Apple pulls iTether from App Store

http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/11/29/apple-pulls-itether-from-app-store/

by raganwald • 15 years ago

45 53 15 years ago

raganwald5• 15 years ago

OT, but I saw this on John Gruber’s site... Showing once again that he is capable of criticizing Apple, especially as pertains to his pet peeves of design inconsistencies and app store approval insanity...

MatthewPhillips• 15 years ago

Can you link to the criticism? I only found a two sentence statement of fact that the app was pulled.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/29/itether

raganwald5• 15 years ago

He wasn’t firing up a rant, but he mentioned that the app was only in the store for a few hours. But you’re right, it’s not nearly as pointed as quips like this:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/29/app-store-ninja-...

Or this skewering:

http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_revi...

tvon• 15 years ago

Gruber criticizes Apple often enough, it just doesn't make Hacker News.

(Though I don't see any criticism in this story, except that he is reporting it, but then I'm not sure what there is to criticize, I don't know how the app got into the App Store in the first place).

pyre• 15 years ago

Well, you could criticize that the App made its way onto the AppStore in the first place as an example of how arbitrary (and possibly ineffective) the approval process is.

interlagos4• 15 years ago

I suppose it is reasonable to judge such an innocuous observation as "critical" on the Gruber scale of Apple commentary.

interlagos4• 15 years ago

Herein lies the problem with Hacker News -- raganwald may be a regular, but such a completely irrelevant, bizarre reference to John Gruber has zero place in this story. I intentionally left a counterpoint that got the expected downvotes, but how about there be some consistency.

This coddling of the regular names diminishes this site.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

raganwald5• 15 years ago

OT -> ‘Off Topic'

danso• 15 years ago

I only vaguely knew the details of how iTether worked, but with the app pulled, does this impact users who've already installed it and the computer client software? That is, was there any need to touch base with iTether's servers?

raganwald5• 15 years ago

This article:

http://tidbits.com/article/12651

Claims that existing users will be fine.

davidblair• 15 years ago

The app still works as of 8:00 PM ET on my AT&T iPhone.

Based on what I've read about others tethering apps, Apple will not remotely disable Tether.

The only major downside is that I will never see any updates. It's only a matter of time before an OS upgrade breaks the app permanently.

tptacek9• 15 years ago

Awfully hard to feel much sympathy for a team that builds and submits to the app store an application which overtly contravenes one of the very first terms of the AT&T wireless terms of service.

Intuitively, I believe AT&T's tether pricing to be a travesty, but rationally I also know that it's their network and their terms are going to be their terms, even if I find them odious. Both intuitively and rationally, an application that exists solely to bypass their most basic terms of service seems more like an elaborate troll than a real offering.

crazygringo• 15 years ago

But there are hundreds (?) of carriers worldwide, all of which support the iPhone. AT&T is just one of many.

So I don't see what the AT&T TOS has to do with Apple's App Store. Five years ago, sure, but not now.

tptacek9• 15 years ago

It directly violates Verizon's terms of services too.

We could (unproductively) relitigate whether Apple should police submissions to the app store at all, but as long as they do, they're obviously going to reject applications that violate the terms of the vast overwhelming majority of their US users carrier contracts.

masklinn• 15 years ago

> But there are hundreds (?) of carriers worldwide, all of which support the iPhone. AT&T is just one of many.

All of these carriers can enable the built-in access point feature of iOS. In fact, it's enabled by default so all of these carriers can not disable the built-in AP feature of iOS.

> So I don't see what the AT&T TOS has to do with Apple's App Store. Five years ago, sure, but not now.

The TOS in question have to do with tethering/cell-as-modem, not with the appstore, I'd guess.

msbarnett• 15 years ago

> But there are hundreds (?) of carriers worldwide, all of which support the iPhone. AT&T is just one of many.

On the carriers which do not have a TOS forbidding free usage of the data plan for tethering, iOS's built-in tethering is already enabled, and this app violates the rule forbidding apps from duplicating built-in iOS functionality.

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

The only possible reason for this app. is to subvert a carrier's TOS, since iPhones have tethering capability built in.

rplnt• 15 years ago

Still very easy to feel no sympathy for the Apple. Their app policies are great in one way (quality over quantity) but very bad in a way that they are blocking (potentially) great apps. This, Google Voice (they used to), Opera Mobile, ...

angli• 15 years ago

There's no question of feeling sorry for Apple: a the largest Tech company in the world brought to it's knees by "iTether"? Not likely. But, it's really easy to feel no sympathy for the iTether guys. NO ONE was surprised they'd take it down: it's completely expected that if you violate Apple's terms you will be removed. Period.

