[HN Gopher] Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then anno...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone
of it
Author : kilotaras
Score : 919 points
Date : 2021-09-15 11:22 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.inputmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.inputmag.com)
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I thought the reason why iOS blocked both SMS apps and Keyboard
| apps is because they wanted to ensure rogue app developers aren't
| invading your privacy and/or spamming (e.g. key loggers or
| sending SMS you didn't compose).
| Bud wrote:
| Yes. Because it was. And it was, and remains, a good reason.
|
| I get why the developer might be ticked, in this case, but I
| still think it's a stretch to speak of "cloning" a very very
| basic QWERTY keyboard, and the breathtakingly-original concept
| of putting a keyboard onto a touchscreen. /s
|
| As if that is some kind of grand-scale theft of intellectual
| property. Please.
| croes wrote:
| Doesn't sound basic to me
|
| "Limited Vision. FlickType is designed to be as accessible as
| possible, featuring large keys, highly readable visual
| announcements, high-contrast color themes, and much more.
|
| Type With Your Ears. FlickType can speak back to you when you
| type or edit, enabling a completely eyes-free writing
| experience. People who are blind write millions of words
| every month using it, typing just as fast as everyone else.
|
| Comfortably Smart. Say goodbye to painfully slow editing
| operations. Delete and change entire words with a single
| flick of your finger. Control the cursor directly from the
| keyboard. When typing, don't slow down and try to be
| accurate. Simply tap-type where it feels right and
| FlickType's unique algorithm will find the correct word from
| the pattern of your taps."
| system16 wrote:
| That dismissive argument could be used for virtually any app
| on the App Store. Developers are limited in nature by the
| APIs Apple expose, so there is very little chance of anything
| breathtakingly original appearing on the platform.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| He probably feels like an antivirus vendor on the Windows
| platform.
| ajay-b wrote:
| Classic Apple.
| KETpXDDzR wrote:
| Reminds me of Amazon copying successful products as "Amazon
| Basic" articles.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-uses-seller-data-copy...
| throwthere wrote:
| Meh. The problem is FlickType requires network access during use.
| The App store licensing is ok with keyboards, it's not ok with
| keyboards that get network access. This, Apple perceives as a
| major privacy issue-- one for the possibility of keylogging, but
| also for the broader possibility of the always-on logging that
| the weather apps are infamous for.
|
| edit: Sorry, I didn't include the source, the Developer License
| Agreement. Here's a link (relevant section on page 23) --
| https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-de...
| danachow wrote:
| Go read your link carefully. Page 23 not only does not disallow
| network access, it specifically allows logging it and
| stipulates what can be done with that data.
|
| " keystroke logging done by any such extension must be clearly
| disclosed to the end-user prior to any such data being sent
| from an iOS Product, and notwithstanding anything else in
| Section 3.3.9, such data may be used only for purposes of
| providing or improving the keyboard functionality of Your
| Application (e.g., not for serving advertising);"
| regnerba wrote:
| According to this tweet from the author, that isn't the reason
| Apple gave for removing it:
| https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1437845736951992321
|
| They simply said keyboards on the watch are not allowed.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Why does Apple enable a feature that no one is allowed to use?
| assert !(KEYBOARD_ACCESS && NETWORK_ACCCESS)
|
| is much cheaper than manually checking every app.
| danachow wrote:
| You're kidding right? There is no such restriction on
| keyboards. How do you think the Bitmoji keyboard works?
| Someone wrote:
| The weird thing is: it only required network access if you used
| it while VoiceOver is off
| (https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-
| ke...)
|
| I can't think of a technical reason for that.
| amiantos wrote:
| As with all things on the internet, and especially people
| complaining loudly about something, there's obviously more to
| the story. The guy complaining isn't going to tell us the
| entire unfettered truth and explain why his app needs this
| network access, and Apple isn't going to say anything because
| they literally do not care what a bunch of techie people
| think. The whole story stank of BS from the beginning, but
| people online love supporting the person who portrays
| themselves as an underdog battling the big evil company, so
| they set their critical thinking skills aside and jump on the
| bandwagon.
| jclardy wrote:
| You'll be surprised to know that Apple is quite fine with
| keyboards using network access. That is literally why the "Full
| Access" switch exists. Without it, the keyboard is fully
| sandboxed. It can receive input from the container app, but
| nothing can get out. It is surprisingly a user choice,
| something Apple will rarely give up on iOS.
|
| The rejection was only because the app existed on the Apple
| Watch, and it was only rejected after the reviewer knew the new
| Apple watch would include the same feature (Note, you can't use
| this feature on < 2021 apple watches, you have to pay to play.)
| marcellus23 wrote:
| The rejection was because Apple never allowed keyboard apps
| on the watch. The idea of bringing a full keyboard to the
| watch isn't exactly the groundbreaking innovation many people
| here are acting like it is. Do people really think Apple
| stole the idea from this guy?
| emadabdulrahim wrote:
| You're missing the point.
|
| They rejected his app while going ahead and releasing a
| clone. Why?
| lostmsu wrote:
| No, these two events were separated by more than a year.
| The rejection was appealed in 2 months.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Apple has a history of taking features from apps and
| calling it their own. Instapaper is an example.
| modo_mario wrote:
| >The rejection was because Apple never allowed keyboard
| apps on the watch.
|
| Weird because it did.
|
| -offer to buy the keyboard. -don't come to agreement.
| -refuse to remove scam copycats. -ban keyboard. -release
| own keyboard.
| st3fan wrote:
| There is no list of types of applications that are allowed
| or not allowed.
| jjcon wrote:
| >FlickType requires network access during use. The App store
| licensing is ok with keyboards, it's not ok with keyboards that
| get network access
|
| This is 100% false. Apples own keyboard as well as gboard from
| google both require network access to facilitate gif, search
| support etc
| mabbo wrote:
| This is the key problem when a market-maker is also a market
| participant. When the same entity setting the market rules,
| deciding who is violating them, and collecting the market data is
| also an active competitor against everyone else in that market.
|
| It's not a fair playing field. Apple knows that, but pretends
| that it is.
|
| I say it's a problem, but I don't have a solution. It's hard to
| say "Apple can't make apps for the iPhone". Or "Amazon can't sell
| stuff on Amazon". Or "Google can't by ad space on Google Ads".
|
| There clearly needs to be some sort of laws to restrict these
| kinds of behaviours, to encourage a diverse and open economy
| rather than rigged games.
| rebuilder wrote:
| I guess that leaves "Apple can't dictate what programs can be
| run on iPhones"
| VortexDream wrote:
| No, there's a huge difference between locking out competitors
| entirely from offering the same kind of app Apple is and,
| say, removing an app for being adware.
|
| Anticompetitive behavior is more subjecting third party apps
| to rules that their own apps aren't subject to. Or
| arbitrarily changing the rules to suit their own apps. Any
| number of behaviors really that affect competitors and
| prevent them from competing with Apple's apps.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| A legal solution might be something like: Apple cannot prevent
| people from installing or updating apps from sources outside of
| their store.
| kamkazemoose wrote:
| One solution would be to force Apple to break up into seperate
| firms. So you have Apple App Store, and Apple app maker as
| seperate firms, and Apple app maker is required to be treated
| as any other app developer in the app store.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| >This is the key problem when a market-maker is also a market
| participant.
|
| Yes! During the last US election cycle I thought Elizabeth
| Warren was smart to make a point of this about Amazon... I
| don't think this issue gets enough attention and very few
| people seem to care.
|
| There are numerous ways this is an unfair practice, and the
| problem gets worse as the marketplace owner continues to grow
| and devour competitors.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-criticizes-...
| tumblewit wrote:
| So here is how I see it for these big tech companies(I know it's
| terrible but I believe that's just how it is sadly).
|
| Medical professionals have malpractice insurance / budget where
| if a doctor was to make a mistake and was sued for it then it is
| used to settle. Similarly companies like Apple seem to feel like
| they keep doing what is right for their own personal interests
| and profits while at the same time set aside money to settle such
| cases and see it as collateral damage. Even if you were to get a
| tough judge in a case like this you'd still as Apple at best get
| a slap on the wrist with a few hundred thousand or a million in
| fines to some individual developer. The only difference between
| medical professionals and big tech is that once a medical
| professionals licence is pulled he can't practice medicine again.
| I wonder what similar punishment big tech should get for pulling
| such stunts.
| scns wrote:
| Set aside? Just take it from the penny jar that is as big as a
| small country.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| At the end of the day the Apple App Store leadership needs to
| clearly make clear in the terms of service that there is a
| possibility Product people who internally take credit for most of
| these features may copy the app features and set the expectations
| really really low. No more handwringing on AppStore bans and
| copying features. Just come out and say we do it, so 3rd party
| developers are not glimmery eyed.
| [deleted]
| whatever1 wrote:
| Unless they can establish theft of IP, I don't think that
| Eleftheriou has any chance to win on the grounds of monopolistic
| behavior. Apple can claim that they were developing for years the
| feature and did not release it for UX reasons. Apple also does
| not charge for the app, so consumers were not harmed.
|
| I think that spotify has a much stronger case, given the fact
| that apple is selling a directly competing service with an
| obvious price and bundling / integration advantage
| probably_wrong wrote:
| > _Apple also does not charge for the app, so consumers were
| not harmed._
|
| As far as I understand, those two things are unrelated. Lack of
| competition by itself is considered to hurt consumers. Assuming
| that Apple's choice was based on monopolistic behavior (which
| is for the courts to decide), whether they got money while
| doing it is not relevant.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| Very typical of Apple, using opaque approval procedures. They're
| acting like bullies because they didn't get what they wanted and
| because they have the money/power to do so. Apple wanted to buy
| FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou
| didn't want to sell (I doubt it), and so from then onwards
| started the downhill ride. I fully support Eleftheriou on this
| just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have
| agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from what I had
| in mind) just so that we could all be happy right now ;-)
| VortexDream wrote:
| It's because of this kind of stuff that I wanted the Epic case
| about anticompetitive behavior to be successful. Unfortunately,
| they blew past this whole issue and focused solely on the issue
| of the store tax and payment processing. So we're stuck with
| crap like this.
| sva_ wrote:
| > just so that we could all be happy right now
|
| To be honest, I'm quite happy about big companies revealing
| their ugly real face. And some people might benefit from such a
| reality-check.
| yummypaint wrote:
| I wish the plaintiffs luck in court. I remember apples
| courtroom privateering where they persuaded the justice
| system they invented rounded corners and got their
| competitors phones pulled from the market. If only the same
| standards and rigor of enforcement could actually apply to
| them.
|
| Once all is said and done I suspect whatever apple has to pay
| will not meaningfully impact their profitability, and will be
| seen as a cost of doing business. This is a core reason these
| companies are so caustic. Penalties need to be harsh enough
| to make this behavior unprofitable. The board needs to be
| pissed at their executives.
| atatatat wrote:
| Larger discussion:
|
| Is this what being a hacker is now?
|
| Knowing your project is going to get stomped out with
| uncompetitive practices from day 1,
|
| still doing and carrying it all the the way through to
| court with a big player?
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| 25 years ago, that was still the hacker ethos. Linux
| stood _no chance_ against the commercial operating
| systems of the day, and Microsoft was in the process of
| accretion to a similar position Apple is in today. Yet,
| against all odds, David sprouted wings and Goliath
| kneeled.
| andrekandre wrote:
| how much of this was initially enabled by the anti-trust
| settlement and subsequent restrictions on microsofts
| behavior?
| rjzzleep wrote:
| For reference[1].
|
| Apple also managed to cause lasting damage to HTC as a
| brand when they ventured into the US. I don't HTC ever
| recovered from that, although it might not have been the
| only problem they had.
|
| [1] https://morningconsult.com/opinions/apple-v-samsung-
| scotus-s...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Seems like small pickles compared to Android brands
| damaging themselves by not supporting their own devices
| with software updates after 18 months.
|
| That is what drove me away. I assume this is still true,
| and my iOS devices will receive software updates for
| longer than Android devices.
| Sunspark wrote:
| I would rather use an unsupported device that has the
| ability to do a variety of things than a supported device
| that doesn't allow various features which is the case
| with iOS for me. With Apple, it's their way or the
| highway.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I understand, but in terms of mass market appeal, most
| people just want to be able to safely take pics and share
| them and participate in group chats and browse the web
| and play some games.
|
| Granted, most people would not be able to discern
| security updates and software updates or maybe even care
| about them nowadays, but back when the ecosystems and
| reputations were being established in early 2010s,
| Android vendors really dropped the ball. Everyone could
| see their relatives continuing to use iPhone 4 and iPhone
| 5 a couple more years and getting visibly updated for a
| couple more years than competing Androids (even from
| Google themselves!).
|
| The resell value of iPhones was more as well, and I
| assume many or most people figured out that the
| probability of iOS devices outlasting competing Android
| devices was high.
| Damogran6 wrote:
| So do the hackers and Zero Day Exploit day traders.
| nisegami wrote:
| This is so pointless, but I feel like 0-day exploit
| sellers benefit if everyone is up to date, as it means
| you need a 0-day to exploit those devices (making those
| exploits more valuable). But if everyone is running out
| of date software, who cares if it's a 0-day?
| windexh8er wrote:
| > I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle,
| but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large
| sum from Apple (even lower from what I had in mind) just so
| that we could all be happy right now ;-)
|
| Seems like Apple has a very anti-competitive position, no?
|
| To me this goes all the way back to the walled garden argument.
| Apple sat on, what some may consider, a straw man arguing that
| they couldn't deliver security to their customers without it.
| Fast forward all these years and Apple's walled garden seems to
| be failing rather regularly for the trifecta of their: users,
| developers and the system in general. Users get less choice in
| the app store when Apple wants to compete directly, developers
| with good ideas who aren't willing to sell out to Apple will
| pay the price of their livelihood drying up over night if you
| don't give Apple what they want and finally we get things like
| no-click zero days on a routine basis these days.
| Terretta wrote:
| > walled garden argument
|
| A _watch_ is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its
| OS?
|
| Either these are not general computing devices or there's no
| line, a fridge or microwave _or a console_ are general
| computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make
| a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts
| without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and
| secure it dragging in that new threat model.
| atatatat wrote:
| I'd agree with you 100% conceptually, if not for the fact
| I've been personally left to improve the security on every
| phone and computer I've been offered by the market since my
| birth.
| shawnz wrote:
| Why was AT&T forced to allow third party landline
| telephones on their network? Those aren't general purpose
| computing devices either, right?
| jacquesm wrote:
| If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a
| walled garden. Simple, no?
| Razengan wrote:
| So why has there never been a horde of torches and
| pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo
| yet?
|
| And don't squeeze out that "cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs"
| bullshit. They're closer to computers than a goddamn
| wristwatch.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I honestly could not tell you, but that's a
| 'whataboutism' argument, we are not talking about Xbox,
| PlayStation or Nintendo here. But to the extent that they
| determine what can and can not be shipped on their
| platform they are - to me - just as much a walled garden.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I'd wager a lot of it has to do with history. Gaming
| consoles were always proprietary hardware that could only
| do things approved by the manufacturer, and were
| purchased with that understanding, unless you did some
| hacking. Computers were always open platforms that you
| purchased and then could do what you wanted with, no
| hacking required. iOS was the first major market
| computing platform that broke this general understanding.
| sircastor wrote:
| > iOS was the first major market computing platform that
| broke this general understanding.
|
| I think the reason this worked, and the reason it's still
| sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a
| phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a
| super-powered iPod, not a computer.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| The phone computers that came before it didn't have
| walled gardens either. Palm, for instance.
| windexh8er wrote:
| It's a good point, but consoles _were_ single purpose
| computers. They exist to play games. Now, I 'll agree
| that the line is blurred these days, but they're still
| generally gaming machines. Nobody is buying an XBox to
| stream Netflix solely.
|
| I think the difference is that Apple wants people to buy
| these devices as your primary computing device. Are you
| OK when Apple locks down the Mac line? What if you
| couldn't use Brew to install open source software? For a
| not insignificant portion of their buyers that may be OK.
|
| I agree that consoles have their own anti-competitive
| issues, but they're not the same. Copy-cat games have
| always existed. The difference is that Sony's not going
| to pull a Rockstar game exclusively built for their
| platform to directly compete. So while I'm trying to see
| the parallel, it's not quite the same in my opinion.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's not so much about copycat games per-se but about the
| ability to run whatever software you want on a device
| that you own, and in that respect those games consoles
| are quite good representations of the walled garden
| concept.
|
| In fact, the 'general purpose computer' will historically
| be seen as some kind of very stupid aberration, who ever
| thought that giving end users that kind of power was a
| good idea? /s
| Terretta wrote:
| Software is not different from hardware. Digital parts
| aren't magic, bring no magic rights, it's still just
| boring old parts someone invested in engineering into a
| product.
|
| Even in digital, beige box server, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS,
| FaaS, applications, devices, apps, screens... different
| waterlines, none of them magic. Which waterline do you
| have the right to "run whatever you want"? Which
| waterline is a business ok to say, from here down, it's
| my product?
|
| Anti-circumvention laws saying DRM means hands off
| altogether are different from saying a maker must take
| extra steps to make it easier for you to mod the device
| they invested R&D in, must allow your mod at potential
| harm to other mods on the device, or a maker must change
| their business model to facilitate malware and benevolent
| app devs alike.
|
| There's a market segment for beige boxes and Raspberry
| PIs. Not every device with digital parts supporting
| digital mods, plug-ins, add-ons, cartridges, apps,
| whatever you call them, has to be _forced_ to be a
| Raspberry Pi.
|
| You have a right to remove the warning label from your
| mattress, or root your phone, but Sealy doesn't have to
| perforate the tag and Samsung doesn't have to give you a
| toggle.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Software is not different from hardware.
