Archive for August, 2009

Review wars!

Now here’s a tale of woe that we probably shouldn’t find as amusing as we do. See, there’s this application called TextFree Unlimited that’s been doing quite well apparently,

Textfree Unlimited is a 4 star app that has stayed in the top 100 apps for 138 days now priced @$5.99. Pretty incredible.

Indeed. But in the savage bestiality of the App Store, OH NOES! that just makes you a target!

But something bad happened last week. I noticed that for our 4 star app, suddenly had 14 1 star ratings with terrible comments that were all marked ”most helpful” by tons of people. This all happened in a 24 hour period.

Now don’t get me wrong, sometimes you make a product error or launch an update that warrants bad reviews. In that case, read them all, listen closely, make changes to your app, and your users will be grateful. This is not what happened.

So what happened?

Last week at Pinger we had a competitor come in and trash our ratings.

Sounds a little paranoid you think? Well, check out the explanation:

Massive iTunes Account Creation

This unscrupulous competitor created 50-100 iTunes accounts. This is not hard to do, but it takes time. They did this so they could act like 100 different users.

Comment Creating

They then created the 14 comments each with a different user account and gave our app a 1 star rating.

Comment Rating

Here’s where the really powerful and potentially dangerous feature of the App store reviews comes into play. Apple gives users the ability to mark a comment “helpful”. Once this competitor with questionable morals, created the comments, they used the 50+ iTunes accounts and marked all the terrible comments they made “helpful”. This immediately raised them to the top of the heap.

Argggghhhh!

Woah. Now that’s some first class conspiracy theory. On the one hand, I suppose the mechanics are plausible yes. On the other hand … does it really make any sense to go to the trouble of creating “50-100″ iTunes accounts just to piss in the mouth of your competition? Especially since you’d have to actually buy a copy with each of those accounts before you were allowed to rate them … oh, no, wait, you can mark a comment helpful or not without buying. Hmmm. Well, that does make it less of an outlay.

OK, I suppose that if you’d set up a sock puppet network to pimp your own apps, which is a skanky but probably effective way to game the system, deploying it to scorch your competitors’ products is the logical next level. Of course, we would never stoop to something that sleazy and underhanded. Unless, you know, it actually works. Hmmmm, maybe there’s a metagame in here somewhere. “Review Wars! Trash our competition for fun and profit!” Heh. The inventiveness of the marketing mind never ceases to amaze, does it now?

h/t: iPhoneKicks!

Continue Reading →
1

Chat room warning!

Here’s something you should be aware of if you’re planning to add any chat room type feature to your application — it forces you into a mature rating on the app store! This email arrived from those OpenFeint people who do a social networking platform for iPhone games that we mentioned before:

Developer community members contacted OpenFeint to let us know that Apple is actively flagging new updates/submissions as “mature user generated content” when chat rooms are included in their games. OpenFeint actively monitors and bans users for inappropriate content, however, some developers have not updated to the latest OpenFeint release limiting our ability to ban inappropriate users permanently. We are actively contacting these developers to accelerate the update process which will allow us to better monitor our community. As of August 14th we will be disabling access to OpenFeint applications using versions earlier than 2.0.

What are your choices?:

1. Disable the chatroom feature in your game – this is recommended for developers needing the lowest application rating in the apple store. Documentation for this can be found here:

http://help.openfeint.com/faqs/guides-2/disabling-chat

2. Submit to apple with a “Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes” – this is recommended for any games that do not fall into choice #1 above.

Not really too fond of either of those options? Yeah, neither are we. Seems that this iPhone thing being, you know, a phone with the real internet and all, restricting access to a game chatroom is a bit on the silly side, as it’s not as if other communication avenues are lacking exactly. But hey, if that’s what we have to deal with that’s what we have to deal with, forewarned is forearmed, and all that!

Continue Reading →
1

Code: UITableViewCell-Compatibility

If you’re trying to maintain iPhone source that uses UITableViewCell — and really, what doesn’t? — across 2.x and 3.x OS version targets, here’s a helpful set of functions for OS version agnosticism from the redoubtable Erica Sadun:

@interface UITableViewCell (Compatibility)

- (void) setLabelText: (NSString *) formatstring, ...;

- (void) setDetailText: (NSString *) formatstring, ...;

- (UILabel *) getLabel; // not 2.x friendly, iffy workaround

- (UILabel *) getDetailLabel;

+ (id) cellWithStyle: (uint) style reuseIdentifier: (NSString *) identifier;

// Must be called during tableView:willDisplayCell:forRowAtIndexPath:

- (void) rectifyDetailLabel;

@end

Handy, that. And whilst checking out her site, we also note that iPhone Developer’s Cookbook 3.0 Edition code is now up at github as well. Goodies everywhere!

h/t: iPhoneSDK!

