iPodDailyNews - Where iPod news comes first

Mar 09, 10 - 02:12 pm Comment from: silverwarloc

Like MDN said...these developers sign an agreement. Out of their own free will.

Mar 09, 10 - 02:12 pm Comment from: HMCIV

They used a Freedom of Information act to get an Apple license agreement. From NASA. I guess they also could have signed up as an iPhone developer but taking the long way around the barn definitely adds some melodrama!

Mar 09, 10 - 02:13 pm Comment from: Boyarsky

As much as I may not agree with what Apple is doing, they absolutely have the right to do it this way...

Is it legal? Yes.

Is it ethically correct? Questionable.

Mar 09, 10 - 02:21 pm Comment from: Predrag

I can't see how this license agreement can be called unethical. The only way you could presumably call it that is if Apple demanded that you not disclose anything about it publicly, and meanwhile they go and share your own developer data with others.

Mar 09, 10 - 02:24 pm Comment from: breeze

Anyone has the right to their terms being met by anyone they choose to have dealings with. Many that have gotten burned by trusting in good faith, neglected to protect themselves with signed agreements. This is perfectly legal and rightfully done.

Anyone who doesn't want to accept the terms can, bluntly put, go fuck themselves.

If they signed up for the program, they couldn't expose it legally. Going through the FOIA makes the government do the dirty work for them without leaving them liable.

Mar 09, 10 - 02:32 pm Comment from: mossman

Don't lump the EFF in the same sentence as Greenpeace as "entities who're wound more than a wee bit too tightly", unless you include the prudes at the Parents Television Council explicitly (hah!) to balance it out.

Just because developers agree to the terms of their own free will doesn't mean the terms don't deserve criticism.

Apple is the only one innovating.
You only stifle innovation if you control platforms outside your own.
Anyone can develop whatever they want for jailbroken phones, Palm, Nokia, MS and Android platforms.

Innovate away, nobody is stopping you.
Apple has created a platform that has provided the most innovative apps that anyone could imagine, including Apple.
I'm fine with not having buggy apps infecting my iPhone. If Apple didn't control it, I would be much less trusting of the device.

Just to play devil's advocate:

@jon1:
So, you're much more trusting of your iPhone since Apple has such strict control over apps. Does the same apply to your Mac- are you much *less* trusting of your Mac since Apple does not have such strict control over the apps on it?

And please, lumping the EFF in with Greenpeace? Must be a slow news day. The EFF has done plenty of good for all of us consumers.

And while yes, Apple's developer agreement is (I assume) legal, I fail to see the harm in making it public. How does it hurt the marketplace for the public to be aware of what Apple requires of iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch developers?

Mar 09, 10 - 02:47 pm Comment from: Spark

This program is a symbiotic relationship. Apple would like to develop all apps in house, but knows it can't. Developers would like to ride the iPhone gravy train unfettered, but the can't. Both live with these shortcomings because both benefit by doing so. So STFU. Quite making a federal case over this. Those of us adults still in the room have recognized the mutual benefit of compromise.

Mar 09, 10 - 02:59 pm Comment from: TowerTone

Dude, you said "who're".....

Your criticism of the EFF could be reduced to Apple development "love or leave it"! It is a weak argument and only one a step above "I don't care". As a developer I don't purport to know why one clause in one version GPL make more since over the other, but I am grateful for those that do spend time looking at the details. I for one feel Apple developers are better served by public discourse.

Why couldn't they simply go though the motions of becoming a developer, then decline to agree to the Dev Agreement? At that point, they'd not agreed to keep it secret, no?

Shiva105,
My point was to the question of whether Apple was stifling innovation. I don't care who see's the agreement.

My phone has to work and can't have battery drained or any other glitches.
As to my Mac - it is not affected by the same forces that a phone is. - It is not a valid comparison.

Mar 09, 10 - 03:31 pm Comment from: Steve516

Ethics? Give me a break. Developers simply want to create products to sell to make money, plain and simple. They want to make profits and make money selling their product. Well, since the product is going to be used in an Apple product, Apple then has the right (ethically, morally, whatever) to create rules for playing in the playbox that it created. Its a really simple concept. Imagine, you build a swimming pool. To keep kids from drowning, you put up a tall fence and a locked gate. Kids beg you to play in the pool. To let them play, you insist that every kid wears a life vest, and that there are lifeguards on duty at all times. Life vest specifications are blank, and every kid has to have an approved life vest. If they want to swim under water, then they need to wear goggles too. Any kid that pisses in the pool, starts a fight, or starts taking off his or her swim wear is banned.

All makes sense now right?

Mar 09, 10 - 03:36 pm Comment from: m159

Twerps like this love to target Apple because the company's high image is so shocking to besmirch. If they're anything like GreenPeace, they don't care what the truth is.

