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.
Are you bringing forth an argument for which you have little or no knowledge of the underlying laws it is based on? Is that what you are doing?
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.
According to the article "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. "
Apple says it did not break the rules. But Steve has no obligation to sell anything he doesn't like. Its still a free country.
According to the article "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. "
That's only what the kid claimed. Not necessarily what the Apple (the one who rejected) saw.
Actually Hughes said that Apple said that the App didn't break the rules, Apple themselves haven't made a public statement. However as three or four of us have said here it HAD to break the rules. There is no way for me as an independent iOS dev to modify the iPhone's iTunes DB without breaking the rules.
Either he broke the security rules or he used private functions or he did both.
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's also possible that that part of the story is a myth. As well as perhaps some of the details about what was said by Apple regarding the rejection. For example, here is the claim that Hughes didn't break any rules. Several other stories say that his app was rejected for using Private APIs. Some stories say he was called, some that he got a form letter email. But no details about which rep contacted him so the details can't be confimed.
Wifi syncing is something folks have been asking for since the iphone 1 and Apple has likely been working on it since practically that time. It is also something best achieved by the source since it would likely have to be baked deep into the system. Hughes would have to prove this was not the case to say they stole the 'idea' from him (which is also iffy cause in general ideas can't be protected under IP laws in any country). Also, he would have to prove they took his coding out of a myriad of ways to achieve the same result.
As for the icon. It's the sync icon Apple has used for years and the wifi icon everyone has used for years married together. It's not original in any sense even when Hughes did it. So he can get over that one.
Of the numerous ways in which this "article" is just plain wrong, let me catalog just a couple.
First, it shows an utter lack of understanding of the firmament in which claims like this exist. I wrote on an AppleLink forum in 1991 that I thought a color Mac Classic would be a great idea. Does that mean Apple can't do it?
No. As other commenters have pointed out, this douche did not invent wireless synching. Sigh. No context of the applicable intellectual property laws is given. It's just a claim that's thrown out there. Does this guy have a patent? Does he have anything other than a similar looking icon (is it that his is similar to Apple's or Apple's is similar to his) to prove this? Did Apple use his source code without permission? I've seen articles on this site that at least feign an understanding of these issues. Why aren't they even raised here?
"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." from Apple insider. So, are there Camera apps on the apple app store? are there any apps that let you text, or make calls. how about let you surf the web? how about calculators? He made a feature fully before Apple did, they rejected it for
"security concerns" (see below) than Apple put something that does THE SAME THING IN.
at leasts that how i see it.
"He sent it into Apple's App Store in May 2010 but was told that it was rejected for 'security concerns' and for doing things that Steve Jobs' says should not be done." here
Where to begin? Perhaps they ain't so sophisticated down in Birmingham, but let's see...
-Kid knows that if syncing a device over WiFi was the job of an app store app, his wouldn't have been the first to the table. Its an OS thing, not an App thing.
-Kid develops a shotty and poorly functioning app. I myself paid $10 for his junk, that never ever once worked. He told me where to go, personally, when I asked for a refund.
-Kid put no thought or creativity into the name, he called it WiFi Sync, which is a description of what it does, not a name. Nothing proprietary about it.
-Did I mention his $%^& never worked?
-Kid obviously doesn't know that the Cydia storefront is illegitimate, and not somewhere where you get credit for your work. Its a public testing ground, and Apple keeps a close eye on it. Apple plucks many, many useful tweaks and features from this place, and uses the idea for a better implementation in the official OS.
-Wifi sync was never one of the features Apple "watched and stole". It was a common sense feature that had been held back for a while...and eventually rolled out as part of the overall iOS 5 catch-up-with-feature-requests release.
That about covers it. Hope this kid saved some of that $500,000 he made. He's going to need every penny of it if he's actually dumb enough to challenge Apple over this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
There is no way for me as an independent iOS dev to modify the iPhone's iTunes DB without breaking the rules.
