Apple Rips Off Rejected App, Says Wireless Sync Developer 549
Haedrian writes "Apple is famous for going to absurd lengths to enforce its patents and trademarks. It recently sued Amazon for calling its app store Appstore. And it has publicly lectured competitors to 'create their own original technology, not steal ours.' Last year, UK developer Greg Hughes submitted an app for wirelessly syncing iPhones with iTunes libraries, which was rejected from the official App Store. Fast forward to Monday, when Apple unveiled a set of new features for the upcoming iOS 5, including the same wireless-syncing functionality. Cupertino wasn't even subtle about the appropriation, using the precise name and a near-identical logo to market the technology."
in this age (Score:5, Insightful)
in this age of corporate hypocrisy, it amazes me how any company has fanboys at all.
Re:Wait, so are they ripping off Android or this g (Score:4, Insightful)
What? How are those things in any way opposed? Can Apple not copy two things at once? I thought their mobile developers could handle multitasking these days.
The app was out a year before this feature was included in iOS. To make matters even more insulting, they've copied the design of the icon this guy created for his own app. They're spitting in his face. Try RTFA instead of trying to pretend to yourself like Apple are always good guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To make matters even more insulting, they've copied the design of the icon this guy created for his own app.
In all fairness, the guy named his app "Wi-Fi Sync", which is pretty functional as far as naming goes - definitely not much creativity went into the name. His logo is the Apple toolbar wireless icon surrounded by the Apple toolbar sync icon, stylized a bit into an oval rather than a perfect circle. Again, pretty functional and not much to "steal". It doesn't surprise me that Apple would pick the same name, nor that their art department would come up with a similar logo given the name.
Re:Wait, so are they ripping off Android or this g (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you missed the entire point of TFA, which was an entire year before they announced their "feature" this guy had ALREADY submitted an app which they shamelessly ripped off for their OS, right down to the logo.
I'm not a developer but software like this isn't created in a week is it? I'm sure Apple has many plans for new features to it's software in the works and frameworks that are being built on the next upcoming release (iOS 5.0) that will enable future features that many could guess are coming but either the software or hardware just isn't there yet.
This is not a new or innovative function. I've been doing this with my Palm Tungsten E since I got a bluetooth signal for my PC way back when. Also did he copy
Re: (Score:3)
May 5th 2010 to June 6th 2011 is hardly a week.
That's not really relevant though. I see no issue with Apple copying something obvious and useful. But blocking third-parties from implementing it and then a year later announcing precisely the same thing seems clearly anticompetitive to me.
Re: (Score:3)
This is hilarious. Do you need me to provide links for Apple Mail accidentally deleting mail, or the OS X Finder accidentally deleting files? And what about the bug-ridden [lee-phillips.org] iOS Mail program?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The closest thing they have to iHell is where they shun you for not owning an iPhone:
http://www.cracked.com/video_18269_the-new-iphone-ads-are-getting-out-hand.html [cracked.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not an apple dev or user so I'll blindly agree with the point you make regarding licensing. But you CANNOT tell me straight faced that Apple did not rip off the name & logo.
The name? Of their WiFi sync feature that they called WiFi Sync? The feature that has a logo that combines Apple's own logo for WiFi and iSync? Is that what you are referring to?
You can't really be claiming that Apple didn't come up with these on their own, but merely copied them from this guy, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Since both logos are just a mix of the common Apple's logos for sync and wireless, is hard to see a rip off. Being extremely close minded you can say that the developer, Greg Hughes, ripped off Apple's logos.
Corporate arrogance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate arrogance (Score:4, Interesting)
They did ask for his resume when they rejected his app.
The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm a huge Apple hater but only because usually it's Apple claiming this nonsense *cough app store* but it's clearly an obvious idea that iPhones competitors already do. And his logo is just a composition of the universal icons for Sync and Wifi. (Then again his logo is substantially more legible, so bravo to him)
And I'm sure he used some interesting and impressive hacks to trick the iphone into wirelessly syncing. Apple has no need to do that, they can just add APIs directly to the OS so there is no need to steal his code.