|
| I'm sorry but this is where I'm going to have to bow out
| of the conversation.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| I don't see this as a "features" problem. I think the
| correct way to approach this is in terms of "control". By
| designing their devices that way (non-unlockable
| bootloaders, signature verification on every app or
| executable with hardcoded public keys etc) companies have
| essentially introduced a new paradigm in which the legal
| owner of the device has less control over it than its
| manufacturer. _That_ is the issue here.
| jrockway wrote:
| Yeah. What people are complaining about is cryptography
| to prevent them from using their thing as they wish.
| Nobody is demanding API documentation from Sony, people
| are happy to reverse engineer that. But it doesn't matter
| because you can't give the machine valid code and have it
| execute, for no good reason other than that you don't
| know a magic number.
|
| The problem is that building platforms is expensive and
| if people can use your thing for whatever they want, that
| thing that they want is often not giving you money. My
| conclusion is that there shouldn't even be game consoles.
| They're just a tax on everyone that wants to play games.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| > Nobody is buying an XBox to stream Netflix solely.
|
| What if I want to? I don't particularly care what the
| manufacturer thinks, I bought the machine. Why does
| Microsoft gets a pass to dictate what I can do with the
| hardware I bought?
|
| See for example people that bought PS3s for operating
| distributed clusters (because at the time the console WAS
| open) and then Sony locked down other OSes with an
| update. Why is this fair?
|
| https://www.itwriting.com/blog/2394-sony-locks-down-the-
| ps3-...
|
| > I think the difference is that Apple wants people to
| buy these devices as your primary computing device.
|
| How can a wristwatch be a primary computing device?
| sircastor wrote:
| > Are you OK when Apple locks down the Mac line? What if
| you couldn't use Brew to install open source software?
|
| I've wondered about this for a while. After about 2015
| when the MBP was steadily losing features and gaining
| problems I was certain that my next machine couldn't be a
| Mac. I was certain that the Mac would be rapidly becoming
| a glorified iPhone.
|
| The trick is, I don't know where to draw that line. One
| thought about jumping ship to Linux full time, but I
| haven't been able to trust the setup. I've heard Windows
| with WLS is good, but haven't tried it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've been using Linux as my daily driver since 2004 or so
| and I haven't looked back. And the only reason I used
| windows as long as I did was because I had a business
| that depended on our ability develop a particular windows
| binary as well as some bookkeeping software. But
| bookkeeping can be outsourced and that windows
| application is long gone.
| Terretta wrote:
| "these devices" was a _watch_
| pwinnski wrote:
| You're talking about Macs. This thread is about watches.
|
| I'm struggling to see any argument about watches that
| doesn't apply at least as much to game consoles.
| dding wrote:
| It's not about if devices are general computing devices
| or if the device maker can moderate third-party apps on
| its platform. Apple invited other developers to sell apps
| on a market it created and regulates. It also competes
| with those developers in this market. And in this case,
| it used its power as the market's regulator to remove a
| competitor and promote its own app.
|
| Nintendo, Sony, etc also allow other developers to sell
| apps on markets they created, and they also compete with
| those developers. If Nintendo ever removes a platforming
| game for competing with the Mario series, we should also
| raise our pitchforks and protest against unfair abuse of
| power.
| sircastor wrote:
| Arguably, there has been. It's harder to see because the
| interface is different in those cases. It's not as
| public. Developers have been trying to get around game
| console lock out for as long as it's existed. Nintendo's
| licensing was very restricted with the NES, and it really
| annoyed a lot of software developers.
|
| Same case with XBox and PS. You can't willy nilly write a
| game for either platform.
|
| For some reason the unlicensed cartridge that always
| comes to mind for me is the powder blue Bible stories
| game.
| salamandersauce wrote:
| I feel like it was far more fair pre-OTA updates. EA for
| example famously strong armed Sega when they reverse
| engineered the Genesis allowing them the right to make
| their own cartridges (which is why EA games look
| different) and better terms than what they otherwise
| would have gotten.
|
| These days if a company tried that
| Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft would just laugh and issue a
| firmware update "improving system stability" three weeks
| later bricking any unlicensed games in the process.
|
| There was even a handful of unlicensed titles for PS2/GC.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And this is now also brought to vehicles, TVs and many
| other devices, more often than not to fix broken business
| models or extract more revenue or spy on users instead of
| to fix bugs.
| fsociety wrote:
| Huh? Most console games today aren't exclusives,
| developers have the freedom to release them on any
| platform they want with little restriction, and there is
| no risk in a console maker refusing to let you sell a
| game and then they go back and make the game themselves.
|
| Consoles are very different from Apple's walled garden.
| HelixEndeavor wrote:
| 1. Consoles are just as much computers as smart watches.
|
| 2. There isn't a horde of pitchforks because instead
| people's efforts with those consoles are focused towards
| jailbreaking them to run their arbitrary code instead of
| begging the company to do it - and Microsoft's Developer
| Mode on Xbox allows running of arbitrary code anyways, so
| the problems is basically solved there.
| Terretta wrote:
| No.
|
| Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to
| modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a
| game opened to modders.
|
| If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new
| category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital
| parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively
| open for mods as a legitimate part of their business
| model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be
| less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation
| and consumers.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Half Life is not a device, modders are not application
| programmers targeting that device.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| No, a device is more stable when it comes to APIs and
| Configurations.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _[Software] is not a device._
|
| Then what are you engineering?
|
| ---
|
| _Edit to elaborate:_
|
| I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has
| intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are
| devouring physical parts.
|
| Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be
| able to convert one type of part to another type of part
| without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a
| "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up
| to you to decide!" flag of some sort.
|
| Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to
| design and distribute a product with whatever blend of
| physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever
| purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate
| other purposes.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Sorry, but you really can't just define some arbitrary
| alternative universe and then expect the debate to take
| place on your terms.
| [deleted]
| piokoch wrote:
| That's not only Apple, other companies (like Microsoft) were
| eating their customers, who were providing service that
| followed their business line.
|
| On the one hand, this is not pretty, on the other hand, this
| was happening, happens and will happen, so anyone starting
| business should think of this - that's one more risk to take
| into account. I think there was a good post on this by Joel
| Spolsky - if you create app that improves someone else product,
| the owner of the product soon or later will come after you.
|
| Apple probably is not going to extend iOS with capabilities
| useful for plumbers, so one is safe building app for plumbers,
| however I would hesitate to build app for runners, as Apple is
| clearly looking on the health & sports sector.
| jb1991 wrote:
| > Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the
| price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it)
|
| Man, these Apple threads are always so full of open
| speculation.
|
| Edit: I find it very interesting that after multiple downvotes,
| suddenly I'm getting downvotes on lots of older comments of
| mine also. Are folks just going into comment histories to go on
| a downvote rampage?
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| This is not a speculation, it is according to Kosta
| Eleftheriou, the developer of FlickType.
| sodality2 wrote:
| > In one blatant example, Eleftheriou said he was approached
| by Apple's head of mobile keyboard technology, Randy Marsden.
| The latter (who created the Swype keyboard) wanted to buy
| FlickType to add a native QWERTY for the Apple Watch and
| improve typing on the device. When Eleftheriou rejected
| Apple, it refused to remove copycat and scam apps from the
| App Store.
|
| https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-
| highest-...
| buran77 wrote:
| Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and revenge
| in response to the rejection. The two softwares aren't
| actually competing, one now comes with the OS whether you
| want it or not.
|
| If Apple now bans the use of an alternative keyboard
| despite it not breaking the rules then that's the real
| issue: they'd be arbitrarily choosing when to apply or
| ignore the stated terms of use of the store. Reinstating
| the app later on once the damage is done is a small price
| to pay from Apple's perspective.
|
| On the other hand if your product is actually just a
| feature for someone else's product you're always exposing
| yourself to a situation where the product developer just
| builds that feature in.
|
| Think of other fields where you may offer an aftermarket
| solution like a car seat heating cover but the market
| evaporates the moment the manufacturer starts offering that
| as standard.
| windexh8er wrote:
| > Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and
| revenge in response to the rejection. The two softwares
| aren't actually competing, one now comes with the OS
| whether you want it or not.
|
| You have to remember that to companies like Apple
| _everything_ is competition and financially related.
| Apple sells widgets based on product release cycles.
| Those cycles generally focus on features, whether those
| are hardware or software. Keep in mind that not everyone
| knows about FlickType. So in that case Apple may choose
| to release a FlickType clone as part of a new Apple Watch
| series, exclusive to that version and above. This helps
| sell more product for Apple. More new features that
| resonate with their buyers == more profit. Also you can
| 't stand on the stage for 10 minutes and talk about a
| keyboard that your buyers go to the App store to get, now
| can you?
| sodality2 wrote:
| >The two softwares aren't actually competing
|
| Well yeah, duh, they literally cannot compete. They were
| _kicked off_. The fact that you defend banning an app
| from the store as childish retribution for not taking a
| lowball offer is telling.
| commoner wrote:
| hitechglitz.com is one of those spam blogs that copies
| articles from other sites and changes a couple of the words
| around. The original article from PhoneArena also contains
| the lawsuit filing:
|
| https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-
| su...