Either he broke the security rules or he used private functions or he did both.
"He sent it into Apple's App Store in May 2010 but was told that it was rejected for 'security concerns' and for doing things that Steve Jobs' says should not be done." here
Exactly! And that is entirely appropriate. It is allowed for Apple to extend iOS in ways that directly modify the iTunes DB, it is NOT allowed for 3rd party developers to monkey around with the iTunes DB, except in read-only fashion via the open API calls. This is because if your iTunes DB becomes corrupt Apple will be blamed, so Apple keep it locked down tight.
Any App which modifies core iOS data, or even data belonging to other apps is going to get rejected for 'security concerns'. And so they should be.
I hate to see the kid waste money, he's going to lose. I know for a fact that Apple has been working on WiFi syncing since the 3GS iPhone (probably even earlier)
I'm really disappointed with Apple Insider for pushing this trash.
Of the numerous ways in which this "article" is just plain wrong, let me catalog just a couple.
First, it shows an utter lack of understanding of the firmament in which claims like this exist. I wrote on an AppleLink forum in 1991 that I thought a color Mac Classic would be a great idea. Does that mean Apple can't do it? No. As other commenters have pointed out, this douche did not invent wireless synching. Sigh. No context of the applicable intellectual property laws is given. It's just a claim that's thrown out there. Does this guy have a patent? Does he have anything other than a similar looking icon (is it that his is similar to Apple's or Apple's is similar to his) to prove this? Did Apple use his source code without permission? I've seen articles on this site that at least feign an understanding of these issues. Why aren't they even raised here?
Second, no one else is quoted in this. There no reaction from Apple or a spokesman, not even a no comment or "Apple couldn't be reached in time." There's not even a quote from an IP lawyer who might have some insight into the viability of these claims. It's just stenographically reproduced rumor bullshit.
Naturally, this will just slide into a number of people's pre-baked image of Apple as "the borg" or the recycled narrative that they are just ripping people off. I still don't understand why people turn corporate software development into stories of good and evil in the first place.
The little guy is not always right, nor is he always wrong.
Little developers have been whining since at least SuperClock! that Apple "stole" their idea to include in the OS later. Well, if it's patentable, they should patent it. If it's not, they have no property to be stolen unless they seriously think that Apple ripped their source code or misappropriated their trade secrets, but somehow those claims never work out, do they?
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.
Oh, and you know, this blog ripped off its name from Apple.
I was so tired of this ridiculous story I wasn't going to comment, but I have to say I agree with this 100%.
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.
Are you saying that the implementation in this application is the same as Apple's entire iCloud strategy?
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.
Yeah, especially since they already had this functionality on the original apple TV!
If he would have submitted this app years ago, he'd almost have a case, but probably still wouldn't since he was using private APIs. The fact that apple offered this guy a job when the app was rejected really shoes apple wasn't being malicious.
Face the facts people. Apples implementation of wireless syncing is way, way larger scale than what this guys app would have provided. There is absolutely NO way apple wasn't already working on this service for years before this guy made his app. The guy has absolutely no patent rights to any of the concepts used for this process. When the app was rejected, no one was surprised because a)apple clearly was going to offer a beyter solution themselves in the near future, b) it's a really bad idea to allow third party software to handle such delicate data and c) the app clearly disobeys a large number of the developer agreement with apple (no private APIs, limits to the ability for an app to access other application data, etc.)
As for the icon, it does look remarkably similar to a number of apple's icons (so if anyone is guilty of violating trademarks, it's him, not that I think he is), also, his app was never released so apple can't be violating any trade dress suits, and finally he's never made any attempt to get a trademark for the icon.
