PDA

View Full Version : Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies




MacRumors
Nov 13, 2009, 12:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)

In yet another example of a high-profile developer team stepping back from Apple's App Store, Rogue Amoeba today announced (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/20091113AFSTPost.php) in a lengthy blog post that it will no longer develop applications for the iPhone following an extended run-in with App Store reviewers over a bug fix update to the company's Airfoil Speakers Touch (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/17/airfoil-speakers-touch-now-available-in-app-store/) application. The application allows users to stream any audio content from a host computer directly to an iPhone or iPod touch.

In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.

While Apple's objections to the use of Apple-owned images in iPhone applications are well-known, Rogue Amoeba's situation was rather unique in that the images did not originate from the iPhone application itself, but were being sent from the host computer sending audio to the device. Those images were generated using Mac OS X tools specifically designed to aid developers in this process.As you can see, Airfoil Speakers Touch displays an image of the sending Mac, with a screenshot showing the source application. If you're sending from an iMac with Safari as your source (as pictured), it shows your iMac running Safari. If you're sending from a MacBook Pro, it shows a MacBook Pro, and so on. These computer images are provided by Mac OS X itself, using a public function expressly for this purpose.

We also show the source application's icon - Safari in the above example. This icon also comes from a public function provided by Apple as part of Mac OS X. These functions are expressly made to enable developers to get this artwork, and use it just as we are.After multiple rejections, including one involving a sympathetic Apple employee who attempted to assist with the situation, Rogue Amoeba was finally able to satisfy Apple's reviewers by stripping out the "Apple-owned" images and substituting in an image of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo linked to an explanation page (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/iphone/ping/eff.php) detailing the company's difficulties with Apple.

The lengthy and frustrating experience has clearly led the developers to reevaluate their efforts for the iPhone platform, and they have decided to step back from further App Store development.The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we're adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we're focusing on the Mac.

Article Link: Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/13/rogue-amoeba-retreats-from-iphone-development-over-app-store-policies/)



jaw04005
Nov 13, 2009, 12:48 PM
Well, I’ve dismissed most of the other complaints. But this is Rogue Amoeba. Phil Schiller needs to get involved with this immediately — completely unacceptable. They are one of the premier Mac shareware developers.

grahamwright1
Nov 13, 2009, 12:49 PM
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.


This is very disheartening since they were using information specifically supplied by Apple for the use of developers. It's time for a significant revamping of the approval process before we see any more problems like this!

XciteMe
Nov 13, 2009, 12:58 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:

doctoree
Nov 13, 2009, 01:04 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.

dvkid
Nov 13, 2009, 01:07 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:

Obviously people are. Rogue Amoeba and Joe Hewitt both jumping ship on the same day doesn't seem to be a coincidence to me.

However, until this has a noticeable impact on the user, most won't be as upset as the developers are. Facebook will continue where Joe left off, and Rogue Amoeba's app served a very specific audience (albeit very well). If Facebook were to, say, remove their app from the store, then this might hit people's radar in a meaningful way.

dvkid
Nov 13, 2009, 01:09 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.

The app talked about in this discussion was free, offered as an added-value feature of the desktop application. While useful, it was never the core feature of the purchased product.

Rogue Amoeba's only other app, a radio tuner, sold for $9.99 but saw only middle of the road reviews and likely did not fare as well as the $1.99 radio apps.

Cartaphilus
Nov 13, 2009, 01:16 PM
Rogue Amoeba offers terrific programs. I don't use Speakers on my iPhone very often, but Airfoil and its associated programs (Sunflower, Instant Hijack) run on my MBP very frequently.

I certainly understand Apple's need to protect its intellectual property and to ensure there is a clear distinction in consumers' minds between what portion of the iPhone experience reflects Apple's efforts and what portion is provided by others. Nonetheless, when dealing with partners whose employees tend to be computer science experts rather than legal experts, and where the partner has demonstrated a real commitment to Apple's platforms and a real ability to deliver Apple-worthy products, I think Apple would be wise to go the extra mile to make life easier for these partners.

As another poster implied, when some amateur developer gripes about Apple's approval process it's one thing, but when a developer of the caliber of Rogue Amoeba backs away, it's time for Apple to respond constructively.

PlaceofDis
Nov 13, 2009, 01:18 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.

i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.

Unspoken Demise
Nov 13, 2009, 01:21 PM
which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.

Agreed.

And at Rogue Amoeba: k bai

With the FB guy, I was mildly interested, but now people are just gunna jump on this bandwagon. I dont care if you leave frankly.

dvdhsu
Nov 13, 2009, 01:26 PM
Aplenty needs to clean up their act here.
Rogue isn't a small homegrown company, they deserve to be respected. With policies like this, the App Store might just eventually die.

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 01:37 PM
Jeff LaMarche's (co-author of "Beginning iPhone Development") take on this situation:

http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html

I'm going to risk the ire of the maddening crowd once more, but I think somebody needs to come to Apple's defense this time. I love a good mob scene as much as the next guy, and I keep my pitchfork nice and sharp just in case the need should arise. But… the picture that Rogue Amoeba has painted in their farewell post doesn't look quite so black and white to me. Certainly, Apple could have handled many things about the situation better, but so could have Rogue Amoeba.

I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.

But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.

DaveGee
Nov 13, 2009, 01:42 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.

i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.

Not to be an I TOLD YOU SO type of guy BUT.... :D

I've been trying to get people to understand that the Apple's doctoral grasp has over the App store was something that NEEDED to be addressed and people kept drinking the koolaid saying... It's ONLY one or two Apps.... we don't need to worry... then it was HEY its ONLY google and Apple has every right to axe their Apps cause they are getting too BIG...

Well now other developers are starting to pull back.. Developers who people FINALLY seem to care about... Well all I have to say is welcome to the party nice to see you're finally seeing the light. :confused:

venasque
Nov 13, 2009, 01:47 PM
I've always felt the sheer number of applications available for the iphone was a huge advantage to the platform. But if this bad press continues Apple will lose this advantage. I want quality applications not junk.

What bothers me most about the above is the inability of anyone in charge to THINK. They just blindly follow "rules" laid out without stopping to use their greatest gift; their brains.

