There is nothing like free contract work. This is no different than the way Microsoft treated developers before the anti-trust hammer was brought down upon them.
Apple copies rejected app
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That something is plausible is not evidence that it happened.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#53Earlier 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…
As I understand it, the app used private APIs, which means it did not meet "every knowable requirement for being included."
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That something is plausible is not evidence that it happened .
Absolutely. That's why I chose "plausible."
I will be the first to recognize that the plausibility of one line of speculation regarding the course of Apple's actions is no more evidence of an actual state of affairs than the plausibility of other lines of speculation within the discussion are evidence that those events indeed occurred.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#55Happened to me as well... over a year, when iAd first came out, a friend and I built an iAd gallery app. Rejected.
A few months ago I saw on Techcrunch that Apple had released their own iAd gallery that looked practically identical. Oh well.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#56I wish I was surprised, but this seems to happen with a lot of OS-extending apps on the iOS device. I've never heard of a game being banned from the app store, but as soon as it's something that Apple doesn't already have baked into the operating system... It's been said before and it'll be said again: Playing in Apple's walled garden isn't a safe way to make a living.
I think it's more fair to say that making things that should/could be OS features isn't a safe way to make a living. Or if you do want to risk it, just be aware that you should have a fallback plan.
How is a to-do app "should/could be OS features?" Or a camera app that uses the volume button? Or Instapaper?
I don't think there is an obvious way to tell what Apple has in their roadmap. Specially when they publicly downplay the importance of some features only to implement them later. Maybe they should make their roadmap public? :)
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#57Does anyone here seriously believe that anyone in the Apple department responsible for Wifi Syncing will have ever seen this app and its icon?
Apple will have been working on Wifi syncing far longer ago than last May. I wouldn't be surprised if they had it working when they first launched the iPhone but held it back for other sensible reasons (not everyone had wifi, power usage, speed, reliability, no delta updates etc).
Like Authors are warned by their lawyers not to read or accept fan fiction, Apple's developers will be kept well away from reviewing of apps.
The concept is an obvious one; one that has had much discussion on the internet and on this site in particular.
The icon is the most obvious and clearest solution you can draw. I spend most of my day drawing icons and if you had asked me to create an icon for this I am 100% certain that I would have put a wifi logo into the middle of a sync logo. It is a completely obvious thing to do looking at the respective shapes and line thicknesses.
This is a non story.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#581. The idea of wireless sync is so obvious that customers have been asking for it since, oh, half a decade ago when iPhone was introduced.
2. The icon, while similar in concept, is literally nothing more than Apple’s standard “sync” icon plus Apple’s standard AirPort (Wifi) icon.
3. (Bonus) After rejecting the app, which did perform activities not allowed in the SDK, Apple expressed interest in hiring the kid anyway.
Manufactured controversy. Snore.
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
There was no international standard wireless Internet logo for a long, long time. There still may not be. But this one is indeed Apple’s standard AirPort icon (they dropped one ring going OS X → iOS due to size contraints).
Re: Apple copies rejected app
#60Happened to me as well... over a year, when iAd first came out, a friend and I built an iAd gallery app. Rejected. A few months ago I saw on Techcrunch that Apple had released their own iAd gallery that looked practically identical. Oh well.
I bet the difference is that if you use Apple’s, no advertisers are forced to pay for what are essentially fraudulent views.