Continue Reading →
0

Library: geo-location-javascript

Here’s a library of interest to our web-developing friends; geo-location-javascript, which wraps a number of different device’s GPS capabilities into a JavaScript API that is “aligned” to the W3 Geolocation API specification:

Usage Scenario

The framework provides two key methods, it determines if the handset has client side geo location capabilities and one method to retrieve the location (of course only after a request for permission). So a mobile web site that provides location based services can first determine if the client has client side geo capabilites and ask him to assist him in finding his location. If no geo capabilities are given or they are disabled the site can fallback on a manual location input method and use a geodata database/service to map the input to a pair of latitude/longitude coordinates.

Supported platforms

  • iPhone OS 3.x
  • Browsers with Google Gears support (Android, Windows Mobile)
  • Blackberry Devices (8820, 9000,…)
  • Nokia Web Run-Time (Nokia N97,…)
  • webOS Application Platform (Palm Pre)
  • Torch Mobile Iris Browse
  • Mozilla Geode

A comprehensive — nay, well-nigh exhaustive — list of platforms indeed!

As a side note, if you’re unfortunate enough to be stuck on a Windows platform and would like to have an iPhone (and Pre, and …) emulator to test out your webpages, there’s this MobiOne thing which looks like it could be useful for you, check it out.

h/t: iPhoneWebDev!

Continue Reading →
3

Source: XPilot

Here’s another GPL’d game ported to the iPhone, like World Challenge that we mentioned earlierXPilot, an old school multiplayer game that now has a new lease on life. But, as we pontificated in the World Challenge notes, there are those who have issues with this kind of resurrection; and in this case, it includes one of the original developers. From the Slashdot article “The Ethics of Selling GPLed Software For the iPhone”:

…We priced it at $2.99 on the App store (we don’t expect it to become the Next Big Thing, but hoped to recoup our costs — such as server charges and Apple’s annual $99 developer fee), released the source on our web page, then enthusiastically tracked down every member of the original community we could find to let them know of the hoped-for renaissance. Which is where things got muddy. After it hit the App store, one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we’re betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it.

This would be the kind of person that Fake Steve Jobs coined the term ‘freetard’ for. The GPL not only doesn’t mandate a price of nothing, it explicitly allows the charging of whatever fee you see fit for distribution, so long as all source is made available. So nobody serious believes that said original developer has any point. But it does bring up where the real debatable point is, since you can’t recompile on your own phone or redistribute through the App Store without the $99/yr licensing fee by Apple, does that constitute a violation? If you read through the 581 and counting comments, you’ll see every shade of opinion … including a link to the one that we can take as authoritative, I have no doubt: Brett Smith. And who is Brett Smith, you ask? Why, he’s the “Licensing Compliance Officer” for the FSF. Seems that this subject was brough up last year with him over at Linux.com, and here’s the scoop: There is no barrier the FSF sees to GPLv2 compliance. However, GPLv3 is off the table:

…The iPhone Developer Program establishes Apple as the sole provider of iPhone applications. You can choose not to charge for an app you author, but the iTunes Store is the only channel through which it can be delivered to end users and installed. Apple signs the apps it approves with a cryptographic key. Unsigned apps won’t run on the iPhone.

This condition conflicts with section 6 of the GPLv3, the so-called “anti-TiVoization” provision. In particular, it prohibits Apple from distributing a GPLv3-licensed iPhone application without supplying the signing keys necessary to make modified versions of the application run, too.

Thus, you as the developer could attempt to place your code under the GPLv3, but Apple could not distribute it — and since only Apple-signed programs will run, no one else could distribute it either.

The FSF’s Smith says the fact that the author of the program (i.e., you) and the distributor of the binary (i.e., Apple) are unrelated entities makes no difference. “If a program is meant to be installed on a particular User Product, GPLv3 imposes the same requirements about providing Installation Information whether the software is directly installed on the device or conveyed separately.”

Because of the GPL’s viral nature, any app that is derived from other GPLv3 code must be licensed in a way that preserves GPLv3′s code signing requirement. But there are still projects that have chosen to retain earlier licenses, such as GPLv2, and prior versions of the GPL did not include the code signing requirement. Thus you could in theory place your work under GPLv2, as long as it was either entirely original or derived only from code licensed under GPLv2 and earlier…

So there you go, we’ve got that question officially settled then; any program licensed under GPLv2 is cool with the FSF for the App Store, long as you make the source available. Excellent. Soon as we find some free time under the couch or something we will definitely look at picking a project like these to port to the iPhone for the benefit of those who enjoy rooting through code written by their potential contract trolls.

In the meantime, support these fellows’ trailblazing efforts, pick up what all the fuss is about for a mere $1.99!

XPilot

Continue Reading →
1
Page 3 of 3 123