Apple needs to get on top of this right away. They need to understand this is a learning process and adapt/amend procedures that don't work. I appreciate that they are trying to do, but junk still gets through and quality is being driven away in frustration. :(

seashellz
Nov 13, 2009, 01:50 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 01:52 PM
Jeff LaMarche's (co-author of "Beginning iPhone Development") take on this situation:

http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html



I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.

But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.

And Gruber's response to this response:

http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation


Sorry, but imho there is absolutely *no* reason to defend Apple here.

w00master

rstansby
Nov 13, 2009, 01:52 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 01:54 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.

I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.

w00master

seashellz
Nov 13, 2009, 01:54 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them

you dont need a PhD to understand this

hotshotharry
Nov 13, 2009, 01:56 PM
My only complaint about apple is their overprotective nature regarding the iPhone ! It's perhaps the single biggest reason why people are reluctant to switch! Many of my friends feel that paying a premium and not being allowed to do what they want is a deal breaker! I understand that apple needs to protect it's user experience but as an advanced user I find myself becoming more frustated at the lack of flexibility!

I believe that this aspect will be apples biggest problem! I mean ... Just let me do what I want ! I am even willing to click a pop up that says you might f up your phone and have to restore it if you do this !

I applaud the developers for taking a stand! It's a great platform! But has fundamental flaws that need to be fixed before it can be truly great !

I think actually I'm going to fill in some feedback forms for apple saying just that! I encourage all of you to do the same !!!!

maknik
Nov 13, 2009, 01:56 PM
There is no real-world solution to this problem as long as Apple insists on vetting every app and update. No company can be perfect in such a vast (many thousands a week) undertaking, so every developer runs the risk that his app will be caught in some bizarre limbo while an easily-fixed bug sits out there slowly damaging the developer's name. Unfortunately, there are only two solutions to this problem: customer pressure for Apple to reduce its oversight (followed by complaints by those apparently scared of having to vet applications on their own), or lawsuits. I suspect the latter is the only plausible solution.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 01:56 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them

you dont need a PhD to understand this

So, did you even READ what Rogue Amoeba had to say?

I'm seriously amazed with you apologists. You guys are defending Apple in an instance where they are CLEARLY in the wrong.

w00master

bstpierre
Nov 13, 2009, 02:01 PM
I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.

w00master

I agree with you. If they are using an image sent by Mac OS X for just such a purpose they are not doing anything wrong.

It makes me think that maybe there are some lowly app reviewers who are letting the power go to their heads.

Makosuke
Nov 13, 2009, 02:01 PM
With policies like this, the App Store might just eventually die.Yeah, right. It would take a whole lot more than a few dozen (heck, a few HUNDRED) cheesed-off developers to kill the app store. If they turned all development off today, it would still be successful.

That said, when Rogue Amoeba jumps ship over what seems a pretty blatant case of policy clashing with logic and common sense, that's a bad sign that you're doing stuff wrong.

It's not 100% black and white, but really, Apple should be doing a better job than this. They do seem to be gradually improving--there have been many signs that they ARE listening to the complaints, and moving toward addressing at least some of them--but the company should be doing more.

If anything, I'd much rather the app store approval process were brutally exclusionary about apps with bugs or ugly/non-"iPhone-like" UIs than nit-picking branding issues.

Basically, if the walled garden had a bouncer who was a style-nazi I'd be much happier than the relatively lenient lawyer currently standing at the gate.

Small White Car
Nov 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules


You should try it!

They didn't break the rules.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 02:07 PM
You should try it!

They didn't break the rules.

Looks like some of these apologists don't even read the developers side. In fact, I'd count on that fact.

w00master

macUser2007
Nov 13, 2009, 02:17 PM
Looks like some of these apologists don't even read the developers side. In fact, I'd count on that fact.

w00master

For them, it's a religion. Reason and common sense don't matter.

iphones4evry1
Nov 13, 2009, 02:38 PM
This is becoming an epidemic of developers that are upset with Apple's App review process. I have no problem with Apple reviewing Apps, as it increases security for us users, BUT I think Apple needs to COMPLETELY overhaul their App process. There is no way in heck that it should take three months for a follow-up review of an App that they have already delayed. Three months is completely unacceptable in the rest of the world, and this looks VERY bad for Apple. Apple needs to COMPLETELY redo their completely inefficient app-review process, and get back up with the standards that the rest of the world operates on. If it took me three months to do anything, I would never have graduated college. They gave us due dates, and we did our work! It works the same way at my job. People aren't given three months to get things done. Apple gets an "F" on this one! "A day late, a penny short."

CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 2009, 02:39 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

ghayenga
Nov 13, 2009, 02:41 PM
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple

The "rules" *aren't* carefully spelled out.

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 02:42 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using.
It's just not that cut-and-dried. Apple even provided an API to access these images under Mac OS X. So, seems they do want people using them.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 02:42 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

Again... you clearly did not read the developer's side.

Btw, those "copyrighted images?" Programmers use them all the time on OS X. Why? Because THEY'RE FROM OS X APIs.

w00master

Small White Car
Nov 13, 2009, 02:45 PM
Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

RA didn't break any copywright laws. Those images are broadcast by OS X specifically so other computers can dislplay them.

Just to be clear, if RA had made an application for a Macbook that displayed these images, that's ok. Because they made the application for an iPhone instead, it's not ok.

Does that make sense to anyone?

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 02:52 PM
Just to be clear, if RA had made an application for a Macbook that displayed these images, that's ok. Because they made the application for an iPhone instead, it's not ok.

Does that make sense to anyone?
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X. I may not always agree with it but there you have it. :)

Redline13
Nov 13, 2009, 03:11 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

I don't think you understand the specifics of the situation. Go back and read it again.

libertyforall
Nov 13, 2009, 03:15 PM
Maybe developers should just make jailbroken iPhone apps exclusively...

str1f3
Nov 13, 2009, 03:19 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X. I may not always agree with it but there you have it. :)

The problem is that they have broken no rules. The data being sent to display the images is coming from the Mac. Rogue Amoeba is following the rules of the SDK.

impierced
Nov 13, 2009, 03:20 PM
So, did you even READ what Rogue Amoeba had to say?