How many ass whining Me Generation types are there that sign up, and now whine like ass squealing, self important babies about sticking with your personal responsibilities and decisions.

Let me guess .. you like Nancy Pelosi, are for the student strike in California, and wear a pussy flower in your hair when you go to that gay shithole San Francisco. Right?

From the MDN post: "The EFF, like Greenpeace and several other entities who're wound more than a wee bit too tightly, just loves to have its collective panties in a bunch whether or not the issue warrants panty bunching."

If we want to discuss "panty bunching," let's discuss the majority of articles that include "MDN Takes" (aka whining) posted over the last year or so. Talking about a group that loves to get fired-up about nothing must, by definition, include MDN and a vast majority of commenters, right?

uhh.. your intelligence (or more aptly) .. the lack thereof
is showing..

Why not have a candy bar, and let your mommy have her computer back ?

and how many more have signed a usurious mortgage.... what's the point exactly?

More MDN fanboi perspectives. Apple is incredibly secretive and controlling. Apple is fanatical, and this agreement has Jobs written all over it. The concern is that the agreement is unfair. Showing complete indifference to this fact just preserves the stranglehold big companies have over consumers.

Thus, it is not as simple as saying, if you don't agree, don't develop. This is a matter of what is fair, legal, ethical, etc. Let's look at specific examples:

1. Apple will not be held liable for more than $50 if they cause damages to the developer or end user. That is unfair and unrealistic, and not something that would likely even be upheld in court. Example: Apple accidently leaks information about user data, where users get identities stolen, spammed, etc. Those users turn around and sue the App developer, who, knowing it was not a fault of his, turns around and sues Apple. Apple says they only owe him $50 because of their agreement. This clause is thus ridiculous and speaks of Apple's complete disregard for software developers and consumers alike.

2. Apps that are rejected can't be circulated for use on the iPhone through other App services. Incredibly controlling and closed off. It's like Apple just takes over the copyright to the App as it becomes close to useless after they reject it. This is something that could implicate Apple in an anti-trust case.

3. Ban on discussing the agreement in public. Again, controlling and likely not something that would hold up in court. This can and is destructive for people and consumers. We want to know what kinds of constraints exist for those developing the Apps we are buying. If they are unfair, unlawful, etc. Apple should be held accountable. It's just another clause enabling Apple to hide their unfair terms.

But here on MDN, anything Apple feeds to you you swallow and say thank you.

Mar 09, 10 - 06:32 pm Comment from: jjjj

I think this is illegal, or certainly shady, using a backdoor of a Gov't Agency to get a private company's contract.

Generally, I support the EFF, but not this time.

Mar 09, 10 - 07:39 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"But here on MDN, anything Apple feeds to you you swallow and say thank you."

Kinda like what you do in dark back alleys? Gulp!

Oh please. How much are you being payed to shit out that faux outrage?

Apple is one of the biggest proponents of free, open, and multiplatform standards. But now we're supposed to forget all that and crucify them for being "controlling and fantatical" over their rather ordinary iPhone dev agreement? Sorry, but no.

Apple more often than not stands against the controlling and the fanatical, that they have an approval process for iPhone apps and a run of the mill dev agreement doesn't magically erase their many contributions to open computing.

Making your rant even more toothless, a person can just jailbreak their damn iPhone and ignore Apple's terms with impunity.

I wonder what your "solution" to the "tyrany" of Steve Jobs is?

Probably some closed, proprietary, highly controlled bullshit masquerading as open(for a perfect example of this, see Microsoft Windows), as seems to be the standard alternative to Apple offered by disengenuous little snots like you. Never do I see anything legit like Linux or Haiku being offered as the solution.

I doubt you're going to change that. Infact, I doubt you're even going to bother replying.

The fanbois come to the rescue again. More of the see no evil hear no evil crap from Apple fanbois. Make no mistake, I love Apple and their products. I am 100% a Mac guy. But I am not a blind follower of Apple, like many of you seem to be. This agreement is unfair. I deal with contracts constantly, most of them with the government, a a smaller percentage with private firms. We have big name clients. So when I look at these clauses in this agreement, they really stand out from contracts I have had to ratify our company to.

I would never sign an agreement such as this one. And if things are unfair, with government contracts, they can and do get challenged. Most of the time the clauses that are really unfair/unlawful get taken out, and even stricken from being included in any future contracts. With private firms, they are more flexible in that several clauses can be crossed out and they will still sign the contract.

I don't see that this agreement is flexible like that first. That is a concern right off the bat. Second, banning people from talking about it... not allowing developers to take their apps elsewhere after rejection... being liable for only $50... if you don't see how those clauses implicate Apple as being controlling, alongside having little regard for developers, consumers, and competition, no further explanation is going to help you step out of fanboiville.