| NKosmatos wrote:
| It's not speculation, Apple for sure wanted to buy and had
| invited over Kostas to demo FlickType. Kostas for sure wanted
| to sell, since he went over at Apple to showcase his very
| good and usable watch keyboard. They didn't agree on a price
| and thus parted ways.
| defaultname wrote:
| The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all:
| Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted
| that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even
| _exist_ for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut.
|
| At least without the App Store reviewers crawling all over
| everything you do, putting an enormous level of scrutiny over
| everything you do. And the functionality has to justify it (not
| that it should operate without it, but _with_ it has to
| validate why -- is it using some massive cloud resource to
| guess your next word, etc?)
|
| That he ever got away with it was during confusion over
| keyboards on the watch where they weren't officially sanctioned
| and thus policed.
|
| But otherwise he's engaged in building features for someone
| else's platform. Eventually those features get first party
| inclusion. This is the surest thing in this industry, and
| people comparing it to sherlock, etc -- ridiculous. Apple made
| a larger Apple watch so they decided it's time for a keyboard.
| That this guy is trying to claim some sort of
| moral/intellectual ownership over keyboards and/or swype typing
| is ridiculous, and it's the sort of overreach that is usually
| criticized viciously on HN.
|
| And if Apple truly made an offer to "buy" his keyboard, it was
| certainly just to settle bad blood. The likely outcome would
| have been that they toss his solution and then do exactly what
| they did, which is build their own.
| danShumway wrote:
| > The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all:
| Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted
| that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't
| even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very
| clearcut.
|
| Completely wrong. I assume you saw some source online saying
| that network access was banned across the board for keyboard
| apps, maybe someone looked at the default restrictions and
| extrapolated from there. Easy mistake to make. Anyway, see
| below:
|
| ----
|
| > To be clear, Apple's own developer guidelines specify that
| "full access" isn't a problem: the only dispute here is
| whether the app continues to work if a user turns it off --
| which it does, says Eleftheriou, if you turn VoiceOver on.
| "They'd have to try it as a VoiceOver user, something that
| they don't seem to bother doing. I've had several rejections
| in the past because the reviewer didn't know anything about
| VoiceOver," Eleftheriou says.[0]
|
| And from Apple's (as far as I can tell, still current)
| developer documentation:
|
| > By default, a keyboard has no network access and cannot
| share a container with its containing app. To enable these
| things, set the value of the RequestsOpenAccess Boolean key
| in the Info.plist file to YES. Doing this expands the
| keyboard's sandbox, as described in Designing for User
| Trust.[1]
|
| Which then goes on to extensively document how network access
| can be added to a keyboard utility. Pretty far away from a
| utility-wide ban.
|
| [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-
| ios-ke...
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentatio
| n/Ge...
| jjcon wrote:
| > Keyboard utilities can't have network access
|
| This is 100% false. Both the apple keyboard and gboard from
| google require network access for gif, search support etc
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The sad thing is that I've seen numerous comments here saying
| (of this and other situations), "Well, Apple offered him/them
| some money for it. They should have just taken the money", and
| that, to them, completely justifies it.
|
| "A gift he couldn't refuse", indeed.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| When you're facing big tech giants it's very difficult to
| judge the best course of actions. They have the advantage,
| money, influence and usually the advantage in similar
| situations. I'm not saying the sell out (especially at a
| ridiculous price) is ok and should always be accepted, but
| most of the times it's the wiser thing to do. Anyhow, isn't
| this one of the purposes of most app developers/startups, to
| have a software/service that one of the big companies out
| there will want to acquire and give you cash and time to work
| on your "brain child" the way you want it?
| sushicat wrote:
| Personally, I doubt the blocking of app updates is due to
| failed acquisition. Yes, let's admit the facts are Apple tried
| to buy FlickType, the attempt failed, FlickType is blocked from
| issuing updates, and Apple released keyboard for Watch 7. But
| let's think from a different angle, Apple is a large
| corporation, all these steps were performed by different teams
| under different organizations.
|
| I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under
| software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?)
| org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and
| make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in
| this discussion process.
|
| For the M&A (I don't know the actual name) org, IMO there is no
| incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition,
| they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are
| normal to them.
|
| For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app
| updates for a revenge? It's possible but I think unlikely,
| they're not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the
| FlickType, but they don't have the pressure to increase
| adoption because the native keyboard will have better
| experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and
| only available on watch 7.
|
| Let's say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some
| manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the
| tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app
| review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org,
| for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the
| manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you're
| that app store review manager, someone down the line of another
| org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the
| company, but also yourself either externally or internally.
| Will you accept that request?
|
| To be clear, this is my guess, and I don't know what's really
| going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge.
| But my point is things may not connected as they look like.
| mfrw wrote:
| Aptly put by the author: See you in court @Apple
|
| https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1437845736951992321
| smoldesu wrote:
| They're about to get two scoops of California Soul:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Unfair_Competition_...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Does the author stand a chance against the army of ivy league
| lawyers of a trillion dollar megacorp?
|
| I guess it would help if he's also American (don't know where
| he's from) so he could fight Apple on home turf and use the
| jury system on his side like _" Evil megacorp steals from the
| little guy"_ (does it even work like this in the US or did I
| watch too many movies?), but I'm more curious how a lawsuit
| would go if he'd be in a jurisdiction different than the US.
|
| Like, if for example, the author would be Russian, could he sue
| Apple's Russian legal entity and they would just shrug it off
| as _" Yeah, that's not us who screwed you, go to the US and sue
| the Apple US HQ."_?
|
| As a non-lawyer I'm really curious how the legal system works
| for such disputes.
| stayfrosty420 wrote:
| I hope a large company comes and helps him out with this
| case. It will affect many companies.
| mlindner wrote:
| > Does the author stand a chance against the army of ivy
| league lawyers of a trillion dollar megacorp?
|
| I'm tired of this meme. Getting better lawyers doesn't let
| you cheat the law.
| [deleted]
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Legally I'm not sure the small developer has a chance. Not
| because the courts are unjust, it's just hard to say whether
| Apple broke any laws here. It's not to say they didn't, it
| just doesn't seem like there's any slam dunk legal argument
| about wrongdoing (despite who this might feel morally).
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| A lawsuit will result in the "discovery" process, and very
| well might show that Apple had wanted to do this thing for
| a very long time and at some point they realized that a 3rd
| party had just introduced something similar to what they
| wanted to do. And people inside Apple proposed buying the
| company to save time and money. But when he said no, Apple
| just decided to continue on their plan.
|
| Or the discovery may uncover evidence of poor behavior. You
| just don't know.
|
| Seriously folks, consumer devices are being used internally
| for a long time before they become known to the public. UI
| improvement ideas are being thrown around constantly and
| are logged, discussed, prioritized, etc. Just because
| something isn't there on launch day, or v2, v3 or v4 of the
| software, doesn't mean they didn't think of it or didn't
| plan to do it.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I'd be surprised if it was that nefarious. Apple is
| releasing a free OS update that has this feature. What do
| they stand to gain by removing a third-party app users
| need to learn about and install? Absent some explanation
| about an advantage Apple gains I'm willing to believe
| this has something to do with app store policies than
| something else.
| cmelbye wrote:
| AFAIK it's not a free OS update with the feature. It's a
| feature of the new Apple Watch Series 7 that will be
| available for purchase later this fall.
| minusSeven wrote:
| If Apple writes the laws in the Apple ecosystem does it
| even matter?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> it's just hard to say whether Apple broke any laws here_
|
| Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app/innovation and
| respinning it into your own implementation count as IP
| theft?
|
| IIRC the Winklevoss twins got paid handsomely as a
| settlement for Zuckerberg stealing their idea for Facebook.
| Granted, they were very rich and well connected so that
| helped.
| spiderice wrote:
| > Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app
|
| "Stealing" someone's idea to make a keyboard.
| skizm wrote:
| Winklevoss twins won because MZ was actively telling them
| he was working on the app in order to prevent direct
| competition from them while he worked on his own version
| (in the movie at least, who knows what's really real). If
| he had just told them to f-k off and ripped them off from
| the start, everything would have been fine legally.
| There's tons of prior art for social networks and domain
| restricted logins before FB came around.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| This is not true as there was no completed court case,
| simply a "confidential" settlement.
|
| https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/connectus-
| secret-6...
|
| Connect U obviously did not have proper documents stating
| Zuckerberg was working for them, or a non compete or
| anything since they were willing to settle. Hence it
| seems like a he said she said situation where Connect U
| got lucky that Facebook was going to be so huge that
| their agreed upon settlement amount was inconsequential
| to Facebook.
| nomel wrote:
| > Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app/innovation
| and respinning it into your own implementation count as
| IP theft?
|
| This makes the assumption that apple hasn't been putting
| deep thought into the keyboard design since before the
| first watch was physically built. I think it's safe to
| assume there's a 30 slide keynote filled with different
| designs and user study results.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| >count as IP theft?
|
| No, there is no such thing as IP theft. There is theft,
| copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and
| patent infringement.
