unfounded, then it seems to me that the steps should be:
> * document a reasonable, cogent & concise rebuttal to Apple's rejections > * place this in an obvious & easy to access place (not in a forum or > hidden somewhere else) > * enlist every single member of the community to widely object to > Apple's actions, contact every blogger & journalist they know and > refer them to above mentioned article. > * get articles published in every developer journal, web site, blog & > magazone that we can, pointing out the preposterous nature of Apple's > stance
> PhoneGap has made a big splash in many online communities and yet I > have not heard any mention of these "rejections" in any place apart > from this forum.
> Yes Apple makes the rules, you are supposed to like it or lump it, but > we all know that things can be changed if enough community support is > harnessed.
> I think the issues needs a lot more publicity than it is currently > getting.
> -
i think half the problem is that by bringing this to the fore everyone who has an existing app in the store fears that should apple come out and publicly say no - they'll have all their existing apps pulled...
> J. Matthew Pryor wrote:
> > It seems to me that the only sensible thing to do as a community is to
> > responds as a community, with outrage and loud complaints in every
> > forum that will hear it.
> > If the community genuinely feels that Apple's rejections are
> > unfounded, then it seems to me that the steps should be:
> > * document a reasonable, cogent & concise rebuttal to Apple's rejections
> > * place this in an obvious & easy to access place (not in a forum or
> > hidden somewhere else)
> > * enlist every single member of the community to widely object to
> > Apple's actions, contact every blogger & journalist they know and
> > refer them to above mentioned article.
> > * get articles published in every developer journal, web site, blog &
> > magazone that we can, pointing out the preposterous nature of Apple's
> > stance
> > PhoneGap has made a big splash in many online communities and yet I
> > have not heard any mention of these "rejections" in any place apart
> > from this forum.
> > Yes Apple makes the rules, you are supposed to like it or lump it, but
> > we all know that things can be changed if enough community support is
> > harnessed.
> > I think the issues needs a lot more publicity than it is currently
> > getting.
> > -
> i think half the problem is that by bringing this to the fore everyone
> who has an existing app in the store fears that should apple come out
> and publicly say no - they'll have all their existing apps pulled...
The "fear" of unspecified retribution is how these things work, unless people object, then the system perpetuates.
Even if you have apps in the store, they don't last forever, and you will have to put new apps up, and/or update your existing ones, so it's not a very secure future for anyone.
Do people genuinely believe that Apple's is unfairly applying the rules that the rejection letters refer to?
If so then the community have to make a stand or walk away from PhoneGap. Very few people will continue to invest in such an unpredictable outcome.
I think the worst part is that Apple is classifying PhoneGap as a
private API without giving a reason why. If there was some aspect they
were against, if they made it known, it could be adjusted. Instead
they make everyone play a guessing game while not giving out any
information.
i'm sad to say, I've been researching some PhoneGap alternatives
because I can't rely on a system which I can't trust, there is too
much time and money involved. I've already lost 2 weeks in this
fiasco, all without a single reply from Apple as to what they don't
like
On May 17, 7:07 pm, "J. Matthew Pryor" <j.matthew.pr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The "fear" of unspecified retribution is how these things work, unless
> people object, then the system perpetuates.
> Even if you have apps in the store, they don't last forever, and you will
> have to put new apps up, and/or update your existing ones, so it's not a
> very secure future for anyone.
> Do people genuinely believe that Apple's is unfairly applying the rules that
> the rejection letters refer to?
> If so then the community have to make a stand or walk away from PhoneGap.
> Very few people will continue to invest in such an unpredictable outcome.
> i'm sad to say, I've been researching some PhoneGap alternatives > because I can't rely on a system which I can't trust, there is too > much time and money involved. I've already lost 2 weeks in this > fiasco, all without a single reply from Apple as to what they don't > like
The problems people are having with PhoneGap really aren't exclusive to PhoneGap. Google about, read some blogs. This kind of thing happens for dozens of reasons that are totally unrealted to Phonegap. There is the company that had their *update* bounced because of an icon that happened to look like an iPhone, in fact there was a company who had an update bounce because of an iPhone-looking-icon had been added in a *previous update* (update A gets through and update B gets rejected because of a feature added in A).
Apple is very inconsistent with the rules they use to judge accepting apps into the store. PhoneGap really has absolutely nothing to do with that, and certainly finding an alternative that works similar enough to PhoneGap to make it useful in the same way will be exposed to the same risk of rejection. Now we can have a thread that lasts a month every time it comes up and panic and bite at each other like scared children, or we can continue to attempt to get a dialog started with Apple meanwhile working on our respective projects and trying to earn money and continue our businesses.
