FlickType Pulling iPhone Keyboard App After Continued Rejection Issues

[PlayUltimate]

Apple does have a lot of built-in accessibility features in all of their devices.

Use Accessibility features on your Apple Watch - Apple Support

Learn about VoiceOver, Zoom, On/Off Labels, options for wheelchair users, and other Accessibility features that are available on your Apple Watch.

support.apple.com

 

[MVMNT]

For someone who likes to levy lawsuits, claiming Apple are committing "abuse" is a little close to the line...

I, like a lot of people, have never even heard of it til now.

 

[EdT]

Like a lot of other issues with products or policies I wish some site would do more than just parrot the accusations or defense for what each side positions are.

I don’t have technical experts that I can readily ask, I don’t know how consistent a rule is enforced by a company, I don’t know the security or reliability problems of allowing app ‘A’ to accomplish a task in some different manner than how most apps do that task, I don’t know if the non standard way is actually an improvement. So all these articles do is present a “He said-They said” back and forth without substantiating either side.

An attempt by someone who could validate or explain both sides positions- just because one side has a point doesn’t make the other side wrong- would be good.

 

[AppleTLDR]

The developers dissatisfaction with Apple maybe overstated, but isn’t unique (reference other post). But as a small developer that appears to being ignored, what do you do?

I wonder how much of this unresponsiveness on Apple is due to remote work?

Finally I am saddened that this app is going away as it was one of the few apps I routinely use on my Apple Watch. Found it much easier to use than the scribble.

Oh yeah for sure, there are numerous stories of other developers that allege similar experiences. And perhaps they’re all true. That being said Apple isn’t likely to give their side and speak out against a developer (Apple also considers developers to be customers). It just isn’t professional.

The only time Apple might speak out publicly is if the developer breached the terms of the App Store, slandered Apple in a loud enough way and proceeded to issue litigation against them. A bit like Epic Games 😅

 

[nt5672]

Yeah! It should be easier for developers to release questionable products!

No it should be easier for customers to use products than don't fit Apple's nanny guidelines or that compete with Apple's own apps but have have better features and quality.

Sometime you have to move away from home and outside of your mothers control and live for yourself, protect yourself, and be responsible for yourself and your things. It is not Apple's responsibility to protect me or my children.

 

[4jasontv]

No it should be easier for customers to use products than don't fit Apple's nanny guidelines or that compete with Apple's own apps but have have better features and quality.

Sometime you have to move away from home and outside of your mothers control and live for yourself, protect yourself, and be responsible for yourself and your things. It is not Apple's responsibility to protect me or my children.

Well, if it's only for the customer... Tell you what, I will support the notion of side-loading if you agree that developers can not hide behind the idea that they only licensed the software to the customer. They sold it, and that includes all rights and privileges including the right to modify and resell the software. Otherwise, this feels a lot like developers want more control but refuse to give anything up.

 

[Wildkraut]

For someone who likes to levy lawsuits, claiming Apple are committing "abuse" is a little close to the line...

I, like a lot of people, have never even heard of it til now.

Maybe because you aren’t blind?
You should be happy that you never heard of it, makes sense, right! 🙄

 

[ksec]

According to Macrumors comments, It is Apple's platform, they can do whatever they want. Apple doesn't need any Apps Developers, App Developers *needs* Apple. If you dont like it go to Android or make your own Smartphone.

 

[CarlJ]

The whole idea that you need approval by Apple to run apps ON YOUR OWN DEVICE is ludicrous. It has been ludicrous from the beginning. Steve knew it, but being the jerk he was, he tried to get away with it and he managed to--so far. Apple knows it. Everyone who looks at it rationally knows it. The faster people realize this, the better.

The app store monopoly needs to be broken. Now it looks like this may happen by law. I surely hope it does.

It's not ludicrous, it was very clear when you bought the device that that was how the ecosystem works. You appear to have bought the wrong device. If you wanted one with lots of app stores, it's right over there (points at Android). They have bigger marketshare too.

It's no more a monopoly than saying that McDonalds has a monopoly on the food that's sold in their restaurants - try going into McDonalds and setting up a taco stand or pizza and see how that works out.

Apple's approach is intentionally different from Google's approach, and many of us chose Apple because we prefer their approach. Stop trying to take that choice away from the rest of us because you bought the wrong device.

 

[boss.king]

For someone who likes to levy lawsuits, claiming Apple are committing "abuse" is a little close to the line...