Finally, anyone thinking he would've made much money on this app has their head in the clouds . The majority of power users wouldn't touch this app as the likelihood it'd ruin their device/data/iTunes library would be far to great. Any non-power user wouldn't download this as they probably would barely understand what's even valuable about the service. Ask most casual users how excited they are about wifi syncing in iOS 5 and they'll blankly stare back at you. In fact, this guys largest market was with the jail teaming crowd as their the exact combination of power users who take large risks necessary to desire this app.
In other words, Cydia was a better platform for him, and he would've made far, far more money working with apple and being able to add official apple developer to his next resume.
I find it hard to believe Apple did not have wifi sync on their R&D table. For example, wireless Time Machine was probably a precursor to the iphone version. Seriously, doubt this guy has a case other than the hope that the Apple rep screws up in court or Apple indeed copied his code (that would be sad). As for the Sync and Wifi symbols, these were already used before his app. if you look to the top-right of the MAC OS both those symbols already exist (in their exact size and shape).
here is what I understand to be how the app worked and didn?t work...
the App along with the helper App installed on the computer...fooled the computer into thinking that iDevice was connected thru USB...and the App fooled the iDevice into thinking it was connected thru USB...
So therefore the App NEVER made any changes to either the iTunes DB nor the iDevice DB
iTunes and the iDevice just did what Apple set them up to do...just with the App installed and the helper App installed gave the devices the thought that they were connected
now with that being said...WiFi Sync on iOS 5 is probably doing the same thing...except it is built into both the desktop client iTunes and the device client iOS 5
it's very likely to me that something of the code has to be in alignment for them to both do the same thing
AND the comments about how buggy the kids App is or was, is inconsequential. If he was given the opportunity to place his App on the Apple App Store then he would have had the financial income to fix those bugs on a regular basis instead he was forced to move to the Jailbreak community (courts say not illegal) to bring his App to market and to make something from his time and effort
I remember this app coming out and I remember the hype and drama that ensued...and at no point do I remember Apple coming forth and saying that the App broke any rules of the App Store and I know I remember the discussion of this commentary from the Apple rep that gave him the bad news back then
so maybe Apple was working on it in the past before this guy brought his app to market...but it was not a working product and they should have allowed him to sell his app on the App Store...
he did the work and didn?t break the rules so it should have been ok and maybe this guy would have made enough money to say..."hey I can retire and Apple can have my code"
I don't know how Apple didn?t see any of this coming...I love you Apple but this was a douche thing to do without even giving the guy a bone...just wrong
Comments
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.
Are you bringing forth an argument for which you have little or no knowledge of the underlying laws it is based on? Is that what you are doing?
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.
According to the article "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. "
Apple says it did not break the rules. But Steve has no obligation to sell anything he doesn't like. Its still a free country.
The kid has no case whatsoever.
According to the article "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. "
That's only what the kid claimed. Not necessarily what the Apple (the one who rejected) saw.
Apple says it did not break the rules.
Actually Hughes said that Apple said that the App didn't break the rules, Apple themselves haven't made a public statement. However as three or four of us have said here it HAD to break the rules. There is no way for me as an independent iOS dev to modify the iPhone's iTunes DB without breaking the rules.
Either he broke the security rules or he used private functions or he did both.
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's also possible that that part of the story is a myth. As well as perhaps some of the details about what was said by Apple regarding the rejection. For example, here is the claim that Hughes didn't break any rules. Several other stories say that his app was rejected for using Private APIs. Some stories say he was called, some that he got a form letter email. But no details about which rep contacted him so the details can't be confimed.
Wifi syncing is something folks have been asking for since the iphone 1 and Apple has likely been working on it since practically that time. It is also something best achieved by the source since it would likely have to be baked deep into the system. Hughes would have to prove this was not the case to say they stole the 'idea' from him (which is also iffy cause in general ideas can't be protected under IP laws in any country). Also, he would have to prove they took his coding out of a myriad of ways to achieve the same result.
As for the icon. It's the sync icon Apple has used for years and the wifi icon everyone has used for years married together. It's not original in any sense even when Hughes did it. So he can get over that one.
