Yea, but this was Apple's fine print! They would still be at it a month later. I guess everyone here read their IOS 9 update agreement in full?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Bans iFixit Developer Account and Removes App After Apple TV Teardown
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First, go look at it--the developer agreement isn't actually all that long, and is pretty clear by legalese standards. Took me less than 10 minutes to skim it, and it would probably take 30 minutes to read the whole thing properly.
But you're right, because of the nature of software license agreements, almost nobody reads them. We probably should, but we don't. But then, in most cases, I'm just using a piece of software, for which the worst that could happen is revoking the right to use that software, not going into a business deal.
Accepting the license agreement to use a piece of software by clicking "okay" is not the same as entering into a business contract to--in the case of an app developer--receive prerelease software and hardware (from a huge company, at that) and sell a product through another company. Something that, I might add, the contract says you can be sued for damages for violating (in the case of confidentiality), so the remedies aren't technically even limited to just terminating your account.
If I'm signing up for a developer program and app store that I intend to do as a business--maybe a full time job, or in the case of a larger developer, a full time job for multiple people--then I'd darn better read the fine print. I wouldn't sign a 20 page business contract or a lease without reading it, either.
If I'm running a million-dollar-a-year app development house and get my developer account terminated for violating the terms I signed up under, do you think lawyers or my investors or my suddenly-out-of-work employees are going to buy "It was long, nobody reads those things" as an excuse?
Here's another real-world example. The Microsoft Server license says that you need sufficient Client Access Licenses for the number of users accessing your server. There's no software check for this, and buying CALs just gets you a piece of paper that says "you have X CALs". You could easily install a server, click through the license agreement, and run it with a hundred users without paying a penny more than the cost of the license key for the server OS itself. But when you installed that, you agreed to let Microsoft audit your organization if they feel like it, and if you can't prove you have sufficient CALs, they will extract a substantial monetary penalty from you.
These audits can and do happen to real companies in the real world. Saying "the license agreement was long" doesn't get you off the hook for this.
If I click "okay" to 20 pages of legalese for a $5 game that lets me shoot virtual pigeons or something, you'd be hard pressed to blame me for the negligence or sue me over anything. But if I'm going into business as an app developer, or running a business-critical server using licensed software, I'd darned well better be aware of what I'm legally agreeing to.
Kind of curious about that myself. I use the website frequently, but had never tried the app.
If their own comment is to be believed, it's very buggy under iOS9, so the answer would seem to be no, or at least that it's not well maintained.
Ok...I appreciate the effort, but I was being tongue in cheek. Yes of course a business should read their contracts in detail. I do it everyday as part of what I do for a living btw. As a point of slight correction, whilst a contract cannot be 'too long' it still has to be 'reasonable' and plenty of settlements are agreed because a judge found a contract to be too one-sided, too draconian, too punitive etc..
Sounds like Apple is covering its butt and not making room for the Maverick that can fix these problems. Then again, Steve is gone and it's creation by consensus crap now. When Tim is gone, looking forward to the Steve 2.0 that fixes up the place.
Hm not sure if trolling or not.. However his post is actually spot on. This has absolutely nothing to do with society or political correctness whatsoever. I'm sorry but if you don't see how leaking information, which has not been, yet, ready for public is harming Apple, there's a problem. Yes, they decided to give out development pieces thanks to a robust NDA, which has been put in place to ensure business information stays out of the public view.
Actually he has a really good understanding of how an NDA works and how serious document it is. It did cause harm, that's the problem. Also iFixit is a company, which really should know better, they actually knew about violating the NDA and still did it, that's pretty shocking business practice and it certainly did not help their credibility.
So you are suggesting that NDAs should be broken? Do you realise that worldwide there are billions spent in R&D in all sorts of industries where some of that money would simply not be spent without some specific NDAs in place? Please enlighten us then how an NDA is just a bunch of bull as you call it. I have signed many in many life protecting pretty strategic information in aviation industry and simply can't agree.
Based on the last sentence, I have no idea how have you linked those two things together, I really don't but you need to realise in this case iFixit has basically no defence. They have signed an NDA in order to receive a developer product of an unreleased product. They knew they can't publish things and they still did, thus breaking the NDA. Apple's response is actually a mild one given the situation.
PS: No need to be personal with other forum members, the discussions should be more about the facts, which are, pretty clear in this case.
1. iFixit _is_ in the business of developing apps. They have an app development account, which Apple just closed, which led to an iFixit app to be removed from the app store, which this whole huge thread is about! 2. They applied for a device because they have an app development account, and signed the NDA. Apple doesn't examine which companies apply, they decide based on what these companies sign.
No it isn't. Those are developer machines, that came with an NDA you had to sign to get it.
Yeah but you make huge monney to make a video if you are the first... Few weeks later the Web will be flooded with Apple TV unboxing and ifixit video will vanishing in that amount... But I agree, a nda is a nda.
He didnt violate any agreement termsThis video from Dom is another major violation:
A lot of self righteousness detected around here.