Apple is not open. No way. The iPhone is closed. You can't install whatever you want on it. You have to go through iTunes, and the App Store. They have a monopoly on that, and it's intentional, although I do acknowledge that part of their practice here is to preserve the user experience.

Open is Linux, or even Android. Open is software under GNU. Open is Open Office.

Apple, open? Ya, right. The only thing open about Apple is that they promote open standards. That is something completely different. And they do that so they can circumvent the big competition, like Adobe and MicroSoft. But their business model, their business practices, the entire Apple ecosystem from a consumer perspective is that they are a closed system. No third party hardware. No licensing their Operating System to anyone. No legitimate alternative to the iPhone App Store.

And now they are threatening to sue more people for their multi-touch patents, not just HTC. And everyone gets tired of disputes over ridiculous computer patents that are, by their nature, not things that are unique and confined to the minds of a few at one company. The idea of multi-touch can be found in Sci-Fi films from decades past, long before all this came to be. But now Apple goes after others and tries to stymie the competition because of multi-touch patent infringements. If it were MicroSoft, you guys would be all over that company.

Apple is closed off, and doing its best to stop competition for the iPhone. I hope they lose that battle, and this is coming from an iPhone lover, a Mac guy. They need the competition. Public Administration 101...

@Me
Silly boy.
Apple has competitors who don't innovate. They copy.
Apple has created the situation that you are playing both sides of. It's their game. No one's forced to play but who else offers devs such generous terms and conditions? Who else enables devs actively like this. And so, devs are happy to sign up because they know the terms are defensive of them as well as of Apple.

Mar 10, 10 - 01:48 am Comment from: Zaphod

who're...

You should just be able to purchase the app again for free if you have previously purchased it. The same thing happened on my iTouch, and I just went to buy it again and it gave it to me for free.web conferencing software|online training

chano:

Hi Silly! How are you? All you do is make excuses for a company. Forget what industry they are in. Forget about names. They are a company subject to all the same laws and regulations as everyone else. If they don't change their ways soon, they are going to start facing anti-trust cases. And those potential cases, which have been brewing for some time, have real teeth.

What we are interested in is fairness, openness, and companies who don't monopolize. Everyone is quick to jump on MicroSoft. Remember when MS lost the anti-trust case for Internet Explorer? How long has it taken for a full-blown Safari alternative to end up on the iPhone? As far as I know, there is no other full-blown web browser available for the iPhone other than Apple's very own Safari. If this was MS, you would be all over them. But since it's Apple, you will make a long list of excuses for them. The bottom-line is that it's because of an anti-competitive App Store policy that stymies competition that there is no full-blown web browser for the iPhone other than Safari.

Then there is the whole Google Voice fiasco.

And there are many more examples of this sort of stuff with Apple. You all just ignore it like the little fanbois that you are... sitting in your basements on your MacBook Pros... quoting Steve Jobs to your friends. Meanwhile, the rest of us "real" people are in the "real" world working and pushing for "real" change.

I completely agree with 'Me'. I've been an Apple and Mac buyer for over 20 years, and Apple's controlling tendencies have even started to sour me on their products lately. Apple is acting like a monopoly.

And MDN and its usual mob of fanboi followers, as usual, has it's typical ultra-right-wing, Ron Paul nutjob take on things. The EFF are the good guys. They seem strident at times, but they have to be considering what they are up against, a system where all of the power is stacked on the side of the large multinationals.

I find it fascinating that so many of you who wish to attack a messenger go so quickly to the homo-erotic sex double-entendres. I think you guys are hiding from your inner drag queens. Isn't it strange how many of the virulently gay-bashing 'responsibility' spouting jerks among you end up getting caught driving home from a gay club, or trying to get picked up by other men in airport bathrooms?

@Me: don't bother trying to convince the fanboi on MDN, they are blinded because Jobs keeps waving his d!ck in front of them.. they're all chanting "swallow.. swallow.."

The rest of the world agrees with you.

Look ... I'm a fan of Apple, but this "closed market" of the iPhone, and now the iPad, has got to stop. Next, Apple will start telling us how we can use our Macs ("No, you can't install that Application on your Mac as a) it is not in our App Store, and b) performs the same functions as our own App .... oh, and didn't we tell you that we want a slice of all your profits too?").

The unfortunate reality is Apple is trying to hold on, and control, too tightly ... tighten too much, and people will start slipping through the cracks looking for an alternative.

"I love Apple and their products. I am 100% a Mac guy."

You aren't a 100% Mac guy, you're a paid astroturfer reciting from the usual "Apple is closed!" script, as if the iPhone is supposed to make us forget everything they've done - and continue to do - in support of open and interoperable standards.

Speaking of which, your idea that being unable to "install whatever you want" on a platform makes it closed is laughable at best. Install whatever you want = open! is the same fallacious reasoning Microsoft uses to try and pretend the Windows ecosystem is open. In reality, whether or not you can install whatever you want on it isn't the measure of a closed platform.