Of the numerous ways in which this "article" is just plain wrong, let me catalog just a couple.
First, it shows an utter lack of understanding of the firmament in which claims like this exist. I wrote on an AppleLink forum in 1991 that I thought a color Mac Classic would be a great idea. Does that mean Apple can't do it?
No. As other commenters have pointed out, this douche did not invent wireless synching. Sigh. No context of the applicable intellectual property laws is given. It's just a claim that's thrown out there. Does this guy have a patent? Does he have anything other than a similar looking icon (is it that his is similar to Apple's or Apple's is similar to his) to prove this? Did Apple use his source code without permission? I've seen articles on this site that at least feign an understanding of these issues. Why aren't they even raised here?
"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." from Apple insider. So, are there Camera apps on the apple app store? are there any apps that let you text, or make calls. how about let you surf the web? how about calculators? He made a feature fully before Apple did, they rejected it for
"security concerns" (see below) than Apple put something that does THE SAME THING IN.
at leasts that how i see it.
"He sent it into Apple's App Store in May 2010 but was told that it was rejected for 'security concerns' and for doing things that Steve Jobs' says should not be done." here
-Kid knows that if syncing a device over WiFi was the job of an app store app, his wouldn't have been the first to the table. Its an OS thing, not an App thing.
-Kid develops a shotty and poorly functioning app. I myself paid $10 for his junk, that never ever once worked. He told me where to go, personally, when I asked for a refund.
-Kid put no thought or creativity into the name, he called it WiFi Sync, which is a description of what it does, not a name. Nothing proprietary about it.
-Did I mention his $%^& never worked?
-Kid obviously doesn't know that the Cydia storefront is illegitimate, and not somewhere where you get credit for your work. Its a public testing ground, and Apple keeps a close eye on it. Apple plucks many, many useful tweaks and features from this place, and uses the idea for a better implementation in the official OS.
-Wifi sync was never one of the features Apple "watched and stole". It was a common sense feature that had been held back for a while...and eventually rolled out as part of the overall iOS 5 catch-up-with-feature-requests release.
That about covers it. Hope this kid saved some of that $500,000 he made. He's going to need every penny of it if he's actually dumb enough to challenge Apple over this.
There is no way for me as an independent iOS dev to modify the iPhone's iTunes DB without breaking the rules.
Either he broke the security rules or he used private functions or he did both.
And thank you for this, end of story.
"He sent it into Apple's App Store in May 2010 but was told that it was rejected for 'security concerns' and for doing things that Steve Jobs' says should not be done." here
Exactly! And that is entirely appropriate. It is allowed for Apple to extend iOS in ways that directly modify the iTunes DB, it is NOT allowed for 3rd party developers to monkey around with the iTunes DB, except in read-only fashion via the open API calls. This is because if your iTunes DB becomes corrupt Apple will be blamed, so Apple keep it locked down tight.
Any App which modifies core iOS data, or even data belonging to other apps is going to get rejected for 'security concerns'. And so they should be.
I'm really disappointed with Apple Insider for pushing this trash.
Of the numerous ways in which this "article" is just plain wrong, let me catalog just a couple.
First, it shows an utter lack of understanding of the firmament in which claims like this exist. I wrote on an AppleLink forum in 1991 that I thought a color Mac Classic would be a great idea. Does that mean Apple can't do it? No. As other commenters have pointed out, this douche did not invent wireless synching. Sigh. No context of the applicable intellectual property laws is given. It's just a claim that's thrown out there. Does this guy have a patent? Does he have anything other than a similar looking icon (is it that his is similar to Apple's or Apple's is similar to his) to prove this? Did Apple use his source code without permission? I've seen articles on this site that at least feign an understanding of these issues. Why aren't they even raised here?
Second, no one else is quoted in this. There no reaction from Apple or a spokesman, not even a no comment or "Apple couldn't be reached in time." There's not even a quote from an IP lawyer who might have some insight into the viability of these claims. It's just stenographically reproduced rumor bullshit.
