Developer suing Apple for (again) for stolen keyboard on new Apple Watch

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While it might not be as clear cut as it's made out publicly...one does have to notice that Apple seems to have a habit of doing this kind of thing.  They did it with Tile (blocked their access to an API that would have increased accuracy and then announced a competing product, and I believe there was more as well), they did that with using the volume rocker to take a picture (killed the app that supported it, under "didn't meet UI standards" and then released their own camera).

Oh, it's absolutely a habit. It's just a question of how intentional it is. My theory is that Apple isn't quite so malicious as that, since it's doubtful app approval teams are aware of Apple's upcoming product launches. Hell, even its hardware teams rarely know what a complete product looks like before it's made public. Rather, it's that the company doesn't want third-party apps having deep-level access to the OS or mimicking core functions, and when those rejected apps turn out to be parallels to features Apple was already developing... that's when the fighting starts. Still rough and not exactly considerate of developers, but not a sinister scheme to copy indie apps, either.

[GreatnessRD]

Run that mans his monies! Not gonna hurt Apple in the slightest, so run that man his coins, haters!

[StDragon]

1 minute ago, GreatnessRD said:

Run that mans his monies! Not gonna hurt Apple in the slightest, so run that man his coins, haters!

Can I get a translation of that?

[GreatnessRD]

3 hours ago, StDragon said:

Can I get a translation of that?

Apple needs to pay that man. 

[Vishera]

13 hours ago, Commodus said:

My theory is that Apple isn't quite so malicious as that, since it's doubtful app approval teams are aware of Apple's upcoming product launches.

But if the order is given by the executives,the team won't know why and the executives acting with malice can't be ruled out.

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, Vishera said:

But if the order is given by the executives,the team won't know why and the executives acting with malice can't be ruled out.

Until we have evidence of that, though, we can't make assumptions. Reality has a way of being far more boring than we care to admit.

[Video Beagle]

19 hours ago, Commodus said:

Until we have evidence of that, though, we can't make assumptions. Reality has a way of being far more boring than we care to admit.

How are you the reasonable one in this thread? Are you feeeling ok?

[WolframaticAlpha]

Suggested reading:

Apple’s $64 billion-a-year App Store isn’t catching the most egregious scams - The Verge

FlickType sues Apple for fraud and abuse of monopoly - The Washington Post

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

How are you the reasonable one in this thread? Are you feeeling ok?

It's pretty reasonable to acknowledge that issues like these are seldom clear-cut, and that the developer might not be as innocent as it claims. It's also reasonable to want evidence of an intentional conspiracy rather than making the logical leap of "B followed A, therefore A caused B." You need to show that Apple blocked FlickType solely because it was going to compete with an upcoming watchOS 8 feature, not because it was mistakenly approved despite violating App Store rules.

 

Unreasonable to me is making assumptions when the historical evidence is spotty. Apple has a clear history of "Sherlocking," but not much of a history of blocking those apps it intends to compete against. And Apple's case for blocking this app may have been fairly solid.

[Vishera]

23 hours ago, Commodus said:

Until we have evidence of that, though, we can't make assumptions. Reality has a way of being far more boring than we care to admit.

Considering the nature of capitalism and Apple's history of abuse,my theory is not baseless and completely logical.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

Considering the nature of capitalism and Apple's history of abuse,my theory is not baseless and completely logical.

Not completely baseless and it has a degree of logic, but it's still far from an airtight case. It's like assuming a thief is guilty of robbing a store because he happened to be in the store when the stick-up took place. You still have to make that final connection... otherwise, you're just using the easiest target, not the correct target.

[Vishera]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Not completely baseless and it has a degree of logic, but it's still far from an airtight case. It's like assuming a thief is guilty of robbing a store because he happened to be in the store when the stick-up took place. You still have to make that final connection... otherwise, you're just using the easiest target, not the correct target.

I get you,as long as it's not proven you can't know for sure that it happened.

You need proof to get to a conclusion.

 

As a man of science that's something that i believe in,but here it conflicts with my gut feeling and i chose to believe my gut feeling in this case.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Vishera said:

 

As a man of science that's something that i believe in,but here it conflicts with my gut feeling and i chose to believe my gut feeling in this case.

And it conflicts with undeniable previous behavior.    I mean,  when it smells like shit, looks like shit and tastes like shit,  good chance it is shit.

 

 

[Kisai]

22 hours ago, Commodus said:

It's pretty reasonable to acknowledge that issues like these are seldom clear-cut, and that the developer might not be as innocent as it claims. It's also reasonable to want evidence of an intentional conspiracy rather than making the logical leap of "B followed A, therefore A caused B." You need to show that Apple blocked FlickType solely because it was going to compete with an upcoming watchOS 8 feature, not because it was mistakenly approved despite violating App Store rules.