PhoneGap has shown itself to be a very capable framework for app development to me in the few apps my team has done. I can't tell you how to run your businesses, but at this point continuing this thread with the kinds of commentary that it has dissolved into is pointless. Lets move on.
I decided to finally bite the bullet, and I sent an email in to the
Apple developer support address, on behalf of the community. I posted
the letter I sent to my blog. It's my plan to call their support
department every business day on this matter, until I get a response.
Check out my post here, and let me know what you think. If you care
about this topic, please digg it, send it in to Apple or developer-
related news sites, etc. I'd like to get some visibility into this
area and resolve this situation sooner, than later.
> Check out my post here, and let me know what you think. If you care > about this topic, please digg it, send it in to Apple or developer- > related news sites, etc. I'd like to get some visibility into this > area and resolve this situation sooner, than later.
> > Check out my post here, and let me know what you think. If you care
> > about this topic, please digg it, send it in to Apple or developer-
> > related news sites, etc. I'd like to get some visibility into this
> > area and resolve this situation sooner, than later.
> The problems people are having with PhoneGap really aren't exclusive
> to PhoneGap. Google about, read some blogs. This kind of thing happens
> for dozens of reasons that are totally unrealted to Phonegap. There is
> the company that had their *update* bounced because of an icon that
> happened to look like an iPhone, in fact there was a company who had
> an update bounce because of an iPhone-looking-icon had been added in a
> *previous update* (update A gets through and update B gets rejected
> because of a feature added in A).
> Apple is very inconsistent with the rules they use to judge accepting
> apps into the store. PhoneGap really has absolutely nothing to do
> with that, and certainly finding an alternative that works similar
> enough to PhoneGap to make it useful in the same way will be exposed
> to the same risk of rejection. Now we can have a thread that lasts a
> month every time it comes up and panic and bite at each other like
> scared children, or we can continue to attempt to get a dialog started
> with Apple meanwhile working on our respective projects and trying to
> earn money and continue our businesses.
> PhoneGap has shown itself to be a very capable framework for app
> development to me in the few apps my team has done. I can't tell you
> how to run your businesses, but at this point continuing this thread
> with the kinds of commentary that it has dissolved into is pointless.
> Lets move on.
> -Chris
I know apple is very inconsistent, but the examples you gave have very
specific guidelines in the SDK. They are very clear about what you
can / cannot use. The problem with PhoneGap is that Apple is rejecting
them without any reasoning. If they didn't like how the javascript
interacted with the accelerometer, that could be fixed. If they didn't
like how it played sounds or the vibration method, or something, we
could address it. But we have no idea. Apple has not responded, and
it's not just me who is getting rejected.
Official or not, or consistent or not, Apple IS rejecting phonegap
apps because of PhoneGap, and until we actually get hold of them,
which Michael is trying to do, I honestly think you're playing russian
roulette trying to get an update through the submission process.
> > Check out my post here, and let me know what you think. If you care
> > about this topic, please digg it, send it in to Apple or developer-
> > related news sites, etc. I'd like to get some visibility into this
> > area and resolve this situation sooner, than later.
> On May 17, 10:30 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Check out my post here, and let me know what you think. If you care
> > > about this topic, please digg it, send it in to Apple or developer-
> > > related news sites, etc. I'd like to get some visibility into this
> > > area and resolve this situation sooner, than later.
> > The problems people are having with PhoneGap really aren't exclusive
> > to PhoneGap. Google about, read some blogs. This kind of thing happens
> > for dozens of reasons that are totally unrealted to Phonegap. There is
> > the company that had their *update* bounced because of an icon that
> > happened to look like an iPhone, in fact there was a company who had
> > an update bounce because of an iPhone-looking-icon had been added in a
> > *previous update* (update A gets through and update B gets rejected
> > because of a feature added in A).
> > Apple is very inconsistent with the rules they use to judge accepting
> > apps into the store. PhoneGap really has absolutely nothing to do
> > with that, and certainly finding an alternative that works similar
> > enough to PhoneGap to make it useful in the same way will be exposed
> > to the same risk of rejection. Now we can have a thread that lasts a
> > month every time it comes up and panic and bite at each other like
> > scared children, or we can continue to attempt to get a dialog started
> > with Apple meanwhile working on our respective projects and trying to
> > earn money and continue our businesses.
> > PhoneGap has shown itself to be a very capable framework for app
> > development to me in the few apps my team has done. I can't tell you
> > how to run your businesses, but at this point continuing this thread
> > with the kinds of commentary that it has dissolved into is pointless.
> > Lets move on.
