Apple Rejects AstroPad Update That Turned an iPad's Camera into a Software Button

[KazKam]

I'm betting they realized that as well. Probably wanted a unique and novel operation that set their app apart. Apple just told them to get back in line and stop waving your hands.

Yup. Not only that, but initially implementing it this way instead of with swipe, knowing it would likely get rejected, they generated this very buzz that has us talking about it. Free publicity. I certainly had never heard of AstroPad before. Now I have.

 

[az431]

Perhaps common sense explains the rejection fully enough without the need to point to a specific rule. That said, the section of the guidelines that Apple cites to as its basis for the rejection is tenuous at best. The camera is not a “native switch, button or interface element.” It seems pretty clear to me that this is a situation that Apple didn’t conceive of when it drafted its guidelines. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that it should be allowed. I’m simply fascinated by the ongoing difficulty that Apple and developers face when it comes to drafting and interpreting the App Store guidelines.

The rule states:

Apps that alter or disable the functions of standard switches, such as the Volume Up/Down and Ring/Silent switches, or other native user interface elements or behaviors will be rejected. 

The part of the rule this violates is:

Apps that alter or disable . . . native . . . behaviors will be rejected.

You're a little too focused on the items in the list that are not relevant, and ignored the clauses joined by "or". The rule goes beyond buttons and UI elements, and prohibits all altering of native iOS behavior.

They turned the camera, which natively is used for capturing photos, and transformed it into a button to control the UI. It's prohibited by the literal text of the rule.

 

[nutmac]

Those don't appear to be valid reasons in this situation.
Privacy? People must deliberately install this application, and the camera is only active when the app is active.
Battery? Not any different than any other app that uses the camera.

People deliberately install Facebook too. That doesn't mean Facebook should listen and look at you all the time.

Can you name an app that you potentially use for hours on end that has the camera active all the time?

 

[imran5720]

Maybe the camera IS on all the time – is there a way of knowing for sure? Astropad are the first ones to publicly admit that they hacked the cam, but who knows if other apps do that all the time without us knowing...

first of all, there is no may be, they are keeping the camera on to sense touch
and apple does not allow any app to use camera without actually showing camera view in app

 

[sracer]

People deliberately install Facebook too. That doesn't mean Facebook should listen and look at you all the time.

In AstroPad's case, it is a deliberate and advertised feature (that I assume can be disabled). That is NOT the same as Facebook spying 24/7.

Can you name an app that you potentially use for hours on end that has the camera active all the time?

Yes, see my motion-detection recording example. What does that have to do with AstroPad?

 

[kironin]

that didn't take long

 

[mrgraff]

"scuppered?"

There's a £5 word that you don't hear everyday.

 

[nutmac]

In AstroPad's case, it is a deliberate and advertised feature (that I assume can be disabled). That is NOT the same as Facebook spying 24/7.


Yes, see my motion-detection recording example. What does that have to do with AstroPad?

I don't see any reference to AstroPad using motion detection to engage camera. The medium post illustrates iPad sitting on a desk, where I don't think there would be any motion to begin with. I am not sure how AstroPad implements the feature, but I would imagine camera has to be on all the time for that feature to work in desktop scenario.

Facebook is an example where an app developer could be using the camera for nefarious case and none of us would be wiser. There are several reports where Facebook users started seeing targeted ads based on what they say while the app is running.

I doubt AstroPads would be doing anything shady, but it's just one more thing that gives me a pause.

 

[CarlJ]

Maybe the camera IS on all the time – is there a way of knowing for sure? Astropad are the first ones to publicly admit that they hacked the cam, but who knows if other apps do that all the time without us knowing...

They didn't hack the camera (in the sense of bypassing security). They turned it on continuously (no doubt after requesting permission for camera access as required), then they just look for a sudden light-to-dark change. Apple's concern here is simply that they're using the camera in a way that wasn't intended.

 

[kdarling]

What else they expected? its dangerous for privacy , i am sure they had to keep camera on all the time to make this feature work

Very doubtful it had anything to do with privacy.

First off, ANY program that uses the camera could be looking at you without you knowing it, because there is no indicator LED. This app at least lets you know the camera is on all the time, therefore it's almost ridiculous to assume they'd actually be storing anything.

In this case, rejection was likely simply because Apple doesn't want people to use an input device that was not only not intended for this, but which could be moved around (or even be removed) in the future.

Not to mention that one day soon Apple itself might use the camera to capture gestures to do buttons virtually.

 

[nutmac]

First off, ANY program that uses the camera could be looking at you, because Apple's too cheap to put in an indicator LED.

I am not sure about the cheap part. Almost none of the phones have a camera indicator because it would look crappy and/or distracting.

Frankly, a simple status bar indicator would suffice (microphone as well).

 

[sracer]

Very doubtful it had anything to do with privacy.

First off, ANY program that uses the camera could be looking at you, because Apple's too cheap to put in an indicator LED. This app at least lets you know the camera is on all the time, therefore it's almost ridiculous to assume they'd actually be storing anything.

In this case, rejection was likely simply because Apple doesn't want people to use an input device that was not only not intended for this, but which could be moved around (or even be removed) in the future.

Not to mention that one day soon Apple itself might use the camera to capture gestures to do buttons virtually.

I think we can bet heavily on that happening.