The measure of a closed platform lies in its usage of proprietary "standards" such as DirectX or Internet Explorer's mutant form of HTML, these "standards" serve to close you into Microsoft's ecosystem by their inability to function in anyone else's ecosystem. The inherent purpose of a closed platform is to shackle you to it.

Apple, meanwhile, does one lousy fucking job of shackling people to its platform due to its support of open standards, since they aren't specific to the Mac OS. Whereas Microsoft tries to ensure that the Internet can only render correctly using IE, for example, Apple tries to to ensure it can render correctly on any platform - including Windows. That's the actual difference between the philosophies of closed and open.

Being able to install whatever you want isn't.

Now you've been painted in to a corner. If you want to keep arguing that Apple is oh so closed, then you'll also have to argue that Microsoft is oh so open. But how can you possibly do that while maintaining what's left of your facade of being "Mac guy", and having any semblance credibility? Answer: you can't.

Buh bye, and thanks for playing!

@Me/Tergenev/Slater/AJ

Another fanboi loser. I'm not forgetting everything they have done, that's why I keep using their stuff. Heaven forbid anyone would attack Apple, right? That's not allowed.

By your own admission Apple has done a lousy job of being open with the iPhone. They control everything going on it, legitimately. What you don't articulate in your post, what you are missing, whether intentional or not, is that the iPhone is becoming pervasive. That mobile computing is the new desktop operating system. It's potential customer base is huge beyond any proportion.

Now that Apple is a self-proclaimed mobile technology company, this is their focus, their bread and butter. And that's why people are putting pressure on them to be more open with it, just like people have pressured MS because of they have been a market leader in the desktop OS space. Now, Apple is the market leader in this new era of mobile computing. With that comes demands from customers in relation to fairness and openness.

What you don't address is the fact that Apple is acting just like MS did back in the heyday of operating systems. There is NO FULL BLOWN alternative to Safari, for starters. At least you could install another browser on Windows back then. You can't even do that on the iPhone, because Apple won't let you.

What about an iTunes Store alternative on the iPhone? You won't find one either, because Apple won't allow it.

Just keep ignoring these things little fanbois, and wank off on your MacBook Pros in your basement. You are all crazy, incredulous followers with no direction of your own.

Mar 10, 10 - 04:08 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@me

Who imagines wanking off on a MacBook in their basement? You're one sick puppy.

Only a Microsoft fanbois who wishes he could afford a MacBook Pro thinks like this, or maybe... a liar!

You fucking civilians in enterprise are all the same; the government is your welfare ticket. You're on the clock and yet you're here, wasting your boss's, and the government's time.

Loo-hoo-ser.

Apple and unscrupulous plutocrats like yourself will continue to thrive and nothing you can say will stop them.

The EFF, "... does acknowledge that the terms are not uncommon for end-user agreements..." So all this talk of imagined violations of the law is mental masturbation, and you know it.

G4Dualie:

You are an idiot. Everything you assumed about me is wrong. I work for myself and use Macs to make money. I rely on them. Everything I own is Apple. So no, I'm not a Microsoft guy. So the only time I'm wasting is mine.

Now, just like everyone else, you simply ignore what is wrong with Apple today, and focus on pedantics. I don't care what the EFF says, and this isn't now just about this agreement. The agreement was a springboard into a discussion about why Apple is controlling and monopolistic. The fact that the EFF says that the terms are not uncommon for end-users in iPhone software development does not erase this fact.

On the iPhone... no Safari alternative, no iTunes Store alternative... and, with the iPad, likely the same thing. Apple is controlling what is on their device and engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Also, they are now very publicly going after, with law suits, handset makers that, really, use touch/multi-touch gestures. I acknowledge that copyrights and patents in relation to IP is important, but the whole IP ecosystem is a mess. And when people sue Apple over little patents all the fanbois get up in arms. This is just another example of how Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. Go ahead, make a long list of excuses for Apple in relation to the 20 patent violations Apple claims that HTC has engaged in.

"Nearly all of the alleged infringements deal with interface activities and software functionality — items like remote access, using background processes and unlocking a phone through a gesture."

This is very weak. These patents are not unique to Apple, with many prior examples in patents available. And HTC has 13 years in this market, with an array of patents on their own.

This is really Apple wanting to monopolize the modern smartphone market, and it's all over multi-touch/user experience. And it is just like the GUI: Apple never invented the GUI, and they never invented multi-touch, they just have some patents in relation to computing devices, but so do many, many others. With the MS vs. Apple precedent setting case over the GUI, where Apple lost in 1993, I doubt Apple will be able to stymie competition through multi-touch patent disputes. The same thing is going to happen: they will likely lose. Touch/Multi-touch It will be something open to all technology companies, just like the GUI has been.

