Apple Bans iFixit Developer Account and Removes App After Apple TV Teardown

[Yebubbleman]

Too harsh? That's borderline industrial espionage.

Melodramatic much? Apple's language to them was "actions that may hinder the performance or intended use of the App Store, B2B Program, or the Program."

Please explain to me how iFixit tearing down the fourth generation AppleTV a month ahead of schedule hinders the performance or intended use of the App Store, the B2B Program, the developer program itself or any combination thereof. Because last I checked, their actions do none of that.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". As a developer, I _always_ have access to information that is not publicly available. That's the most essential thing in any business relationship, that you have to trust the other side to hold up their side of the bargain.

If you are signed up for pre-release hardware or software, and you abuse the privilege, then yes, that privilege can and should be revoked. They are doing far more than revoking their pre-release software privileges.

iFixit has been demonstrating very strongly that they cannot be trusted. If you read through this thread, you will even find some people saying that actually Apple is to blame because they should have known that iFixit cannot be trusted!

Yeah, I won't go that far. Though, I don't exactly understand what is harmful about a product teardown. It's not like they break into Apple's headquarters, steal Death Star plans and then sell them to the Rebels or anything like that. They take released hardware acquired legitimately and they tear it down to reveal what it looks like to hobbyists and enthusiasts who are planning on buying them anyway. It builds hype and people then go out and spend money. Doesn't seem like it causes any hard for Apple. But yeah, I won't go "victim blaming" Apple for trusting iFixit as iFixit's only persistent offense to Apple is calling them out on how unrepairable their products are.

Well, it isn't a "punishment". A and B sign a contract. B breaches the contract. A decides the finish the business relationship. That's not a punishment, it's just normal business (except for the breach of contract).

I didn't read the terms, so I can't comment directly on them. However, a contract that limits control like that under the threat of cancellation of one's ability to simply submit and maintain apps on the App Store, again, seems harsh. Again, it's not like their teardown of the AppleTV did anything to compromise the App Store. If you fail to follow the rules of a given privilege, that privilege should be revoked. They failed to follow the privilege pertaining to unreleased hardware/software, therefore that privilege should be revoked. That shouldn't mess up their ability to put apps on the App store as doing so is needless and accomplishes nothing other than being punitive. If that's in the contract, then the contract was needlessly harsh.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I didn't read the terms, so I can't comment directly on them. However, a contract that limits control like that under the threat of cancellation of one's ability to simply submit and maintain apps on the App Store, again, seems harsh. Again, it's not like their teardown of the AppleTV did anything to compromise the App Store. If you fail to follow the rules of a given privilege, that privilege should be revoked. They failed to follow the privilege pertaining to unreleased hardware/software, therefore that privilege should be revoked. That shouldn't mess up their ability to put apps on the App store as doing so is needless and accomplishes nothing other than being punitive. If that's in the contract, then the contract was needlessly harsh.

They used the same account, simple as that. Although, I do agree is kinda harsh.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Don't kid yourself they read it and knew full well what it says. They just decided that their greed superseded any integrity they once had.

Touché

 

[Krevnik]

Please explain to me how iFixit tearing down the fourth generation AppleTV a month ahead of schedule hinders the performance or intended use of the App Store, the B2B Program, the developer program itself or any combination thereof. Because last I checked, their actions do none of that.

That wasn't the clause they violated. They violated the NDA clauses that were part of the agreement to receive pre-release hardware. The NDA contract in that stipulates something to the effect of "the stuff you receive is considered confidential information, and you agree not to disclose it to any 3rd party". This makes the non-disclosure agreement is pretty simple: You agree to not disclose confidential information. The details of what chips are on the motherboard are certainly confidential information under this agreement, as it is information you can only get by having this pre-release hardware.

Yeah, I won't go that far. Though, I don't exactly understand what is harmful about a product teardown. It's not like they break into Apple's headquarters, steal Death Star plans and then sell them to the Rebels or anything like that. They take released hardware acquired legitimately and they tear it down to reveal what it looks like to hobbyists and enthusiasts who are planning on buying them anyway. It builds hype and people then go out and spend money. Doesn't seem like it causes any hard for Apple. But yeah, I won't go "victim blaming" Apple for trusting iFixit as iFixit's only persistent offense to Apple is calling them out on how unrepairable their products are.