On another note: GVoice and Opera are there. Honestly, they're crap. I'd also note to all of the conspiracy theorists, Apple doesn't care if you use Opera, and the make no $$ off of using the phone app – they let in crap, but crap that makes an effort to follow the rules.

ajross3• 15 years ago

How is tethered data access a "most basic" term of service, though?

I mean, it's more or less by definition undetectable by the carrier. They can't (in the general case) tell what you're doing with those bytes. But they sell them anyway.

The issue with tethering is practical. "Usually" desktop software uses "more" data than "mobile" software. Sometimes. So they outlaw it and try to sell it as an upgrade, but it's a fragile hack. It will always be a fragile hack.

That they write it into their contact verbiage doesn't make it inviolable. They have lots of other crap in there that people ignore routinely, I'm sure. Why is this one special?

tptacek9• 15 years ago

It's "most basic" in the sense that it's among the very first things spelled out in the terms of service you agree to when you sign up for data service with AT&T.

How easy or hard tethering is to detect has zero to do with the validity of that contract.

jpdoctor• 15 years ago

Waiting for

1. An open source iTether

2. An open source way to hide it in an otherwise innocuous application (iJpDoctorClock) as an easter egg

3. 10,000 submissions to the app store.

leoh• 15 years ago

Just wondering: if I paid the $99 bucks to become an Apple Developer, could I write and then self-sign a tethering app that would run on my phone (without jail breaking)?

nkvoll• 15 years ago

Yes, that would work.

sigjuice• 15 years ago

Don't self-signed apps expire in three months? If yes, it would be really inconvenient.

mcteapot• 15 years ago

I am going to say yes, I am also sure there are sourced tethering ios apps out there.

jonknee2• 15 years ago

Yes, or just grab one off github.

https://github.com/tcurdt/iProxy

smashing• 15 years ago

Yes, in fact here's one: https://github.com/tcurdt/iProxy

daxelrod• 15 years ago

Others have answered that this is technically possible. I'm guessing, however, that it would violate your agreement with either Apple or your mobile carrier. Since there are lots of mobile carriers, does anyone know whether it would violate Apple's developer agreement?

robryan2• 15 years ago

Interesting that tethering is part of the standard plan on Telstra in Australia. What's the reasoning behind the restriction on some carriers? As long as I stay within a data cap what does it matter whether it is done on the phone or tethered?

technomancy• 15 years ago

Reasoning? Surely you jest.

"We can make more money this way" covers pretty much everything when it comes to telcos.

tptacek9• 15 years ago

When considering rates for services, you will often (as is the case here) be better off thinking about it in terms of who pays, not what is paid for. Every fee extracted from tethering users creates money that the carrier can use to improve their general data rate and thus attractiveness in the market.

You can be irritated that this nickel-and-dimes you, but what you're dealing with is an allocation decision, not an evil effort to defraud you. AT&T is about as up front about the tethering issue as they reasonably can be; "tethering" is a product option every data customer is presented with when they sign up.

bmunro• 15 years ago

Because no carrier in Australia has unlimited data plans.

Samuel_Michon3• 15 years ago

That's assuming you have a data cap. I have a data plan that's truly unlimited, with no throttling. There isn't even a fair use clause.

So understandably, there's no way my telco will allow me to tether with that plan.

robryan2• 15 years ago

Yeah, I read it as there is still a data cap, just a surcharge for the ability to use it with tethering. I guess on unlimited they reason that you are unlikely to start using your phone to download gigs of stuff then transfer it to other devices.

bphogan3• 15 years ago

I think my biggest problem with this is that these sorts of things should be rejected before they get on the store, before people pay money for things. I don't like the precedent that's set by "oops we decided we don't like your thing so it's going bye-bye".

If Apple can't stop stuff like this at the onset, you have to start asking other questions, like how closely they are looking at the apps they let in. Is it really a safe walled garden?

Or is it simply "Hey we don't like that app anymore. It competes with us somehow. So get out."

Sadly I suspect both of those cases are true.

Samuel_Michon3• 15 years ago

"my biggest problem with this is that these sorts of things should be rejected before they get on the store, before people pay money for things."

If you bought it, you get to keep it. I actually have a half dozen apps that after I bought it have since been removed from the App Store.

bphogan3• 15 years ago

I do too. But I have to restore from my backups. I don't get to grab it from the store again. And bugs won't get fixed, OS incompatibilities (read: iOS 5 fixes) won't get in there either.

If only there were a way around the Apple store.... some way to install any app I wanted....

tptacek9• 15 years ago

Neither of those cases are germane here. There was no way Apple was going to allow this app into the store.

bphogan3• 15 years ago

I thought "pulled" meant it was pulled out of the store. Not rejected.

beej71• 15 years ago

Why was this approved in the first place? Of course it's going to burden the carrier network--it's the raison d'etre for the whole thing. Weird that it was ever there at all.

Apple pulls iTether from App Store

Related Stories