I agree with the posters above that this was an obvious feature that Apple must have been planning, if not actively working on, long before this fellow submitted his (reportedly very buggy) software.
It's also obviously implementing an operating system feature, rather than an end-user app. People buy iOS devices to browse the web, watch movies, listen music, communicate with people, etc. People do not buy iOS devices so that they can sync them with their computers. Syncing is a feature people expect Apple to provide.
It looks to me like this fellow wrote his software expecting it to be rejected just so that he could try to sue Apple when they later added wireless syncing.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection? I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
For this kid to feel ripped off is stupid. Somehow it never occurred to him that his app was rejected because Apple was already working on the functionality in the OS?
Duh.
And yet every other company that does anything even remotely like apple is copying them or stealing their IP. They were never already working on the functionality.
Just like the words "app" and "store" have been around for years. Apple puts them together and it is a trademark.
See any double standards here?
Care to explain what the whole App Store trademark fiasco has to do with this guy claiming Apple supposedly 'ripped off' this WiFi Sync thing?
You know what time it is when people start throwing in completely unrelated stuff and extrapolate that to make a point about something out of thin air, when there is none. Time to get out of the argument. Even if Apple is being a dick about the App Store trademark, that doesn't imply they are ripping off anyone by adding wireless syncing to iOS.
This WiFi sync guy is full of it, he claims Apple told them there was no explicit technical reason for rejecting it, even though I read everywhere that the application is unstable, can leave iTunes in a mess when the sync fails, that it uses private API's on the iPhone side to update the iTunes library, and so on. Now he's claiming a full-on cloud service that also extends to wireless syncing (on the OS level) is ripping off his application that only implements the basic idea of wirelessly syncing your phone (as seen a million times elsewhere) and referring to how Apple even copied his icon even though it is just a composition of 2 existing Apple icons. And making a big show out of.
I'm really the first person to root for the little guy if it comes to developers vs. Apple in cases where applications appear to be rejected for no good reason (e.g. in the satyrical content cases). But this guy is just a grade-A douche, whoring for attention by trying to make a fuss out of nothing. If he's smart enough to develop this WiFi sync application he damn well knows why Apple rejected it, and he's obviously well aware that right now, riding the anti-Apple wave brings you lot of coverage.
And yet every other company that does anything even remotely like apple is copying them or stealing their IP. They were never already working on the functionality.
Makes perfect sense to me.
That's cute, you pull the same trick again at the very moment I'm replying to you.
You really think Apple just decided a few weeks ago that they would introduce a full-on cloud service centered around the idea of wirelessly pushing everything to all your iOS devices without any user interaction, and that this WiFi sync guy actually invented wireless syncing before it was ever on Apple's long-term roadmap?
If so, you really are delusional. The fact that you cannot find any other way to make your case than to point to some completely unrelated emotional argument seems to confirm just that. 'Uhuhh Apple bad, Apple evil, just look at this one example of something they did I don't like, and see how I extrapolate that to everything Apple does or does not do'.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection? I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
I love your enthusiasm that Apple never plan to do wireless sync at all. And not only that, there's even a good chance this greedy corporate had copied this poor developer's code.
We shouldn't be surprised that Apple would reject app only to add the functionality later on. But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo? Hard to believe Apple would be so brazen. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
The guy did ok out of this, but for him to feel 'ripped off' is ridiculous.
Its such an obvious and ubiquitously useful feature, not to mention the stunning obviousness of combining Apple's Airport logo and Apple's iSync logo... I mean, come on.
If I were him, i'd feel glad i'd made a few K out of it before the inevitable happened. And then i'd STFU.
We shouldn't be surprised that Apple would reject app only to add the functionality later on. But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo? Hard to believe Apple would be so brazen. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
Seriously? Look at the logo. Then look at iSync's logo, and apple's Airport logo.
And as for the name... hmm... its a way to sync via wifi... what will we call it? Hmm......
We shouldn't be surprised that Apple would reject app only to add the functionality later on. But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo? Hard to believe Apple would be so brazen. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Apple was already working on this, already had working software in the lab. But immediately attacking the "evil corporation" has become the standard norm in American culture. Yellow journalism loves to make everything an outrage, a David vs. Goliath story. We need victims, lots of victims so we can shake our heads and feign disgust.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection?
That's only relevant if Apple has a legal obligation to allow everything into the appstore that meets the guidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
It would be very surprising if Apple stole his code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
... only if he can provide evidence (beyond just his own testimony of his recollection) of exactly what was said.
An Apple representative contacted Hughes to explain the rejection, saying the app didn't "technically break the rules," though it did "encroach upon the boundaries" of what is allowed in the App Store.