The harm here is that detailed information about how the hardware was implemented is now public a month before the ship date. Meaning every competitor got this information early, and without even having to do the work themselves, and can put that information to use now, rather than once the product is in the market. Confidential information goes beyond just what consumer-facing features it has, but also how they got it to do the things it needs to do in order to have those consumer-facing features. And this is something I've pointed out multiple times in this thread. Trade secrets are also protected, but usually have a much longer span of time (while something like this is meant to cover the period prior to public availability).

NDAs are not to hide things from the customer, they are there to hide these things from competitors before it is publicly available (when they can then pay for the privilege of getting one and tearing it apart to learn from it if they want).

I didn't read the terms, so I can't comment directly on them. However, a contract that limits control like that under the threat of cancellation of one's ability to simply submit and maintain apps on the App Store, again, seems harsh. Again, it's not like their teardown of the AppleTV did anything to compromise the App Store. If you fail to follow the rules of a given privilege, that privilege should be revoked. They failed to follow the privilege pertaining to unreleased hardware/software, therefore that privilege should be revoked. That shouldn't mess up their ability to put apps on the App store as doing so is needless and accomplishes nothing other than being punitive. If that's in the contract, then the contract was needlessly harsh.

Except that's the whole point, to have a punitive measure in these cases. The harm in this case is material, if difficult to pin down to any exact figure because how the information gets used by the competition is also confidential information. And NDAs tend to have relief clauses (which is a nice way of saying punitive) in them to discourage someone like iFixIt from doing exactly what they did.

10 Tips for Negotiating NDAs (See Tip 10)

To be honest, this is one of the least punitive versions I've seen. Simply cutting ties causes harm, but it still beats being dragged to court.

 

[djcraze]

Boooooo :c

I used that app a lot when I had an iPad mini - I don't as much now that I have a MacBook Air but still. I hope that the app will still work as I own it.

I guess I can understand - they were giving out free AppleTV's for devs to use, and iFixit just took their's apart.

As iFixit said, you live and learn...

Free? No. They paid full price.

 

[stiligFox]

Free? No. They paid full price.

How? They are unavailable for sale. I assumed they got one as part of the developer lottery.

Unless you're factoring cost of the developer account, but they already had that.

 

[farmboy]

They didn't do anything that hurts Apple. They received a developer unit, then posted a teardown. They likely reassembled it and it probably still works fine, so I doubt they "destroyed" something they were given for free to show the teardown.

If this had been a free pre-release iPhone and they had filmed drop tests and other obvious things to show they only got it to destroy it and not to use it for development, that would be different. But all they did was take it apart and snap some photos.

I believe strongly in the mantra of "If an activity doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be disallowed."

And you know how it affected Apple how, exactly? Second, you seem to have a child-like understanding of written agreements, such that you can do anything you want to, just because you want to, even though you agreed in writing, with clearly understood legal implications, that you wouldn't. And you alone get to determine whether you actually caused any harm to the other party? How convenient

And they got the unit for development purposes under an agreement, not for a tear down.

 

[farmboy]

apple can be such a *ick sometimes.

Yeah because written agreements are such a drag and, like, limit your freedom and stuff like that. And they have like big words in it and stuff. Not fair, man. s/

 

[Founder_jeniusLogic]

This is a rare time that Apple issues hardware to developers before the product release. Hardware and internal design specs are very valuable to tech companies. When you sign up to be a developer with Apple you take on the responsibility to safeguard the brand and its assets. There is a difference between an unboxing and a teardown and I stand with Apple on this decision. The trust Apple affords us developers is compromised when issues such as this arise. To some of you the App Store may just be for your kids to play in but devs like me take the platform very seriously and like minded individuals will agree to my sentiments.

 

[flat five]

Free? No. They paid full price.

they paid one dollar in fees for the appleTV.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/14/apple-tv-developer-kit-lottery/

 

[Tech198]

....and This is why i don't become a dev...

I want the freedom,,,, not be restricted under some NDA or other rules u must follow by Apple.

As a public beta tester for a company (i won't name which one) I did violate their NDA......... but ya.... in this case, maybe iFixit may have wanted to have read the fine print..

Or at least point it out to dev's clearer on this. Honesty,, who reads fine print anyway ......

I say it both sides here....... Apple should have made it easier to read, but iFixIt knew what they were doing too if they ignored it.

 

[gnasher729]

Free? No. They paid full price.

These Apple TVs were given to developers for $1.00. One dollar. So no, they didn't pay full price.