But here's controlling, monopolistic Apple flexing its muscles. And how hypocritical is Apple? There are many patents, for example, that Palm owns from many years past that relate to smartphones, and even touchscreens, where Apple could be implicated in patent infringement with the iPhone. But Palm never went after Apple, and we have not seen Apple go after Palm and their Pre with a law suit. The Pre is very similar to the iPhone, but no litigation.

Palm pioneered: touchscreen, handheld devices; the smartphone; operating system on handsets; computer syncing... blah blah, Apple was nowhere near first on these things. Then there's Sony's smartphones, Symbian, and the many other smartphone technologies that came way before Apple's iPhone. But Apple goes and calls the kettle black...

It's a losing battle for Apple because they face far more counter-suits than they would care to admit if they start going after people for obvious patents, where those people themselves can charge Apple with several patent infringements on their own.

So go take your, "Apple invents and innovates" BS and pound sand. There were many others before iPhone. This is all about multi-touch now.

Address these things you plebeian fools.

Uh oh... Looks like you don't know when it's Game Over.

"What you don't address is the fact that Apple is acting just like MS did back in the heyday of operating systems."

The reason I don't address that "fact" is because 1., you didn't mention it until now, and 2., it's complete bullshit. Back in the heyday of operating systems, retailers and OEMs that wanted to partner with Microsoft were forced to sign abusive license agreements that forbade them from supporting competing products. MS also embraced, extended, and extinguished every single standard it possibly could, turning them into proprietary Windows formats. Their goal was - and still is - to lock people into their hermetically sealed platform using closed "standards".

Meanwhile, Apple hasn't even once tried to force QVC to stop selling Dell netbooks in exchange for the privelage of selling iPhones, or created a mutant OpenGL implementation that can only function on OS X. I'd ask how you could be this ignorant, but we both know you're being ignorant on purpose because the Apple is the new Microsoft meme only works if you carefully ignore Microsoft's history.

"There is NO FULL BLOWN alternative to Safari, for starters. At least you could install another browser on Windows back then."

...And speaking of ignoring Microsoft's history, the reason that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was such a bad thing is because MS was using it as leverage to kill Netscape, turn Javascript into a proprietary language(JScript), and prevent the Internet from functioning on other platforms. In contrast, Mobile Safari doesn't have a single proprietary bone in its whole HTML renderer's body. The very 'worst' it can do is promote open standards. A monopoly of it causes exactly zero harm to the web, which seriously deflates your rhetoric.

As for your hollow wailing that Apple is being anticompetitive for suing HTC, the rest of the smartphone industry is currently failing to compete because all they can do is churn out iPhone copycats, and iPhone copycats don't sell. The only way for them to compete is to be original, and it looks as though that isn't going to happen unless they're actually forced via lawsuit.

Mar 10, 10 - 07:43 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

Hit a nerve did I?

I'm on my Touch at the moment so your response looks very lengthy, however as I scrolled past your diatribe a few phrases jumped out at me that stray way off topic, which leads me to believe I not only hit a nerve, I achieved a spinal tap.

The bottom line is, as an Apple shareholder I find your characterization of Apple a bit strained, and forced, which to me smacks of hypocracy!

Mar 10, 10 - 07:48 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

Hypocrisy, that is.

Apple gives us Safari, but no spell-check. Damn.

Idiots, and more of them.

Do you guys just sort of meet each other at the nerd lunch line and then head over to MDN to finish off your fanboi discussions?

>"What you don't address is the fact that Apple is acting just like MS did back in the heyday of operating systems."

>>"The reason I don't address that "fact" is because 1., you didn't mention it until now, and 2., it's complete bullshit."

It was discussed and implied, and it's not bullshit. The reason? Because as much as MS tried to own the standards, consumers were at least able to install another browser within the Windows operating system. Apple won't even allow you to install another browser, or another iTunes Store alternative. In this latter case, it can be considered a monopoly, and many people have called them out on it.

And they now have so much control they not only control what you can put on the device through a closed system, the App Store, but they control whether an App gets approved or not. If it competes with any of their own stuff, they deny it. And they use an anti-competitive App Store policy to do it. That has anti-trust implications. So we now have a situation where Apple won't even allow software developers to offer alternatives to certain applications owned by Apple.

Do you now understand how this is anti-competitive and monopolistic, and why people are pressing more and more on this issue, idiot?

"Meanwhile, Apple hasn't even once tried to force QVC to stop selling Dell netbooks in exchange for the privelage of selling iPhones, or created a mutant OpenGL implementation that can only function on OS X. I'd ask how you could be this ignorant, but we both know you're being ignorant on purpose because the Apple is the new Microsoft meme only works if you carefully ignore Microsoft's history."