I'm seriously amazed with you apologists. You guys are defending Apple in an instance where they are CLEARLY in the wrong.

w00master

Please be more specific when you say "wrong", in what way?

Apple owns the rights to their intellectual property, this includes images and icons of their products that they have created.

However, let me be clear here... I think Apple's "stance" regarding this is "wrong". Rogue Amoeba has enriched the user experience by providing an accurate representation of the source. This should have been resolved when Apple looked into it on more than the surface level.

apfhex
Nov 13, 2009, 03:22 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X.
Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)

YES, Apple can reject an app for any reason they see fit. But this is getting ridiculous. I haven't cared about any of the apps made by developers that have so far jumped ship, but one of these days it is going to be one of the ones I care about, and I'm not looking forward to it.

danuff
Nov 13, 2009, 03:24 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.

Where are you getting this information from, fact or rumor?

While it is true that SOME apps have taken off and earn big bucks, most of the apps do not. But that's the perception that Apple wants you to think, so they can lure new developers in, and only to frustrate them with Apple's review process.

I hope this begins a domino effect to MAKE Apple rethink the entire review process - but, sadly, it probably won't.

Dan

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 03:25 PM
So they "knew" they were Right after being told otherwise. :rolleyes:

If I remember correctly, apps that get rejected multiple times experiment unusual delays in the approval process.

Maybe they have never developed software for a client and so it is their way or else. Sad.

If you want to develop for the highly rewarding AppStore you have to come to grips with the fact that it is a combination of both models -there is a client, Apple, and there are customers. Fail to please any of them at your own risk.

On the other hand, new openings in a crowded marketplace are more of a good thing for everybody. Farewell, strong-headed developers! :D

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 03:32 PM
So they "knew" they were Right after being told otherwise. :rolleyes:

If I remember correctly, apps that get rejected multiple times experiment unusual delays in the approval process.

Maybe they have never developed software for a client and so it is their way or else. Sad.

If you want to develop for the highly rewarding AppStore you have to come to grips with the fact that it is a combination of both models -there is a client, Apple, and there are customers. Fail to please any of them at your own risk.

On the other hand, new openings in a crowded marketplace are more of a good thing for everybody. Farewell, strong-headed developers! :D

The difference is with a client I can show them a prototype, or mock up, prior to having to put all the resources into creating a fully functioning app.

In the app store, when I have an idea for an app, I can't pre-screen it with Apple. I just have to write the damned thing, submit it, and take my chances.

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 03:32 PM
The problem is that they have broken no rules. The data being sent to display the images is coming from the Mac. Rogue Amoeba is following the rules of the SDK.

Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)
I don't think they broke any rules either (hence my "I may not agree with it" comment) but I was just pointing out the fact that you can't argue, in a general way, that it doesn't make sense to be allowed to do something on the Mac but not on the iPhone. They do have a different set of rules.

muxbox
Nov 13, 2009, 03:35 PM
Apple set up a review process to control the quality of the apps hitting the app store.

Then they fill it with junk anyway.

We have tried to create a serious simple life tool called VoCal - Voice Calendar and after months of silly standards from apple, and review rules that make it hard for us to provide a good service to our customers, not to mention the length of time to get an app reviewed, we have decided to pull 90% of our efforts away from Apple development and work on the Windows Platform where freedom is the key. We will launch our new innovative software for windows gamers very soon.

Yes it was nice of Apple to invite us to create apps and they have shared the wealth of the success but the amount of frustration at the review process and Apples non common sensical rules have never helped. Their ability to make people jump the queues in both reviews and in ordering tickets to the events were the final straw for us.

Apple make gorgeous products yet working with them can be an ugly experience.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 03:44 PM
Please be more specific when you say "wrong", in what way?

Apple owns the rights to their intellectual property, this includes images and icons of their products that they have created.

Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.

That's how they're wrong.

w00master

Eraserhead
Nov 13, 2009, 03:48 PM
Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.

That's how they're wrong.

w00master

Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 03:54 PM
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 03:56 PM
The difference is with a client I can show them a prototype, or mock up, prior to having to put all the resources into creating a fully functioning app.

I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want at the end to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.

CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X. I may not always agree with it but there you have it. :)

Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.

Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 03:59 PM
I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.

The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.

CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 2009, 03:59 PM
Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.

That's how they're wrong.

w00master

Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.

w00master
Nov 13, 2009, 04:01 PM
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.

Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:

"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."

http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation


Quit apologizing for Apple.

w00master

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 04:01 PM
Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.

Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.

That's not at all what happens. The api is designed to return those specific images - that's all it's for. It's like if Apple provides an API for providing directory listings, then complains because it's got a trademark on the word "library" when used in a directory structure.

Freg3000
Nov 13, 2009, 04:05 PM
Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.

There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.

As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.

PlaceofDis
Nov 13, 2009, 04:07 PM
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.

they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 04:09 PM
I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.

There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.

As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.

You are correct.

While I don't defend Apple here, to be fair they do have a trademark/tradedress argument. The issue is whether or not the images of the macs would confuse someone as to the source of the software (i.e.: they would think it's Apple software). Aside from the fact that this is unlikely, referential use of trademarks is ok. For example, if you were to write a book about the New York Giants, a trademarked term, you probably wouldn't have to call it the "New York National Football Conference football club." Here, I think the use of the icons is clearly referential, and no different than if the icon was replaced by text like "Cliff's Macbook Pro" (which also includes trademarked terms).

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 04:09 PM
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.

I agree with that. ;)

Yet, that is not the case this time, or I'd say, for the majority of rejections. Apple most of the time allows you to make the necessary changes, as odd as they may seem.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 04:10 PM
they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.

Or like saying that if my app has a UIWebView, I have to prevent the user from navigating to Apple.com lest he be subjected to seeing Apple's trademarked logos and pictures of Apple computers.

Adolfo
Nov 13, 2009, 04:25 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...

