Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies

[cmaier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple?

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]

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]

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]

But it's been more than one day. Joe Hewitt resigned Wednesday.

Regardless its still within a short period.

 

[aristotle]

w00master, stop and listen to other people for once.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.