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...
There's two issues with that from Apple's perspective. First off, again he's clearly monkeying with unsupported features. There's no legitimate API call for 'spoof a USB connection over WIFI' in iOS. Second his app still introduced a considerable risk of iTunes corruption. WiFi isn't USB, it isn't as reliable and it doesn't carry power. Bugs in the app wouldn't have impacted him the app creator, they would have impacted Apple by making iPhones seem more flakey.
Apple's own wifi sync will certainly be working in a different way from that. For starters it requires that the device be getting power from an external source. Second it will almost certainly be more robust in the face of a sudden loss of wifi connectivity than the USB sync is to a sudden unplug.
I personally requested this functionally (using the official feedback channels and dev forums) over a year before his app was created - so I'm pretty sure Apple has been working on Wireless Sync much longer than that.
So yes, he stomped and whined and got all the attention a little cry baby typically does. He'll be forgotten tomorrow though, like most cry babies are.
What most (all?) seem to be overlooking is that the Apple official app is fundamentally different from the student's app. The official app syncs with the owner's reference repository in Apple's cloud, not a repository on a local Mac or PC. The student's app couldn't do this because that infrastructure did not exist before iOS 5. If Apple had allowed the app it would have introduced significant confusion for customers who really don't want to think about and try to understand subtle technical issues.
Apple is the platform creator and owner with their own roadmap for how the platform will evolve. The contested app was probably a very clever hack that used private API's and/or reverse engineering of data structures. Apple was reserving wifi syncing for syncing to the cloud. Apple's decision can be justified for unsentimental technical reasons.
Apple doesn't have to steal apps from Developers. We should realize the Apple Labs have many features under development that we don't know about or may never see. If they don't have something in an OS and they want it bad enough, they can just purchase it. $70 Billion Cash can buy almost anything.
Apple doesn't have to steal apps from Developers. We should realize the Apple Labs have many features under development that we don't know about or may never see. If they don't have something in an OS and they want it bad enough, they can just purchase it. $70 Billion Cash can buy almost anything.
I guess you don't understand the issue. It has little to do with "copying" of the functionality. It has do with the use of the same app name and the striking resemblance of the logos.
I guess you don't understand the issue. It has little to do with "copying" of the functionality. It has do with the use of the same app name and the striking resemblance of the logos.
People have already pointed out that both the names and logos were essentially generic and neither was trademarked.
Whoa there chief, that's a completely subjective place you are arriving at.
The simplest explanation to me is that the app got jacked.
Can you explain why you think this is the simplest explanation when Apple had wireless sync, even via iTunes, long before there was a public SDK for iOS?
Can you explain why you think this is the simplest explanation when Apple had wireless sync, even via iTunes, long before there was a public SDK for iOS?
Well, it is a simple explanation. No explanation needed unless one is not particularly bright.
However, a simple explanation is often not the real version of what happened.
Would Apple just "jack" some kid's app, including the logo and app name? Really, Apple is that brazen, not to mention stupid? How long would it take them to design a completely different logo? Did this kid really $500k? How much of this is believable?
Let's not forget - until Apple spoke up, it looked pretty clear, not to mention "simple", that they were tracking the location of iPhone users.
Then Apple spoke up and ... Duh! All those who stayed up all night to decode the data stored had it all wrong! I suspect this situation will turn out to be similar.
Obvious, and talked about since long before the first iPhone. Any hints/rumors of an Apple device that could play your music and had network ability led to the obvious idea of syncing songs wirelessly. The Zune did it too. Apple was inevitably going to do it. This guy didn’t invent the concept, nor did Apple “copy” it from him. He knew all along that he was only filling a temporary gap while iOS, a young OS, rapidly evolved. I’m glad he helped some people and saw some sales in the meantime.
The name:
Not even a brand. Just the obvious words that describe it: WiFi sync. There’s no other common term for either of those words.