I'm on RA's side on this one!

genovelle
Nov 13, 2009, 04:36 PM
The rules have been carefully spelled out enough that this same reasoning for rejections has been restated atleast 20 times in the last 6 months online. If these are cream of the crop developers I would think that they have someone on their staff who they pay to vet these apps and look for violations before they submit them. If they would have just visited these threads over the last few months, their frustration could have been prevented if they didn't feel like reading the rules themselves. Apple should have really keep them under the no discloser agreements like they had before.

Just think. If I were an Apple competitor, I could offer huge amounts of money to a developer or even one of their employees, to publicly leave Apple and berate their system. In return I will pay you ten times your current pay and help you start a company that I will support by marketing your programs on my platform. Microsoft has been said to have made these types of offers.

MacFly123
Nov 13, 2009, 04:40 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:

I think there have been some instances where I understand Apple's side of things. But yes, I realize the process really needs to be refined and clear cut. This specific case is very disappointing and Apple needs to apologize and really work things out with them! Apple needs to take strong measures to ensure that they protect the immensely powerful platform they have going for the future!

Go Phil and Eddie, go!

guet
Nov 13, 2009, 04:44 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.

i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.

No, they need to ditch the walled garden approach. It has never worked, and will never work, from AOL to eWorld, it'll lead to indifference and hostility from developers, and eventually, users. Throwing more people at it would not solve what is a systemic problem.

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 04:54 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...

I'm on RA's side on this one!

You may be right, but we haven't seen the emails or the actual rejected programs.

Furthermore, "The Client Is Always Right", not because they are, but as a matter of principle. The client is in command.

And I insist, Apple's model makes them the client, which I have to admit brings many benefits to the end user and the platform in general -not so many to the suppliers or developers, except maybe for the fact that it makes the end user more confident to part with their money, of which Apple has the numbers to prove.

Eraserhead
Nov 13, 2009, 05:03 PM
But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday (http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/5631765190).

Regardless its still within a short period.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 05:03 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".

Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.

Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.

There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:05 PM
You may be right, but we haven't seen the emails or the actual rejected programs.

Furthermore, "The Client Is Always Right", not because they are, but as a matter of principle. The client is in command.

And I insist, Apple's model makes them the client, which I have to admit brings many benefits to the end user and the platform in general -not so many to the suppliers or developers, except maybe for the fact that it makes the end user more confident to part with their money, of which Apple has the numbers to prove.

I don't see Apple as the client. After all, they didn't ask for the app. They didn't provide any kind of spec, or put out an RFP, or specify any guidelines as to what it should do. To me they are more of an unwanted kibbutzer looking over my shoulder. On more than one occasion I've had Apple reject updates that did things my customers really wanted, for dumb reasons (usually reasons that they could have asserted for the 20 updates I did prior to that point).

guet
Nov 13, 2009, 05:08 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.

For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.

Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.

Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.

If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 05:08 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...

I'm on RA's side on this one!
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.

@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.

rhett7660
Nov 13, 2009, 05:12 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.

i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.

You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.

And the paid app didn't even sell that well.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:13 PM
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.

@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.

You say that but it's not necessarily true. One of my apps was rejected for depicting an image of an Apple product. Not a copyrighted file, mind you. Just a little icon, drawn by me, that looked like an Apple product. It was rejected for depicting an Apple trademark.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.

And the paid app didn't even sell that well.

You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.

Eraserhead
Nov 13, 2009, 05:16 PM
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X.

So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:18 PM
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.

He's taking the fact that Apple has the legal right to object and extrapolating that it somehow makes sense for them to do so.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 05:19 PM
You say that but it's not necessarily true. One of my apps was rejected for depicting an image of an Apple product. Not a copyrighted file, mind you. Just a little icon, drawn by me, that looked like an Apple product. It was rejected for depicting an Apple trademark.
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.

guet
Nov 13, 2009, 05:26 PM
They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.

Please give us a link to the license specific to those images from that API, and point out where it states they are licensed only for use on a Mac. You can't because there isn't one. It's a grey area, however what RA were doing is not unexpected, and indeed, it's exactly what the remote app does from Apple.

Quite apart from that, it's pointless to argue over trivial licensing issues. Apple can probably get away with this in a strict legal sense; I'm sure they have some get-out clause saying they can reject any app they please for any reason. No one needs to play the apologist for Apple - if they want to play hardball, they will, and the only thing developers and users can do about it is publicise their complaint and move to other platforms.

The argument is not over whether they *can* do this and get away with it, it's whether they should. If they continue to make life incredibly difficult for developers, large potential partners will start to look elsewhere, and with them the users will follow. They've already lost Google due to their foolish intransigence, and will see less innovation in their maps app as a result.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:26 PM
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.

You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.

But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.

There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.

And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.

So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.

It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.

And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.

rhett7660
Nov 13, 2009, 05:37 PM
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.

It just says they are jumping ship from the iPhone... For some reason, 3 people jumping ship don't really stir the pot for me. For some reason I have a feeling there will be many behind them to take their place.

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 05:42 PM
I don't see Apple as the client. After all, they didn't ask for the app. They didn't provide any kind of spec, or put out an RFP, or specify any guidelines as to what it should do. To me they are more of an unwanted kibbutzer looking over my shoulder. On more than one occasion I've had Apple reject updates that did things my customers really wanted, for dumb reasons (usually reasons that they could have asserted for the 20 updates I did prior to that point).

It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.

You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.

It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:45 PM
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.

You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.

It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)

Ah, but Apple won't let us sell it in our own store!

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.

But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.

There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.

And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.

So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.

It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.

And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.

Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.

The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 05:49 PM
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.

Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.

The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.

You say you're not missing the point, but your response immediately jumped back to "they have a right."

yes, we know. We aren't arguing what they have a right to do.

We are arguing about how stupid and arbitrary it is to enforce that right.

And your argument about the icons in the last paragraph makes no sense - why would someone want to use an image of a mac to represent a non-OS X box?

And, you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no solution for the developer other than making their software significantly worse - they can't use their own icons that depict the machine being connected to, they can't necessarily use the NAME of the machine being connected to - what is it they are supposed to do? List the machines by ip address?

inkswamp
Nov 13, 2009, 06:13 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:

I guess I would turn that around to you and ask why are people making such a huge deal out of a handful of incidents in a pool of 100K+ apps? It's bound to happen, especially considering that this is a whole new approach to delivering apps to a device and there are bound to be misunderstandings and missteps along the way.