Naturally, this will just slide into a number of people's pre-baked image of Apple as "the borg" or the recycled narrative that they are just ripping people off. I still don't understand why people turn corporate software development into stories of good and evil in the first place.
The little guy is not always right, nor is he always wrong.
Little developers have been whining since at least SuperClock! that Apple "stole" their idea to include in the OS later. Well, if it's patentable, they should patent it. If it's not, they have no property to be stolen unless they seriously think that Apple ripped their source code or misappropriated their trade secrets, but somehow those claims never work out, do they?
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.
Oh, and you know, this blog ripped off its name from Apple.
I was so tired of this ridiculous story I wasn't going to comment, but I have to say I agree with this 100%.
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.
Are you saying that the implementation in this application is the same as Apple's entire iCloud strategy?
Edit : this sums it up perfectly: http://chipotle.tumblr.com/post/6366...ious-questions
NIce find.
You must know more than me. I am just going from what I read in the AI article.
lol.
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!
Your post is based on an idiotic assumption.
These icons are dissimilar in the same way the Samsung icons are dissimilar.
If you aren't aware, your comment actually supports 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.
Yeah, especially since they already had this functionality on the original apple TV!
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
Yeah, he's the idiot.
Face the facts people. Apples implementation of wireless syncing is way, way larger scale than what this guys app would have provided. There is absolutely NO way apple wasn't already working on this service for years before this guy made his app. The guy has absolutely no patent rights to any of the concepts used for this process. When the app was rejected, no one was surprised because a)apple clearly was going to offer a beyter solution themselves in the near future, b) it's a really bad idea to allow third party software to handle such delicate data and c) the app clearly disobeys a large number of the developer agreement with apple (no private APIs, limits to the ability for an app to access other application data, etc.)
As for the icon, it does look remarkably similar to a number of apple's icons (so if anyone is guilty of violating trademarks, it's him, not that I think he is), also, his app was never released so apple can't be violating any trade dress suits, and finally he's never made any attempt to get a trademark for the icon.
Finally, anyone thinking he would've made much money on this app has their head in the clouds
In other words, Cydia was a better platform for him, and he would've made far, far more money working with apple and being able to add official apple developer to his next resume.
the App along with the helper App installed on the computer...fooled the computer into thinking that iDevice was connected thru USB...and the App fooled the iDevice into thinking it was connected thru USB...
So therefore the App NEVER made any changes to either the iTunes DB nor the iDevice DB
iTunes and the iDevice just did what Apple set them up to do...just with the App installed and the helper App installed gave the devices the thought that they were connected
now with that being said...WiFi Sync on iOS 5 is probably doing the same thing...except it is built into both the desktop client iTunes and the device client iOS 5
it's very likely to me that something of the code has to be in alignment for them to both do the same thing
AND the comments about how buggy the kids App is or was, is inconsequential. If he was given the opportunity to place his App on the Apple App Store then he would have had the financial income to fix those bugs on a regular basis instead he was forced to move to the Jailbreak community (courts say not illegal) to bring his App to market and to make something from his time and effort
I remember this app coming out and I remember the hype and drama that ensued...and at no point do I remember Apple coming forth and saying that the App broke any rules of the App Store and I know I remember the discussion of this commentary from the Apple rep that gave him the bad news back then
so maybe Apple was working on it in the past before this guy brought his app to market...but it was not a working product and they should have allowed him to sell his app on the App Store...
he did the work and didn?t break the rules so it should have been ok and maybe this guy would have made enough money to say..."hey I can retire and Apple can have my code"
I don't know how Apple didn?t see any of this coming...I love you Apple but this was a douche thing to do without even giving the guy a bone...just wrong
FLAME ON guys
Generic obvious functionality that Apple most likely had in their labs long before this app.
No case.