Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the solution
 

Attachments

  • mzl.ikeewcfl.320x480-75.jpg
    mzl.ikeewcfl.320x480-75.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 83
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I have an excellent idea. I will create an app that take a photo automatically when you shake your iPhone or iPod. No shutter buttons needed! I will call it ghostphoto, as everything will be blurry. I will make millions, especially if I release it by next year's Christmas!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)

makingdots said:
funny that people dont get it.

You guys should realized that those who are checking the apps are not apple engineers. They are just hired people who of coarse can make a mistakes like this one.

Wait, it takes an engineering background to look at simple screen shots and realize the app is doing something blatantly against the SDK?
 
Have to say I don't see what the difficulty is when developers find different uses for hardware. If the consumer wants it, shouldn't it be sufficient to be determined by demand? Personally, I would rather keep the volume button for what it was made for...
 
That is actually a cool feature, I find it hard to tap the screen on that virtual button. Come on Apple, make some provision here, it is a good idea. Who's going to be adjusting the volume when they are trying to take a picture anyway?
 
If anyone from apple reads this:

Giving us the option of using a volume button as a shutter should be integrated into the camera. It would allow for the development of small waterproof housings to be used while boating, swimming, snorkeling, and diving. Without a physical shutter, no housing is possible.

Waterproof point and shoot, "We have an app for that."

Now Quick Snap is just bad and should never have been allowed to see the light of day.
 
Apple, Let me decide if I'll be confused or not!

Apple needs to let the user decide if they'll be confused over the function of the buttons? Damn! I hate Apple's CONTROL-FREEK-ISH-NESS! :mad:

On the same tone, why the heck won't Apple allow a wifi analyzer for the iPhone / iPod Touch? Like inSSIDer? It would be so sweet for surveying my wifi networks. But NO, Apple has to CONTROL this too! :mad:
 
couldn't have said it any better...

I had the Camera + solution but never used it

For me, using the soft button is easier and makes a better picture

What many don't realize is, you don't have to punch the soft button
The shutter doesn't release until your touch releases
Just put your finger on the button, center your shot and let go
Much more stable than squeezing the volume button

^^^EXACTLY!

plus this particular app is not getting many good reviews. for example,

http://lifeinlofi.com/2010/12/27/volumesnap-still-available-in-other-apps-like-this-one/
 
Not very exciting...

Not very exciting app. This application can just do simple photos with simple delay options. Not really spectacular. On my old 3gs also the button trigger function was not available.
Poor applications seem to still sell case they trick out Apple. This is ridiculous. I feel angry with my purchase.
 
Well, Apple pulled it. I guess for our own good. Can't have the OPTION for us to use the volume button as a shutter release. That would literately blow our minds. :mad:
 
What many don't realize is, you don't have to punch the soft button
The shutter doesn't release until your touch releases
Just put your finger on the button, center your shot and let go
Much more stable than squeezing the volume button

that handy tip just saved me $1.99. thanks. :)
 
This app is really junk - doesn't work well (and yes, I read all the instructions that people so kindly posted). Crashes, buttons don't work some of the time, etc. I.e. really poorly written app.

Early reviews in the app store were very positive, while later ones were almost universally negative. I suspect the developer, astroturfed with positive reviews. If you paid for this, I suggest you ask for a refund - here are instructions how:

$2 isn't much, but I'd rather not see this developer get paid for producing such a crappy app, which they certainly never intended to support.
 
Sorry but that is just wrong.

This is the Busiest Consumer Holiday on the Planet.

Are you saying the remaining Monkeys at the switch are to dumb to do the job?

I really think people are missing the point : Apple approved this, they approved it in it's current advertised state !

They are not trying to hide anything.

You don't get it. Apple shut down the approval process and everything related to it to give their employees time off. The people monitoring the App store to make sure it didn't crash and burn were still at work, but that's about it.
 
Wait, it takes an engineering background to look at simple screen shots and realize the app is doing something blatantly against the SDK?

That assumes that the info is in the screenshots that were submitted. Or in the descrip or anything else.

And if they didn't use the obvious way of achieving the function, perhaps a scan looking for private APIs didn't catch it

Or perhaps in all the chaos of trying to get apps cleared before the holiday shutdown someone just goofed and clicked the wrong box and they didn't figure it out until the blogs started talking about it. The app was gone rather quickly once the articles started
 
i really don't see why this is huge deal for apple, but i'm sure it will be pulled

I don't think it is a big deal. What the more important point for them is to MAINTAIN CONTROL. They like the feel of power in their belly and are not afraid to push users and developers around who challenge them.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.