Obviously, I think this is a ridiculous situation and I hope someone higher-up at Apple gets involved and smoothes this over and ensures it doesn't happen again. However, attitudes like yours are basically advocating throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

thejadedmonkey
Nov 13, 2009, 06:18 PM
Aplenty needs to clean up their act here.
Rogue isn't a small homegrown company, they deserve to be respected. With policies like this, the App Store might just eventually die.

I hope it dies. It's an abomination among software development.

jz1492
Nov 13, 2009, 06:26 PM
Ah, but Apple won't let us sell it in our own store!

I guess you could say "There's a droid for that", but following my analogy it would be just like a swap meet with a big seller taking up the central aisles.

But that doesn't mean that now you can reach everyone. The Android swap meet excludes BlackBerry, Palm, Symbian, WinMo and Apple customers. You end up with a smaller customer base, with such a diverse set of user needs that you end up pulling your hair out trying to meet every Android phone manufacturer's device specs. :confused:

vannote
Nov 13, 2009, 06:44 PM
Let me quote Gruber on this very issue:
"Point 1 is simply wrong; the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation


As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…

The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.

One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.

The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.

Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.

Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.

ChrisA
Nov 13, 2009, 07:05 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:

This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.

Balooba
Nov 13, 2009, 07:07 PM
Rogue Amoeba, stop behaving like grumpy children. We love your apps and need updates and continued development! Change the graphics and get over it.

Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 07:07 PM
As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…

The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.

One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.

The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.

Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.

Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
Thank you. You said it better that I could right now as I'm trying to fight off a cold. :o

I'm also a professional developer for that other platform with a monopoly in the desktop market (windows client/server). I've only dabbled with OS X but the general principles are the same regardless of whether you are using OS X APIs or Win32. Just because an API can give you access to an image, it does not mean that you can use it wherever however you wish.

If I was an icon artist, I might be upset if my icons were being used on an iPhone app which were only licensed for use in a specific desktop app whether directly or indirectly because it was set as the default icon for a data type on the server.

dejo
Nov 13, 2009, 07:11 PM
And Jeff LaMarche has responded to Daring Fireball's response:

Some More Thoughts on the Airfoil Situation (http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-more-thoughts-on-airfoil-situation.html)

Disclaimer: I provide this clearly for informational purposes and not to support any particular position.

dvdhsu
Nov 13, 2009, 07:26 PM
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.

You have an excellent point there.

rowlands
Nov 13, 2009, 08:29 PM
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.

I agree, as much as I prefer Apple products over others, this app store rejection malarky seems to be getting funkier and funkier. I can understand it from both sides. However it ain't gonna change until it has to change.

I'm confident that given time Apple will change their policy. At least RA understand why their software was rejected. A website rejected one of our Mac products, we received a "your app was rejected because of one of these reasons". Then it listed 8 reasons, almost all were in bad Chinglish!

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 08:42 PM
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.
Do you believe that Google Android apps are a free for all and that apps are never rejected? Do you believe that Google is any different than any other company when comes to protecting their IP? Google maps API for example, cannot be used in third party applications that offer turn by turn navigation. If you believe that Google is different, then I have a bridge to sell you and that gullible is not listed anywhere in the dictionary. :p

I have no problem with laymen expressing their opinions but I am getting a little bit annoyed by noobs like wOOmaster telling people who earn a living developing software that they are wrong about copyright and how software development works.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 08:48 PM
Do you believe that Google Android apps are a free for all and that apps are never rejected? Do you believe that Google is any different than any other company when comes to protecting their IP? Google maps API for example, cannot be used in third party applications that offer turn by turn navigation.


To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 09:08 PM
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
That is irrelevant. It is still someone's IP and Google is bound by law to honour their license agreement with that other company. It is also possible that Apple could be bound by an agreement for their system icons. Not likely but it is possible. I know that icon factory created a lot of the XP and Vista icons for MSFT.

I have no problem with people using fair use for justifying their own personal use but publishing apps on the app store whether for free or for profit crosses that line where fair use cannot be used as an argument. These apps are not a commentary or piece of journalism but rather a product offered to promote a commercial product called Airfoil which is available for the mac and windows.

Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 09:13 PM
Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?

Have you even read a single thing I've said? You are defaming me - I'm an intellectual property attorney and don't advocate stealing anyone's intellectual property. So let me repeat what I've said multiple times, this time using small words:

1) Apple has every RIGHT (taking into account waiver, exhaustion/first sale doctrine, and fair use) to use its copyright to limit the license to the icons

2) Apple has every RIGHT to decide what goes into the app store

3) Apple is being stupid in exercising these rights in this case.

macbeta
Nov 13, 2009, 09:48 PM
sad, as the app store is 99% junk.

jaw04005
Nov 13, 2009, 09:58 PM
sad, as the app store is 99% junk.

You’re right there. And what’s sad is Apple is chasing off (in this case) one of its best developers. Rogue Amoeba makes great software, and comes highly recommended from many people in the Mac community — AirFoil, Audio Hijack Pro, Fission, etc.

You know what’s interesting is while browsing around with my iDisk app on the iPhone, I noticed the iDisk app displays Adobe’s Photoshop icon for PSD files. I wonder if Adobe gave Apple explicit permission to use their Photoshop file icon in the iDisk app?

CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 2009, 10:20 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them

Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.

It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 10:22 PM
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.

It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:

Most of the complaints, including this one, are about when Apple rejects an app for something that is NOT in the developer's guide.

CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 2009, 10:23 PM
You know what’s interesting is while browsing around with my iDisk app on the iPhone, I noticed the iDisk app displays Adobe’s Photoshop icon for PSD files. I wonder if Adobe gave Apple explicit permission to use their Photoshop file icon in the iDisk app?

Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.

jmann
Nov 13, 2009, 10:27 PM
Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.

That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop. :)

CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 2009, 10:31 PM
Most of the complaints, including this one, are about when Apple rejects an app for something that is NOT in the developer's guide.

