Apple Seems To Hate iPhone Developers
For some time now (more than a year) I’ve been working on a side project creating guides for all the state parks of various states in the US. These guides are written for iOS, and have been released on the Apple App Store. To date, 12 states have been completed and released, and have been received well. A few weeks ago 5 more states were completed and submitted to Apple. After the obligatory 10 day wait to get the new states approved, I received notification from Apple that I was “spamming” the store with the same application, just full of different content. This sort of behavior would get me booted from their developer program, and my 5 new states were flat-out rejected.
We found that your app provides the same feature set as other apps you’ve submitted to the App Store; it simply varies the content or language. Apps that replicate functionality with different content create clutter in the App Store, hindering users’ ability to find apps, and do not comply with the App Store Review Guidelines. Apps based on a common feature set should be combined into a single container app that uses the In App Purchase API to deliver different content. For example, it would be appropriate to consolidate the following apps with your existing Parks apps, using In App Purchase:
New York Parks
Colorado State Parks
North Carolina Parks
Virginia Parks
I appealed this decision, with some of the following logic:
Given the geographic disparity from state to state, someone in Ohio is not likely interested in the state parks available in California, Texas, or Alaska. We have heard from many users who love the strict focus and clear delineation of purpose from one state to another of our existing state parks apps. I would further like to point out that many of the states in the US have several hundred state parks, and attempting to combine all the parks from several states into one application will make the user’s experience confusing and inelegant, as well as force the application size to become very large.
Someone interested in the state parks of New York would not buy the California Parks application so that they could then perform an In App Purchase of the New York Parks information. Someone interested in New York will look for and find apps specific to New York.
There are 50 states in the US, and we have planned only 1 app for each state. We have gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that our applications are feature-rich, complete, and compelling for the user. We further strongly believe that given that Apple has already accepted apps for 12 other states, the remaining states should be accepted in similar fashion.
A week later (today) I received a phone call from someone at Apple regarding this, and they were adamant that the In App Purchase route was the only way to go for our business model. I pointed out that so called “shell” apps that are free but require In App Purchases to install anything useful are universally disliked by users of the app store. I also explained that consolidating all our state parks information into a single app would limit our exposure on the app store, make it more difficult for users to find the information we offer, and did not make sense for someone looking for state parks information specific to a single state. I further discussed another developer that I found to have more than 300 applications that are simply maps for various parks around the country, and questioned how that could happen… The guy I was speaking with sounded dubious about whether I was telling the truth, and persisted that no such applications have been accepted for a long time. He further insisted that In App Purchasing was a much better business model, and that we do it that way or don’t do it at all. When I indicated that we were not interested in pursuing an In App Purchase model, his response was “well, then we’re not interested in having you in the app store.” It was clear that I had no negotiation power at all, and that he really didn’t care what I was going to say or how insane his position sounded to me. His reasoning was circular and nonsensical, and really felt as though Apple has some other reason to push In App Purchase rather than allow multiple applications.
So here is what Apple is saying: If you write an excellent app framework or architecture that could be applied to more than one domain of information, tough. Use In App Purchase model or go find somewhere else to sell your app.
So, what do you think? Have you used In App Purchasing to buy more content for an app you already own? How would you feel if you downloaded a free app purporting to be a guide for all the state parks in the US only to find that all the content has to be paid for individually?
Birthday List 2011
Time to get another year old. Let’s celebrate!
- Advanced Photography Techniques DVD
- Minimalist Lighting
- Master Lighting Guide
- Aperture Photo Editing Software
- A New Tripod
- New T-Shirt
- Another New Shirt
- Triplane
- Supermarine Spitfire R/C Plane
- Corsair
- Messerschmitt BF-109
DIY SpeedLite Diffuser
Are you frustrated by the ugliness that results when you try to take a picture with your camera’s flash? Well, I was, so I recently built a diffuser for my SpeedLite in an attempt to mimic a Gary Fong Lightsphere Collapsible. Why not just buy one of Gary Fong’s diffusers? Well, first some background:
While I’ve been an avid amateur photographer for most of my adult life, I’ve only recently managed to pick up my first SLR camera – a Canon Digital Rebel XTi. This thing is great – I’m finally able to capture the fine nuance of what my eye sees in vivid detail… well, as long as there is enough light, that is.
See, when you take a picture of an object, your camera is actually capturing the light that bounces off of that object from whatever light source you happen to have handy. Regardless of the camera you are using and the subject of your photo, when you have great light, you can wind up with great pictures. However, if you have poor light even the best photographer will wind up with poor pictures.
So, what is great light? Well, it really depends on what you are trying to do. Do you want sharp shadows? Do you want strong contrast? Do you want your colors to be vibrant or subdued? Do you want light to be stronger on one part of your subject and weaker on another? Do you want to bounce a blue light off a red object to make it look purple? The variation of light sources and their resulting effects is nearly infinite, but there are 2 main types of light that I look for and use as a photographer:
- Hard Light: I call it this because it casts hard shadows. This is produced by lights with a very small surface area.
- Soft Light: So named because it casts very soft shadows and provides very even light. This is produced by lights with a very large surface area.
Now, to produce really flattering images of people (or pets, or products, or whatever you want to shoot) you need VERY soft light… not necessarily dim – but SOFT. This means you need your light to come from as large a surface area as possible. The flash on your camera is not large at all. In fact, on most SLR cameras it is only about a square centimeter or so. Using this flash as your main source of light is a great way to shoot horrible pictures.
A “SpeedLite” or detachable larger flash will provide better pictures, but shooting it directly at your subject will still produce unflattering results similar to the on-camera flash. If you have a lightly colored wall or low white ceiling available, bouncing your flash off them can produce much better results because the whole wall winds up acting as your light source. But what do you do if there are no great options for bouncing? Well, you’ll need a diffuser.
A diffuser accomplishes 2 different goals: Spreading the light and making the light source surface area larger. When looking for a diffuser for my flash, I quickly found the Fong Lightsphere and was impressed with the quality of the photos it produced – and decided to buy one.
Then I looked in my wallet.
Now, let’s be honest: Fong’s diffuser is not all that expensive. If you have the means and want to spend the money, I highly recommend shelling out some dough and picking one up. But if you are at all like me, you’ll try to come up with something similar for much cheaper. In fact, as it turns out Google knows all about people like me who have tried to come up with their own diffuser design. In digging through these, I found the DIY Gary Fong Lightsphere site, and after wading through all the advertisements and attempts to make me become a “pro” member of their site, I decided to see if I could come up with something similar.
There is no IKEA around here, so I headed to my local home improvement store: Lowes.
I picked up 2 items at a total cost of $14.21. The items are pictured below:
Totally guesstimating, I measured 5 inches off the end of the roll and cut it carefully with a sharp pair of scissors.
Then I slapped some velcro on the ends and that was that. I attached it to my flash and started running around the house taking test shots and muttering to myself about the results. A quick word about the velcro: There are 2 sides to this drawer liner – a very smooth side and a very bumpy side. You want to put one piece of velcro on the smooth side and one on the bumpy, or else they won’t attach to each other when folded over your flash. That’s the only hard part about building this thing – get that right and you’ll be all set.
So, jonesing to see some results? Before we jump into that (unless you just skipped ahead… ) I wanna say this: This diffuser (and any diffuser) will not instantly make your photos look fantastic. This will merely manipulate your light in new ways. For me, the results were unexpectedly good in some instances, but unexpectedly bad in others. You’ll have to get used to when it is right to use a diffuser to get the most out of it.
Here are some comparison shots I did with the diffuser on and off.

