The app was rejected because for an app to sync the iTunes library it must break the application directory sandboxing rule whereby Apple will automatically deny an application. If you use Apple's private API's your application will be rejected no matter how cool the application. Stated differently, the guy violated a clear rule and took a chance submitting it to the App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
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!
While a job at Apple may interest a great number of people, it was well within his rights to not want to work there. Declining a job does not mean it's OK for him to get ripped off.
That said, I strongly suspect Apple did have this functionality in its long term plans. The longer I follow Apple the longer-term I realize their secret roadmaps are. So I'm not sure there's a case here. Countless other times 3rd party developers of both Apple and Microsoft OS's have found their add-ons getting implemented in the next versions out of Redmond and Cupertino. And odds are very good Apple will have planning documents to prove this function was on the drawing board before Hughes' app was submitted to the store.
I think wi fi sync is something we all would want
so his app was not so original
I feel apple was already on this kind of sync for years
but apple played this badly
yet this idiot ruined his own case by jail braking
He's probably upset since he made an app for the iPhone, it was rejected, and now the company that rejected it is using it. While I don't think he'll have a case against Apple (unless they used his code...which is doubtful), if you're throwing this away as some moron wanting attention, you're...well...idiotic.
I agree. Idiotic.
Apple can be rightfull pissed when Microsoft copies their OS, but then to turn around and be such a sleaze with a little guy.
Seriously not cool. Apple...sometimes you really SUCK!
When Apple recycles a name - of course it was the only name that could possibly have made sense. When [Samsung / company of choice] recycles a name - "OMG, can't they get a brain!? The copying is so blattent, blah, blah blah!"
Fair enough. I am not an expert. I googled it (OK I Binged it, as I am collecting X-Box points). There are numerous stories from developers explaining why the application was rejected. They seemed to think it was a valid rejection based on a clear violation of the rules.
You can also look at Apple's other icons to figure out the kid's icon was really a derivative work based on Apple's previous icons. I am not saying somebody at Apple didn't like what the kid did, just that the kid wouldn't' have a copyright claim as you can't make a derivative work off of somebody else's work.
Read up on Rocky Four (the one where Rocky goes to Russia). Some guy essentially wrote the screen play and sent it to Sylvester Stallone. Stallone loved it and used it without giving the guy a dime. The guy sued, and the Court ruled in favor of Stallone. The reasoning was the guy's screen play was essentially a derivative work based on Stallone's copyright protected characters. As such, the guy had no rights to screen play he wrote because it was based on Stallone's copyrighted work. Stallone made millions off the guy's screen play.
So because the guy here took a few of Apple's other ideas and threw them together, it wouldn't matter if Apple copied the guy's icon.
Finally, the guy's idea while useful isn't original. People have been asking Apple for wirelessly syncing for years, myself included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons
You must know more than me. I am just going by what I read in the AI article.
As much as I know I'd be pissed if I were that developer... he's an idiot. Why doesn't he go sue Android or something? Apple is entitled to good ideas. And if the only infringement he can find is the icon... well. One of the previous posters is right. I have both the arrow-circle and the wifi symbol on my menu bar already. It's not exactly original. But it's widely accepted... and it is apple property.
A wireless sync application must have been writing into the iPhones iTunes DB, but that's impossible to do within the allowed app framework. Apps are only permitted to access files that belong to them, not to files belonging to other apps, Apps are allowed to access iTunes files in a read-only fashion via a public API but not to modify them.
So when he claims that his 'app technically didn't break the rules' I call bullshit. He was either using a non public API function or he had found some way to make a public API function break the intended security model.
Either way Apple are always going to reject Apps that do that - and for obvious reasons. If an app modifies the iTunes library it could easily corrupt it. One of the key points of an iPhone is that you can't break the phone by merely installing an app.
IMO, Apple isn't above "appropriating" features or services it feels improves the Apple experience. This may not be akin to outright theft, but there's some history of Apple viewing small developers/inventors as a minor inconvenience if Apple wishes to incorporate an idea that might not actually be original.
Many here are probably familiar with Konfabulator, the separated at birth twin of Apple's Dashboard. But you may not be as familiar with Watson and Sherlock2.
No need to mention various other developer claims over the years with less worthy evidence of "borrowing". To be fair, it's now near impossible to release a feature or app without someone somewhere claiming to have done it first.
But copy claims about Apple go beyond just software. While Apple has had some of the most memorable advertising we've ever seen, some of that may not be original either.
It doesn't mean any of the mentioned examples are illegal, nor deserve monetary compensation. But don't assume that Apple doesn't do a bit of copying themselves, just as they accuse others of doing. They've just become more aggressive when it comes to their own stuff.