Actually, "this complaint" is about something that is in the developer's guide. The use of Apple icons. There have been lots of apps that have been rejected over it because of the use of icons to similar to other iPhone system icons, or Apple OS icons.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 10:35 PM
Actually, "this complaint" is about something that is in the developer's guide. The use of Apple icons. There have been lots of apps that have been rejected over it because of the use of icons to similar to other iPhone system icons, or Apple OS icons.

No, actually it says:

(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);

This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)

It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."

CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 2009, 10:35 PM
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop. :)

Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.

CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 2009, 10:38 PM
No, actually it says:

(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);

This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)

It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."

You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.

Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.

The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.

So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.

My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.


P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.

str1f3
Nov 13, 2009, 10:54 PM
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.

It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:

You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 11:26 PM
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.

The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.

So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.

My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.


P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.

The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.

*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 13, 2009, 11:41 PM
Apple is a terrible company when it comes to ETHICS and people need to just understand that basic fact of life when dealing with them. They are greedy greedy greedy and they don't CARE what you think about them, what you want in a product and whether you wasted months working on an application that they just reject for the most ridiculous illogical reasons ever. This goes to show why NO COMPANY should be allowed to DICTATE (as in a dictatorship) terms for software releases on ANY platform (No, I don't care that it's based on a "phone" platform; it's STILL a computer; the iPod Touch is STILL a computer). We need a freedom of information/software/market act for software releases on all platforms. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution for the iPhone/iPod Touch computer platform and that simply should not be allowed. If you create a new hardware platform that is open to software development, that market should be independent of the company pushing the platform since clearly that constitutes a monopoly of software for that platform and leads to BS nonsense like this example shows. Imagine if they wanted 30% of all profits for the Mac platform and insisted software for the Mac could only be sold through iTunes.... That would never stand the light of day. Yet apparently it's OK if OSX is put onto a hand-held mobile computer and then forced to interface through iTunes (shakes head). As usual, the real loser here is the consumer who does not get all the software for the platform that he/she should be able to get. Instead you get mountains of two-bit 99 cent throw-away applications because no company in their right mind would put a lot of money into developing a really good application only to have Apple reject it on a whim!

Yes I know that you brain-washed types that worship Steve Jobs will scream and moan about this sort of comment since you seem to think that Steve should be allowed to do ANYTHING he wants in this world and have some contorted view of Capitalism that seems to think competition doesn't include Apple since they are somehow special and magical and should be left alone to do things like extort 30% off the top of all 3rd party software (very Mafia-esque IMO), but I say I don't care what a bunch of brain-washed groupies think so do me a favor and spare me your opinions. I couldn't care less about any form of fan-boy or fanatical viewpoint on ANYTHING Apple related since it will clearly be completely 100% Apple biased and therefore 100% WORTHLESS. Yes I already know you think it's Apple's hardware and therefore they have no market responsibilities to ANYONE. I think that's a load of horse manure. They exist in a country based on competition and if they don't like it, they should move to Communist China where there is none. Oh wait a second, they already make their hardware there so they're halfway there already! :eek:

TheIguana
Nov 13, 2009, 11:50 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.

The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.

Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.

cmaier
Nov 13, 2009, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.

The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.

Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.

And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.

You say:

"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."

Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).

But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?

And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Let's look at these.

1) the purpose and character of your use

This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.

2) the nature of the copyrighted work

Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.

By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.

You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.

Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.

You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.

aristotle
Nov 13, 2009, 11:56 PM
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.

If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.

aristotle
Nov 14, 2009, 12:00 AM
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.

And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.

You say:

"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."

Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).

But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?

And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Let's look at these.

1) the purpose and character of your use

This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.

2) the nature of the copyrighted work

Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.

By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.

You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.

Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.

You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?

So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.

I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.

This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.

Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.

The bible frames it slightly different but that is the gist of how it appears in the bible.

To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.

cmaier
Nov 14, 2009, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.

If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.

Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).

It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.

Blue Fox
Nov 14, 2009, 12:09 AM
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.

I'm not going to defend Rogue Amoeba because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.

No body knows ****** about either side of the story, yet there are 5 pages of arguments between people saying they know exactly what happened because they read an article that had a quote by someone, and somehow that means that's EXACTLY what happened. Ignorance.

But that's arguing on the internet for you. Pointless.

cmaier
Nov 14, 2009, 12:14 AM
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?

So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.

I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.

This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.

Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.

Now you are just making things up. And are you even aware of the difference between law and equity, and the role of the chancellor in old English common law? There were no "arbitrators." What on earth are you even talking about?

I hate to rely on wikipedia, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law might be a good place for you to start. You'll note the section on the influence of Roman law. You'll also see quotes like this:

"Well into the 19th century, ancient maxims played a large role in common law adjudication. Many of these maxims had originated in Roman Law, migrated to England before the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, and were typically stated in Latin even in English decisions."

You'll also note that "arbitrator" and "arbitration" doesn't appear anywhere in that article because these are not principles of English common law. The word "Christian" appears only in the above quote.

And I'm not a historian, but lawyers are actually taught about the history of common law, since we rely on precedent dating all the way back, and we still have distinctions and rules that come from the 1400's.

You are just making stuff up.

p.s.: and where in the bible does this come from:

To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.

guet
Nov 14, 2009, 01:53 AM
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.

Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).

It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.

Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.

It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.

PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.

I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.

Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.

Macula
Nov 14, 2009, 02:54 AM
Apple is behaving quite like a rogue indeed.

hanpa
Nov 14, 2009, 05:39 AM
Although I love my iPhone and my MacBook, I hate how Apple handles the Appstore approval process. Wake up Apple, this is sheer madness!

hanpa
Nov 14, 2009, 05:49 AM
I've had serious plans for starting to develop software for the iPhone, as an experienced software developer. I've considered buying the latest iMac version for improved performance and a bigger screen than on my 13" MacBook. But I've changed my mind. Why develop for a platform with a defect application approval process? I don't want all that frustration. I'll probably develop for the Android instead. The iPhone is still the best platform but Apple sucks. Period.

mkwilson68
Nov 14, 2009, 06:05 AM
... Can Apple really be this dumb, still? Sort this mess out - there are clearly still major flaws with the app store approval process - as there have been since day one.