Yes, iFixit were wrong but when condemning them with the level of vitriol that seems typical of anybody hurting Apple around here, ask yourself if you’ve ever been in contravention of a EULA or similar binding agreement, (which you agreed to beforehand simply by buying or using the product);
Yes, iFixit were wrong but when condemning them with the level of vitriol that seems typical of anybody hurting Apple around here, ask yourself if you’ve ever been in contravention of a EULA or similar binding agreement, (which you agreed to beforehand simply by buying or using the product);
- Hacked an OS, or relied on information that you know was obtained nefariously.
- Copied a CD or DVD and justified it by saying you own it and the recording studio shouldn’t restrict it.
- Shown a DVD publicly.
- Lent a DVD or album to a friend.
Oh so because you signed a few NDAs you're a cookie? Please you and everyone else knows they at Apple are wrong. Let's not act as it they're perfect. Still selling a 16GB phone in 2015. I have plenty of Apple products but there is no need to get smart by trying to say I'm a troll because I'm not. A lot of things would go much smoother in today's society if it wasn't for politically correctness getting in the way. Again I see no damage done to anyone in this situation with Ifixit. I have question myself and wonder if you're the troll here. You also seem like the type to tell in your coworkers for clocking a minute late. Please loosen up life is too short to be so uptight with the rules and regulations that really have no business being there or is just a waste of time.
You still have no idea what you're talking about do you. Let me ask where you there when they signed the NDA? I don't think so. This is one of the situation that just could have been overlooked with taking serious action because I have yet to see any substantial damage that have occurred. Yes people have to follow rules but sometimes situations like this you let them go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Every iOS developer _knows_ that you couldn't get an Apple TV without agreeing to Apple's terms and conditions, which were actually _published_ in this thread and _explicitely_ mention that the receiver of an Apple TV agrees not to publish anything about it.
And Apple doesn't have to claim any damages. They had a contract with a developer, the developer promised to play buy the rules and blatantly went against them, so the contract with that developer is now cancelled. Apple has a few hundred thousand developers. They don't need iFixit. They don't need any developers who intentionally break their contract.
And anyway, since iFixit is free to develop as many Android apps as they like, no damage was done
You are just throwing a number of different things into the same bag here. What does the iFixit situation have to do with 16GB iPhones? Thats an entirely different topic.
As to damage done: the very nature of a dev kit is that it is usually not the final product. One of the reasons why companies have NDAs is to prevent things like "OMG, THEY USE CHEAP BLUE ADHESIVE TAPE HERE, THIS WILL BREAK DOWN IN A MONTH, DON'T BUY" spreading. iFixit really should have known better. In this situation, Apple is 100% correct.
There's a big difference between contracts between business and consumer or private person, and contracts between two businesses. If you are a business (like iFixit) you are supposed to be a big boy and read everything you signed. If the contract is too long or you don't understand it, you don't sign it.
In this case, the agreement has been published here, and it says in plain English that you agree not to publish anything about the device you receive. So there cannot be any excuse.
If you, as a customer, had asked Apple two months ago to get an iPhone earlier, and had been offered to either wait like everyone else or sign this contract, you would never have bought from Apple again? This was not an item for sale to the public. It was a pre-release item, given to developers who need it to test their software so it is ready on the release date.
Last edited:
That's a bummer, and, I for once, think it's really stupid of Apple for including this in their ToA. All these teardown/rumors sites are practically free ads for Apple products. Besides, I can't count the number of times iFixit guides have saved my iPhones and Macbooks from total ruin. There's also a third argument, that I know is true of me at least, and it's that some people would never buy a mobile device knowing there's no way to replace at least the battery by yourself. iFixit provides that way. Without them the repairability of many Apple devices would be practically zero.
What a load of *********. Harm or no harm iFixit denied trust and integrity in the decision they made.
But you're missing the point. This is pre-release development hardware NOT necessarily the consumer model. By breaching the NDA they may have given their competitors a headsup. This can affect Apple stock.
No-one is saying iFixit shouldn't do these teardown, not even Apple. If they are done within the rules like with the 6s where they purchased a device in Australia and tore it down. This is to do with iFixit doing it the wrong way... signing up to receive a developer aTV with an NDA and associated contract for doing so. Then not only breaking that NDA, but proudly crowing about it on their site. Fair play Apple.
I almost agree with you except that iFixit totally cross over the line this time. Apple has no problem with what they did to the other product that they bought, however when it is explicitly stated that the unreleased "borrowed" product will not be publicly opened apart and they did, they knew what would come.
1. Tear down the released products that you bought is OK, Apple is happy you do that.
2. Tear down the unreleased product that Apple "lend" to you with good will so you can develop an app for it and with an explicit agreement NOT to publicly expose the innards, is not only stupid but a criminal.
3. Not understanding the differences between the two points above is even worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I see it, they (iFixit) understood the circumstances and have no shame in what they did. Of course, they can do whatever they want with the hardware in their offices, but posting a teardown of a product that was received for development purposes just comes across as callous. They could have easily waited for the public release of the product, but instead opted to use one that they were given for free and for a specific purpose.