Furthermore, even the developer doesn't seem to care.
Way too much coincidence (Score:4, Insightful)
That's BS. It's the exact same functionality with the exact same name and damn near the exact same logo. If it were one or two of those things, I might be willing to chalk it up to coincidence or obviousness. But the whole trifecta? After Apple engineers have had exclusive access to his app and acknowledged that they were impressed by it? And after it's been highly visible on Cydia? (If you don't think Apple engineers are looking at Cydia apps, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...) To pretend like it's all just some big coinkidink?
No sir, I don't buy it, not for a damn minute. I think they were impressed with his app so much that they decided to add it to their own feature list to be implemented, turn it down to deny him money and reputation he should have been earning, saw it doing well on Cydia, and pushed it out as an "upgrade" so that everyone will be zealously adoring of how smart they are for something they should have had working from day one and that someone else smarter than them figured out before they could.
This was blatant abuse of their power as gatekeeper of the one and only official app store. It's disgusting, and while I'm usually not a fan of IP lawsuits, I hope this guy wins a million or three in damages for what Apple denied to him. He has provable damages and has them dead to rights for wholesale stealing his work. In the US, this would be an obvious violation of copyright and probably trademark too. Hopefully in the UK they have similar enough laws that it would be there, too.
And what the hell difference does it make if they asked him for his résumé? Did they offer him a job? Apparently not. If anything, that sounds patronizing to me, kind of like, "Let's dote some praise on the guy whose work we're going to steal. Maybe he'll just stupidly go away and not bother us."
And yeah, it pisses me off even more that these are the same bastards that go after people who have the unmitigated gall to call something iWhatever or offer to sell apps in a--gasp!--app store!
Re:Way too much coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
That's enough. I, personally, submitted a feedback request to Apple FOUR YEARS AGO requesting Wireless Synchronization for my very first iPhone. Not to mention that practically every Apple and iPhone and industry tech blogger known to man have ALSO requested the same exact feature for years now. Google it.
Or do you think they watch Cydia, but don't read their own mail nor follow industry bloggers and journalists?
Second, as has been said, the logo is an obvious mashup of the Apple logo for iSync and the AirPort WiFi logo. iSync is eight years old. AirPort (and the WiFi application logo) are TWELVE years old. So who copied whom, here?
Third, Apple's logo is for the feature, not an app. WiFI sync is baked into the OS.
Finally, Apple rejected his app not due to some conspiracy, but because in order to sync the iTunes library you have to break the application directory sandboxing rule, and that's an automatic fail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Re:Way too much coincidence (Score:5, Funny)
That's enough. I, personally, submitted a feedback request to Apple FOUR YEARS AGO requesting Wireless Synchronization for my very first iPhone.
So... iOS 5 was your idea?
Re:Way too much coincidence (Score:4, Insightful)
That's enough. I, personally, submitted a feedback request to Apple FOUR YEARS AGO requesting Wireless Synchronization for my very first iPhone. Not to mention that practically every Apple and iPhone and industry tech blogger known to man have ALSO requested the same exact feature for years now. Google it.
And yet, they didn't actually implement this feature until after this guy had submitted his app.
Or do you think it's been in development for four years?
Re: (Score:3)
The logo can be explained: combine the usual logo for wireless lan with the usual logo for synchronize.(since hotsync/palm times).
Like the fish-bulb!
Undocumented APIs == Rejection (Score:4, Informative)
And I'm sure he used some interesting and impressive hacks to trick the iphone into wirelessly syncing.
Well **IF** he went the undocumented API route then there would be no conspiracy regarding the app rejection. Undocumented APIs are an automatic rejection, it may even be part of the automated prescreening process -- completely automated, no human judgement call.
Re:Undocumented APIs == Rejection (Score:5, Informative)
As for the name/logo. It's syncing over wifi. There are two very obvious names: "Wifi Sync" and "Sync Wifi" for this. And the logo is the most obvious choice for a logo: The composition of the wifi logo and the sync logo. If you'd have asked me to come up with a name/logo for this I would have come up with exactly the same thing. I do not think that Apple ripped him off - he's just trying to make noise.