While a job at Apple may interest a great number of people, it was well within his rights to not want to work there. Declining a job does not mean it's OK for him to get ripped off.
That said, I strongly suspect Apple did have this functionality in its long term plans. The longer I follow Apple the longer-term I realize their secret roadmaps are. So I'm not sure there's a case here...
I think the case is that he got rejected because Apple had planned its own solution and they don't like competition. It's Apple's anti competitive behaviour that is the case.
How was Apple being seriously uncool? It rejected an app that violated the rules. It added a feature that likely was commonly requested. It asked the kid for a resume, probably knowing Apple was working on such feature and could use his talent.
The only thing I can see Apple doing uncool (but not illegal) was copy the guy's icon.
The kid should be careful how he plays this. If he goes down the sue Apple route, he probably will lose both the lawsuit and the chance to work there (assuming he'd want to do so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigAppleW
I agree. Idiotic.
Apple can be rightfull pissed when Microsoft copies their OS, but then to turn around and be such a sleaze with a little guy.
Seriously not cool. Apple...sometimes you really SUCK!
I'm not sure about the icon part of the claim. Apple has been using the "two arrows" symbol for sync for years, iSync icon has it and was released in 2003. They have also had the "signal wave" symbol for WiFi in the OS X menu bar for years. And the icon is question is just a composite of those two things.
Unless he feels his specific code or unique UI was stolen everything about this screams post hoc, ergo proper hoc.
If all of these guys had their way and every person that had a eureka moment in the bathtub was able to claim something as their own, there would be an even worse patent troll problem than there is now.
If the courts say that Steve did something wrong, after all the appeals have run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll believe it.
As of now? Not so much.
I'm sick and tired of all these jailbreakers. They are ruining the Apple Community by stealing the work of Steve's developers. They have no excuse, except that they are cheapskates.
I am familiar with all the matters you bring up. Watson was cool and I used it regularly, but the developer essentially took Apple's Sherlock (which came out first) and added features to it knowing that when Apple released its next OS Apple was likely to update the features. It defies logic to think Apple wasn't going to add to Sherlock's functionality. It also seems hypocritical for the developer of Watson to complain about Apple incorporating some of Watson's features when Watson itself was based on Sherlock.
As far as Konfabulator goes, again while cool, Konfabulator was not an original idea. If anything, Apple ripped off its own Desk Accessories from itself, which way predated Konfabulator. Here is the alternate take on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, Apple isn't above "appropriating" features or services it feels improves the Apple experience. This may not be akin to outright theft, but there's some history of Apple viewing small developers/inventors as a minor inconvenience if Apple wishes to incorporate an idea that might not actually be original.
Many here are probably familiar with Konfabulator, the separated at birth twin of Apple's Dashboard. But you may not be as familiar with Watson and Sherlock2.
No need to mention various other developer claims over the years with less worthy evidence of "borrowing". To be fair, it's now near impossible to release a feature or app without someone somewhere claiming to have done it first.
But copy claims about Apple go beyond just software. While Apple has had some of the most memorable advertising we've ever seen, some of that may not be original either.
It doesn't mean any of the mentioned examples are illegal, nor deserve monetary compensation. But don't assume that Apple doesn't do a bit of copying themselves, just as they accuse others of doing. They've just become more aggressive when it comes to their own stuff.
How was Apple being seriously uncool? It rejected an app that violated the rules. It added a feature that likely was commonly requested. It asked the kid for a resume, probably knowing Apple was working on such feature and could use his talent.
The only thing I can see Apple doing uncool (but not illegal) was copy the guy's icon.
The kid should be careful how he plays this. If he goes down the sue Apple route, he probably will lose both the lawsuit and the chance to work there (assuming he'd want to do so).
There is too much prior art against the kid's icon as both already existed and the combining of both, used by Apple for years, makes sense for a service called WiFi sync. Plus, trademarks and copyrights aren't set from publish dates from when they were created. I don't think we should reasonably expect Apple to have been stumped by this icon and only whipped it up after they saw his.
If the courts say that Steve did something wrong, after all the appeals have run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll believe it.
As of now? Not so much.
I'm sick and tired of all these jailbreakers. They are ruining the Apple Community by stealing the work of Steve's developers. They have no excuse, except that they are cheapskates.
Maybe you should reduce your AAPL holdings if the latest stock action is making you uncomfortable. Seriously!? The jailbreakers are ruining the Apple Community? Stealing Steve's work?
But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo?
Hey - The name and the Logo are both "generic"! So if Amazon can steal Apple's name, claiming it is generic, and if Microsoft can copyright Windows, even though it is generic, then Apple can use the name and the logo.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry kid, you lose.