|
| Also there is Monopoly\anti-competitive behavior law,
| which this seems an obvious violation of.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _stealing someone 's idea_
|
| He didn't invent virtual keyboards on touchscreens. I
| don't suspect he holds a patent in this area.
|
| That would not be a reasonable basis for a lawsuit, since
| it could not be expected to succeed.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Short answer is no, unless a patent or copyright is
| stolen. I believe the Winklevoss allegations stemmed from
| a belief that there was some sort of agreement or
| contract that was violated.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Ideas are not worth much, and there is no law against
| executing someone else's idea. Winklevoss twins (or
| Connect U rather) got paid to shut up and go away at a
| time when it was obvious $65M was going to be pocket
| change for Facebook and their lawsuit was going to cost
| more in time for people at Facebook than $65M.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying, although $65M for Apple is pocket
| change they can scrape from between the couch cushions in
| Cupertino so they could get the author to shut up
| immediately if they wanted to.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| A lawsuit about equity while a company is on the road to
| the biggest IPO in history in 2009 is different
| circumstances than a guy arguing against an established
| company in 2021.
|
| Apple could pay this guy off, but apparently their
| executives have decided he is not a sufficient PR problem
| or time expense to merit a payoff yet.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _there is no law against executing someone else's idea_
|
| Are you sure about that? Obviously, you mean outside of
| the patent framework and the concept of infringement, so
| never mind that.
|
| There is law against executing someone else's idea which
| is public, and over which they have no patent.
|
| What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in
| this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking
| into an organization and stealing trade secrets: ideas
| that are not known outside of that organization, and are
| (consequently) not patented.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >There is law against executing someone else's idea which
| is public, and over which they have no patent.
|
| What is this law? I am pretty sure flying cars,
| underwater cities, space travel, etc are ideas that
| someone else has had, but no US court is going to stop
| you from executing an idea just because someone else
| fantasized about it.
|
| >What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in
| this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking
| into an organization and stealing trade secrets: ideas
| that are not known outside of that organization, and are
| (consequently) not patented.
|
| The theft itself would be a crime, but an entity not
| involved in the theft would be able to take advantage of
| the trade secret without any legal liability. That is the
| tradeoff for not registering a patent to gain exclusivity
| for 20 years via legal mechanisms.
| kazinator wrote:
| I'm sorry to have wasted your time, that is a typo;
| somehow I lost the "no" in "no law".
| whymarrh wrote:
| The author linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californ
| ia_Unfair_Competition_... (I can't speak to its relevance)
| mfrw wrote:
| I am no expert; but I would never bet my money that justice
| will be served :(
| tomtimtall wrote:
| I think no, but that army matches on quite a large load of
| cash, so they'll likely offer him a settlement agreement
| which means he "losses" but gets paid.
|
| Not fair by any account, but I think that's what is likely to
| happen.
| Teckla wrote:
| If Apple settles, wouldn't that incentivize other
| developers to sue Apple for the same and similar reasons?
|
| I'd think Apple would want to win the case to discourage
| other developers from doing the same thing.
| scns wrote:
| We will only know if they try. Their lawyers may be
| handsomely rewarded if they win. Justice may be blind, we
| will see.
|
| Disclaimer: Sorry for postvac ramblings
| nautilus12 wrote:
| One thing recent history has taught us is that Ivy Leagues
| are very good at pumping out individuals that know how to win
| at all costs, with 0 regard for actual expertise or moral
| compass.
|
| Ivy Leagues serve the purpose of giving individuals the
| minimal artifacts of knowledge and virtue to get ahead,
| without its actual substance.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| The admissions process is a filter that selects for this.
| They also build class cohorts to include hierarchy climbers
| with people who were born at the top of the hierarchy --
| children of billionaires, politicians, etc. that perpetuate
| those hierarchies (and their accompanying morality).
|
| Ivy League schools are designed to be a filter for people
| who would make good amoral agents of capital, not an
| educational system in the classical sense.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| influential people's children who couldn't hack it in the
| traditional test based university admissions process in
| their own home countries love the ivies, i.e asian
| countries. There are a ton of brilliant people who go to
| ivies on their own merit but we can't deny that ivies do
| play a part in keeping the elite power structure intact
| (as you said). It is the same old game of capital vs
| labor, capital always seems to win out.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Probably not.
|
| They will however probably end up settling. Take the money
| and wait for legislation.
| codemusings wrote:
| I mean at the very least there could be a settlement since
| Apple most likely doesn't want to cause even more bad PR. But
| who knows.
| wongarsu wrote:
| If you're Russian you can still sue Apple US. As a consumer
| you can usually do that in a court in your own country, as a
| business it depends (most contracts specify which court to
| use, but you can appeal to a local court that that's an undue
| burden, especially if it's a terms-of-service instead of a
| negotiated contract). Of course if a Russian court rules
| against Apple US the court has a harder time enforcing the
| ruling, but that's probably not a problem against a company
| like Apple who want to continue selling there.
| Grustaf wrote:
| What exactly would the crime be? Haven't Watch keyboards always
| been banned?
| onsen wrote:
| I hate that he has to take on apple legal team by himself. I
| wish someone would put together a indie dev crowd-funded legal
| team on retainer to fight together in such incidents.
| 0xdeadb00f wrote:
| Doesn't the EFF do that?
| kgwxd wrote:
| When they released Pencil, there was already a product called
| Pencil for the iPad by the company FiftyThree. It was fairly big
| at the time but I never heard anything about how that effected
| them.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| This is dumb I still think the high barrier of entry is good for
| the App Store. Let Apple call the shots, let the developers who
| are concerned focus on a different platform if they become that
| worried that developing for Apple devices is high risk, if it
| reaches a fever pitch Apple will adjust, if not then it's
| probably not a big enough problem. Unlike in healthcare I think
| it's reasonable in this environment to sacrifice the few for the
| betterment of the most and for Apple to have the rights to
| control their own platform.
| modo_mario wrote:
| >let the developers who are concerned focus on a different
| platform if they become that worried that developing for Apple
| devices is high risk
|
| So basically don't develop for half of the market and then if
| google uses similar anticompetitive tools (as they have) just
| don't develop at all.
| Drew_ wrote:
| The App Store doesn't have a high barrier of entry. The barrier
| is low and completely based on whatever Apple's product
| strategy is at the moment. Sometimes also based on arbitrary
| feelings from Apple execs like Phil Schiller.
| znpy wrote:
| Literally kicking a competitor out of business.
|
| If this isn't a monopolistic behaviour...
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| They've done this so many times there is a word for it, it's no
| secret how they treat their developer community. Yet you still
| keep building apps on their platform.
| [deleted]
| aixi wrote:
| I don't think this is a very popular take, but swipe keyboards
| are extremely common right now; I don't believe Apple had an
| ulterior motive here.
| arvinsim wrote:
| That would be believable if Apple allowed Flicktype and
| released their own version later. The fact that they blocked it
| does show ulterior motive.
| [deleted]
| germandiago wrote:
| At least it is suspicious in fact.
| IncRnd wrote:
| It's not a popular take, because you are ignoring the history
| of the situation that has been mentioned a large number of
| times on this page and in the article.
| aixi wrote:
| i insist, what is there to gain for Apple in this case? this
| is a free update even for older watches
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| Apple blocked FlickType with the reason that full keyboards are
| not allowed on Apple Watch. Then they introduced their own. No
| ulterior motives?
| aixi wrote:
| but what is there to gain for Apple in this situation? it's
| not like it's a paid app
| djohnston wrote:
| Developing mobile tools seems like such a hazard with these
| walled gardens
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| In the financial world, it is generally accepted that you get
| no reward if you take no risk.
| Symmetry wrote:
| What made me leave the iPhone ecosystem, many years ago, was when
| they pulled all the podcatchers off the app store because they
| were going to be adding podcast support to iTunes soon. Not only
| that but getting podcasts from iTunes at the time meant plugging
| your iPhone into your computer running iTunes, much less
| convenient than having your phone download things over WiFi.
| Especially since I was using Linux and didn't have a computer
| that could run iTunes.
| d35007 wrote:
| When was this? Based on
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/06/28Apple-Takes-
| Podcast..., it looks like Apple added podcast support to iTunes
| in 2005. The iPhone wasn't released until 2007 and the App
| Store didn't exist until 2008.
| Symmetry wrote:
| I was using an iPhone 3GS so it would have been 2009 or 2010.
| I might very well have been mistaken about podcast support in
| iTunes being new given that I didn't use iTunes.
| jjcon wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Podcasts
|
| The actual podcasts app was released in 2012
| VortexDream wrote:
| I assume he means this, where Apple banned a podcast app
| because it "duplicated existing functionality".
|
| https://www.networkworld.com/article/2346233/apple-shows-
| tru...
| d35007 wrote:
| Thanks. Apple has arbitrarily banned so many apps that I
| guess I just forgot about this one.
|
| It's hard to imagine a time when iPhones couldn't download
| podcasts over the air. I can understand why banning
| Podcaster would have made OP sour on Apple.
| skygazer wrote:
| I paid for and use FlickType on the watch. It's clever, but it
| always sucked it was a stand-alone app. It was a very limited and
| cumbersome workaround for an obviously missing OS feature. Copy
| and paste isn't even a thing on the watch, so text was mostly
| trapped in the app. Everyone that used the app knew it would
| vastly better if a keyboard were supported natively by Apple
| across the whole OS. It was mostly a tantalizing proof of
| concept. I feel sorry for the Sherlocked developer, but this is a
| huge improvement.
|
| I recall Apple had previously said they tested and abandoned an
| on-screen watch keyboard for the Series 0, as the screen was too
| small. And yesterday they said the screen was finally large
| enough for a keyboard. I think Flicktype proved it was viable on
| a smaller screen, and Apple is being crappy limiting availability
| to the new watch.
|
| I don't know if Apple legally or morally owes the developer
| anything. I doubt it, but I'm all for them sorting it out in
| court.
| fareesh wrote:
| I remember reading the founder's blog post about this, very
| unfortunate
| croon wrote:
| So they do this right after winning over Epic in court? Way to
| drum up support for anti-trust regulation there, Tim.
| mdoms wrote:
| Why should Apple be concerned about anti trust in USA when they
| just won a case they should very obviously have lost and it's
| clear American regulators have been asleep at the wheel for
| decades?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > In sum, given the totality of the record, and its
| underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple
| exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court
| cannot conclude that Apple's market power reaches the status
| of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said,
| _the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice
| of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its
| considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact
| that its share is not higher, that competitors from related
| submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming
| submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on
| this topic._
| mdoms wrote:
| I didn't say anything about "monopoly". One of the most
| common fallacies when discussing this topic is that anti
| trust only applies to monopolies. This is dead wrong.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What? I didn't say anti trust only applies to monopolies.
| According to the judge Apple is violating anti trust and
| walking right up to the line of being a monopoly. It's
| interesting. My quote is taken straight from the ~180
| page ruling.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Sherlocking should be illegal. Apple wants to sell hardware, they
| should stay in their lane.
| kelvin0 wrote:
| They've come a long way from building personal computers in
| Wozniak's garage.
|
| In the process they've transformed into the 'big brother' from
| their 1984 T.V. ad campaign.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI
| Someone wrote:
| It was the garage of Jobs' parents, and not even that.
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/05/steve-
| woz...:
|
| The commonly shared tale is that Apple was not only founded in
| the garage of 2066 Crist Drive in Los Altos, California -
| Jobs's family home - but that the first Macs were designed and
| built in the garage as the company was bootstrapped.
|
| _"The garage is a bit of a myth," Wozniak told Businessweek.
| "We did no designs there, no breadboarding, no prototyping, no
| planning of products. We did no manufacturing there."
|
| [...]
|
| "The garage didn't serve much purpose, except it was something
| for us to feel was our home," said Wozniak. "We had no money.
| You have to work out of your home when you have no money."_
| kelvin0 wrote:
| Duly noted!
| germandiago wrote:
| I am against regulations but I still find these practices
| anticompetitive.
|
| Not sure what the conclusion should be here.
|
| On one side this runs on Apple platform:"it is my platform, I
| rule it".
|
| On the other hand, they have a de-facto position to abuse by just
| kicking out companies at will to enlarge their businesses and
| monoplolize them...
|
| I wish there was choice beyond Apple and Android. I am myself
| starting to look for alternatives. Espcially because of privacy
| concerns. Things like these at the end go against us customers.
| sofixa wrote:
| > I am against regulations but I still find these practices
| anticompetitive
|
| I really don't know how anyone can see this sort of crap and
| say they're against regulations. The market obviously isn't
| fixing itself, do you have any other solution?
| p2t2p wrote:
| Also another note is that I believe sooner or later
| regulators will come after them.
|
| And after what they've shown today they'll have only
| themselves to blame and what they've shown today.
|
| Unfortunately whole community will suffer because of them
| being insufferably arrogant.
| luckylion wrote:
| Doesn't the market fix it? I don't have such issues on
| Android, that's why I don't buy Apple.
|
| Most customers just don't care about any of that, so they
| continue to buy Apple.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I see it another way: It's already got regulations to protect
| powerful people. Either remove those, or grant protections to
| everyone else, too.
|
| What those people are really saying is that the regulations
| that exist are the ones they want, and no more.
| p2t2p wrote:
| Whats the point of market fixing itself in this situation?
|
| "Market fixing itself" describe relationships between
| consumer and supplier. In this case "consumer" is better off
| so seems like market works as intended.
|
| Developer's being f-ed over is sad thing but unless the
| situation for developers is so bad that they abandon App
| Store in troves then nothing will fix anything.
|
| Also one could argue that overall situation is pretty-
| pleasing for everyone, apps that do not go into Apple's
| territory (system stuff) seem to be thriving and don't
| complain too much.
|
| I'd rather them not to regulate it because they start with
| Apple and end up killing shareware and everything else. Who
| knows what kind of crazy stuff they'll invent for open
| source, can they outlaw it? I'd rather them to not even
| start.
| radmuzom wrote:
| > In this case "consumer" is better off so seems like
| market works as intended.
|
| How is the consumer better off when a choice for them has
| been removed? If Apple's keyboard is superior, then
| consumers will automatically chose that and not buy this
| guy's software. How is this "nanny state" behaviour by
| Apple justified?
| p2t2p wrote:
| I assumed that they get this option for free instead of
| buying an app and less stuff to install generally.
|
| If Apple's option is worse (which I doubt, at least for
| English) and/or original app is free then probably
| consumer suffers a bit. But if consumer is worse off then
| it is better because AFAIK American anti-monopoly system
| focuses on consumer's well-being so the more examples of
| consumer being worse off the easier to attract courts and
| regulators, isn't it?
| mhh__ wrote:
| But I get a warm fuzzy feeling if the market does fix itself!
| germandiago wrote:
| then the topic would shift to who regulates the regulator.
|
| And there are very EVIL incentives in having regulators. More
| free market is a way better solution.
|
| I agree it is a shitshow.But it is also true that these
| companies created products. What does a regulator do?
| Regulate and having incentives to regulate in certain
| directions (come on we all have seen that). However they
| bring zero value to people (unlike Apple, for example, with
| all its defects)
|
| There are sooo many absurd regulations that prevent people
| from building businesses or even working that Ithink we
| should start there. And later, and only later talk aboutthe
| rest.
|
| Just my two cents.
| germandiago wrote:
| Besides the rain of negatives I am getting, something I
| expected, it seems I got a negative in this last reply.
|
| It seems that regulators would be kind of gods where there
| is nothing else to say about it.
|
| I am still waiting for a real, logical reply to who
| regulates regulators.
|
| After all, we live in an overregulated world where people
| always complain about corporations.
|
| However, much of this power is accumulated through lobbying
| to legislators. Do you people really think that regulating
| MORE is better?
|
| I bet this is not the good way to go...
|
| Again, just my two cents from my intellectually honest (I
| can be wrong, of course) analysis by seeing what I see day
| by day.
| scns wrote:
| For me "The market will fix itself" is just a neoliberal lie,
| no amount of repeating it will make it true. <edit>Sadly many
| people believe people who speak with conviction. A family
| member shared similar crap (oh noes, i will have to pay more
| for gas) in a private group</edit>
|
| History has shown over and over that left to their own
| devices people will act in their own self interest. And from
| a biological point of view it would even be the correct thing
| to do IMHO. But we ain't running hungry through the
| wilderness no more. A win-win would be better for everyone.
|
| I think inequality creates fear. Even in those who profit,
| the fear of loosing their wealth. There was a case of a town
| in the US, were the population was pretty homogenous, their
| culture forbade the flaunting of wealth, so everybody acted
| humble and even dressed the same. Then the younger generation
| went to college out of town, came back with a differnt
| mindset. Pools were built, cars bought, inequality made
| obvious for everyone to see. What happenend? Cases of heart
| disease were low before, but rose afterwards. Found a link:
| https://www.unimedliving.com/living-medicine/illness-and-
| dis...
|
| (edit) formatting
| germandiago wrote:
| it is not my position. Nothing to do with neoliberalism the
| fact that regulating also has evil incentives. We live in a
| regulated world where many corporations have de-facto
| privilege because of overregulation yet people ask for more
| regulation.
|
| It is as if I am a soldier and hit you and you ask for an
| army to feel safer on the basis that "soldiers should be
| good in theory, they are here to protect us"and u see it
| again and again and ignore the facts.
| scns wrote:
| Sorry if i gave you the impression i accuse you of that.
| That was not my intention.
|
| Well, even if regulation has loopholes for bad actors, is
| it better to live in a world without it?
| ttty2 wrote:
| It will fix when nobody will make apps for apple...
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple's gig workers have no longer justification to complain when
| their boss steals from them. They knew where they are going and
| fully chose it
| JadeNB wrote:
| This sure sounds like "they were asking for it", which is
| tasteless regardless of context.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| implying that ios developers are victims? (not that i
| disagree)
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Why do I feel like we're heading to a future where all consumer
| facing SW, tech, entertainment is just walled gardens
| controlled by the handful of trillion dollar megacorps and as a
| developer or content creator on their platform (or gig worker
| as you call them) you will basically have the choice of putting
| up with their bullying/abuse with no chance of recourse or go
| hungry like how many youtubers wake up with their cannels
| banned or deleted overnight byt a bot without any chance of
| fighting back?
| scns wrote:
| Because you may have forgotten that you still have a choice?
| The rider (mind) is pretty weak compared to the elephant
| (animal), but still strong enough to convince itself its'
| thoughts are correct. Thoughts beget feelings, watch them.
| There is always light at the end of the tunnel.
| refracture wrote:
| Apple's behavior here doesn't surprise me.. there's a history of
| this kind of thing.. what would surprise me however is if the
| developer didn't see this coming after Apple made purchase
| offers.. were the offers insultingly small?
| arvinsim wrote:
| Just because a corporation have loads of money doesn't mean
| they will not lowball offers.
| sundvor wrote:
| There's a very Australian term that perfectly describes Apple at
| this point, similar to Punts but starting with a C. That's
| exactly what they are, for pulling off stuff like this.
|
| They're clearly abusing their monopoly here. I hope this will
| bite them in the face.
| mikehearn wrote:
| > A separate version for the Apple Watch would remain, but then
| Apple pulled that one as well, telling Eleftheriou that keyboards
| aren't allowed on the Apple Watch.
|
| This is wrong, as far as I can tell. The watch app is still in
| the App Store.
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/flicktype-watch-keyboard/id135...
|
| I just installed it and verified that it works, although the
| Watch keyboard itself is hidden behind a $10 in-app purchase.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > Apple had begun rejecting updates for the app because it
| required full system access, a fact that Eleftheriou disputed,
| saying that it still worked without the permissions.
|
| Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO
| developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides
| those technically necessary for performing the actual function
| the user installs the app for should be warned once and then
| banned for years.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Ever heard of optional features?
| JadeNB wrote:
| Why not ask for the extra permissions when you need them for
| the extra features?
| ChrisClark wrote:
| It did. You only had to approve the permission of you
| wanted to use the extra features.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Do you have reason to believe that's not what they did?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Do you have reason to believe that's not what they did?
|
| None at all, no, and I did not mean to assert that they
| didn't. I was not saying anything about the program
| itself, only responding to the claim that permissions had
| to be requested for optional features
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538104):
|
| > Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did
| it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any
| permissions besides those technically necessary for
| performing the actual function the user installs the app
| for should be warned once and then banned for years.
|
| which was a response to a question about why the
| permissions were requested if they were not necessary
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538036):
|
| > Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did
| it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any
| permissions besides those technically necessary for
| performing the actual function the user installs the app
| for should be warned once and then banned for years.
|
| Since the permissions become necessary when the user
| chooses to use the optional features, I took kevingadd to
| be claiming that the permissions had to be requested
| whether or not the optional features were used.
| lovemenot wrote:
| It seems there might have been a personal problem between a
| founder and an ex-founder - now Exec. They're from a different
| generation but the same domain.
|
| We don't know why Apple's offer was rejected. But in a case like
| this, it is conceivable that it was felt the Swype founder had
| demeaned his successor's achievements.
|
| That this exec alone was singled out by name suggests that the
| negotiation's breakdown might have been triggered by a clash of
| personalities.
|
| If so - despite having already delivered their fait accompli - in
| the interest of fairness Apple should remake its previous offer.
| This time with heightened sensitivity to the pair of egos.
| pluc wrote:
| They have been doing this since Cydia marketplace. The whole
| pull-down drawer concept was on a jailbroken app and now it's on
| both iOS and Android. There's too many of those to list.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| In that case, I believe they actually hired the guy that did
| that tweak.
| Bud wrote:
| As they've hired many other developers in similar
| circumstances. That would seem to demonstrate "caring about"
| developers, in my mind at least, but many seem to disagree.
| :)
| beermonster wrote:
| It's flux all over again.
|
| Sometimes they just buy out the app developer. think they did
| this with Dark Sky?
| Bud wrote:
| Apple actually bought Dark Sky, lock, stock, and barrel. (And
| developers.)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839
| 0x000000001 wrote:
| I have the new Weather app in iOS 15 which is the replacement
| for Dark Sky and they made it better. This was surprising to
| me.
|
| I can't set custom alerts anymore for e.g., umbrella or UV, but
| the automatic alerts are exactly how I wanted them anyway...
| and it's nice that the app changes which data is shown based on
| the current conditions: if it's going to rain, the map shows
| weather radar instead of temperature
| shantara wrote:
| And unlike Dark Sky there is no iPad version of the native
| weather app.
| beezischillin wrote:
| AstroPad also had this happen to them:
| https://astropad.com/sherlocked-by-apple/
| hughrr wrote:
| Oh Apple is really starting to head up to the top of my vendor
| shit list these days. I've already dumped their entire ecosystem
| after the CSAM shit.
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| Me too. And I used to be an actual fanboy who defended them on
| Reddit. I have grown increasingly disillusioned with their
| philosophies to the point where I switched to Android and will
| soon be switching to Linux when my Framework laptop ships.
| Bud wrote:
| In favor of which comparable ecosystem that does a better
| overall job for you on privacy issues, as a whole?
| hughrr wrote:
| I'm removing myself from the concept of an ecosystem and
| choosing software based on individual merit at the moment.
| Bud wrote:
| Yeah, except that's not a real choice. That's pretending
| the issue does not exist and pretending that you can avoid
| privacy issues with a piecemeal choice. But you can't, of
| course. Cobbling together your own solution doesn't obscure
| the fact that you will almost inevitably end up with
| something that respects your privacy much less, which was
| my original point.
| hughrr wrote:
| The real choice turned out you don't need to solve a lot
| of the problems and don't need an ecosystem and don't
| need to create a problem that doesn't need to be solved.
|
| Example.
|
| Numbers on my iPhone. Fuck it, use libreoffice on my
| laptop and have no online spreadsheet solution. Didn't
| really need it. Sometimes things can wait. Shrug.
| danielktdoranie wrote:
| Based Tim Apple
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Wouldn't it have been easier to have just acquired the keyboard
| app?
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| An acquisition in the current anti-trust climate might not have
| been advisable.
| jpcrs wrote:
| > In one blatant example, Eleftheriou said he was approached by
| Apple's head of mobile keyboard technology, Randy Marsden. The
| latter (who created the Swype keyboard) wanted to buy FlickType
| to add a native QWERTY for the Apple Watch and improve typing
| on the device. When Eleftheriou rejected Apple, it refused to
| remove copycat and scam apps from the App Store.
|
| I think he lost his chance.
|
| https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-...
| viktorcode wrote:
| I'm wondering if those copycat and scam apps still available
| in App Store?
| smashah wrote:
| You think they lowballed him?
| abcd_f wrote:
| Unless this guy had a patent, any offer is a good offer.
| It's not a terribly complicated feature to do from scratch
| and it _does_ logically belong to the OS.
|
| Blocking it from the store was an ass move, if it indeed
| happened as described and there's no hidden context.
| tmotwu wrote:
| These excuses just keep getting funnier. App developers:
| make sure you file your patents, or else its YOUR fault
| if Apple decides to participate in blatant 90s style
| Microsoft anticompetitive behavior.
| mojzu wrote:
| There are enough swiping keyboards around now that it
| would be tricky to get any patent on it surely?
| Definitely seems like a dick move but "tech company
| copies good feature that isn't legally protected" is not
| exactly uncommon in this industry, if anything it's
| encouraged by most consumers
| jodrellblank wrote:
| The parent commentor is not excusing Apple's behaviour,
| nor saying it was the developer's fault. They said the
| developer would be in a better position if they had a
| patent.
| modo_mario wrote:
| I'm not sure he could even get a patent. He's not a
| company that can patent rounded corners, etc
| gumby wrote:
| Apple did used to be known for paying low of acquisitions
| (I don't know if that's changed in the last ten years).
| gus_massa wrote:
| >> _When Eleftheriou rejected Apple, it refused to remove
| copycat and scam apps from the App Store._
|
| I agree that scam apps should be removed, but why did he
| expects copycats to be removed?
| Aulig wrote:
| If they infringe on his intellectual property rights they
| must normally be removed, I assume.
| [deleted]
| tartoran wrote:
| Beside the IP the copycat kb apps are nefarious for the
| app store users but I get it, Apple does not care about
| its users, it just pretends to when it suits their
| interests...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| If he proves in the courts that they do, yes. Just
| because someone else has built another keyboard for the
| watch does not mean that any IP was infringed on.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| OK then why was FlickType banned without a court order?
| qweqwweqwe-90i wrote:
| Because Apple doesn't allow keyboard apps on their
| devices.
| baktubi wrote:
| It's pretty astounding if this isn't flagged as monopolistic
| behavior.
|
| I'm not opposed to Apple introducing a system keyboard as a
| clone but the independent developer should not be strong-
| armed off their platform.