I said it already, Apple promotes open standards, but that does not change their anti-competitive and monopolistic practices with the iPhone. That is, it does not make them open. The reason they promote open standards is to circumvent the big guys.

"...And speaking of ignoring Microsoft's history, the reason that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was such a bad thing is because MS was using it as leverage to kill Netscape, turn Javascript into a proprietary language(JScript), and prevent the Internet from functioning on other platforms. In contrast, Mobile Safari doesn't have a single proprietary bone in its whole HTML renderer's body. The very 'worst' it can do is promote open standards. A monopoly of it causes exactly zero harm to the web, which seriously deflates your rhetoric."

This is sort of a strawman. It's the very anti-competitive policy that is at issue here. Apple has not and, according to its policy, will not approve software that duplicates existing software built into the iPhone. If we think about that, there are serious implications for the competition. Imagine if MS had this policy... and they bundled Office and an iTunes like marketplace into Windows or even Mobile Windows... now you can't install Open Office for free, or iTunes if that is what you like. They wouldn't allow you to do that. And you are forced to pay for that bundled software. I'm sure you would be taking a different tone if this were MS.

So what's damaging about this is it locks consumers into what is really propriety software: no alternatives allowed.

Let's look at the iTunes Store app on the iPhone. That is a monopoly within the iPhone itself. Apple will not allow a competing service. This is undeniable. So consumers don't have a choice.

"As for your hollow wailing that Apple is being anticompetitive for suing HTC, the rest of the smartphone industry is currently failing to compete because all they can do is churn out iPhone copycats, and iPhone copycats don't sell. The only way for them to compete is to be original, and it looks as though that isn't going to happen unless they're actually forced via lawsuit."

They are not failing to compete. There are lots of Android based smartphones out there and people are happy with them. I wouldn't trade my iPhone for one but Android is not half bad.

The issue is Apple trying to protect weak, obvious and pre-established patents that they were not the first on to stymie competition.

Suck it.

Mar 10, 10 - 08:50 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Me

Now, just like everyone else, you simply ignore what is wrong with Apple today, and focus on pedantics

Really? Pedantries?

Au Contraire, Mon Frère, I firmly believe form follows function. You're the one whose hung up on the spiritualism and dogma associated with Apple, not me.

Let's keep this IP stance by Apple in perspective, shall we? Apple lost to Microsoft over technicalities and semantics in their written agreement, not because Microsoft was found innocent of the charges levied by Apple. That trial was an early-warning sign of the menace that is Microsoft and look where they ended up, a convicted felon. A repeat offender who couldn't reform.

Apple's lawsuit against HTC is weak? As in a weakness on the part of Apple? These twenty watered down patents are more than enough to keep HTC busy for years and even without so much as a trial, it will have served its purpose.

This lawsuit is way bigger than just Apple and HTC. IP and the Federal patent system will also be on trial.

My guess is, after HTCs initial position is made public, I expect a cease and desist order from Apple, barring the sales of all HTC smartphones until this is resolved.

This will be devastating to their bottom line. In the meantime, the Chinese government will be in a bit of a quandary; acknowledge Taiwan as an independent by funneling cash to HTC, or let them fight it out on their own, and serve as a lesson not to rebuke the PRC.

Anyway, good luck with your Chicken Little position on Apple.

Hi, again...

G4Dualie, the court case was not just lost because of the Windows 1.0 license agreement between Apple and MS, it was more involved than that, especially when looking at the Appeals.

"The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly borrowed many of its representations from Xerox and IBM and copyright protection only extends to original expression."

This is my point with likening multi-touch... and similar patents Apple is trying to protect on its iPhone (e.g., swipe to unlock), with the GUI battle as described above. That my prediction is that Apple will lose legal battles for similar reasons, and this will, at least, reduce their anti-competitive pursuits on this front. So just like Apple does not "own the GUI", so too will it be that they don't "own multi-touch or the multi-touch experience". From this, all their charges against companies like HTC will melt away into nothingness.

Apple doesn't get royalties from computer companies selling things that have GUIs; Apple doesn't get royalties from companies selling bitmap screens and mice... they don't own these things, they don't have a monopoly on those technologies. And I believe the same thing is going to happen with multi-touch. Everyone is going to be able to use it and Apple will not be entitled to royalties in the form of licenses because they cannot claim original expression. Software venders/programmers will be free to create their own multi-touch software and devices and sell them to consumers without infringing on any of Apple's patents.

Mar 10, 10 - 09:54 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@ I Me Mine

Not only do you own Apple products, you're making money using them, I guess that makes you a hypocrite of the highest order, doesn't it?

Idiot, indeed.

G4Dualie:

Commits himself to an ad hominem attack, because he has nothing left to say. This discussion is not about me or anything I do, it's about Apple, and their monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics. Me calling you and the other fanbois idiots isn't an ad hominem attack, it's just a fact.