Aside from whether Apple stole the idea, this highlights what I've always felt was a risk to anyone who wants to develop an app for iOS. Just how much time, effort, and money are you willing to invest in your program without knowing if at the end of the day Apple is going to reject it? Some of the guidelines are vague to begin with. And now you have to worry about being rejected even if you aren't breaking the rules!
The kid made a half of million dollars selling the app on Cydia essentially working for himself (minus whatever cut Cydia takes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duo
I was just reading about this at Cult of Mac and according to their post the developer was asked for a resume. Wonder why he didn't hand one in and instead went to Cydia. You'd think that an Apple representative asking for your resume after Apple just rejected your app would clue you in.
You are incorrect. It did violate the rules. It used Apple's private API's. Apple disallows the use of its private API's because it they might be unstable or change. Apple also uses private API's internally to test upcoming products, like let's say iCloud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons
It seems to me Apple prevented this developer from making several millions dollars.
- The app has proven to have significant value: 50,000 downloads on Cydia at 10$ a pop = 500,000$
- The app never violated the app store rules; it was simply close to edges.
- I can easily see at least 500,000 downloads if the app was on the Apple App Store
The icons are very similar. It is fair to say, however, the kid essentially copied Apple's iSync and Wi-Fi icons and put them together. The kid created a derivative work based on Apple's copyrighted material. Apple's protected.
I was just reading about this at Cult of Mac and according to their post the developer was asked for a resume. Wonder why he didn't hand one in and instead went to Cydia. You'd think that an Apple representative asking for your resume after Apple just rejected your app would clue you in.
It seems you like working for someone else. However, there are other types of people that like to have more influence over their destiny and prefer to take a different route.
Good news though: You can stop worrying (or giving lame advice like "get a clue") -typically, those people already have a clue and will do just fine.
The icons are very similar. It is fair to say, however, the kid essentially copied Apple's iSync and Wi-Fi icons and put them together. The kid created a derivative work based on Apple's copyrighted material. Apple's protected.
You need to brush up on your knowledge of this area of the law.
You are incorrect. It did violate the rules. It used Apple's private API's. Apple disallows the use of its private API's because it they might be unstable or change. Apple also uses private API's internally to test upcoming products, like let's say iCloud.
You must know more than me. I am just going from what I read in the AI article.
Comments
I agree with the posters above that this was an obvious feature that Apple must have been planning, if not actively working on, long before this fellow submitted his (reportedly very buggy) software.
It's also obviously implementing an operating system feature, rather than an end-user app. People buy iOS devices to browse the web, watch movies, listen music, communicate with people, etc. People do not buy iOS devices so that they can sync them with their computers. Syncing is a feature people expect Apple to provide.
It looks to me like this fellow wrote his software expecting it to be rejected just so that he could try to sue Apple when they later added wireless syncing.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection? I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
For this kid to feel ripped off is stupid. Somehow it never occurred to him that his app was rejected because Apple was already working on the functionality in the OS?
Duh.
And yet every other company that does anything even remotely like apple is copying them or stealing their IP. They were never already working on the functionality.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Just like the words "app" and "store" have been around for years. Apple puts them together and it is a trademark.
See any double standards here?
Care to explain what the whole App Store trademark fiasco has to do with this guy claiming Apple supposedly 'ripped off' this WiFi Sync thing?
You know what time it is when people start throwing in completely unrelated stuff and extrapolate that to make a point about something out of thin air, when there is none. Time to get out of the argument. Even if Apple is being a dick about the App Store trademark, that doesn't imply they are ripping off anyone by adding wireless syncing to iOS.
This WiFi sync guy is full of it, he claims Apple told them there was no explicit technical reason for rejecting it, even though I read everywhere that the application is unstable, can leave iTunes in a mess when the sync fails, that it uses private API's on the iPhone side to update the iTunes library, and so on. Now he's claiming a full-on cloud service that also extends to wireless syncing (on the OS level) is ripping off his application that only implements the basic idea of wirelessly syncing your phone (as seen a million times elsewhere) and referring to how Apple even copied his icon even though it is just a composition of 2 existing Apple icons. And making a big show out of.
I'm really the first person to root for the little guy if it comes to developers vs. Apple in cases where applications appear to be rejected for no good reason (e.g. in the satyrical content cases). But this guy is just a grade-A douche, whoring for attention by trying to make a fuss out of nothing. If he's smart enough to develop this WiFi sync application he damn well knows why Apple rejected it, and he's obviously well aware that right now, riding the anti-Apple wave brings you lot of coverage.
And yet every other company that does anything even remotely like apple is copying them or stealing their IP. They were never already working on the functionality.
Makes perfect sense to me.