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 is the real victim here, and I am sick and tired of these guys looking for a handout just because Steve is so successful.
As far as Konfabulator goes, again while cool, Konfabulator was not an original idea. If anything, Apple ripped off its own Desk Accessories from itself, which way predated Konfabulator. Here is the alternate take on this matter.
I am not suggesting Apple did steal the guys icon, only that if Apple did ( I honestly don't know), Apple that wouldn't be in the legal wrong for doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There is too much prior art against the kid's icon as both already existed and the combining of both, used by Apple for years, makes sense for a service called WiFi sync. Plus, trademarks and copyrights aren't set from publish dates from when they were created. I don't think we should reasonably expect Apple to have been stumped by this icon and only whipped it up after they saw his.
Comments
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!
While a job at Apple may interest a great number of people, it was well within his rights to not want to work there. Declining a job does not mean it's OK for him to get ripped off.
That said, I strongly suspect Apple did have this functionality in its long term plans. The longer I follow Apple the longer-term I realize their secret roadmaps are. So I'm not sure there's a case here. Countless other times 3rd party developers of both Apple and Microsoft OS's have found their add-ons getting implemented in the next versions out of Redmond and Cupertino. And odds are very good Apple will have planning documents to prove this function was on the drawing board before Hughes' app was submitted to the store.
I think wi fi sync is something we all would want
so his app was not so original
I feel apple was already on this kind of sync for years
but apple played this badly
yet this idiot ruined his own case by jail braking
tie score
9
You're kidding right?
He's probably upset since he made an app for the iPhone, it was rejected, and now the company that rejected it is using it. While I don't think he'll have a case against Apple (unless they used his code...which is doubtful), if you're throwing this away as some moron wanting attention, you're...well...idiotic.
I agree. Idiotic.
Apple can be rightfull pissed when Microsoft copies their OS, but then to turn around and be such a sleaze with a little guy.
Seriously not cool. Apple...sometimes you really SUCK!
as for the name... hmm... its a way to sync via wifi... what will we call it? Hmm......
AirSync?
AirSync?
Nice.
When Apple recycles a name - of course it was the only name that could possibly have made sense. When [Samsung / company of choice] recycles a name - "OMG, can't they get a brain!? The copying is so blattent, blah, blah blah!"
Anyway, it's starting to get very old.
You can also look at Apple's other icons to figure out the kid's icon was really a derivative work based on Apple's previous icons. I am not saying somebody at Apple didn't like what the kid did, just that the kid wouldn't' have a copyright claim as you can't make a derivative work off of somebody else's work.
Read up on Rocky Four (the one where Rocky goes to Russia). Some guy essentially wrote the screen play and sent it to Sylvester Stallone. Stallone loved it and used it without giving the guy a dime. The guy sued, and the Court ruled in favor of Stallone. The reasoning was the guy's screen play was essentially a derivative work based on Stallone's copyright protected characters. As such, the guy had no rights to screen play he wrote because it was based on Stallone's copyrighted work. Stallone made millions off the guy's screen play.
So because the guy here took a few of Apple's other ideas and threw them together, it wouldn't matter if Apple copied the guy's icon.
Finally, the guy's idea while useful isn't original. People have been asking Apple for wirelessly syncing for years, myself included.
You must know more than me. I am just going by what I read in the AI article.
So when he claims that his 'app technically didn't break the rules' I call bullshit. He was either using a non public API function or he had found some way to make a public API function break the intended security model.
Either way Apple are always going to reject Apps that do that - and for obvious reasons. If an app modifies the iTunes library it could easily corrupt it. One of the key points of an iPhone is that you can't break the phone by merely installing an app.
Many here are probably familiar with Konfabulator, the separated at birth twin of Apple's Dashboard. But you may not be as familiar with Watson and Sherlock2.
http://www.karelia.com/news/small_an...he_long_s.html
http://www.macnn.com/news/25252
No need to mention various other developer claims over the years with less worthy evidence of "borrowing". To be fair, it's now near impossible to release a feature or app without someone somewhere claiming to have done it first.
But copy claims about Apple go beyond just software. While Apple has had some of the most memorable advertising we've ever seen, some of that may not be original either.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/a...g-off-artists/
It doesn't mean any of the mentioned examples are illegal, nor deserve monetary compensation. But don't assume that Apple doesn't do a bit of copying themselves, just as they accuse others of doing. They've just become more aggressive when it comes to their own stuff.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...man-aggrieved/
While a job at Apple may interest a great number of people, it was well within his rights to not want to work there. Declining a job does not mean it's OK for him to get ripped off.
That said, I strongly suspect Apple did have this functionality in its long term plans. The longer I follow Apple the longer-term I realize their secret roadmaps are. So I'm not sure there's a case here...