Revisit this 1 and 2 years down the road and who is right about Apple's legal threats.

Take care fanboi idiot.

Mar 10, 10 - 10:49 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Me

That my prediction is that Apple will lose legal battles for similar reasons, and this will, at least, reduce their anti-competitive pursuits on this front.

Reduce is right.

If HTC has the balls to challenge Apple's position, to gamble it all to prove themselves righteous, it will give Apple ample time to establish their brand of mobile computing for posterity. That's all they need. This lawsuit serves Apple in other ways as well. By freezing the competition in their tracks and word has it, many of them are rethinking their products on the drawing board.

In time Apple will license its IP to all smartphone manufacturers and treble their revenue, making every smartphone on the planet an iPhone overnight.

The iPhone/iPad concept is young, historically speaking, but if its going to survive in the wild, it deserves all the help it can get, even if that means Apple's overprotection and camouflage. I'm okay with that, because as far as I'm concerned Apple is a pioneer and not a settler. Their blazing the trail in the mobile space using iTunes, the App Store, Mobile Me, and a soon-to-be fully-functional data center.

Apple is only evil if it disregards or flaunts, the courts ruling. So far, all we've heard in the distance is the grumbling of drums.

Your concern is welcomed but your attacks on imagined fanbois and what-if scenarios is over the top, much like your rhetoric.

Paranoid much?

When Apple shares nosedive because of their corporate shenanigans, they'll make corrections. But for the moment, your perceived characterization of Apple is totally without merit.

You lose all credibility when you say you own and make money using Apple's products. If fact, I suspect you work for the EFF, because the tone of your attacks smacks of their position regarding Apple.

"Apple can only get away with this scale because it is the lone gatekeeper for the iPhone, the EFF adds, acting as a 'jealous and arbitrary feudal lord.'""

They're right! Apple is getting away with it because they are the lone gatekeeper. So what?!

What are you going to do about it, besides cry about it in a forum full of mac faithful? Change our way of thinking about Apple? Is that really your intention here?

If not, what the fuck are you doing, except echoing what we are hearing from the EFF and of their allegations leveled at Apple?

Apple isn't doing anything illegal and I seriously doubt it will ever come to that. Unlike Microsoft, who shit the bed, Apple has more class than to become entwined in a laundry-airing public trial. We'll never see the kinds of Federal depositions of Steve Jobs, like those of Bill Gates. Those videos of Mrs. Gates' little boy Billy are golden, and I will treasure them forever.

Mar 10, 10 - 11:06 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Me

Commits himself to an ad hominem attack, because he has nothing left to say.

Then you agree, you're are a hypocrite of the highest order. You didn't address it. The fact is, you couldn't even scarf up a non-denial denial.

You work for the EFF, don't you? No one else would think of taking up your position, especially calling everyone here idiots, while hiding behind your anonymity.

You make some valid points, however we'll have to wait and see how it all turns out, won't we?

In the meantime, I suggest you become a member here at MDN and put your money where your mouth is. We insiders (members) talk about matters such as this all the time.

We're not as alarmed as you, nor do we resort to calling each other idiots simply because we are members and we don't suffer fools (anonymous outsiders) stirring up trouble over petty perceptions.

Do you know how many "Me's" come through here each month? You're just another "Me", a nobody, with an axe to grind against Apple. So what, we're pestered by your kind daily.

The only reason I took time to respond is because unlike most around here, you write well and are at least coherent, but the more you talk, the more you change and quite frankly, it's creepy.

See ya' around campus, pal.

G4Dualie™:

The only thing creepy is you hitting on girls.

G4Dualie:

1. First, I gain MORE credibility because I use Apple products. That means my position is more objective. I love Apple, yet I am not so bias that I accept and agree with everything they do. At the same time, I am not a Windows fanboi here to bash Apple because I just love Windows.

2. As for HTC gambling, shaking, having to cease selling their stuff... none of that has happened yet. Myself and several others have looked at the documentation, and as I stated, the case Apple has brought against HTC is weak. One example is the swipe to unlock patent. We have already discussed how difficult it would be for a technology company to win legal patent disputes based on look and feel stuff, unoriginal patents, etc. And HTC's position is calm and collected. They are confident because they are likely to counter-sue Apple. That was my point all along. Apple is playing with fire because their case against, let's be honest Android, is weak, and they themselves do not own original patents in relation to major features found on the iPhone where current competitors could turn around and sue them. So competitors have leverage against Apple, and a lot of it. Palm is one. They could sue Apple for patent infringements related to smartphone computer syncing; smartphone media exchange services; patents associated with their smartphone, touchscreen OS; mobile web browser, even though it was not great, they have originality on it; and many others. Remember, Palm was the first to really bring to the world the smartphone: the TREO 180. That was 2002, 5 years before iPhone. And Palm released a statement about all this just before their launch of the Pre. That they stood on a very solid patent base, and didn't worry about Apple coming at them legally, because they own so many patents in this space that they could easily counter-sue. And they are right. And Apple isn't stupid enough to sue Palm and instigate a counter-suit. And I haven't even begun talking about Sony and all their smartphone patents, particularly related to word processing on a mobile device and multi-media services for video and music, and so forth.

