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

Apple copies rejected app

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#41

Post by brudgers »

bradleyland wrote: post #40
brudgers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.

If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewe…

One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc.

More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon.

All this makes it hard to consider Apple's actions in this matter to be ethical in any meaningful sense of the term.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#42

Post by JoeAltmaier »

bradleyland wrote: post #36
bradleyland wrote: post #35

Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter. The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the work…

I had a feeling this would get voted down on the basis of it being ad hominem, but in the context of journalism, an author's history of editorial bias is important. If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.

As the author is a link-bait artist, you are an Apple apologist. Which might have cause some impatient folks to click down-vote reflexively.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#43

Post by JoeAltmaier »

bradleyland wrote: post #40
brudgers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.

If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewe…

Its obvious that Apple may want many useful apps on their platform. For many other categories, this hasn't stood in the way of approving an app that conforms to standards.

The factor here is (obviously) that Apple is quashing competition. Working in a walled garden, this is a fact of life. But its frustrating each time it happens.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#44

Post by tobylane »

brudgers wrote: post #41
bradleyland wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewe…

One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc. More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon. All this makes…

The icon was a mix of the Mac's wifi and sync icons. For all we know Apple didn't want their icons used by someone else, that's a legit reason that's been used elsewhere. Also judging by the comments on the TUAW post of this topic, the app was low quality, and the support was even worse. Apple don't like that, rightly.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#45

Post by tvon »

hullo wrote: post #32
tvon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a developer it is probably not a good idea to use private APIs to implement a feature that has obviously been on the roadmap since day 1.

well, maybe it's actually all about timing, the article implies he's grossed in the neighborhood of $500k so far (minus the impact of "sales")

That's a nice chunk of change for a Cydia-only app.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#46

Post by brudgers »

tobylane wrote: post #44
brudgers wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc. More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon. All this makes…

The icon was a mix of the Mac's wifi and sync icons. For all we know Apple didn't want their icons used by someone else, that's a legit reason that's been used elsewhere. Also judging by the comments on the TUAW post of this topic, the app was low quality, and the support was even worse. Apple don't like that, rightly.

At the time it was submitted, Apple was not purging "low quality" apps - and as the noted in the Register story, Apple thought enough of its implementation to call the developer and request his CV. This would be more consistent with Apple's engineers being impressed by the implementation rather than it would be consistent with its poor quality being obvious.

Furthermore, given your premise that Apple had something in the works but could not create an implementation which was good enough, it is clearly plausible that Apple's technical review of the app provided a roadmap for improving their implementation to the point where it was good enough.

Finally, it is highly unlikely for poor support to have been a reason for rejecting the application because it can rarely if ever be determined for new apps. The infringing icon argument is not backed up by the fact that Apple did not mention it in their rejection and has not taken legal action in the year it has been in use for the jailbroken versions.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#47

Post by jarin »

hullo wrote: post #32
tvon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a developer it is probably not a good idea to use private APIs to implement a feature that has obviously been on the roadmap since day 1.

well, maybe it's actually all about timing, the article implies he's grossed in the neighborhood of $500k so far (minus the impact of "sales")

Yeah, I mean stories like this shouldn't really discourage developers.

Number one: if you are a developer and you don't plan for something like this that's just a lack of awareness on your part.

Which leads to number two: don't depend on a single revenue stream. You're making decent money with your first app? Cool, now pay a couple of interns to handle support requests and start working on the next one.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#48

Post by jarin »

maguay wrote: post #20
jarin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that 99% of the outrage stems from the similarity of the icons.

Only problem is, that's about as generic an icon as you could get by mixing Apple's default iOS icon style with a standard WiFi and Sync icon. Not that unique...

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the "standard" WiFi icon until it showed up in OS X. I think the original "standard" WiFi icon was either this one or the one that looks like a person with radio waves coming out of their head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wifi_logo.jpg

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#49

Post by scelerat »

I'm not saying Apple didn't blatantly rip off this guy's work. But. I'm having a hard time believing someone at Apple saw this submitted to the App Store in May and rushed to get it into the iOS 5 spec a month (or less) later. More likely the app was rejected because the feature was already planned. The rejection response was a cover lie.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#50

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #43
bradleyland wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewe…

Its obvious that Apple may want many useful apps on their platform. For many other categories, this hasn't stood in the way of approving an app that conforms to standards. The factor here is (obviously) that Apple is quashing competition. Working in a walled garden, this is a fact of life. But its frustrating each time it happens.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN