iOS 18 Could 'Sherlock' $400 Million in App Revenue (techcrunch.com) 133
An anonymous reader shares a report: Apple's practice of leveraging ideas from its third-party developer community to become new iOS and Mac features and apps has a hefty price tag, a new report indicates. With the release of iOS 18 later this fall, Apple's changes may affect apps that today have an estimated $393 million in revenue and have been downloaded roughly 58 million times over the past year, according to an analysis by app intelligence firm Appfigures.
Every June at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference, the iPhone maker teases the upcoming releases of its software and operating systems, which often include features previously only available through third-party apps. The practice is so common now it's even been given a name: "sherlocking" -- a reference to a 1990s search app for Mac that borrowed features from a third-party app known as Watson. Now, when Apple launches a new feature that was before the domain of a third-party app, it's said to have "sherlocked" the app.
In earlier years, sherlocking apps made some sense. After all, did the iPhone's flashlight really need to be a third-party offering, or would it be better as a built-in function? Plus, Apple has been able to launch features that made its software better adapted to consumers' wants and needs by looking at what's popular among the third-party developer community.
Every June at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference, the iPhone maker teases the upcoming releases of its software and operating systems, which often include features previously only available through third-party apps. The practice is so common now it's even been given a name: "sherlocking" -- a reference to a 1990s search app for Mac that borrowed features from a third-party app known as Watson. Now, when Apple launches a new feature that was before the domain of a third-party app, it's said to have "sherlocked" the app.
In earlier years, sherlocking apps made some sense. After all, did the iPhone's flashlight really need to be a third-party offering, or would it be better as a built-in function? Plus, Apple has been able to launch features that made its software better adapted to consumers' wants and needs by looking at what's popular among the third-party developer community.
The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
Frankly, a lot of iOS' best features were lifted directly from the jailbreak community. iOS still lags years-old jailbreak tweaks when it comes to Control Center customization, for instance.
Re:The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, a lot of iOS' best features were lifted directly from the jailbreak community.
That's how it began, but ever since Apple really started cracking down on jailbreaking there's not much of a "community" left. I'd say it jumped the shark when Cydia shut down. [appleinsider.com]
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
Either way, building more shit directly into the OS just adds more feature bloat. Likely just a tactic to make older phones feel perpetually slower the older they get.
Re: (Score:2)
Up vote +2 a comment — under appreciated
One of the great utilities, abstracts above all OS’n, brands and services - 1Password. Abstraction is critical. The ability to straddle above, is a most valuable function providing you independence from hardware lock, software sandboxing and enabling freedom to move from or to any brand, service or cloud without sacrificing I.D., secure data or tracking capture. You want that. That’s a good thing.
AAPL slide password management under the guise of OS
Re: (Score:2)
Up vote +2 a comment — under appreciated
One of the great utilities, abstracts above all OS’n, brands and services - 1Password. Abstraction is critical. The ability to straddle above, is a most valuable function providing you independence from hardware lock, software sandboxing and enabling freedom to move from or to any brand, service or cloud without sacrificing I.D., secure data or tracking capture. You want that. That’s a good thing.
AAPL slide password management under the guise of OS hosting by reducing subscription bloat in-service to user loyalty. Next Apple will do away with your need to enter passwords. As long as USER is using Apple hardware AAPL manages all your passwords – you enjoy secure, friction-free access to the Matrix. That’s its long game.
Once password data is secure in AAPL’s steal-gripped vault — you need only keep paying subscription and hardware upgrade rent to remain current, viable and in-sych with your digital life.
WTF are you Blathering about???
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Apple hater, educate your ignorant self before you spew shit you don't understand.
Your passwords are always cached locally. iCloud is for syncing them across devices.
You should probably read the post your replying to if you're going to be an ass.
One of the great utilities, abstracts above all OS’n, brands and services - 1Password. Abstraction is critical. The ability to straddle above, is a most valuable function providing you independence from hardware lock, software sandboxing and enabling freedom to move from or to any brand, service or cloud without sacrificing I.D. ...
How does having your passwords cached locally help you if/when you want to change hardware/software/etc?
How does iCloud help you sync to your Linux desktop? Or to your new Android phone? It doesn't[^1].
IMO, it's another form of vendor lock-in. You get used to using those built-in services, but they're only available on that platform. Same with Facetime. Facetime is handy and well integrated, but is limited to users of Apple prod
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
This is true, since Apple is a hardware manufacturer, making the best software, only for their device, helps sell that device.
Itâ(TM)s like complaining that Sony making Horizon only for PlayStation is unfair because the made a game better than their developers could, who arenâ(TM)t developing only for Sony, by learning what works from looking at past games and improving on it.
Itâ(TM)s true, but not nefarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s like complaining that Sony making Horizon only for PlayStation is unfair because the made a game better than their developers could, who arenâ(TM)t developing only for Sony, by learning what works from looking at past games and improving on it.
In the Sony/Horizon case, all games have the equal footing. They're all sold as standalone games, can you start up and play them all the same way.
In the case of Apple's password manager, they are not opening up that ability for other developers to use.
In the case of Apple's FaceTime, they do not open up the ability to start a video chat from a call to other developers.
Itâ(TM)s true, but not nefarious.
Nefarious carries additional connotations I did not state. They could have the best intentions, but the result is the same. Maybe they want t
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Apple hater, educate your ignorant self before you spew shit you don't understand.
Your passwords are always cached locally. iCloud is for syncing them across devices.
You should probably read the post your replying to if you're going to be an ass.
One of the great utilities, abstracts above all OS’n, brands and services - 1Password. Abstraction is critical. The ability to straddle above, is a most valuable function providing you independence from hardware lock, software sandboxing and enabling freedom to move from or to any brand, service or cloud without sacrificing I.D. ...
How does having your passwords cached locally help you if/when you want to change hardware/software/etc?
How does iCloud help you sync to your Linux desktop? Or to your new Android phone? It doesn't[^1].
IMO, it's another form of vendor lock-in. You get used to using those built-in services, but they're only available on that platform. Same with Facetime. Facetime is handy and well integrated, but is limited to users of Apple products[^2]. A 3rd party and cross platform video chat solution, or a standard and open protocol that is well supported across various platforms and devices, would be far better for the user. Apple undercuts those sort of options with such integrations, especially when those integrations don't facilitate ties to other similar solutions (like being able to assign a different default web browser on Windows, or any default handler for certain intents).
[^1] you can export your passwords from iCloud to a CSV file, and that can be imported to other password managers, but that is not syncing, and does not facilitate free movement between platforms.
[^2] you can send a Facetime link to someone on Windows or Android so they can join via a web browser, but that's not the same as it being available there.
Hey, idiot!
Apple (according to the words of Steve Jobs) initially wanted to make FaceTime Cross-Platform; but then they got successfully Sued by a Patent Troll that had a Patent on two cups and a string or somesuch; which was goo enough for East Texas.
Learn some history.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, idiot!
Apple (according to the words of Steve Jobs) initially wanted to make FaceTime Cross-Platform; but then they got successfully Sued by a Patent Troll that had a Patent on two cups and a string or somesuch; which was goo enough for East Texas.
Learn some history.
WTF does that have to do with it? If the patent applied then, how does that change the equation? The end result is the same - FaceTime isn't available elsewhere, so one would be better served by using a service that works cross platforms, and their integration of FaceTime curbs adoption of such solutions.
Also, that has nothing to do with the password manager aspect, or the general idea that using a service that sits above/outside a specific platform is a better option.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, idiot!
Apple (according to the words of Steve Jobs) initially wanted to make FaceTime Cross-Platform; but then they got successfully Sued by a Patent Troll that had a Patent on two cups and a string or somesuch; which was goo enough for East Texas.
Learn some history.
WTF does that have to do with it? If the patent applied then, how does that change the equation? The end result is the same - FaceTime isn't available elsewhere, so one would be better served by using a service that works cross platforms, and their integration of FaceTime curbs adoption of such solutions.
Also, that has nothing to do with the password manager aspect, or the general idea that using a service that sits above/outside a specific platform is a better option.
Peeps who need to video chat cross platform use Zoom, etc. People sorted this out on their own during the Pandemic, if not before.
Want a non-integrated Password Manager (for those who have no long-term memory), just go to Homebrew and Build 1Pass. You can inspect the Source to your heart's content!
Next non-Objection?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep moving those goalposts. Doesn't change the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep moving those goalposts. Doesn't change the situation.
Who's moving Goalposts? You keep spewing new "Whaddabouts".
Re: (Score:2)
Keep moving those goalposts. Doesn't change the situation.
Who's moving Goalposts? You keep spewing new "Whaddabouts".
Riiiiight. So, what happened to this argument of yours?
Apple (according to the words of Steve Jobs) initially wanted to make FaceTime Cross-Platform; but then they got successfully Sued by a Patent Troll that had a Patent on two cups and a string or somesuch; which was goo enough for East Texas.
That had no legs, so you moved the goalpost. Now it's "Oh! You can just use something else", which circles right back to the issue that prompted the above answer:
IMO, it's another form of vendor lock-in. You get used to using those built-in services, but they're only available on that platform. Same with Facetime. Facetime is handy and well integrated, but is limited to users of Apple products[^2]. A 3rd party and cross platform video chat solution, or a standard and open protocol that is well supported across various platforms and devices, would be far better for the user. Apple undercuts those sort of options with such integrations, especially when those integrations don't facilitate ties to other similar solutions (like being able to assign a different default web browser on Windows, or any default handler for certain intents).
No more Apple Cares lol
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, building more shit directly into the OS just adds more feature bloat. Likely just a tactic to make older phones feel perpetually slower the older they get.
Think about it: Processes/Features don't make your Device Slower unless they are heavy-duty Background Tasks. Looking at my iPhone, I don't think there is any "Feature" that fits that Description that has been added to the OS for Decades, except for Spotlight, and its Indexing is engineered to only use Idle Time.
The only time Spotlight may noticeably affect Performance a little bit, is for a day or so right after a Major OS Upgrade, when it may do a thorough Reindexing. But recent versions of iOS don't even
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
And yet iOS gets progressively slower for old devices. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet iOS gets progressively slower for old devices. Why is that?
It doesn't and it hasn't for at least the last five Major Revisions, starting with iOS 12 or 13.
The main issue with old iOS is that Webkit doesn't get Improved, and starts having occasional Rendering Issues with some Script-Heavy Websites. This is quite frankly annoying, and is the thing that starts annoying me with older (unsupported) iOS/iPadOS Devices. But that doesn't start happening until said Device stops being able to Upgraded to the latest OS; Which with Apple, is at least Five Years,, and usually m
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
And yet...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/c... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And yet...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/c... [reddit.com]
Your source of "Proof" is a random R/eddit Thread?!?
Well, alrighty, then!
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
One can certainly do much worse. For example, one could provide their own anecdotal experience as proof, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
One can certainly do much worse. For example, one could provide their own anecdotal experience as proof, for example.
You mean like a R/eddit Thread?
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
No I mean like how you asserted that this hasn't been the case for a long time now, even though many others say the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
No I mean like how you asserted that this hasn't been the case for a long time now, even though many others say the exact opposite.
One R/eddit Thread does not constitute "many others".
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
Yeah, it does. Here's more if you want:
https://discussions.apple.com/... [apple.com]
Even on apple's own website where they're notorious for censoring shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it does. Here's more if you want:
https://discussions.apple.com/... [apple.com]
Even on apple's own website where they're notorious for censoring shit.
Right. That's why there are 15 Pages of Replies.
Turns out, it was a bum Release; but then Fixed in about a Month with iOS 17.1 :
(From Page 15 of your Linked Thread) :
"Works fine on older devices as well after you apply 17.1 and perform hard restart of device."
https://discussions.apple.com/... [apple.com]
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
Dude read the thread some more, there's people even on 17.2 complaining that the problem isn't addressed, and all of them are on older iphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you leave off the </sarcasm> tag? Of course an app could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the native phone app can already offer a means of transferring a call into FaceTime, then it could do it to any other app/protocol as well. Over simplifying it, think of an email link on a webpage (it's just <a href="mailto:someone@example.com">), which the browser then decides how it should handle the mailto action (provide a list of handlers for you to choose from, or launch the default email handler, or launch your email handler, or do a confirmation prompt before launching one of those, etc). O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The source of many of iOS' best features (Score:2)
Umm... they're adding features that were already done as an app, and now you're sitting here questioning whether apps can do these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't really seen any particularly innovative iOS features in a while. I know with iOS 18 they're doing some iterative improvements on the Control Center, so one could argue they're still riffing on the stuff they copied from the jailbreak scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the story with MacOS too. I used it in the System 7 days and since the first aluminium body now and other than the bottom menu and the select-space quick launcher it hasn't really changed much. I think the asthetic of the bottom menu really impresses people but its not that configurable. Mostly MacOS still forces you into awkward contorted ways of doing things because they only want to allow you their way of working. For example, every time I press fullscreen because I just want a window that takes up the whole desktop but instead it goes to that 'dedicated view' spaces thing I just want to scream. In a lot of cases I find myself needing to manually drag borders if I want to situate windows how I want and I just use tiling in win 10 or most WMs. Anyway, <\rant>.
The Zoom (Green Button) Feature has had 2 different behaviors:
Originally, it would make the Window just large enough to display the entire contents. This made sense with small screens; but Windows Users whined that they wanted it to work like Windows (Make the Window the Maximum Size). You can still Get this Behavior by pressing the Option key while clicking the Green Button.
Second Version: Worked just like Windows. But then some people complained that certain Applications (Readers, Media Editors, Games, et
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you hold down Option while hovering over the Green Button, the "Tile" Options become "Move" (to Left or Right); which leave the Desktop Visible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should tell Apple that people generally use computers to multitask. A tablet not so much. Don't model a computer after a tablet, or after computers back when they sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
I just like options like this to be evident in the gui. Why not just have another button for the other kind of maximize? Making that do a different thing based on hover is not intuitive at all especially because the button is not visually different than other buttons.
Someone should tell Apple that people generally use computers to multitask. A tablet not so much. Don't model a computer after a tablet, or after computers back when they sucked.
Why Cluttere the UI with Features most people seldom use?
Plus, Mac Users are used to trying the Option Key as a way to Modify Commands. For many of them, it makes sense to Expose those, er, Options in that fashion.
Plus, the "Three Main Window Buttons" have been a part of the macOS UI Design Lqnguage (and dare I say, Windows, too!) since version 1.0 of both OSes. They are Set in Human Interface Guidelines-Stone!
macOS has all sorts of Window Gadgets that have arcane Buttons; why add more?
Apple didn't model ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If those three buttons are set in stone then don't decide to change the functionality!
Well, I would agree that the Default Behavior of the Green Button should not have switched to the "Windows"-Like Behavior; however, I do not agree that more Modifier-Key-Selected Behaviors should not have been Added.
The Cluster of Command, Option, Ctrl and Shift has been a part of Apple Keyboard Culture since the Lisa. Mac Users are well-versed in trying at least a few of the NINE possible Combinations of Keyboard Chording of Modifier Keys when trying Keyboard and GUI Commands.
It's one of the things knowled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the ui is there to provide feedback about how to interact with it, not to be a clean piece of art. Apples biggest failing is clinging on to keeping things pretty while many other wms (like kde) look really good and still manage to be functional.
Apple's UI manages to be highly functional without looking like Windows 3.1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on your definition of "highly functional". If I need to spend years learning all of its new secrets with every version then that is not highly functional to me. I just don't have the time to learn about features that the UI doesn't tell me about.
You're kidding, right?
On Average, once we are talking OS X-era, MacOS has about the most Stable UI over time of any GUI Platform. There have been changes, for sure, especially as regards to "Texturing"; but overall, changes are generally incremental, rather than Windows' Spastic "Look du Jour".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stability has nothing to do with it. I'm just taking about best practice gui design. If they need to make the gui confusing in order to be stable then they need to design it better.
Apple literally wrote the Book on Best Practice GUI Design. From 1987:
https://www.abebooks.com/servl... [abebooks.com]
And even Today:
https://developer.apple.com/de... [apple.com]
Have they always followed their own Advice? Hell, No(!!!); but overall, they Historically have had a better track record than anyone else.
Sorry if you don't like it; many others do. However, Nobody likes everything about an OS; which is quite understandable. I suspect many on the macOS GUI Design Team have things that annoy them. But, I'd bet it's different t
Evolution (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is a basic aspect of software and product development. Things evolve, incorporating ideas and features from others and make themselves better in the process. It's natural, it's common, it's expected and there isn't anything wrong with it. People want to bitch about the big evil Apple fucking other companies over. It's not really "fucking over" anybody and all other companies do the same thing.
You down own an idea. Anyone is free to do what you do and see if they can do it better.
THX for the right lede (Score:2)
Hoovering up subscriptions is Cook’s idea of innovation for Apple
Re: (Score:2)
So Apple has had the password Keychain since the 1990s.
Did 1Password steal from them?
Should Apple be allowed to add new features (cloud syncing, adding nearly 10 years ago) if there is another piece of software that does something similar?
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Wow, that should NOT be legal.
Should not be legal (Score:3)
Like when Microsoft made a built-in web browser, the new feature of its Windows 95 OS. It gave that feature a name, the same as its own web-browser (because that's what is was). Microsoft was punished for that but it sounds like Apple gets away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like when Microsoft made a built-in web browser, the new feature of its Windows 95 OS. It gave that feature a name, the same as its own web-browser (because that's what is was). Microsoft was punished for that but it sounds like Apple gets away with it.
Microsoft's sin was not including a built in web browser but in trying to force everyone to use that web browser, making it impossible to uninstall from the OS and deliberately making incompatible with web standards (again, trying to force it's exclusive use)... We absolutely pilloried Microsoft for that... Why does Apple get a free pass for the same behaviour?
Re: Sherlocking isn't a thing (Score:5, Informative)
How is that not "stealing" the IP?
Companies in China are accused of that "all the time", but when Apple does it, it's fine?
The IP should be purchased. Employment might be OK, if the IP owner is OK with that, but Apple is the ultimate bully, with deep deep legal pockets, so good luck fighting it.
Re: Sherlocking isn't a thing (Score:2, Troll)
Pretty sure when you build apps for Apple platforms, the contracts you agree to free Apple from any liability that isn't protected by parents.
Your apps are a marketing research for Apple, the App Store should be called SerfBoard.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as I understand it, you can't steal a concept - concepts aren't patentable. You can only steal aspects of implementation. They can build their own trail app. They can't use the code or the actual trail data from the existing app. The current app does not own the rights to describe a particular trail just because they did it first. But they do own that specific detailed description.
China can take what they learned building a blender of western design, and then design their own blender for sale. That's
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly very shitty of Apple to be adding nice features to their software, for free.
Re: Sherlocking isn't a thing (Score:3)
That's how you get feature bloat. Even if you don't need a feature, you still get it regardless. Better just to make it a first-party app available free given apps already have what they need to implement it from the APIs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly very shitty of Apple to be adding nice features to their software, for free.
Free, how?
They aren't literally stealing Code, ya know. There is still the entire R&D Cycle that Apple has to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple OSes are free.
None of the Microsoft UPGRADE NOW FOR FREE LIMITED TIME DOITNOW WE MEAN IT (jokes your computer sucks) bullshit either.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple OSes are free.
None of the Microsoft UPGRADE NOW FOR FREE LIMITED TIME DOITNOW WE MEAN IT (jokes your computer sucks) bullshit either.
While True, that's not what we were talking about. . .
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just them taking the concept, it's the fact that Apple's own apps have access to APIs that 3rd party apps don't. They can even ask Apple's iOS team for specific features. That often results in Apple's own apps being better than the third party ones, because e.g. they have special access to certain hardware (NFC and Bluetooth come to mind), or because they can be exempt from the usual iOS background processing limits (e.g. long iCloud uploads).
Re: (Score:2)
Not contesting any of that. Merely pointing it out that it isn't stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just them taking the concept, it's the fact that Apple's own apps have access to APIs that 3rd party apps don't. They can even ask Apple's iOS team for specific features. That often results in Apple's own apps being better than the third party ones, because e.g. they have special access to certain hardware (NFC and Bluetooth come to mind), or because they can be exempt from the usual iOS background processing limits (e.g. long iCloud uploads).
Welcome to every single closed-source OS ever made!
And Apple has been getting much better about that, anyway. In the WWDC Keynote the other day, I think every new Feature had an SDK for 3rd Parties to use.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not have copyright over the idea of your app and never have. That's not what copyright is for. You have copyright over the code of the implementation, and maybe could, depending on the random-ass decisions of your country's patent office, have a *patent* on the idea of it. Even the shittier patent offices hopefully would not give a patent for "make my phone into a flashlight", and the devs probably didn't try.
When a company acquires another like that it's to get the existing implementation and/or "hi
Re: (Score:3)
IP isn't "oh, I had this great idea for an app!"
If you've got a valid patent, trademark or copyright, that's IP. "Hey wouldn't it be cool if you could use your phone like a flashlight?" isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that what your app does is not IP. Sorry. If it's a flashlight, Apple can make one, as can anyone else.
Besides, have you seen the App Store? Are you seriously saying there shouldn't be any copies of any programs out there, or that Apple needs to do something about it?
Apple is just doing what other developers are doing and making programs out of functionality. Only theirs is built in. Doesn't mean that it's stealing the IP at all.
Do you even know what stealing IP means?
Re: (Score:2)
IP. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
IP doesn't exist. It is a word made to manipulate people.
There are legally only 4 things, everything else is fluff:
_Patents
_Copyrights
_Trademarks
_Trade secrets (e.g. Cola beverage formula)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that Intellectual Property are weasel words that really should be called Imaginary Property the fact is the phrase DOES exist [cornell.edu] as a "layman's convenience" to group the various sub categories. [wipo.int] Even Industrial Designs and Geographical Indicators are getting lumped together in this utter nonsense.
Unfortunately too many are delusional thinking they can "own" imaginary things that it will take some time for this nonsense legal phrase to die out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not "stealing" the IP?
Companies in China are accused of that "all the time", but when Apple does it, it's fine?
The IP should be purchased. Employment might be OK, if the IP owner is OK with that, but Apple is the ultimate bully, with deep deep legal pockets, so good luck fighting it.
Because when Apple owns the platform you sell your product on, controls it from the ground up, walls in the users... You don't have a choice. Much the same as if China's government wants something a Chinese company or citizen has... they don't have a choice.
Fortunately we have a choice and I've chosen never to buy Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not "stealing" the IP?
Companies in China are accused of that "all the time", but when Apple does it, it's fine?
The IP should be purchased. Employment might be OK, if the IP owner is OK with that, but Apple is the ultimate bully, with deep deep legal pockets, so good luck fighting it.
It really comes down to what is innovation, what is patentable or other protectable IP, and what the specifics of this situation are.
Apple has had a password store "Keychain" since mac OS 8 (with earlier more internal/technical antecedents). It's been able to store passwords, certificates, notes, etc., for almost the entire existence of Mac OS / OS X / macOS.
As cloud services became a "thing" for consumers, Apple added iCloud keychain syncing across devices. I've used iCloud keychain and password generation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well me singing someone else's song or even closely is copyright infringement, make a phone with round corners patient infringement according to apple.
So why isn't copying someone else idea copyright infringement? I think the difference is the amount of lawyers you have.
I think you should be able to copy and improve things, that's the way most technology develops, but its a bit hypocritical of Apple to do this when the definitely would not like it done the other way round. Well they have the money to pay la
Re: (Score:2)
I think you know next to nothing about Patents, Copyrights, Design Patents and the like.
What you "think" literally has no value.
Yes it certainly is hypocritical of Apple to give us nice things for free.
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't copying someone else idea copyright infringement?
You can't patent ideas. Image if someone could patent the idea of wheels instead of how the wheel was made. See the problem? In addition to function patents, there are design patents, how things look. It's my opinion that many design patents granted are absurd and Apple's round corners is one, in part because so many things, including technological devices have had rounded corners. It's my opinion that Samsung should have tried to invalidate those patents (for being overly broad or for prior art) instead of finding ways to say they should have to pay less in damages (which they were some what successful in doing).
Your use of copyright in your wording shows you don't really understand the issue. For a copyright violation, they'd have to copy the code used in these apps. Since everything published is copyrighted, they most certainly have those rights. If their apps could have function or design patents, they'd have to actually make the effort to file patents on those things. It's not an automatic right.
It's also worth nothing that Apple tried to trademark the iPhone appearance but they fell flat on their face with that line of legalese. https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]
An appeals court ruled Apple could not legally trademark the iPhone's appearance in May of 2015...
But if you look at the Phones by Samsung and others released just after the original iPhone in 2007, you can see why Apple felt Ripped-Off. . .
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
you can see why Apple felt Ripped-Off. . .
Go back to pretending you're better than Anonymous Cowards because you don't hide your anonymous account name. Your feelings and Apple's don't matter where the law is concerned. Sadly, a jury that doesn't understand technical issues gets to decide these things.
As I said, Samsung should have attempted to invalid Apple's patents. Thanks to ChatGPT, here's some prior art.
Me, "examples of devices with rounded corners before the iphone"
ChatGPT 3.5, "Before the iPhone, there were several devices with rounded corners. Some examples include:
LG Prada: Released in 2006, the LG Prada featured a sleek design with rounded corners.
Sony Ericsson T68i: This mobile phone, released in 2002, had rounded corners and was one of the first phones to feature a color screen.
Palm Treo 600: Launched in 2003, the Palm Treo 600 had rounded corners and a full QWERTY keyboard.
Nokia 7650: Released in 2002, the Nokia 7650 was one of the first phones to feature a built-in camera and had rounded corners.
These are just a few examples of devices with rounded corners that predate the iPhone."
Nice try, Mr. Disingenuous!
As you can plainly see, it wasn't just the Rounded Corners; it was every-single-fucking-thing! You literally couldn't tell the phones apart from a few feet away.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, Mr. Disingenuous!
As you can plainly see, it wasn't just the Rounded Corners; it was every-single-fucking-thing! You literally couldn't tell the phones apart from a few feet away.
Guess you didn't bother looking at your own link:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
You can plainly see that Samsung already had designs PRIOR to the iPhone with rounded corners. And the icon comparison, IMO, plainly looks different. And the "method of displaying a list of items in an electronic document"... really?
Hey, Creative successfully sued Apple over the Organization of Songs on the iPod by Genre/ArtistAlbum/Song, FFS; so what's so unusual about Apple's Suit?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether the ideas were patented, or even patentable.
I'll say it slowly; because you're obviously on drugs:
You. Cannot. Patent. Ideas.
Got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you say, baby boy.
Wrong.
Whatever U.S. Caselaw says, Hater Girl:
Not my favorite cite; but it gets to the point:
https://www.legalzoom.com/arti... [legalzoom.com]
Now STFU, Moron!
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed you could patent an idea, you imbecile. I said it depends on whether there was a patent.
As in, if your implementation had a patent, you can protect it.
Some people.
Seriously?
Apparently you don't have the slightest idea how social intercourse works.
Re: (Score:2)
Social interactions? Nah.
I'm thinking about putting a hit out on you.
Social Intercourse. A/K/A "Conversation".
You have been Reported to Abuse, BTW.
Re:Sherlocking isn't a thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for the end user it's great. It sucks being nickel and dimed to death with 3rd party apps that have largely gone to subscription models. My heart isn't exactly bleeding for companies losing their revenue stream when a feature is implemented by Apple and becomes gratis as an included part of the OS.
Now if you work for one of those companies or are considering the greater economic implications of less pie slices to go around, yeah, it may not be so good, but that's just how the game of capitalism is played.
Apple vs MS (Score:4, Insightful)
My heart isn't exactly bleeding for companies losing their revenue stream when a feature is implemented by Apple and becomes gratis as an included part of the OS.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view but it's interesting to note that when MS did something almost identical with it's old Embrace, Extend, Extinguish [wikipedia.org] approach or even just the release of its own web browser there was a huge backlash against them for pushing 3rd party companies out of the market leading to monopoly investigations and that's the reason we can now choose our own default browser.
I don't see this same backlash for Apple who clearly have the same sort of monopoly on iOS devices and even access to the app store data to tell them which features people are willing to pay for which is someways is even worse that MS. So why do we seem happier with Apple doing it than MS?
Re: (Score:3)
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it was because IE was spectacularly bad and gave major headaches to web developers of the day. Apple has mostly been reimplementing smaller bits of functionality and in a way that really isn't all that obnoxious. I think most recent example is Apple's planned password manager, which ironically is already pretty good even in its current implementation, with the caveat that it's buried inside the "Settings" app.
I'd never pay for a 3rd party password manager, but already
Re: (Score:2)
Specific to the upcoming password manager, I doubt it'll affect the other players in that space all that much - simply because Apple's "new" password manager isn't doing much of anything that Keychain hasn't already offered for a couple decades. Basically it's just rebranding and making the existing functionality somewhat more user-friendly.
In terms of features, it doesn't look to be a serious challenger to the existing players in that space...
Re: (Score:2)
You might notice there are three words in that old "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing.
What Microsoft is criticised for isn't making their own web browser, or Java interpreter, or whatever, and including it in their OS (embrace). It's the next two steps where they make their version incompatible with standards (extend) then use that incompatibility to try and kill the competition (extinguish).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was. That just means they did it to someone who actually had recognized IP.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the next two steps where they make their version incompatible with standards (extend) then use that incompatibility to try and kill the competition (extinguish).
Yes, but Apple are simply skipping the middle step: they go straight from embrace to extinguish. Yes, there are some sublte differences in the MS tried it with open standards as well as 3rd party apps but the thing they got the most heat over was the browser and that was pretty much exactly the same as what Apple is doing: adding the functionality to the OS and cutting third party apps out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's strategy with things like IE and Java isn't "subtle differences." Sherlock was a file searching app. Apple added file searching to the OS (along with everyone else) but they didn't do anything to break Sherlock. They also didn't do anything to make file searching not work for anyone else. Same with flashlight apps and password managers.
MS making a web browser wasn't a problem. MS making a browser that was incompatible with other browsers, particularly when they had so much market share lots of p
Re: (Score:2)
MS making a browser that was incompatible with other browsers,
It was not incompatible it had features that other browsers did not - hence 'extend'. Are you telling me that when Apple is doing what it is doing that it adds no new features over the apps it is "embracing" at all?
Re: (Score:2)
> It sucks being nickel and dimed to death with 3rd
> party apps that have largely gone to subscription
> models.
Yup. Never will I ever have the even smallest shred of sympathy when skeezy developers who go the Zynga route instead of selling me an honest product at an honest price get themselves Sherlocked or otherwise slapped down. A pox upon their houses, I say. Subscriptions are for services, not products. Allowing recurring microtransactionsw was the worst thing Apple ever did to the App Stor
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Never will I ever have the even smallest shred of sympathy when skeezy developers who go the Zynga route instead of selling me an honest product at an honest price get themselves Sherlocked or otherwise slapped down. A pox upon their houses, I say. Subscriptions are for services, not products. Allowing recurring microtransactionsw was the worst thing Apple ever did to the App Store.
Or simply pocket the windfall when Apple dropped their fees to 15%. I get they need to make a living, but don't expect sympathy from potential customers. Interestingly, one develop whose product I use said being sherlocked turned out to be a good thing, because when their revenue started drying up it forced them to reconsider their business model and developed the same product for Windows and are doing better now than before. The survivors will find ways to stay relevant, and those that were one trick po
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for the end user it's great. It sucks being nickel and dimed to death with 3rd party apps that have largely gone to subscription models. My heart isn't exactly bleeding for companies losing their revenue stream when a feature is implemented by Apple and becomes gratis as an included part of the OS.
Now if you work for one of those companies or are considering the greater economic implications of less pie slices to go around, yeah, it may not be so good, but that's just how the game of capitalism is played.
That's the end game of "everything must be an app" and I'm glad I never fell for it.
When you're limited to what you can do on your own device, you're fertile ground for people to offer you basic functionality for a "low, low, monthly fee". I'm glad I can install my own browser on my phone, it can run plugins like uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, the OS comes with most of the built in tools one expects. Most places have figured out it's cheaper to run one website than two apps for IOS/Android and forget
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What difference does it make whose idea it is?
Just because you had an idea, doesn't mean nobody else can do the same thing.
If you don't want your idea "stolen", don't tell anybody about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> How come Steve Jobs didn't think to make it a flashlight??
Same reason the very first iPhone didn't have cut, copy, and paste:
Apple prioritizes features to ship. It is NOT POSSIBLE to ship ALL your great ideas in version 1 -- you will NEVER SHIP if you try. Instead you prioritize features -- hopefully that are both "high impact" and "low impact". Over time you add your features depending as the resources and schedule allows.
And it indeed may be true that no one at Apple though of it using the LED as a