That's cute, you pull the same trick again at the very moment I'm replying to you.
You really think Apple just decided a few weeks ago that they would introduce a full-on cloud service centered around the idea of wirelessly pushing everything to all your iOS devices without any user interaction, and that this WiFi sync guy actually invented wireless syncing before it was ever on Apple's long-term roadmap?
If so, you really are delusional. The fact that you cannot find any other way to make your case than to point to some completely unrelated emotional argument seems to confirm just that. 'Uhuhh Apple bad, Apple evil, just look at this one example of something they did I don't like, and see how I extrapolate that to everything Apple does or does not do'.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection? I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
I love your enthusiasm that Apple never plan to do wireless sync at all. And not only that, there's even a good chance this greedy corporate had copied this poor developer's code.
Its such an obvious and ubiquitously useful feature, not to mention the stunning obviousness of combining Apple's Airport logo and Apple's iSync logo... I mean, come on.
If I were him, i'd feel glad i'd made a few K out of it before the inevitable happened. And then i'd STFU.
We shouldn't be surprised that Apple would reject app only to add the functionality later on. But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo? Hard to believe Apple would be so brazen. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
Seriously? Look at the logo. Then look at iSync's logo, and apple's Airport logo.
And as for the name... hmm... its a way to sync via wifi... what will we call it? Hmm......
Edit : this sums it up perfectly: http://chipotle.tumblr.com/post/6366...ious-questions
We shouldn't be surprised that Apple would reject app only to add the functionality later on. But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo? Hard to believe Apple would be so brazen. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Apple was already working on this, already had working software in the lab. But immediately attacking the "evil corporation" has become the standard norm in American culture. Yellow journalism loves to make everything an outrage, a David vs. Goliath story. We need victims, lots of victims so we can shake our heads and feign disgust.
Apple has failed to sync the way many want to since 2007 and this guy came along with an attempt to fill in the market gap...it would be interesting to see the reasoning that apple gave for the rejection...was it truly buggy? or was it some vague "duplicate functionality" rejection?
That's only relevant if Apple has a legal obligation to allow everything into the appstore that meets the guidelines.
I think the discovery on this case would be fun...lets see code samples, anything in Apples code base look the same? and what were the commit dates on that code vs when the engineers saw his app?
It would be very surprising if Apple stole his code.
that phone call that he speaks of where the rep said that it didnt technically violate any of apples policies may be the smoking gun here against apple
... only if he can provide evidence (beyond just his own testimony of his recollection) of exactly what was said.
An Apple representative contacted Hughes to explain the rejection, saying the app didn't "technically break the rules," though it did "encroach upon the boundaries" of what is allowed in the App Store.
Aside from whether Apple stole the idea, this highlights what I've always felt was a risk to anyone who wants to develop an app for iOS. Just how much time, effort, and money are you willing to invest in your program without knowing if at the end of the day Apple is going to reject it? Some of the guidelines are vague to begin with. And now you have to worry about being rejected even if you aren't breaking the rules!
- The app has proven to have significant value: 50,000 downloads on Cydia at 10$ a pop = 500,000$
- The app never violated the app store rules; it was simply close to edges.
- I can easily see at least 500,000 downloads if the app was on the Apple App Store
I was just reading about this at Cult of Mac and according to their post the developer was asked for a resume. Wonder why he didn't hand one in and instead went to Cydia. You'd think that an Apple representative asking for your resume after Apple just rejected your app would clue you in.
It seems to me Apple prevented this developer from making several millions dollars.
- The app has proven to have significant value: 50,000 downloads on Cydia at 10$ a pop = 500,000$
- The app never violated the app store rules; it was simply close to edges.
- I can easily see at least 500,000 downloads if the app was on the Apple App Store
I was just reading about this at Cult of Mac and according to their post the developer was asked for a resume. Wonder why he didn't hand one in and instead went to Cydia. You'd think that an Apple representative asking for your resume after Apple just rejected your app would clue you in.
It seems you like working for someone else. However, there are other types of people that like to have more influence over their destiny and prefer to take a different route.
Good news though: You can stop worrying (or giving lame advice like "get a clue") -typically, those people already have a clue and will do just fine.
The icons are very similar. It is fair to say, however, the kid essentially copied Apple's iSync and Wi-Fi icons and put them together. The kid created a derivative work based on Apple's copyrighted material. Apple's protected.
You need to brush up on your knowledge of this area of the law.
You are incorrect. It did violate the rules. It used Apple's private API's. Apple disallows the use of its private API's because it they might be unstable or change. Apple also uses private API's internally to test upcoming products, like let's say iCloud.
You must know more than me. I am just going from what I read in the AI article.