|
| Honestly it just shows weakness of character for the entire
| Apple company. This is no different than voter suppression
| when candidates can't garner votes from the public
| legitimately.
|
| Oh wait, I guess half the government is fine with voter
| suppression and whining like 4 yr olds about voter fraud.
|
| That's the new Apple for you...
|
| Then again, they have the power and capability to make this
| move. Whose to blame them? A keyboard is something that
| should be locked down from a security standpoint and a
| fundamental piece of the system.
|
| That being said you won't catch me ten feet near an Apple
| Watch as a dev. Or as a citizen--that is a huge privacy
| concern. Not to mention the battery life is shit. I tried one
| for a week and couldn't bear to have 3 charging cables by my
| bed at night. I would need at least a week but 2 weeks charge
| would be ideal...
| pjmlp wrote:
| > That's the new Apple for you...
|
| Not really, that is the old Apple before they had to get a
| Microsoft cash injection to avoid closing doors.
| plebianRube wrote:
| They do try that route it seems. I remember when Siri was an
| app and it got pulled.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Siri got bought, and was not pulled until after that, IIRC.
| lolc wrote:
| Maybe easier, but not necessarily cheaper.
| nieve wrote:
| IIRC they tried hard to push him into selling.
| viktorcode wrote:
| They already bought a keyboard developer few years back, no
| need to do it again.
| Le_Dook wrote:
| They tried several times but were turned down. They started
| blocking it around that time.
| [deleted]
| nikkinana wrote:
| They got Sherlocked!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Watch keyboard? How does that work? Did it use the iPhone as a
| proxy to swipe on the watch (since there are obviously no APIs to
| custom keyboards on the watch).
| IncRnd wrote:
| Your very comment makes it seem as if there was innovation with
| the keyboard that Apple took.
| judge2020 wrote:
| No, just that there's no way to create a custom watch
| keyboard that I know of. I'm wondering if they managed to do
| so and if it required using private APIs or something.
| dagmx wrote:
| It was a standalone app that you'd type within, and then use
| the equivalent to the share sheet to send it to other apps.
|
| A video of it in action here: https://youtu.be/KYnAB4jYJV4
|
| So it did take you out of a flow to do it.
| amiantos wrote:
| Has no one noticed that this app in question is still on the App
| Store? First result on google when you search for "Apple Watch
| keyboards". This makes me even more suspicious of the guy
| creating all this outrage. It's also not very well reviewed.
| jjcon wrote:
| He didnt claim it was removed - i believe he was blocked from
| updating the app
| mikehearn wrote:
| The article seems to make that claim:
|
| "A separate version for the Apple Watch would remain [in the
| App Store], but then Apple pulled that one as well, telling
| Eleftheriou that keyboards aren't allowed on the Apple
| Watch."
| croes wrote:
| Could it be that there is a free version and a payed one?
| jjcon wrote:
| Im not familiar with all the history nor what they mean
| there, but this is a better source and i think explains the
| story better. I havent seen the dev make that claim at
| least.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/iphone-
| keyboard-...
| croes wrote:
| The low ratings mostly complain about lack of language support
| especially german seems to be missed. And the posted screenshot
| says it's removed from sale, maybe there were two versions, a
| free one and a payed one.
| bobowzki wrote:
| I believe "Sherlocked" is the term used.
| jamil7 wrote:
| In a lot of the cases (not necessarily this one) it's a welcome
| addition to build some useful app directly into the OS - the
| flashlight or flux are two examples I can think of.
| amelius wrote:
| Better integration has always been Apple's argument.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Sherlock was never blocked. Just cloned.
|
| Edit: Watson was name. See child comment.
| macintux wrote:
| Seems quite meta that the term for this was taken from
| Apple's software. Sherlocked effectively means replaced _and_
| forgotten.
| shellac wrote:
| You mean Watson was never blocked.
|
| Sherlock was the Apple tool that (in version 3) took heavy
| inspiration from
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelia_Watson.
|
| Allegedly etc etc.
| bengale wrote:
| Alfred seems live fine alongside spotlight too.
| jagger27 wrote:
| Raycast is good too.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Alfred has a lot more features. For example I constantly
| use the clipboard manager in Alfred and as far as I know,
| Spotlight has no such functionality.
|
| Of course, Alfred was always designed to work alongside
| Spotlight since all the actual indexing relies on
| Spotlight.
| arvinsim wrote:
| Agree. Sherlock products were allowed, not blocked.
| beervirus wrote:
| Yes the article says that.
| slig wrote:
| >"The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or
| obviates third-party software is so well known that being
| Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and
| iOS developer community"
|
| TIL.
| cainxinth wrote:
| I think "Fluxxed" would have been a better term. Really
| captures the spirit of the thing.
| post_break wrote:
| Flux actively came out and said if their feature was added
| to iOS they would be happy.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Flux was sherlocked, to be sure, but sherlocked has been
| around as a term since 2002 or so, while f.lux was a much
| more recent victim, from 2015 or so.
| fencepost wrote:
| Except that the term is about 15 years older than when it
| happened to f.lux
| [deleted]
| codemusings wrote:
| Not really since the developer has no way to compete on merits.
| Sherlocked used to mean that, yes, there's a builtin version
| now but your app could at least try and compete. Not so much in
| this case.
| thought_alarm wrote:
| Alternatively, Apple prevented people from wasting their money on
| a feature that was about to be built into the OS.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's interesting because in later iOS versions apple actually
| started to allow replacement keyboard apps, including paid for
| ones.
|
| Remember, money "wasted" on apps is straight revenue for Apple.
| It's why they want to win the case against Epic (and by
| extension Netflix, Spotify, etc) so badly, because they get a
| sweet 15% on every purchase made at minimal cost.
| [deleted]
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Well that actually makes sense
| [deleted]
| mhh__ wrote:
| So "Think different" is now "You can't handle the truth"?
| avh02 wrote:
| this falls in to the same category of reasoning (IMO) as
| "you're holding it wrong." - it doesn't answer the underlying
| issue (in this case - that apple's obviously being unreasonable
| to the developer)
|
| There are other ways to solve the "wasting their money" problem
| - offer refunds or similar (again, not at the expense of the
| developer)
| K5EiS wrote:
| Lets remove firefox and opera from the app store too then,
| since there is already a built-in browser.
| scns wrote:
| It is only a skin for Safari, Chrome too.
| [deleted]
| criley2 wrote:
| There is no way to have a fair App Store where the organization
| approving your app is the same organization creating apps to
| compete with you.
|
| This is a fundamental, existential problem with the App Store
| model.
|
| You can't compete with Apple; they simply will not let you.
| jkestner wrote:
| Elizabeth Warren agrees: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-
| how-we-can-break-up-big...
|
| She used Amazon as the example but thinks the same about the
| App Store. As much as I agree with her, the problem with this
| has been, where do you draw the line between applications and
| system software? What can be included out of the box? This has
| constantly changed as companies like Apple vertically integrate
| the user experience.
| amiantos wrote:
| So... what are you saying? Apple shouldn't be allowed to
| improve the software for their own products? There should be a
| law that prevents Apple from building a keyboard for Apple
| Watch and consumers have to buy a third party keyboard made by
| a guy who still won't explain why the keyboard needed "network
| access OR VoiceOver to be turned on"? Seems fishy to me. I
| think I'd prefer the keyboard Apple makes.
| q_andrew wrote:
| Apple is pulling a Lotus/Excel maneuver, except at least Lotus
| was still allowed to run on Windows at the time.
| tremon wrote:
| _at least Lotus was still allowed to run on Windows at the
| time_
|
| Microsoft did not have a way to block Lotus from running on
| Windows at the time (other than intentionally breaking their
| system calls, e.g.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10432608).
| [deleted]
| Loic wrote:
| iBooks was also a rip-off, let us kill the nice work of a
| developer.
| viktorcode wrote:
| No the app itself, the book collection interface: wooden shelf
| with books on it.
| robertoandred wrote:
| I think the idea of books sitting on a shelf has been around
| for quite a while.
| caslon wrote:
| Ah, yes, reading documents on a computer. A keyboard. Both of
| these are things that have never been done outside of the Apple
| ecosystem before Apple made their copies.
|
| I don't like Apple, but come on. Reading documents is what
| computers have historically proven best at, and a keyboard is a
| pretty logical extension of any given electronic device. Would
| sure save everyone a lot of time if these things were built in.
| Loic wrote:
| It was the presentation of the books mimicking exactly the
| work of somebody else. Sorry, I should have explained more.
| Apple contacted (if I can remember) the original author, had
| friendly discussions about the way he was doing the stuff,
| and then simply copied everything into the _default_ app.
|
| This is only from memory, but for me, the pattern is the
| same.
| popcube wrote:
| can't they juat hired rhat guy...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Is an iPhone the same as an Android? They're both phones
| after all?
| caslon wrote:
| If you're not copying code, you're just doing what everyone
| else does: Creating a loose derivative of something else.
| There's never been an original creative work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-15 23:02 UTC)