The logo:
He copied it from Apple’s own icons. That doesn’t give him ownership of Apple’s WiFi and iSync icons. How could Apple not use its own icons to represent WiFi syncing once the feature was ready?
The app:
Is not what Apple’s doing at all. Apple’s feature is OS-level.
The scandal:
Tea Party Logic at its finest. Some people will see what they expect in the world. Evidence not required.
The free publicity:
Probably won’t do that much for this guy in the end. I feel bad that his sales will taper off. That’s inevitable for a software product, and particularly for this one. No one could be surprised.
Whoa there chief, that's a completely subjective place you are arriving at.
The simplest explanation to me is that the app got jacked.
Nonsense. You know that billion dollar data center Apple has been building? That is what they target for wifi sync. The Apple wifi sync will work even if you don't own a Mac or PC (for instance if you own multiple mobile devices like an iPod touch and iPad). Apple certainly had this planned before they started spending all that money building their first data center.
The two products are vastly different. The similarities are all superficial. There is no legitimate case here if you understand any of the technical issues involved. Forget about it, Jake, it's chinatown (or in our case it's a post-PC world).
1) The idea of Wi-Fi Sync is pretty obvious. It's implementation method that counts...
2) The icon thing is head-slappingly obvious. WiFi+Sync = WiFi Sync. Radio waves + Arrow Circles = Radio waves inside of arrow circles.
3) Having said that, I'll reserve judgement... I don't know how either this guy's nor Apples' implementation works. If there's code from his app in Apple's Wi-Fi Sync, then there's a problem. I haven't seen a line of code from either one so I'm admittedly ignorant on it...
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.
Haven't seen anyone post the obvious here... That Apple rejected it precisely BECAUSE they had wireless sync slated for release. Same reason many publishers don't take unsolicited submissions. The very act of accepting opens them up to charges of stealing.
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.
This is a copyright case, not a patent case. "Invention" is not an element of the Copyright Law. Did Apple copy his code and/or design? is the question to be answered.
Comments
Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Apple was already working on this, already had working software in the lab.
Whoa there chief, that's a completely subjective place you are arriving at.
The simplest explanation to me is that the app got jacked.
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...
There's two issues with that from Apple's perspective. First off, again he's clearly monkeying with unsupported features. There's no legitimate API call for 'spoof a USB connection over WIFI' in iOS. Second his app still introduced a considerable risk of iTunes corruption. WiFi isn't USB, it isn't as reliable and it doesn't carry power. Bugs in the app wouldn't have impacted him the app creator, they would have impacted Apple by making iPhones seem more flakey.
Apple's own wifi sync will certainly be working in a different way from that. For starters it requires that the device be getting power from an external source. Second it will almost certainly be more robust in the face of a sudden loss of wifi connectivity than the USB sync is to a sudden unplug.
So yes, he stomped and whined and got all the attention a little cry baby typically does. He'll be forgotten tomorrow though, like most cry babies are.
Apple is the platform creator and owner with their own roadmap for how the platform will evolve. The contested app was probably a very clever hack that used private API's and/or reverse engineering of data structures. Apple was reserving wifi syncing for syncing to the cloud. Apple's decision can be justified for unsentimental technical reasons.
Apple doesn't have to steal apps from Developers. We should realize the Apple Labs have many features under development that we don't know about or may never see. If they don't have something in an OS and they want it bad enough, they can just purchase it. $70 Billion Cash can buy almost anything.
I guess you don't understand the issue. It has little to do with "copying" of the functionality. It has do with the use of the same app name and the striking resemblance of the logos.
I guess you don't understand the issue. It has little to do with "copying" of the functionality. It has do with the use of the same app name and the striking resemblance of the logos.
People have already pointed out that both the names and logos were essentially generic and neither was trademarked.
Whoa there chief, that's a completely subjective place you are arriving at.
The simplest explanation to me is that the app got jacked.
