Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

inputmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#281

Post by cmelbye »

jdavis703 wrote: post #256
OldHand2018 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lawsuit will result in the "discovery" process, and very well might show that Apple had wanted to do this thing for a very long time and at some point they realized that a 3rd party had just introduced something similar to what they wanted to do. And people inside Apple proposed buying the company to save time and money. But when he said no, Apple just decided to continue on their plan. Or the discovery may uncover…

I’d be surprised if it was that nefarious. Apple is releasing a free OS update that has this feature. What do they stand to gain by removing a third-party app users need to learn about and install? Absent some explanation about an advantage Apple gains I’m willing to believe this has something to do with app store policies than something else.

AFAIK it's not a free OS update with the feature. It's a feature of the new Apple Watch Series 7 that will be available for purchase later this fall.

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#282

Post by nomel »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #115
jdavis703 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally I’m not sure the small developer has a chance. Not because the courts are unjust, it’s just hard to say whether Apple broke any laws here. It’s not to say they didn’t, it just doesn’t seem like there’s any slam dunk legal argument about wrongdoing (despite who this might feel morally).

>it’s just hard to say whether Apple broke any laws here Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app/innovation and respinning it into your own implementation count as IP theft? IIRC the Winklevoss twins got paid handsomely as a settlement for Zuckerberg stealing their idea for Facebook. Granted, they were very rich and well connected so that helped.

> Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app/innovation and respinning it into your own implementation count as IP theft?

This makes the assumption that apple hasn’t been putting deep thought into the keyboard design since before the first watch was physically built. I think it’s safe to assume there’s a 30 slide keynote filled with different designs and user study results.

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#283

Post by [deleted] »

atatatat wrote: post #172
yummypaint wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the plaintiffs luck in court. I remember apples courtroom privateering where they persuaded the justice system they invented rounded corners and got their competitors phones pulled from the market. If only the same standards and rigor of enforcement could actually apply to them. Once all is said and done I suspect whatever apple has to pay will not meaningfully impact their profitability, and will be seen as a…

Larger discussion: Is this what being a hacker is now? Knowing your project is going to get stomped out with uncompetitive practices from day 1, still doing and carrying it all the the way through to court with a big player?

[deleted]

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#284

Post by danachow »

throwthere wrote: post #98

Meh. The problem is FlickType requires network access during use. The App store licensing is ok with keyboards, it's not ok with keyboards that get network access. This, Apple perceives as a major privacy issue-- one for the possibility of keylogging, but also for the broader possibility of the always-on logging that the weather apps are infamous for. edit: Sorry, I didn't include the source, the Developer License Ag…

Go read your link carefully. Page 23 not only does not disallow network access, it specifically allows logging it and stipulates what can be done with that data.

“ keystroke logging done by any such extension must be clearly disclosed to the end-user prior to any such data being sent from an iOS Product, and notwithstanding anything else in Section 3.3.9, such data may be used only for purposes of providing or improving the keyboard functionality of Your Application (e.g., not for serving advertising);”

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#285

Post by kelvin0 »

Someone wrote: post #260
kelvin0 wrote: post #151

They've come a long way from building personal computers in Wozniak's garage. In the process they've transformed into the 'big brother' from their 1984 T.V. ad campaign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI

It was the garage of Jobs’ parents, and not even that. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/05/steve-woz... : The commonly shared tale is that Apple was not only founded in the garage of 2066 Crist Drive in Los Altos, California – Jobs’s family home – but that the first Macs were designed and built in the garage as the company was bootstrapped. “The garage is a bit of a myth,” Wozniak told Businessweek. “W…

Duly noted!

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#286

Post by lotsofpulp »

kazinator wrote: post #278
lotsofpulp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas are not worth much, and there is no law against executing someone else’s idea. Winklevoss twins (or Connect U rather) got paid to shut up and go away at a time when it was obvious $65M was going to be pocket change for Facebook and their lawsuit was going to cost more in time for people at Facebook than $65M.

> there is no law against executing someone else’s idea Are you sure about that? Obviously, you mean outside of the patent framework and the concept of infringement, so never mind that. There is law against executing someone else's idea which is public, and over which they have no patent. What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking into an organizatio…

>There is law against executing someone else's idea which is public, and over which they have no patent.

What is this law? I am pretty sure flying cars, underwater cities, space travel, etc are ideas that someone else has had, but no US court is going to stop you from executing an idea just because someone else fantasized about it.

>What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking into an organization and stealing trade secrets: ideas that are not known outside of that organization, and are (consequently) not patented.

The theft itself would be a crime, but an entity not involved in the theft would be able to take advantage of the trade secret without any legal liability. That is the tradeoff for not registering a patent to gain exclusivity for 20 years via legal mechanisms.

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#287

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

mdoms wrote: post #253
croon wrote: post #117

So they do this right after winning over Epic in court? Way to drum up support for anti-trust regulation there, Tim.

Why should Apple be concerned about anti trust in USA when they just won a case they should very obviously have lost and it's clear American regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades?

> In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#288

Post by NKosmatos »

FireBeyond wrote: post #261
NKosmatos wrote: post #16

Very typical of Apple, using opaque approval procedures. They're acting like bullies because they didn't get what they wanted and because they have the money/power to do so. Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it), and so from then onwards started the downhill ride. I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his…

The sad thing is that I've seen numerous comments here saying (of this and other situations), "Well, Apple offered him/them some money for it. They should have just taken the money", and that, to them, completely justifies it. "A gift he couldn't refuse", indeed.

When you're facing big tech giants it's very difficult to judge the best course of actions. They have the advantage, money, influence and usually the advantage in similar situations. I'm not saying the sell out (especially at a ridiculous price) is ok and should always be accepted, but most of the times it's the wiser thing to do. Anyhow, isn't this one of the purposes of most app developers/startups, to have a software/service that one of the big companies out there will want to acquire and give you cash and time to work on your "brain child" the way you want it?

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#289

Post by sushicat »

NKosmatos wrote: post #16

Very typical of Apple, using opaque approval procedures. They're acting like bullies because they didn't get what they wanted and because they have the money/power to do so. Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it), and so from then onwards started the downhill ride. I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his…

Personally, I doubt the blocking of app updates is due to failed acquisition. Yes, let’s admit the facts are Apple tried to buy FlickType, the attempt failed, FlickType is blocked from issuing updates, and Apple released keyboard for Watch 7. But let’s think from a different angle, Apple is a large corporation, all these steps were performed by different teams under different organizations.

I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?) org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in this discussion process.

For the M&A (I don’t know the actual name) org, IMO there is no incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition, they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are normal to them.

For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app updates for a revenge? It’s possible but I think unlikely, they’re not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the FlickType, but they don’t have the pressure to increase adoption because the native keyboard will have better experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and only available on watch 7.

Let’s say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org, for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you’re that app store review manager, someone down the line of another org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the company, but also yourself either externally or internally. Will you accept that request?

To be clear, this is my guess, and I don’t know what’s really going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge. But my point is things may not connected as they look like.

Re: Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it

#290

Post by mdoms »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #287
mdoms wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Apple be concerned about anti trust in USA when they just won a case they should very obviously have lost and it's clear American regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades?

> In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considera…

I didn't say anything about "monopoly". One of the most common fallacies when discussing this topic is that anti trust only applies to monopolies. This is dead wrong.
Post reply on HN