I really don't mind Apple protecting their IP, but this lawsuit is about stamping out Android, where their patent disputes are weak. If they were on stronger ground, if HTC phones really looked a lot like the iPhone, even with stolen code, etc., I would be 100% behind Apple. But HTC phones aren't cheap copies of the iPhone. They are less refined, but many are based on an open operating system and hardware that any manufacturer can buy. You won't find Apple A4 chips in there. You won't find iCal and Safari bundled in there.... you get my point. It's Android. It's Google that Steve is upset at, and very publicly so. It's all about the inclusion of multi-touch in Android Google branded Apps just a few months back and the Nexus One, Google's own phone.

Steve said that Google is trying to kill iPhone, and that he won't let them. This is all about Steve and his control, etc., his pursuit to stamp out Google's Android. As Steve said, Apple didn't get into Search, but now Google has gotten into handsets. That's why some of us are attacking Apple over this... it's just a spat between Steve and Google, and we are all caught in the cross-fire.

3. What am I doing here? Making objective calls on Apple, a company I happen to know a bit about and love. If everyone of us just followed along with every company and every government, how much freedom would we have? Apple deserves this criticism, and they are getting it all over the web. I don't stand alone. And I have already established that what they are doing with cancelling iPhone application competition, especially in relation to the iTunes Store, is anti-competitive and monopolistic. And I did forget to mention that with Safari locked in there, we don't have much choice in terms of search engines, do we? It's Google or Yahoo, and if the rumors are true, that might change to MS Bing and Yahoo. How happy will you be then? Right, you want choice, so you won't be happy about this. What about iPhone users dedicated to the Amazon marketplace that want an Amazon marketplace app on the iPhone, instead of the iTunes Store? No choice pal... on and on...

There are some serious laws in place that are there to stop this kind of thing. So before you say Apple is doing nothing illegal, think about what has been said here a little bit more, and insert other company names and see if you still stand for it.

Here's an interesting video I saw a while ago about Schiller and Apple PR people ducking a question about iTunes acting as a monopoly on the iPod. They looked really nervous. So they should I guess when someone is charging them as acting as a monopoly, but it's interesting nonetheless. They all have these guilty faces and demeanours characteristic of bad children. The implication for me is that they have all had meetings about this kind of stuff, because they know it's true or at least a major issue for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMGwpjDdhZo

"The reason? Because as much as MS tried to own the standards, consumers were at least able to install another browser within the Windows operating system."

Which was absolutely meaningless, given that Microsoft actively prevented other browsers from working correctly on the web by leveraging Internet Explorer's proprietary HTML, JScript, and ActiveX. MS excells at presenting the false illusion of choice, and graciously allowing consumers to install terminally crippled alternatives to IE is a perfect example.

It's at this point that your attempts to paint Apple as the new Microsoft have entirely fallen apart - you're now going around in circles as you ignore every salient point that contradicts you. I've already explained why comparing the prevailance of Mobile Safari to IE's toxic monopoly is a complete joke best at, so I'm not going to rehash it.

"And they now have so much control they not only control what you can put on the device through a closed system"

Likewise, I've already explained that what makes a closed platform closed is its use of proprietary formats, which serve to lock people into said platform. Being able to "install whatever you want" is a whole seperate issue, despite what you and Microsoft would both like to wishfully believe. I'm not going to rehash that, either.

"The reason they promote open standards is to circumvent the big guys. "

No, the reason they support open standards is to prevent an abusive monopolist(a la Microsoft) from taking personal computing hostage again. To claim it's because they want to circumvent the "big guys" is cringeworthy, considering that not only is Apple one of the big guys itself, open standards provide no advantage to the Mac ecosystem. They circumvent Apple as well, which is the point of open standards - to make sure no single vendor can become the Mayor of Computertown

"So what's damaging about this is "

Very little, since Apple doesn't leverage proprietary formats in an attempt to chain consumers to their hardware.

"So consumers don't have a choice."

Consumers have the choice to not buy an iPhone. Your dishonest FUD is about as valid as proclaiming that McDonalds is an anti-competetive monopolist because you can only get a BigMac with their hamburger patties and their special sauce.

"They are not failing to compete."

....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Being outsold by a wide margin doesn't mean Android handsets are failing to compete with the iPhone? I don't understand. Please explain.

"First, I gain MORE credibility because I use Apple products. "

You've got that slightly backwards. You lose credibility for pretending to use Apple products.