I, like a lot of people, have never even heard of it til now.

Are you visually impaired? Because that’s the main audience for this keyboard.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

As a keyboard developer myself I can really empathize with his comment about 'Apple's "terrible" third-party keyboard APIs'. They provide a bare minimum and are buggy to boot. I've had to tell so many users, "Sorry, we can't implement <insert-nice-feature-here> because Apple's APIs don't support it."

Just curious, the API’s are horrible, yet there are developers that voluntarily decide to create an application that depends on them. If it were me, I’d head in the opposite direction of “horrible” given the opportunity. Why would a developer put themselves through that?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sometime you have to move away from home and outside of your mothers control and live for yourself, protect yourself, and be responsible for yourself and your things. It is not Apple's responsibility to protect me or my children.

Sometimes you have to move away from the coddling of Apple’s controls and live for yourself, protect yourself and be responsible for yourself and your Android phone. If I REALLY felt it wasn’t Apple’s responsibility, I wouldn’t buy Apple products.

 

[bwillwall]

If you buy a subscription through their store they have a right to charge a commission. It isn’t like Target doesn’t get a cut of that iTunes gift card I bought at Target, even though the money is for Apple. That is how stores work.

The main problem I see is when (or if, in case they do not still do this) they don’t allow the developers to add the extra charge to their subscription price and to tell the customer that they can get it without the extra commission charge directly. I am even okay with Apple not wanting a direct hyperlink to the offsite purchase. If that were allowed, I figure Apple could rightfully argue the the customer prefers the convenience of buying on the App Store versus bothering to jump off store to save a couple of bucks. Or even if they don’t let the developer add the extra fee, but allow them to say beside the Buy button that they would get 100% of the profit if you go direct to buy. Then Apple could correctly say that they customer couldn’t be bothered to go buy from the developer and bought through the App Store for the convenience, so the developer’s 70% or 85% cut is more than the 0% they would have gotten without Apple.

iPhones are an essential device. iPhones are not game consoles. iPhones are not department stores. iPhones are personal computers. Apple has not simply done what anyone else has ever done by walling in an essential device to the extent they have.

 

[pasamio]

iPhones are an essential device. iPhones are not game consoles. iPhones are not department stores. iPhones are personal computers. Apple has not simply done what anyone else has ever done by walling in an essential device to the extent they have.

Yes, how could Apple ignore the essential device principle, though I'm blanking...what is the definition of an essential device in law again? Perhaps if there isn't any applicable legislation, maybe something from case law?

 

[DoubleJ2119]

iPhones are an essential device. iPhones are not game consoles. iPhones are not department stores. iPhones are personal computers. Apple has not simply done what anyone else has ever done by walling in an essential device to the extent they have.

iPhones cannot be both essential devices and personal computers. People sometimes have to make calls on their iPhones in emergencies, making them essential. What happens if their phone has been corrupted by malware. Personal computers are never used in such life threatening situations.

The essential nature of a smartphone commands a more secure platform.

 

[bwillwall]

Yes, how could Apple ignore the essential device principle, though I'm blanking...what is the definition of an essential device in law again? Perhaps if there isn't any applicable legislation, maybe something from case law?

The law is clearly catching up to this obvious fact. If your justification is simply that Apple isn't breaking the law, then I agree. However, this will soon no longer be a valid justification.

iPhones cannot be both essential devices and personal computers. People sometimes have to make calls on their iPhones in emergencies, making them essential. What happens if their phone has been corrupted by malware. Personal computers are never used in such life threatening situations.

The essential nature of a smartphone commands a more secure platform.

The things you people will make up to defend Apple's every move is absolutely absurd. So if we deem a personal computer an essential device, for work, then installing 3rd party software should then be illegal?

Smartphones aren't essential devices because they use primitive technology to make phone calls. Using cloud storage, browsing the web, installing 3rd party apps to communicate securely and even posting to social media are all essential parts of hundreds of millions of peoples livelihood.

 

[DoubleJ2119]

So if we deem a personal computer an essential device, for work, then installing 3rd party software should then be illegal?

The vast majority of responsible companies use enterprise software to lockdown company issued computers to prevent installation of anything.

Using cloud storage, browsing the web, installing 3rd party apps to communicate securely and even posting to social media are all essential parts of hundreds of millions of peoples livelihood.

While I think your definition of “essential” is overly broad, these are all features of video game consoles as well. And yet video game consoles also have closed ecosystems. I think certain features of smartphones are essential: those features that connect you to services provided by your carrier, namely: calls and internet service. Everything else I deem inessential.