 

[gnasher729]

I didn't read the terms, so I can't comment directly on them. However, a contract that limits control like that under the threat of cancellation of one's ability to simply submit and maintain apps on the App Store, again, seems harsh.

You are welcome to find it harsh. However, iFixit had two very simple ways to avoid the consequences: 1. Not apply for a prerelease Apple TV. 2. Don't publish any details when the agreement states in very clear English (which they admit to have read and understood) that you mustn't do this.

One poster here wrote something like "if Apple did XXX, then I would never buy an Apple product again". Same here: If someone who wants a business relationship with Apple does certain things, then Apple doesn't want a business relationship with them anymore and quit any existing business relationship.

You need to take into account that Apple has contracts with many, many thousand developers. To Apple, there are only two kinds of developers: Those that have a contract with Apple, and those that don't. Apple doesn't want to manage things like "developers who have violated certain contracts and are therefore excluded from some privileges". Doing that with the amount of developers that Apple has contracts with would be a nightmare for the company.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Thanks iFixit however, you guys should have really respected Apple's NDA.

I think Apple is totally irrational about these things. They revealed hardware not software secrets. People have a right to know what's in the hardware they buy. Apple isn't forthcoming about jack squat most of the time. Besides, someone else would have done it a few days later at most. And people wonder why there is no Amazon Prime video viewer for AppleTV. I thought maybe it was Amazon trying to corner the market, but then I realized Apple is the ONLY one who DOESN'T have one so maybe someone at Amazon implied Mr. Cook has no fashion sense or something and set him off to ban Amazon Apps from AppleTV. It sounds way more plausible to me given the unreasonable behaviors of Apple over the years.

 

[Atlantico]

I've signed more NDAs than there are letters in your post, and issued a lot too for my own companies, with the help of lawyers if that reassures you... So, I think I'm OK qualified; thanks for vetting us...

BTW, who are you an apologist for, the gods of non sequitur ?

I've signed more NDAs than there are stars in the sky, issued an uncountable number for all my companies, with the greatest legal team ever assembled, just so you know sonny.

Cower before my internet legal skills! Peasant!

 

[haruhiko]

they paid one dollar in fees for the appleTV.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/14/apple-tv-developer-kit-lottery/

The dollar developers paid is for the 'consideration' part of a legally binding contract (offer & acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations). Of course, 'consideration' can be anything, not limited to money, but using money as consideration is the easiest and unambiguous way.

 

[Kajje]

Barring other activities that are just as dubious, they get to wait until the device comes out, just like eve..............

I don't encourage nor support anybody who piggybacks on others' efforts, and your statement is correct. However, these companies have ways to get their hands on on new hardware before you and me. In the secret dark room in the back perhaps, but they do it.

I've been around at Shenzen OEM's, ODM's and accessory manufacturers. If they're anything bigger than the average sweatshag, they have a room dedicated to 'research' competitors' hardware. I've seen names like 'The Museum', 'The Lab' and 'The Supermarket'. It's full of stuff.

They have ways a large network to source prototypes, early parts in every revision, shape and color. Basically the stuff that gets photographed and leaked to this very site.

Is it a good thing? Probably not. Is it blatent copyright infringement? Absolutely. But it happens more than we think.

 

[macintoshmac]

NDA should have been regarded, period. What real good use comes from a teardown anyway.. some of us geeks get help in opening up for some maintenance, that too on the old devices like my MBP 2011. No point in a teardown of a latest Retina. I can't do much in it. Disregard was inaptly met. As someone said, they are lucky they were not fined.

 

[macintoshmac]

FTA:
"(Our old app is open source if you’d like an example to build upon. Just respect our license and don’t put ads in it.)"

Really funny on part of iFixIt.

 

[Makosuke]

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..

That's a good point, and is actually the basis of why most of those 50-page software licenses nobody reads are basically garbage--I don't know whether it's been tested in court or not, but if you tried to sneak some ridiculously onerous clause into a giant license agreement for some minor piece of freeware, and then tried to sue/collect on it, I suspect you wouldn't get far. There was that guy who tried to sue people based on a fine-print "you can't badmouth me" clause or something like that, but I don't know if he got anywhere or not.

Which is also why I'm a little confused at people getting worked up about this. Whether you think Apple should have been "nice" or not, their response was certainly not disproportionate or based on some hidden clause--it was a simple termination of an agreement for violating one of the major, clearly-enumerated clauses in it.