And yes, Apple should have put wireless synching in with iOS 1...
Re:Undocumented APIs == Rejection (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft were guilty of anti-competitive behaviour for allowing their apps to use undocumented APIs in Windows. It seems like Apple is doing exactly the same thing but worse because they can ban things from the App Store, which is the only non-hack way of getting apps onto the phone. In fact they got into hot water over banning apps that "duplicate functionality" (i.e. compete with them) before.
Why shouldn't there be two wireless sync apps for iOS? Maybe someone can come up with a better solution than Apple, give users a choice.
Re:Undocumented APIs == Rejection (Score:4, Insightful)
IIRC, apps can't have access to brightness controls. Apple's iBooks has a true brightness control. iBooks does not come as part of the OS--it is an app store download, and is a feature which is used to make money selling books.
If you don't mind talking about applications which come with iOS but which fall outside of system functions, then Safari gets some attention. Safari is allowed to compile and execute code in the data segment of memory, bypassing a rather large security function. And long before multitasking was available, Apple's software could run in the background.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, even the developer doesn't seem to care.
From TFA:
Since the official rejection, Hughes's app has become one of the most popular offered in the Cydia store, with more than 50,000 sold in the past 13 months. Throughout that time, Wi-Fi Sync has cost $9.99, not including occasional promotional discounts. Hughes declined to say how much he has grossed in sales [...]
Maybe that's why he's not interested. And maybe that's also why Apple didn't feel the need to pay him for his efforts...
Re: (Score:2)
Violate the TOS? (Score:2)
that it did things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit.
It's not news that Apple devs aren't constrained by the same agreement as other developers. If you use private/undocumented APIs then it's common knowledge that you'll probably get rejected so why even bother?
Re:Violate the TOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Violate the TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / (alone or single) + polein / (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
The main issue is leverage. Can anyone argue that Apple *doesn't* have leverage?
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough leverage, despite the claims of fanboys that Apple is the dominant smartphone provider.
They're actually #3, though supporters like to claim they're #2 by including all iOS devices, regardless of whether they can make actual phone calls or not.
Re:Violate the TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
But in this case the important market statistic is not the number of *smartphones* sold, it's the number of smartphone *apps* sold. The monopoly in question is developer access to the platform, not customer access.
Besides, who really give a crap about market share by units? Market share by profit margin is all that really matters. Apple makes a metric crapload of money on each device (the Android manufacturers make a lot less, and Google makes almost nothing).
And more relevant to this thread, Apple has almost 70% of the smartphone app market by number of apps, and over 90% of the market by sales. Statistics over the last year have clearly shown Android users just don't like paying for apps the way iPhone users do. That's more than enough leverage over app developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm no. You don't have to have 100% marketshare to be a monopolist, but enough to negatively effect both customers and competitors.
Which Microsoft obviously had in spades.
Riiiight. Just like Nintendo has a "monopoly" on Wii's and Ford has a "monopoly" on Mustangs.
You're using that word, "monopoly", it it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share.
I don't think you're fully capable of comprehending what is clearly written, I never once even made any mention of market share.
Re:Violate the TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he doesn't. Not only is it not just market share, but it's not just the smartphone market. Apple has a dominant position in digital music distribution. More importantly, it's not a matter of monopoly, but antitrust behavior. Illegal antitrust behavior does not require a monopoly position - merely restraint of trade or an "attempt to monopolize." Refusing a competitor access to a sole market sure seems to be that.
Re:Violate the TOS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should Apple be different?
Because the situation is completely different.
MS used undocumented OS features in Office, leveraging their OS to advantage in selling a separate expensive app suite which was in direct competition with third party products in a standard category of user app software.
In this case, the app, which broke stated rules in using a private API, clearly was treading in areas relating to core OS functionality. Users must not be subjected to modifications that may break when the OS is updated. A syncing utility can strongly affect network traffic, device speed, bandwidth costs, battery life, local or remote data loss or corruption... (error handling must account for many possible situations). Clearly such sensitive areas are appropriately controlled by Apple in order to uniformly achieve optimal performance.