No Diffuser. Bounced off the ceiling at about a 20 degree angle. Notice the deep shadows and muted colors.

Shot with the diffuser on the flash, same position as the shot above. Notice how the colors are brighter, the light much more even, but the shadows are sharper.
With this set there are a few surprises : I was surprised to see the sharper shadows in the second image above, but now understand (after shooting a bunch more comparisons) what is going on here. The flash was pointed up at the ceiling as in the first image, but the light was being bounced around and redirected out the front face of the diffuser as well. Effectively, this produces 2 light sources: There will still be plenty of light hitting the ceiling and bouncing back, but there will *also* be plenty of light forced out the front of the diffuser directly at your subject. This is important to understand, as it can produce some very unexpected results.
Here is another comparison:

No diffuser. Flash bounced off the wall and a portion of the ceiling to the right of the camera. Great depth and warm colors from the off-white wall.

Same as above, but with diffuser on the flash. I actually hugely prefer the non-diffuser version of this shot.
These 2 images illustrate how using a diffuser can be the wrong choice sometimes. In the bottom image, we are getting too much light directly diffused off the flash towards our subject, and losing the great texture and depth of shadow that the first shot captures so well. Also note the much cooler tone of the image with the diffused flash.
Now for an example that uses the above effect for better results than a typical bounce flash:
The differences between these 2 shots are very subtle, but come down to using the right combination of the light bouncing off the ceiling and the light coming out the face of the diffuser. In the top picture, the colors are subdued slightly and flatter. In the second picture the highlights on the petals (especially the lily) are much more pronounced. These highlights were brought out by the light emitted from the face of the diffuser, and make the difference between the somewhat flat first image and more vibrant second image.
“What about portraits? I heard that diffusers were great for portraits!”
Well, here are a few (this is my wife’s “folding laundry” face):

No diffuser. Bounced off the ceiling at a slight angle to the subject. Whoops! The ceiling is too tall (20 feet) for the flash bounce to be effective.