Can you explain why you think this is the simplest explanation when Apple had wireless sync, even via iTunes, long before there was a public SDK for iOS?
You need to brush up on your knowledge of this area of the law.
Ah, no. He needs to brush up on the real facts of the situation. You need to learn to read.
Just kidding
Sort of ...
Can you explain why you think this is the simplest explanation when Apple had wireless sync, even via iTunes, long before there was a public SDK for iOS?
Well, it is a simple explanation. No explanation needed unless one is not particularly bright.
However, a simple explanation is often not the real version of what happened.
Would Apple just "jack" some kid's app, including the logo and app name? Really, Apple is that brazen, not to mention stupid? How long would it take them to design a completely different logo? Did this kid really $500k? How much of this is believable?
Let's not forget - until Apple spoke up, it looked pretty clear, not to mention "simple", that they were tracking the location of iPhone users.
Then Apple spoke up and ... Duh! All those who stayed up all night to decode the data stored had it all wrong! I suspect this situation will turn out to be similar.
Obvious, and talked about since long before the first iPhone. Any hints/rumors of an Apple device that could play your music and had network ability led to the obvious idea of syncing songs wirelessly. The Zune did it too. Apple was inevitably going to do it. This guy didn’t invent the concept, nor did Apple “copy” it from him. He knew all along that he was only filling a temporary gap while iOS, a young OS, rapidly evolved. I’m glad he helped some people and saw some sales in the meantime.
The name:
Not even a brand. Just the obvious words that describe it: WiFi sync. There’s no other common term for either of those words.
The logo:
He copied it from Apple’s own icons. That doesn’t give him ownership of Apple’s WiFi and iSync icons. How could Apple not use its own icons to represent WiFi syncing once the feature was ready?
The app:
Is not what Apple’s doing at all. Apple’s feature is OS-level.
The scandal:
Tea Party Logic at its finest. Some people will see what they expect in the world. Evidence not required.
The free publicity:
Probably won’t do that much for this guy in the end. I feel bad that his sales will taper off. That’s inevitable for a software product, and particularly for this one. No one could be surprised.
this was a douche thing to do without even giving the guy a bone...just wrong
He didn't use any approved APIs. He didn't follow any instructions for making his application.
And then the Cydia wireless sync guy doesn't even have any right to complain at all.
While the creator of the App may feel his idea was stolen, this is a generic concept which perception can interprut in many ways.
Whoa there chief, that's a completely subjective place you are arriving at.
The simplest explanation to me is that the app got jacked.
Nonsense. You know that billion dollar data center Apple has been building? That is what they target for wifi sync. The Apple wifi sync will work even if you don't own a Mac or PC (for instance if you own multiple mobile devices like an iPod touch and iPad). Apple certainly had this planned before they started spending all that money building their first data center.
The two products are vastly different. The similarities are all superficial. There is no legitimate case here if you understand any of the technical issues involved. Forget about it, Jake, it's chinatown (or in our case it's a post-PC world).
He didn't use any approved APIs. He didn't follow any instructions for making his application.
And then the Cydia wireless sync guy doesn't even have any right to complain at all.
Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.
Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.
Right, because on most platforms, private APIs are entirely undiscoverable.
2) The icon thing is head-slappingly obvious. WiFi+Sync = WiFi Sync. Radio waves + Arrow Circles = Radio waves inside of arrow circles.
3) Having said that, I'll reserve judgement... I don't know how either this guy's nor Apples' implementation works. If there's code from his app in Apple's Wi-Fi Sync, then there's a problem. I haven't seen a line of code from either one so I'm admittedly ignorant on it...
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.
Haven't seen anyone post the obvious here... That Apple rejected it precisely BECAUSE they had wireless sync slated for release. Same reason many publishers don't take unsolicited submissions. The very act of accepting opens them up to charges of stealing.
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.
This is a copyright case, not a patent case. "Invention" is not an element of the Copyright Law. Did Apple copy his code and/or design? is the question to be answered.