Your personal computer, generally speaking, doesn’t contain information that can be used to track your every move in the physical world, it doesn’t contain your health data, and it is not used in life threatening emergencies. Users of personal computers generally install software at a far less frequent rate compared to smartphone users as well. For instance, the vast majority of software on my Mac was installed within the few days after receiving it. A much larger percentage of software on my iPhone was installed in the past 6 months.

All of these culminate to form a threat model that surpasses Windows PCs. Hackers will view iPhones as THE device to hack, corrupt, and steal your data, and then declare that you must pay a ransom to get your data back or threaten to make your data public.

In any case, Apple owns and controls their intellectual property. You own the physical device, however the software on your iPhone including the BOOTROM is merely licensed to you. In the very unlikely event that Epic wins their case, there is nothing stopping Apple from charging whatever they want for access to their intellectual property. The IP needed to even make an iPhone app. For example, Xcode and the iOS SDK. If Epic thinks they can sidestep Apple’s fee for access to their IP, they are kidding themselves.

Apple Legal:

Epic’s own expert thus refused to equate iOS with a public utility, and therefore conceded the predicate of Epic’s essential facility claim.

A proprietary operating system encompassing features and functionalities protected by patent, copyright, and other intellectual property laws cannot constitute an essential facility. Intellectual property is protected by a discrete legal regime, which gives the owner the power to exclude others from using or profiting from the owner’s intellectual property.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes, how could Apple ignore the essential device principle, though I'm blanking...what is the definition of an essential device in law again? Perhaps if there isn't any applicable legislation, maybe something from case law?

I know right? An iPhone is NOT an essential device. Even if you take as an assumption that iPhones are essential, then how are the billions that don’t own iPhones getting by? Why are governments not allocating funds to buy millions upon millions of truly essential iPhones for their people? Why are they wasting so much time and money on water and food when what’s REALLY essential is the iPhone?!

I must say, that post DOES show how difficult it is to build a case for government control of a device that had the utter misfortune of being made well enough with software that runs good enough for it to be wanted and purchased by millions of people. And, I must add, the majority of which THOUGHT about what they were buying BEFORE they bought it.

 

[pasamio]

The law is clearly catching up to this obvious fact. If your justification is simply that Apple isn't breaking the law, then I agree. However, this will soon no longer be a valid justification.

That folk are working to write legislation to make some as yet undefined behaviour illegal in general indicates that what Apple have been doing since they launched the device in 2007 has otherwise been legal, including the design of the App Store which itself is the same business model as the gaming consoles.

If Apple has been in the wrong, they've been in the wrong for more than a decade which begs the question, did Apple change what they were doing or are they now a victim of their own success?

I ask for the definition of an essential device because without one it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion. I hoped Epic Games, who labelled these mobile devices as essential devices, would include this in their filings but it seemed like they went with attempting to define iOS as an essential facility which their own experts had issues agreeing with (see the reference above from @DoubleJ2119). Under Epic Games' theory of iOS as an essential facility, then video game consoles are also essential facilities as well which disagrees with your earlier notion. This is why a clear definition is important.

 

[InsolentDreams]

This is on-point for Apple. Me and my company had a launch title when the App Store launched, and after 7 years and about 40 apps published we decided to move out of the mobile space entirely. The amount of rejections and nuance and poor communication from Apple is a regular occurrence. Every submission to their App Store is a gamble in futility.

The worst example/offense from Apple for us was that our 300k users anyone who updated to the latest iOS update had our app broken because Apple changed an library in such a way causing a bug that couldn't be fixed by an update on our side, but required Apple to fix it. This issue was public knowledge at the time, on various forums including Apple's with an official response. We were getting assaulted with support issues because of this, so we put a note in our app, and on our app store listing that there is temporarily "limited functionality" on the latest update until an new iOS release goes live. Apple turned around and blocked our app because of this, and informed us that basically we can not blame any part of the functionality or lack of functionality permanently or temporarily of our apps on Apple. We had to remove this text from the app and app store listing and then appeal this process. Then had to suffer for 3 weeks with thousands of support requests informing us of this.

Thanks Apple.

 

[arobert3434]

Just curious, the API’s are horrible, yet there are developers that voluntarily decide to create an application that depends on them. If it were me, I’d head in the opposite direction of “horrible” given the opportunity. Why would a developer put themselves through that?