 

[Vulkan]

This is incredibly petty of Apple. It's not like iFixIt showing us the guts of the Apple TV hurt them in any way.

It sounds like this is them "making an example out of" iFixIt to scare other devs into following the agreements to the letter. Still, pretty petty in my opinion. iFixIt contributes a lot to the community.

They violated an agreement. What’s more, iFixit admitted that you knew that they were violating an agreement. This was bad judgement on their part. iFixit deserved to have their app yanked. They put their desire to be the first to post a tear down of the Apple TV ahead of doing the right thing. That was very childish and selfish. That Apple TV could have went to a developer who really had the intent to develop Apple TV apps.

Instead, it went to a bunch of guys who wanted to exploit it.

I particularly like how they mention at the end of their blog post, regarding people wanting to use their open source API for making apps that pull their content from iFixit:

"Just respect our license and don’t put ads in it."

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I wonder how they felt if a bunch of devs took their crappy API and added a bunch of ads and other things that violated their license of their API.

 

[dwaltwhit]

Why don't you release your source code for everything you develop before you publish your work, just so people can see how proficiently you put it together. What would that hurt?

But this is not that. This is apple, whose product's hardware is imminent. There is a unique niché of people that are interested in the nuts and bolts, as it were. Is the fear that someone could rush out and make gheir own apple tv?

 

[Makosuke]

But this is not that. This is apple, whose product's hardware is imminent. There is a unique niché of people that are interested in the nuts and bolts, as it were. Is the fear that someone could rush out and make gheir own apple tv?

I can't speak for others, but I agree with you on that--the release is imminent, and while it's not impossible for the month-ahead-of-time teardown to provide a slight advantage to ATV competitors, it's probably of more interest to a small number of geeky types who wonder what's inside and love teardowns.

On average, this and things like it if anything probably help build buzz for products, so setting aside the relatively small possibility of a month-earlier teardown giving a competitor something to start working on, it may even provide a slight marketing boost for Apple.

But that's not the point. The point is that if someone flagrantly violates an agreement they have with you in an extremely public way--they didn't just ignore a termination clause, they openly flouted it--a multinational corporation is pretty much never going to say "Meh, no harm no foul, carry on." There's a good argument to be made, in fact, that ignoring something like this just increases temptation for other people to violate similar contracts with the company, and maybe one of these times it is going to cause material harm.

Apple isn't suing them for millions of dollars--which they hypothetically could, there's a clause in there saying they might in the case of prerelease disclosure. That would be disproportionate and probably fail as well. They just responded proportionately by telling a company that intentionally terminated a contract with them that the contract was, in fact, terminated.

I mean, I know if I'm doing business with someone, I'm not going to set the precedent that the "don't ever do this" clause in my contracts is really just there for decoration.

I'm actually curious--is it possible for such a precedent to actually hinder or prevent enforcement of future contracts? That is, if you try to sue someone, and they point out you ignored it when someone else did exactly the same thing in the past, does that bolster you case in a legal sense?

 

[flat five]

That Apple TV could have went to a developer who really had the intent to develop Apple TV apps.

it's ifixit though and not will it blend?. etc.. we could certainly expect their teardowns to be put back together in perfect working order.
or, their preapple tv can still be used for apple's desired purpose..

(i wonder if apple made them send it back? )

.. it's probably of more interest to a small number of geeky types who wonder what's inside and love teardowns.

On average, this and things like it if anything probably help build buzz for products, so setting aside the relatively small possibility of a month-earlier teardown giving a competitor something to start working on, it may even provide a slight marketing boost for Apple.

the slight boost (i think) happens when people see a teardown, get excited by it, and buy it..
but people can't buy it right now.. next month, that geekbuzz will have worn off.. the impulse buyer's money may be less likely to find it's way to apple now instead of if the teardown happened after the product went public.

 

[cubehead]

Unreal...iFixIt writes - "We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway,". They also add on their news forum about someone taking their app and using it to rebuild another for the app store, adding: "Our old app is open source if you’d like an example to build upon. Just respect our license and don’t put ads in it." What hypocrites...nice, so my response to them - "I weighed the information and products that iFixIt provides me, tossed them out the window, and will not shop or recommend their store to anyone". Anyone who things Apple is being too hard, move to Mars, please, you're just as bad as iFixIt to think their way.