Apple is not selling a competing app.
Some of the things Apple has developed or enhanced have been made open source in the interests of advancing the art, and can actually be used by competitors.
I believe a couple of those technologies would be called on by a well written syncing utility. Bonjour a service discovery protocol, and launchd a unified, service management framework for starting, stopping and managing daemons, applications, processes, and scripts. Obviously Apple started working with syncing many years ago.
Apple has promoted open-standards and has put a great deal of effort into Webkit, an open source browser technology that is widely used (in Apple's Safari, and also on Android)
There are people that look for excuses to bash Apple. This isn't a situation where that is appropriate. Someone submitted an app that broke rules, and now some whine about the consequences. It's destructive and distracting enough when political parties banter over nonsense. Shouldn't people with some technological understanding attempt to rise above that sort of thing? Time to move along...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Launchd [wikimedia.org]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bonjour_(software) [wikimedia.org]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Webkit [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's hardly an adequate explanation. I'll bet that iPhone SDK does not specify a bird throwing API... so surely Angry Birds is in violation for doing "things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit" too :)
well obviously they are alluding to it using undocumented APIs.
Apple may not have ripped this off. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Microsoft believed the same of the web browser. Is bundling ok now?
Re: (Score:3)
*And realplayer, but who misses that?
Re: (Score:2)
So whenever an outside party thinks of an idea that would be better suited at the OS level, they shouldn't be allowed to publish it at all?
Re:Apple may not have ripped this off. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but they apparently had other grounds for rejecting it as well, such as the fact that it used private APIs, from the sounds of things in the article. That alone is grounds for a rejection.
And yeah, both the name and logo were obvious, non-trademarked, and based on existing ideas. What else would you call something that syncs over Wi-Fi besides "Wi-Fi Sync"? I didn't even realize it was an official name of the service during the keynote, and just thought it was the term used to describe what it does. And using the Wi-Fi and syncing insignias only makes sense, as you point out.
Plus, they added Wi-Fi Sync as part of their effort to cut the cord, which tied in with the iCloud announcement, and it's not like iCloud was thought up yesterday, given that they had to build that massive data center in North Carolina which has been covered extensively.
Re: (Score:2)
And yeah, both the name and logo were obvious, non-trademarked, and based on existing ideas. What else would you call something that syncs over Wi-Fi besides "Wi-Fi Sync"?
I know you're right... but somehow I don't think that's going to stop Apple registering them. I mean, what else are you going to call a store that sells apps?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be a monopoly to do monopolistic behavior.
What Microsoft got in trouble for relates directly to the fact that Windows was a legal monopoly, and leveraged that monopoly to unfairly compete in OTHER markets.
Nothing Apple does or does not do, no matter how much you may or may not like it, is comparable. Apple is not a monopoly in any way, shape or form -- Android fans are quick to point this out. (Sorry, iPhone is not a market). Even if they did wholesale steal this idea from this guy (which is fai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app.
Someone trolled "fanboi" but let's take a look at that logo...
Hmm, Apple Airport - released in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort). Note that wireless icon there, it looks rather familiar, eh? If you click the picture, you'll note the original picture was uploaded in April 2007 (http://upload.
Re: (Score:3)
I can almost buy the logo explanation, but if the rest of your explanation is true, it's almost as bad as Apple stealing the app, because it indicates a private set of tests that will be applied to an app, namely "Maybe we're developing our own app, your app will compete it with it, therefore we're going to squash your app."
Quite frankly, your explanation turns Apple from a thief into a capricious pack of assholes. I'm not sure which is worse, from a developer's point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app. Combining the two in the obvious way makes sense and it is hard to think of a better way of doing it.
That it is an obvious combination is irrelevant. Trademarks are first-come, first-served. The only question is whether the developer applied for trademark protection. If he did, he would win against Ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The smell of corruption is strong in this one
Combined with apple having proven itself time and time again to be a "do as I say, not as I do company"
It is the sort of thing that companies can get away with due to trade secrets and closed source.