Apple - you're turning enthusiastic, passionate developers into enemies - what is wrong with you????

Hawkeye411
Nov 14, 2009, 07:07 AM
Another good reason to Jailbreak!

I think I'll be looking closely at other phones when my contract is up next year!!

nehunte
Nov 14, 2009, 07:45 AM
I think this thread has moved too far into the law and needs to move back into the 'common sense' arena. Rogue was using images supplied to him by MAC OSX. Strangely enough, Apple denied the app. Whatever, that's fine. BUT IT TOOK THREE AND A HALF MONTHS TO SORT THE SITUATION OUT!!!!

That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.

With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.

batchtaster
Nov 14, 2009, 09:13 AM
Whatever. Someone will be more than happy to come along and fill the gap, if they haven't already.

Let's see, that's, what, two developers who've decided to pack it in. That's not a "wave of discontent" or whatever it's supposedly being touted as. Esp since more developers have no doubt joined in the same period than have walked. This is the nature of this kind of thing. Not happy? Fine. Leave. Nobody's making you stay. It was your choice to get involved in the first place. Take your ball and go home.

The Doomsayers can go ***** themselves.

hogo
Nov 14, 2009, 09:50 AM
just change the ******** logos and icons and be done with it. If u let RA use them, every tom dick and harry could use official graphics and make it look like its apple official. Hate to see RA go, but this isn't that big of a deal.

MikeMc
Nov 14, 2009, 10:05 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'

cmaier
Nov 14, 2009, 10:16 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'

Then you're missing out. RA is a very highly regarded Mac developer.

And apple's actions here don't improve quality - they reduce it,

bagelche
Nov 14, 2009, 10:23 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'


That's a shame, Mike, because RA's mac-based apps are fantastic. I use them all the time at the small community radio station I volunteer at. I admittedly have not tried their iphone app.

Like you, I am also not a developer, just an end user. And as an end user, Apple's mishandled control of the gatekeeper role is incredibly frustrating. As an end user, if a program I'm using has a bug that can impinge on my ability to use it, I like to have a responsive system that fixes that bug. A responsive developer is important, but so is a responsive gatekeeper, if that role exists. Apple has repeatedly shown themselves to be a failure point in a system of their own devising.

To a certain extent the issue isn't even if RA's use of these images was in violation of the SDK (though, of course that is a big issue), but, again as an end user, how is the system that's in place functioning to resolve the issues that matter to the common customer of the developer and Apple? Unfortunately there are very visible breakdowns in the process and I want to see those treated as serious bugs and fixed accordingly.

Compile 'em all
Nov 14, 2009, 10:29 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance.

HOW IS IT A GOOD THING FOR THE CONSUMER THAT THEY STOP DEVELOPING APPS FOR THE IPHONE?

Did you even bother reading the goddamn article? Apple rejected the app because RA implemented the displaying of the remote device in the exact same way Apple does in their remote App!

ratspg
Nov 14, 2009, 11:25 AM
You are all very funny for the most part. I'm not even sure how many of you actually develop apps for the iPhone, but it seems like you would all fit quite well working for Apple's App Review team in prolonging the process and stifling developers. I think it's pretty hilarious how many of you just jump and support Apple. If Apple obeyed rules from day one, they would never have become the innovative company they are today. The point is, any developer creating an application for the iPhone should be encouraged and motivated to develop for a great and unique platform. The other side (Apple) is obviously being very difficult to work with and ambiguous with many rejections and comments. With a lack of communication, you'll get adversity from both sides. I just wish most of you would wake up, stop bowing to Apple and realize that they have more control over making the App Review process WORK for the long-term than the developers do. I hope they stick with thinking different and start to make great changes to the App Review process.

SmalTek
Nov 14, 2009, 12:21 PM
I think that Apple doesn't have resources for decent quality review process.

App store works in a such way, that all underdog app developers want to update their apps as often as possible. A new update brings an app to the first page in its category, sorted by date (for a day or 2)

Apple does not have guts or desire to charge for reviews, and all this mess goes on. They "review" apps very formally, and I suspect that this is outsourced to India.

If Apple wants to make this right, they should include 10 or 20 reviews into the annual $100 developer fee, and charge $20-$50 for each additional review. That would greatly reduce the number of updates, and increase the quality of reviews.

I myself have several apps in the appstore, and my apps and updates were also rejected many times for formal reasons, which were totally stupid in the context of my apps.

And what's also funny, Apple suddenly rejected my critical update with a bug fix because of a piece of graphic that already was in my app for 6 months :-)

freedevil
Nov 14, 2009, 12:31 PM
Boo Hoo Rogue Amoeba. How stupid? Devs need to grow up.

cmaier
Nov 14, 2009, 12:35 PM
Boo Hoo Rogue Amoeba. How stupid? Devs need to grow up.

And we have a winner, ladies an gentleman. The Stupidest Post.

Winni
Nov 14, 2009, 12:37 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.

Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.

And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.

w00master
Nov 14, 2009, 12:44 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".

Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.

Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.

There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?

Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.

Again, to quote Gruber:

"the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."

To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.


w00master

Nuvi
Nov 14, 2009, 02:20 PM
Apple's walled garden policy doesn't bring security to end user or has failed at that. Just take a look at Storm8 apps (dev is sued / spy ware). However, it allows Apple to full fill its destiny of being the big brother like in their 1984 spot... wait, wasn't it meant to be the other way around... hell, just tell me who will be the girl with that sledge hammer cause I'm sure it ain't Apple...

SmalTek
Nov 14, 2009, 03:13 PM
Apple's walled garden policy doesn't bring security to end user or has failed at that...

I think that's because they are overwhelmed with testing all those fart apps and pointless updates. As a cell phone user, I want to be sure that all apps on my phone have been thoroughly tested and are clean. I cannot test them, and even if I could, I don't have time for that. Relying on other people's reviews is naive - bit torrents are filled with viruses and spy-ware, and have tons of positive reviews. I've been waiting for more than a year for Apple to rise the plank and reject trash apps, and discourage pointless updates financially (making the developers pay for each submission) - Apple has a different idea. Whatever their idea is, I don't think that the results are good for iPhone users.

jaw04005
Nov 14, 2009, 08:01 PM
I’m not sure if anyone’s mentioned it yet, but Rogue Amoeba has posted an update that explicitly explains the API calls and what’s actually going on. It’s not just Apple’s icons that are in play here.