Same as above, but with diffuser. All that light being tossed out the front of the diffuser lights the subject's face, while the rest of the room is lit by the bounce of the rest of the light off the ceiling.
This comparison is what really gave me the “ah ha!” moment about how the light was being manipulated by the diffuser. Yes, the light on her face can be improved further (keep reading!) but With the diffuser you get great depth to her hair, and very even light with softer shadows than you would get with a direct flash – better capture of the contours of her face for sure.
Thinking it would be more fair to point the flash directly at her for a better comparison, I took these next 2:
What a difference! Great highlights and much more even hair, you can see the texture of her sweater, and her face is much more evenly lit. I knew I could get it to produce even better results, though.
This next comparison is of 4 types of flash: built-in pop-up, SpeedLite aimed at subject, SpeedLite bounced off the wall, SpeedLite with diffuser bounced off the wall:

SpeedLite aimed directly at subject. Improvement over built-in flash, but still not great. Cooler tone.

SpeedLite bounced off the wall. No diffuser. Much softer light, but subdued highlights. Good catchlight in the eyes.

SpeedLite bounced off wall with diffuser. Wow! Even softer light than the first bounce, with better highlights and more vibrant colors.
Now I can see what all the fuss is about with diffusers! This last shot is leaps and bounds better than the first with just the built-in flash, and is noticeably better than the best I was able to do in this setting with a bounce off the wall. I’m thoroughly convinced that my $14.21 was money very well spent!
Here are some other interesting shots of the diffuser and the pattern of light it throws. Note that it is not a perfectly even light (as I’m sure the Fong diffuser does) – at the corners it will throw sharper light than from the faces:
Based on my experiments with this diffuser, I’d say that it can definitely improve some shots, but can also make some worse. Learning to anticipate what it will do with the light from your flash is an exercise left for the reader.
Oh, as an extra bonus, this thing rolls up nice and small and fits easily into my already cramped camera bag.
Side Note: When I bought the roll of drawer filler stuff, the smallest roll they had was 6 FEET long. I only used 5 inches. Similarly, I had to buy tons more velcro than I actually needed for this project, so I have enough leftover material to make about 10 more of these things. If you want one, I’d be happy to make it for you and ship it anywhere in the US for $10. Just drop me an email and let me know what sort of flash you’ll be putting it on so I can make sure it will be big enough. You can paypal me the money or send a spiffy $10 bill in the mail. I’m only going to make these for other people until my material runs out – I’m not looking to get rich here, just want to get rid of my leftovers. Thanks!
Would love to hear your comments or suggestions below.
Kids – Jan 2010
My recent interest in Photography has begun to become something of an addiction…I find that I’m spending way too much money on new gear, but am more and more pleased with the resulting pictures.
This evening I snagged some shots of my kids with my new flash attached to the camera – Bounced it off the wall and ceiling to soften the light.
What do you think?
Ginger
For years Christine has insisted that she did not want a dog – she felt it would be too much work to have one. Well, the week before Christmas 2010, Ginger came to join our family.
And I think Christine is glad.
Full Lunar Eclipse December 2010
Tonight just as we were getting back into town after a fantastic weekend snowmobiling at the cabin, I caught wind that tonight a full lunar eclipse would occur.
I recalled the last time I caught a lunar eclipse on film, and wondered about whether I could improve upon my prior results.
I thought my images from last time were pretty great, but they pale in comparison to what I managed to grab tonight. This shot was taken just as the moon passed fully into the umbral shadow, around 1:17 AM US Mountain Standard Time.
Technical details:
Shutter: 2 seconds
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 250mm
The Cat Condo
So, my sister-in-law Jenni and her husband Ray have a cat, Petey. Though I am allergic to cats and thus keep my distance from Petey, by all accounts he is a cheery and delightful cat worthy of all the affection and adoration that can and should be heaped upon him. So over Thanksgiving weekend we heaped some on, and built him a new cat condo. Similar condos sell in pet stores and online for $3-400, and while we like Petey, I don’t think we like him that much. Jenni and Ray found nearly all the materials as leftover scraps from a carpet store, so it was very inexpensive to build.
Click on the image below to see more shots of the construction process:
First Photo Shoot
I recently picked up my first DSLR camera, and have been learning how to use it. Most recently I’ve become interested in studio portraiture – and decided to do some tests with Christine and I as subjects. Here are some of my favorite results:
More shots from this shoot can be found in my gallery.
I’m looking for people interested in being guinea pigs for my various studio setups – if you happen to be in the Boise area and interested in some free photography – let me know.
I’m also very interested in any feedback you may have on my first shoot.
Thanks!
Raindrops
Christmas List 2010
Here’s some stuff I’d love to find under the tree this year:
- Advanced Photography Techniques DVD
- Warm Socks
- Low cut athletic socks
- Macro Adapters for my camera
- An External Flash or maybe this one
- UV Filter
- Viewfinder Extender
- Lens Hood for zoom lens
- Lens Hood for stock lens
- A New Drill – This one, or this one or similar. Important that it have: lithium Ion batteries, 18+ volt, 2 speed clutch, etc.
- Supermarine Spitfire R/C Plane
- Corsair
- Messerschmitt BF-109
- Small precision screwdrivers – like this or similar.




