> > -Chris
> I know apple is very inconsistent, but the examples you gave have very
> specific guidelines in the SDK. They are very clear about what you
> can / cannot use. The problem with PhoneGap is that Apple is rejecting
> them without any reasoning. If they didn't like how the javascript
> interacted with the accelerometer, that could be fixed. If they didn't
> like how it played sounds or the vibration method, or something, we
> could address it. But we have no idea. Apple has not responded, and
> it's not just me who is getting rejected.
> Official or not, or consistent or not, Apple IS rejecting phonegap
> apps because of PhoneGap, and until we actually get hold of them,
> which Michael is trying to do, I honestly think you're playing russian
> roulette trying to get an update through the submission process.- Hide quoted text -
> and one of my updates went through today. This is extremely
> frustrating. Apple really needs to get on the same page with App
> Approvals.
> On May 17, 10:42 pm, Jonathan <jonathan.mulc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problems people are having with PhoneGap really aren't exclusive
> > > to PhoneGap. Google about, read some blogs. This kind of thing happens
> > > for dozens of reasons that are totally unrealted to Phonegap. There is
> > > the company that had their *update* bounced because of an icon that
> > > happened to look like an iPhone, in fact there was a company who had
> > > an update bounce because of an iPhone-looking-icon had been added in a
> > > *previous update* (update A gets through and update B gets rejected
> > > because of a feature added in A).
> > > Apple is very inconsistent with the rules they use to judge accepting
> > > apps into the store. PhoneGap really has absolutely nothing to do
> > > with that, and certainly finding an alternative that works similar
> > > enough to PhoneGap to make it useful in the same way will be exposed
> > > to the same risk of rejection. Now we can have a thread that lasts a
> > > month every time it comes up and panic and bite at each other like
> > > scared children, or we can continue to attempt to get a dialog started
> > > with Apple meanwhile working on our respective projects and trying to
> > > earn money and continue our businesses.
> > > PhoneGap has shown itself to be a very capable framework for app
> > > development to me in the few apps my team has done. I can't tell you
> > > how to run your businesses, but at this point continuing this thread
> > > with the kinds of commentary that it has dissolved into is pointless.
> > > Lets move on.
> > > -Chris
> > I know apple is very inconsistent, but the examples you gave have very
> > specific guidelines in the SDK. They are very clear about what you
> > can / cannot use. The problem with PhoneGap is that Apple is rejecting
> > them without any reasoning. If they didn't like how the javascript
> > interacted with the accelerometer, that could be fixed. If they didn't
> > like how it played sounds or the vibration method, or something, we
> > could address it. But we have no idea. Apple has not responded, and
> > it's not just me who is getting rejected.
> > Official or not, or consistent or not, Apple IS rejecting phonegap
> > apps because of PhoneGap, and until we actually get hold of them,
> > which Michael is trying to do, I honestly think you're playing russian
> > roulette trying to get an update through the submission process.- Hide quoted text -
Might be good for others to chime in on that (and the ReadWriteWeb)
article to counter any misinformation folks might post in the
comments. I already rebutted one such comment on the Ajaxian article.
On May 19, 3:11 pm, grigs <jason.grig...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe this is a naive question, but would it be possible to "sandbox"
phonegap so that it will only run local JavaScript? Wouldn't this
address Apple's probably objection to the framework being able to
download and execute remote code?
> Might be good for others to chime in on that (and the ReadWriteWeb)
> article to counter any misinformation folks might post in the
> comments. I already rebutted one such comment on the Ajaxian article.
> On May 19, 3:11 pm, grigs <jason.grig...@gmail.com> wrote:
You could, but that would defeat the purpose of the app I'm currently
working on. My fear is that Apple doesn't want apps based on external
code, regardless of whether they use PhoneGap or not.
On May 20, 1:44 am, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe this is a naive question, but would it be possible to "sandbox"
> phonegap so that it will only run local JavaScript? Wouldn't this
> address Apple's probably objection to the framework being able to
> download and execute remote code?
[[Ajaxian thread readers please excuse the cross-post]]
Forgive my lack of understanding but how it is any different that a PhoneGap based app could use a UIWebView to download dynamic content that any of the huge number of existing apps in the AppStore that clearly do the same thing? This is not an attempt to understand Apple's policy, its really a technical question. What additional vulnerabilities or unwanted surprises would/could a PhoneGap based app expose a user to that any Objective-C based app that used UIWebView didn't? I use the ABC (Australia) app regularly which clearly downloads dynamic content in to a custom UI (not mobile Safari), and I assume that this content could include Javascript. Is it the fact that PhoneGap exposes native API to JS that creates the problem? I feel it would be better to take the "you should have known/that's the way it is" element out of this discussion and move it to a rational technical conversation about what PhoneGap can & can't do & stay within a reasonably unambiguous interpretation of the AppStore listing rules. Constructive & detailed technical input seems a far more valid contribution to the debate at this stage.