None of these icons are shipped in our apps

On the iPhone side, Airfoil Speakers Touch just displays a generic “album art” image that comes from Airfoil. On the Airfoil side, both the Mac image and the application icon are fetched using public Cocoa APIs.

The call we use to fetch the computer image is [NSImage imageNamed: NSImageNameComputer]. Behind the scenes, the system has a store of machine icons stored away in the /System directory, and matches up your computer’s model identifier with their artwork to return an icon.

The call we use to get the target application’s icon is -[NSWorkspace iconForFile:], which can be used to obtain the icon for any file on the system. Applications such as the Finder would use this call to display the icons of files and applications on the hard drive when browsing its contents.

The code is not specifically designed to send Apple’s icons

The code is fully generic and simply sends the icon of whatever application the user chooses on the Mac side. Apple applications are popular audio sources for Airfoil, but it’s entirely possible to send third-party applications like Firefox, Spotify, Last.fm, our own Pulsar, and others, and many users do just that.

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/13/airfoil-speakers-touch-correcting-misconceptions/#comments

pubwvj
Nov 14, 2009, 11:19 PM
Apple's being nitpicky and detrimental to the long goal. Focus.

strike1555
Nov 15, 2009, 08:58 AM
Aristotle has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about, LOL.

miketcool
Nov 15, 2009, 01:21 PM
To quote Mugatu from Zoolander:

http://piggington.com/files/images/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

Really? RA used Apple Dev tools and the App Store folks put up a fight for 3 months. RA didn't break any rules and Apple doesn't have a cohesive process. RA walked away over Apple's policy conflicts, and people are defending Apple. Seriously, this behavior is still continuing at Apple, and it needs to change.

My head hurts, I'm going to go lay down...

turbo79
Nov 16, 2009, 07:29 AM
When the iPhone 3G was first released, I rushed out and bought one. A year down the line, I gave it to a family member and switched to a Blackberry Bold.

I absolutely love the thoughtful design that goes into all Apple products, I own an Apple desktop, an Apple laptop, an Apple iPod and various other Apple paraphernalia. However, I didn't gel with the crippled iPhone and am much happier with my Blackberry.

It has 75% of the fun features of the iPhone and a slew of others that make it a smarter choice - background apps, Google Latitude running all the time, emails arriving instantly, uncapped international data roaming for £20 extra a month on o2 amongst many others - and being able to type an entire email whilst you walk!

Due to RIM not having a stranglehold over the device's application pool (unlike Apple), there are a lot of fugly applications available, but also a lot of great ones. If you're starting out with the Blackberry, I highly recommend Ubertwitter, BeWeather, Google Sync, Facebook and the Flickr Uploader as high quality apps.

stagi
Nov 16, 2009, 08:38 AM
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.


I have actually heard of lots of companies making very good money since the app store has been released, plenty of small devs that the app store has changed their lives as well as big companies making millions already.

I actually think RA should have worked a little harder with apple to address their frustrations instead of just leaving the app store to make a statement and in the end are only hurting themselves.

BuddyTronic
Nov 17, 2009, 01:11 AM
Well, I’ve dismissed most of the other complaints. But this is Rogue Amoeba. Phil Schiller needs to get involved with this immediately — completely unacceptable. They are one of the premier Mac shareware developers.


Indeed, I hope Apple listens and apologizes etc. to get Rogue Amoeba back.

Come on Apple!

pmjoe
Nov 17, 2009, 05:16 AM
So, if I associate an image with music or a movie on my Mac, Apple assumes it's OK for them to display it on my Apple TV? What about my copyrighted photos in iPhoto? I didn't give Apple the right to copy them to my iPhone.

Oh wait, it's my Mac and it's my iPhone and it's my Apple TV. Apple needs to stay out of MY business and allow me to make fair use of my content.

w00master
Nov 17, 2009, 03:33 PM
Boom:

http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520

To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"

Boom. So what now apologists?

w00master

cmaier
Nov 17, 2009, 03:57 PM
Boom:

http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520

To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"

Boom. So what now apologists?

w00master

what? you expect consistency?

w00master
Nov 17, 2009, 04:23 PM
what? you expect consistency?

LOL.

cmaier
Nov 17, 2009, 04:46 PM
I had an app rejected because the icon was a cartoon of the presidential seal where the eagle, in one claw, was holding an iphone-looking phone, which I drew myself, and which was probably 12 pixels x 6 pixels or so in size (in an overall icon that was 57px x 57px.)

But apparently including a 3/4 scale photo of an iphone is fine.

Whatever.

dvdhsu
Nov 17, 2009, 06:27 PM
Boom:

http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520

To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"

Boom. So what now apologists?

w00master

Because the iPhone doesn't have a copyright.

cmaier
Nov 17, 2009, 06:53 PM
Because the iPhone doesn't have a copyright.

it has a trademark. also see my previous post, and the linked tweet - apple frequently rejects apps for containing representations of iPhones (including hand drawn images that are not copyright by Apple). That's the point.

dvdhsu
Nov 17, 2009, 10:20 PM
it has a trademark. also see my previous post, and the linked tweet - apple frequently rejects apps for containing representations of iPhones (including hand drawn images that are not copyright by Apple). That's the point.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood.
You do have to realize though, they can't haul you over to court for drawing an iPhone. All they can do is not allow your application in the App Store.

Which is a bummer, of course. Hopefully, with enough developers quitting because of the unfair limitations, Apple will realize something, and will bring light to the issue.

Redline13
Nov 23, 2009, 11:53 AM
Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.2 is out. It restores the computer artwork. Apple finally did the right thing.

jaw04005
Nov 23, 2009, 12:34 PM
Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.2 is out. It restores the computer artwork. Apple finally did the right thing.

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/

Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.

cmaier
Nov 23, 2009, 01:09 PM
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/

Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.

But the posters here who were defending apple won't admit they were wrong.