The only way we can know for sure is for a disgruntled employee to spill the beans.
I can neve
Sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Since the official rejection, Hughes's app has become one of the most popular offered in the Cydia store, with more than 50,000 sold in the past 13 months. Throughout that time, Wi-Fi Sync has cost $9.99, not including occasional promotional discounts."
I wish I could come up with a rejection that earned me a few hundred grand. He must be crying while rolling around in all that money.
Re: (Score:3)
(50,000 downloads X 50% of sales X $9.99 + 50,000 downloads X 50% of sales X $2.99 ) X 50% Cydia Payout = $16
Re: (Score:2)
You would have been richer had you spent more time on real work than throwing sarcastic comments at others' well-reserved successes.
oh, like apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
like how apple stole hardware tech from nokia, ericsson, etc and never paid them royalties?
Near Identical Logo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol.
Not to mention they are both called 'WiFi Sync'...so they've taken a bunch of obvious features and packaged them together, I agree there's nothing wrong with that but I do seem to remember them suing a company for doing exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
... except iCloud is way more then that.
...except this is about WiFi Sync, not iCloud.
No standing (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me save you a few minutes RTFA.
an app for wirelessly syncing iPhones with iTunes libraries
... is such an obvious idea that talking about "stealing" it is meaningless. It is also something that has existed for some time on other platforms - e.g. Samsung Android phones can do wireless sync of pretty much everything since Galaxy S. So he can't claim the idea.
Cupertino wasn't even subtle about the appropriation, using the precise name and a near-identical logo to market the technology
Let me clarify something here. The precise name in question is "Wi-Fi Sync". For an application that syncs your phone over wireless. Gee, that's one obscure name for this kind of app - no way Apple could have
Re: (Score:2)
The precise name in question is "Wi-Fi Sync". For an application that syncs your phone over wireless. Gee, that's one obscure name for this kind of app - no way Apple could have stumbled onto that by chance!
I agree with you but FWIW I would have thought they would have used a name like AirSync or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I googled around, and, apparently, AirSync used to be a Microsoft product [ctcnetworks.com]. I bet that was trademarked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is bashing Apple because they decided to implement an obvious feature with an obvious name and an obvious icon in their phone. The bashing is due to rejecting an app and then implemented the feature set in their OS.
Regardless of how you try and sugar coat it what Apple did was flat out anti-competitive. If you replace the word Apple, with Microsoft all of Slashdot would be up in arms and the DoJ would take an interest as well. But because the order came from Jobs almighty himself everyo
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing looked at by any judge in a trademark case is the "strength" of the trademark. That is, whether it is unique and enough to be defensible. After that, they look into the likelihood that the use of a mark by a second party will confuse the customers or potential customers of the first company.
"Kodak" is an example of a strong trademark; it was chosen because at the time the company was created, they hired li
Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can Slashdot editors start reading Reddit? (Score:2)
Yet another article makes Slashdot, well after it has been thoroughly torn to shreds as bullshit on Reddit, Hacker News, and other sites. Why can't Slashdot editors take a quick look at other, more timely sites to see if a submission is total BS before approving it?
Quick summary of the problems with this article. First, people have been asking for wireless sync as soon as iPhone launched. It is idiotic to think they got the idea from this guy's app.
Second, Apple in fact implemented wireless sync for AppleTV
whaaaaar, he stole my icecream (Score:2)
the Apple sync logo has always been rotating arrows, and the wireless logo has always been the same , so logically wi-fi sync will combine the two items. So sue Apple, if they stole your (TM) trademark. As for the concept of Wi-Fi sync, what It was your unique idea? c'mon, it was probably on Apple's to do list. If they stole code, then you have a beef, if they came out with a similar item, well stand in line with all of the people that duplicate ideas, the world if full of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He goes on to say that they specifically told him that the Apple dev team looked at his app and were impressed.
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Re:OMG, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would never put any apps that I designed on the app store. You become just to dependent on how Apple feels and the payout aren't that good compared to what Apple gets.
