Comments on: Apple Says WiFi-sniffing Apps Stink

By: vancouver web design

vancouver web design — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:04:47 +0000

Well Apple has history of banning applications that can reasonably easily break the law, or in any possible way make any of their products be misused. In my opinion Apple taking a huge effort not to offend anyone to that extend that would make one wonder what they are so paranoid about.

By: Apple Sucks

Apple Sucks — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:19:58 +0000

Simply Iphone/Apple Sucks. Not allowed to scan for wifi? I mean come on? The Android OS is so much better in many ways. I thought apple was gay to begin with, but blocking wifi scanning apps? all i can say is GAY. Pretty soon apple will be telling you who your allowed to call and who your not allowed to call.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:55:01 +0000

Could it not be that Apple want to ensure that we all buy ipads for home or hotspot wifi use in the longer term?

By: bobzilla

bobzilla — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:59:04 +0000

At the Wireless Geographic Logging Engine ( http://wigle.net ), a database and mapping system for “Net Stumbling” or “War Driving” hobbyists, we’ve seen the iPhone provide a low barrier-to-entry for this hobby. It combines a GPS with a Wifi radio, but it can only work when apps like Wifi-Where, WiFiFoFum and others are allowed to exist.

These apps were inspected for months before finally getting through the nebulous App Store approval process. Some have been available for months or even years. Now, arbitrarily, they are banned. If they use API calls that Apple didn’t want them to, why were they approved? Why weren’t the developers contacted behind the scenes to address any fiddly technical issues Apple might foresee?

As users all we see is a useful app, that was paid for, that now can not be updated. We can’t find the least used frequency channels to set our access points to, can’t take surveys of campus wireless coverage or find rogue wifi on a corporate network. And we can’t help with wireless mapping projects. There’s no app for that.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:51:41 +0000

As usual, the author mis-states things in a feeble attempt to make Apple look bad. What's this with "Apple infuriates developers"? How many developers are upset? Every one I've talked to said that they knew about the private API rule from the start and they can't believe these people did it, anyway. Please stop with the inflammatory leads.

Apple rejected these apps because they use private APIs - a process which has been forbidden since the start of iPhone apps. Yes, some of them got through earlier, but Apple must have updated its scanning tools.

Frankly, I applaud Apple. They've created an ecosystem where things work well together. I can pick up a system running iPhoneOS and know it will work - and exactly how it's going to work. No worries about incompatibilities. No worries about security problems. No worries about apps crashing the system. No worries about every app behaving differently. It's a smooth, elegant system and they maintain it by enforcing their developer rules.

Developers who create useful apps are making millions of dollars on the App Store. If a developer doesn't want to follow the rules, Apple doesn't need them. It's that simple.

By: AdamC

AdamC — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:23:31 +0000

If a developer has to spend $100k to develop an app he better know what he is doing otherwise he is kind of just looking for trouble.

By: ricardo W

ricardo W — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:14:34 +0000

Build an app, Stay within the guidelines of Apple and you'll have no problems. The SDK guidelines explicitly state no using of Private Frameworks. What's the problem? You use it, you lose your place in the App store. Just because there was an oversight to begin with doesn't mean that you can yell and scream now. Follow the rules, just like everyone else.

To those who say there is a double standard. There are over 100,000 apps. Even a sieve lets a hard piece of flour through sometimes.

To the Google heads. I agree, you continue to keep your machines open, with different versions of machines to crash on; no UI consistency, with buttons on one machine not responding on another. Oh yes, I'm sure that Google can follow all of the security breaches that will drag your credit card number to some evil place by diversion. It's happened already and Google caught it. I'll bet that Googles own Android will be the only safe phone, while Verizon's and others' Droid machines will have issues. I agree, it's only a matter of time before the scammers hit the GPhone. Open source all you want, but the scammers are really into open source too. It only takes one of these losers to create a worm that will whack you into obscurity.

Apple may be heavy handed at times, but I feel safe using their phone.

By: tim

tim — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:05:22 +0000

another reason to avoid the locked-down, control freak iToy.

By: Colin Gibbs

Colin Gibbs — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:25:33 +0000

You and I are in lockstep, Tom:

http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20090225/WIRELESS/902259995/Apple-should-avoid-copyright-fight–allow-users-to-escape-the-App-Store-jail

As for your question, I don’t know but will try to find out. Anyone here have an answer?

By: Scottix

Scottix — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:15:01 +0000

I don't think people are getting a clear enough picture. When Apple rejects your app it gives a very generic description of why. This is not good enough, there needs to be more clear cut things you can and can not do. It hurts the developer because they could spend like a $100,000 on an app only to get it rejected from the store. That is bad juju. I mean are they just going to kick stuff out because they don't think it works well. Who judges that?