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

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#61

Post by schrototo »

tvon wrote: post #21
pseudonym wrote: post #4

I 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.

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.

It's not only not a good idea to use private APIs, if you do so you've failed. You're a bad developer. It's like writing file handling code that assumes all operations always succeed. There's a reason private APIs are private. They will change. Your app will crash. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#62

Post by pavel_lishin »

brudgers wrote: post #39
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…

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

iFart?

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#63

Post by nhannah »

Apple is setting themselves up for a Microsoft style lawsuit in the future. Everyone here seems very defensive of apple, and while I think a review policy does help a lot at keeping bad apps out, a move like this could easily be brought to court with a huge settlement having to come from apple. Actually trying to hire the guy could look pretty bad on them as it could be construed as trying to avoid a possible suit.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#64

Post by sampsonjs »

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.

When I see "ad hominem" hauled out on HN, I always think of the following from Daniel Davies: "There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem". There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of "giving known liars the benefit of the doubt", but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world."

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#65

Post by Qz »

brudgers wrote: post #39
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…

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

This is true for every piece of software ever written (with respect to the hardware providers).

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#66

Post by ugh »

alanh wrote: post #58

1. 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.…

People have been asking for wireless sync for the last decade. Does nobody remember the immortal “No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.”?

That was written in 2001 about the first iPod. (The actual introduction of wireless sync nearly a decade later has been pretty anticlimactic. Apple took so long that no one is anymore very impressed or surprised. I think that it was about 2006 when everyone started believing that wireless sync would be the next big thing for iPods but then came the iPhone.)

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#67

Post by shinratdr »

As a purchaser of Wi-Fi Sync, fuck him. He's an extremely unprofessional developer who provides terrible customer service. Don't buy his app, even at $2.99.

He dropped off the map after promising a Windows beta for WiFi Sync 2, he won't refund purchases for any reason, and he used misleading language that he refuses to own up to when promising sync over 3G.

Apple's implementation will be way better anyways. It's already much faster and it syncs in the background over USB.

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#69

Post by Osiris »

In cases like this, do developers have any legal grounds to sue? Would the developer had to have patented some of the technology to gain a legal basis for a suit? If Apple can claim it was a clean-room implementation copying the same functionality, I assume he's just out of luck?

Re: Apple copies rejected app

#70

Post by bradleyland »

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…

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

Yes, because it is a continuum, the argument extends to every type of application, including the outliers I mentioned in my own example. The important point is that some are farther from "core" functionality than others. The closer you move to the core, the more risk you assume.

In my view, a music streaming app on iOS faces a lot of risk. It's Apple's platform. They don't enjoy a monopoly, so they should be free to set the rules of entry. I've strongly disagreed with their policies in the past [1], but my views don't change the facts. Apple's platform, Apple's rules.

This WiFi sync app is particularly high risk, because it's "plumbing". Syncing is a low-level function that reasonable person would expect to be provided by a system service. Apple recognizes that this is the reasonable view and denied the original app for their own reasons. Many of which we cannot know, but we can reason. Being such a "low-level" service, Apple wants to preserve the user experience. This is very typical Apple behavior. I'm not surprised at all that they would deny the app.

The "ethical" question is a much more interesting one. It raises the question, "What are the boundaries of governing your own platform when users have the ability to leave at any time?" I think Apple bumps up against these boundaries all the time. They have a pretty long history of pushing the limits with their T&Cs, then easing back. Is that ethical? I'm not sure.

1 - http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narc...

Post reply on HN