 

To me it seems like it was probably discovered to do something that violates the guidelines (which in this case appears to be "duplicate functionality" after-the-fact) but perhaps there actually was a functionality problem, like draining the battery or something. Maybe it was written in a way that was insecure. Consider the problem software keyboards have already on touch-enabled OS's, where it will pop up at inopportune times and access auto-complete dictionaries that it might have stored information that needs to be private.

 

22 hours ago, Commodus said:

Unreasonable to me is making assumptions when the historical evidence is spotty. Apple has a clear history of "Sherlocking," but not much of a history of blocking those apps it intends to compete against. And Apple's case for blocking this app may have been fairly solid.

Honestly, I find claims of Sherlocking to be a bit dubious. Some things are a coincidence, and somethings are clearly going to be using data mining to discover why "something" is popular via telemetry tracking.  As the referenced torch (flashlight) feature is a good example of "just about anyone would have made that app, and prior to an app existing, they might have just run the light on by starting a video"

 

To the extent that I care. Apple is big enough to either buy or license software/features that it deem to be a good value add-on to their hardware, hence all the included software on MacOS X that there's no equivalent to on Windows. Yet nothing stops you from installing software side-by-side with a competitors otherwise-identical-functional product. Microsoft got slapped for including TWO pieces of software (MSIE and Windows Media Player) that co-opted functionality and made it hard to use competing software on the OS, and has actually doubled-down on the "default to microsoft software" since Windows 8/8.1/10 which could be argued as beneficial to prevent software from hijacking those defaults.

 

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

To me it seems like it was probably discovered to do something that violates the guidelines (which in this case appears to be "duplicate functionality" after-the-fact) but perhaps there actually was a functionality problem, like draining the battery or something. Maybe it was written in a way that was insecure. Consider the problem software keyboards have already on touch-enabled OS's, where it will pop up at inopportune times and access auto-complete dictionaries that it might have stored information that needs to be private.

Just a reminder, they've had their App likely reviewed 20+ times (as each update it would have been reviewed).  The way the guidelines are written, probably 90% of the apps are in some violation of the UI design guidelines.  They spelled it out quite clearly in the email that it's because it's a keyboard app for the iWatch (which Apple has apparently decreed as not being allowed).

 

By "duplicate functionality" after the fact, do you mean because they now offer a keyboard?  If so, well that kind of is still messed up (and shouldn't be allowed).  Just because Apple starts offering something, doesn't mean they should be able to yank out the ability for the user to choose (especially if it existed before the feature).

 

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I find claims of Sherlocking to be a bit dubious. Some things are a coincidence, and somethings are clearly going to be using data mining to discover why "something" is popular via telemetry tracking.  As the referenced torch (flashlight) feature is a good example of "just about anyone would have made that app, and prior to an app existing, they might have just run the light on by starting a video"

I don't necessarily have an issue with "Sherlocking" when it's them coming out with a product, and competing fairly (like the flashlight App, it doesn't really matter).  The issue is when they are doing things like this, where they pull a competitor from an app store, with timing right before the their release.  They did similar with Tile, where they denied access to the U1 chip so they couldn't complete their product (which Apple knew they were developing) and then Apple announced there own product only made possible with the U1 chip...while saying competitors could use the "find my" API (which conveniently would mean all the subscribers would become more involved with the Apple ecosystem). [Actually there was even more indepth with the Tile store, where they were invited to Apple to demonstrate their product as well].

 

You also  have the camera, with using the volume as a trigger.  The camera app that implemented it got kicked out for repurposing the volume, but then Apple came out with that feature.  There has been quite a bit of history now that I think it at least requires some judicial review into whether to open a case into Apple to see the internal communications from the execs regarding these kinds of activities

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

By "duplicate functionality" after the fact, do you mean because they now offer a keyboard?  If so, well that kind of is still messed up (and shouldn't be allowed).  Just because Apple starts offering something, doesn't mean they should be able to yank out the ability for the user to choose (especially if it existed before the feature).

 

Yes. Because when you decide to torpedo a potential competitor by basically cloning their software, it looks like you're trying to actively harm them, rather than, you know a natural evolution of the software. They could have headed this off by simply making work like iOS and allow the alternative keyboards to co-exist.

 

[Video Beagle]

20 hours ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I find claims of Sherlocking to be a bit dubious.

The entire idea of "Sherlocking" is a bit dubious.

 

"Watson" (note the name) was a plug-in/side piece for Sherlock 2, as in a program that had already evolved to gain more functionality from it's first version. Watson used Sherlock for online searches (IIRC, it's been what, 25+ years? I remember I used it way back in the when)....It's not exactly like the idea of what it was doing wasn't an obvious next step for the main program for it's next version.

 

Hell, should be called "Flashlighting" because an on/off switch for the camera light isn't an evolution of something that's there already.