I think the case is that he got rejected because Apple had planned its own solution and they don't like competition. It's Apple's anti competitive behaviour that is the case.
The only thing I can see Apple doing uncool (but not illegal) was copy the guy's icon.
The kid should be careful how he plays this. If he goes down the sue Apple route, he probably will lose both the lawsuit and the chance to work there (assuming he'd want to do so).
I agree. Idiotic.
Apple can be rightfull pissed when Microsoft copies their OS, but then to turn around and be such a sleaze with a little guy.
Seriously not cool. Apple...sometimes you really SUCK!
I'm not sure about the icon part of the claim. Apple has been using the "two arrows" symbol for sync for years, iSync icon has it and was released in 2003. They have also had the "signal wave" symbol for WiFi in the OS X menu bar for years. And the icon is question is just a composite of those two things.
Unless he feels his specific code or unique UI was stolen everything about this screams post hoc, ergo proper hoc.
If all of these guys had their way and every person that had a eureka moment in the bathtub was able to claim something as their own, there would be an even worse patent troll problem than there is now.
If the courts say that Steve did something wrong, after all the appeals have run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll believe it.
As of now? Not so much.
I'm sick and tired of all these jailbreakers. They are ruining the Apple Community by stealing the work of Steve's developers. They have no excuse, except that they are cheapskates.
As far as Konfabulator goes, again while cool, Konfabulator was not an original idea. If anything, Apple ripped off its own Desk Accessories from itself, which way predated Konfabulator. Here is the alternate take on this matter.
IMO, Apple isn't above "appropriating" features or services it feels improves the Apple experience. This may not be akin to outright theft, but there's some history of Apple viewing small developers/inventors as a minor inconvenience if Apple wishes to incorporate an idea that might not actually be original.
Many here are probably familiar with Konfabulator, the separated at birth twin of Apple's Dashboard. But you may not be as familiar with Watson and Sherlock2.
http://www.karelia.com/news/small_an...he_long_s.html
http://www.macnn.com/news/25252
No need to mention various other developer claims over the years with less worthy evidence of "borrowing". To be fair, it's now near impossible to release a feature or app without someone somewhere claiming to have done it first.
But copy claims about Apple go beyond just software. While Apple has had some of the most memorable advertising we've ever seen, some of that may not be original either.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/a...g-off-artists/
It doesn't mean any of the mentioned examples are illegal, nor deserve monetary compensation. But don't assume that Apple doesn't do a bit of copying themselves, just as they accuse others of doing. They've just become more aggressive when it comes to their own stuff.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...man-aggrieved/
How was Apple being seriously uncool? It rejected an app that violated the rules. It added a feature that likely was commonly requested. It asked the kid for a resume, probably knowing Apple was working on such feature and could use his talent.
The only thing I can see Apple doing uncool (but not illegal) was copy the guy's icon.
The kid should be careful how he plays this. If he goes down the sue Apple route, he probably will lose both the lawsuit and the chance to work there (assuming he'd want to do so).
There is too much prior art against the kid's icon as both already existed and the combining of both, used by Apple for years, makes sense for a service called WiFi sync. Plus, trademarks and copyrights aren't set from publish dates from when they were created. I don't think we should reasonably expect Apple to have been stumped by this icon and only whipped it up after they saw his.
If the courts say that Steve did something wrong, after all the appeals have run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll believe it.
As of now? Not so much.
I'm sick and tired of all these jailbreakers. They are ruining the Apple Community by stealing the work of Steve's developers. They have no excuse, except that they are cheapskates.
Maybe you should reduce your AAPL holdings if the latest stock action is making you uncomfortable. Seriously!? The jailbreakers are ruining the Apple Community? Stealing Steve's work?
But for Apple to do this, and then usurp the developer's name for the app and the logo?
Hey - The name and the Logo are both "generic"! So if Amazon can steal Apple's name, claiming it is generic, and if Microsoft can copyright Windows, even though it is generic, then Apple can use the name and the logo.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry kid, you lose.
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 is the real victim here, and I am sick and tired of these guys looking for a handout just because Steve is so successful.
As far as Konfabulator goes, again while cool, Konfabulator was not an original idea. If anything, Apple ripped off its own Desk Accessories from itself, which way predated Konfabulator. Here is the alternate take on this matter.
Thanks for the "alternate take" link.
There is too much prior art against the kid's icon as both already existed and the combining of both, used by Apple for years, makes sense for a service called WiFi sync. Plus, trademarks and copyrights aren't set from publish dates from when they were created. I don't think we should reasonably expect Apple to have been stumped by this icon and only whipped it up after they saw his.