One exception could be in the sole purpose of getting free publicity, but never as a source of revenue. Now, the guy has got all the publicity he deserved anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, that's why I do not develop anything apple centric although I have looked at the possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Based on his sales through Cydia that 'tiny portion' seems to have paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
does reading comprehension include the ability to comprehend sarcasm?
Check again (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Not if Apple were working on theirs first, which they obviously were.
There is such a thing as a truly parallel effort. Syncing over WiFi is an obviously desirable feature and Apple can be working on a feature years before release to get it just right or wait for hardware to become powerful enough to support something.
Re:Check again (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes it obvious that they were working on it at the time of app submission? The idea might have been around as a "nice to have", but that doesn't mean it was implemented.
And it's likely that, since this guy had implemented it and submitted it for approval a year ago, the hardware was "powerful enough to support" the feature then. My 3GS is getting the same feature, and that's hardware from 2 years ago now. Given Apple hired the guy who created Mobile Notifier, near enough to identical to the new notifications feature, why not hire the guy who developed this one?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Which is why I always say that Apple does not innovate - they merely take someone else's idea and put a fancy Apple interface on it and then sell it for an absurd markup.
That's why the best way to patent troll Apple would be to take out a patent on "taking an existing product and making cosmetic enhancements to it as well as applying a stylized logo of a fruit on the back of the device".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, it's the color purple that's been trademarked. It wouldn't surprise me if the rest were as well though.
Bonus points to anyone who knows which company actually holds the trademark on the color purple.
Re: (Score:2)
wasn't it fedex?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's actually 3M.
Re:Oh, for the love of God! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the love of God, the name of the app is "WiFi Sync". What the fuck else are they going to call an app that syncs over WiFi?
For the love of God, the name of the store is "Amazon Appstore". What the fuck else are Amazon going to call their store that sells apps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't this app obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I don't think the term Wif Sync is trademarked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[...] or perhaps 'iSync' even)
They're already using "iSync", they have been using that name for a long time. Interestingly enough the logo for iSync is the whole "spinning arrows" bit around the standard wifi symbol that this app author uses.
Yes, I'm implying that he basically combined the commonly used image for syncing with the commonly used image for wifi and bitched about how Apple "stole" his logo design like it was somehow unique and special...
Re: (Score:3)
Hypocrisy cuts both ways.
Re:Wasn't this app obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean if all the Apple Haters out there think that Apple's use of the term "App Store" is too generic because it describes what it is and therefore not trademarkable, then doesn't that also apply to an app that does wi-fi sync which is called "Wi-Fi Sync?"
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with something that Apple does is branded an 'Apple Hater'? I think App Store and Wi-Fi Sync are both too generic to be trademarked, but I also have an iPad and quite like it. Just because you disagree with Apple's position on something doesn't mean you hate the whole company.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we add another reason an app will be rejected; namely that the developer dared to write an app that competes with a future feature set.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure that's the official explanation that all you fanbois will buy up.
Re: (Score:2)
The app was rejected because it called undocumented API's. A big no no if you want your app in the store. It's clearly spelled out in the agreements.
But it's okay for Apple to use them? I seem to remember Microsoft getting into some trouble over that [theregister.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Also?
Syncing the iTunes library (a heavily requested and talked about feature for a long time) via Wifi isn't even the interesting part of iCloud.
Yes, iCloud is a rip off of this guy's thing.
Only with, er, all that other stuff it does too, that his thing doesn't even kinda do.
Not quite right (Score:2)
Well, not quite. Apple hired Larry Tesler from Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, and he hired some of of his buddies from there. They were all unhappy because PARC had invented all this great stuff and Xerox wasn't doing anything meaningful with it.
So, it was no surprise when Larry and company produced many of the things they had pioneered at PARC, except better because they now had some experience of what worked and what didn't.
If you want to assign blame, then most of it should fall on Xerox for not usin
Re: (Score:2)
Today? Well, ieee1394 goes by three different names depending upon who uses it, because any company that holds a trademark would never use a generic word in it's place.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, we DID have THE best machine compared to anything else at the time (and for a few years after!).