I can only answer for myself, but I don't doubt this person and many other keyboard developers would say the same: I wanted to make something possible (in my case, a "normal" keyboard with a number row, punctuation, and cursor keys on the iPad rather than an iPhone one) that was not available otherwise. Would it be a better product with better APIs? Absolutely yes! But – for myself and many others – the benefits of the layout outweigh the downsides.

 

[bwillwall]

If one company controlled your electricity and said what you can and can't use it for, this would be outrageous. Apple has created a situation like that and people don't see it because they're stuck in the past. A smartphone is an essential device. It is a computer, a camera, and many things that millions or even billions use to exist in the modern world. Apple wants your iPhone to be your wallet, your car key, and more. I'm in no way claiming Apple is breaking the law or saying there's some legal standing for smartphones to be essential. However, this is my personal opinion on what a smartphone is today and I think the law is simply catching up to where we already are.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

A smartphone is an essential device. It is a computer, a camera, and many things that millions or even billions use to exist in the modern world. Apple wants your iPhone to be your wallet, your car key, and more.

They use smartphones to “exist”? This struck me as an immense amount of hyperbole. If I don’t have water for days, I stop existing. If I don’t have food for weeks, I stop existing. If I don’t have a smartphone… I’m just one of the billions of people in the world existing without smartphones.

I know this is your personal opinion, but it seems odd that you would elevate a smartphone to the level of food and water.

And, even IF a smartphone is that important to you, that still doesn’t make the iPhone essential, especially with many different models of smartphone available for purchase. OR are you indicating that any company that creates a device that is a computer plus camera has just created an essential device that they have no control over? If they remove the camera, is it no longer essential? I’m like the other poster in that it would be good to know what features encompass the “essentialness” of a device?

 

[pasamio]

If one company controlled your electricity and said what you can and can't use it for, this would be outrageous. Apple has created a situation like that and people don't see it because they're stuck in the past. A smartphone is an essential device. It is a computer, a camera, and many things that millions or even billions use to exist in the modern world. Apple wants your iPhone to be your wallet, your car key, and more. I'm in no way claiming Apple is breaking the law or saying there's some legal standing for smartphones to be essential. However, this is my personal opinion on what a smartphone is today and I think the law is simply catching up to where we already are.

There is regulation and certification processes that exist around electrical devices however that generally require electrical devices to meet certain restrictions. An electrical device generally can't interfere with the operation of the grid as a whole and cannot breach emissions standards. It's imposed by various branches of the government to limit what is sold in the marketplace. You can of course build your own electrical devices and hook it up to the grid not dissimilar to using your own developer certificates to side load apps onto a phone.

You say a smartphone is an essential device again but you don't define it again. If the criteria is that it is a computer, a camera and millions use to exist in the modern world, then my laptop is an essential device as well.

However there is choice in the market. If you don't agree with Apple's limits, then there exists on the market alternative mobile operating systems that are completely open. If you don't like Apple's choices then there is the option to choose another ecosystem. The essential facility doctrine relies upon there being no other option, not that there is an alternative option that is either comparable in size (50% in the US) to being significantly larger in scale (Android globally is at 75% last I looked?).

If I don't like what the manufacturer does with their device, I have options in the market to buy an alternative. Either enough people will move to the alternative that embraces these concepts and then has to choose to live with lesser marketshare or attempt to make their product more enticing. Given that iOS marketshare has slowly risen over the years, arguably the market agrees with what choices Apple has made.

 

[bwillwall]

They use smartphones to “exist”? This struck me as an immense amount of hyperbole. If I don’t have water for days, I stop existing. If I don’t have food for weeks, I stop existing. If I don’t have a smartphone… I’m just one of the billions of people in the world existing without smartphones.

I know this is your personal opinion, but it seems odd that you would elevate a smartphone to the level of food and water.

And, even IF a smartphone is that important to you, that still doesn’t make the iPhone essential, especially with many different models of smartphone available for purchase. OR are you indicating that any company that creates a device that is a computer plus camera has just created an essential device that they have no control over? If they remove the camera, is it no longer essential? I’m like the other poster in that it would be good to know what features encompass the “essentialness” of a device?

I didn't elevate a smartphone to the level of food or water. I elevated it to electricity. It's not essential to live. It's essential to exist in 1st or even 2nd world society.

There are not endless options of smartphones. Sorry there's two operating systems you can reasonably use. Yeah I know Android is open source, but if you don't use Google services you're SOL too. They have a duopoly.