8 ms·

This is exactly what I've been talking about wrt App development on Apple. If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS or apps, they

This is exactly what I've been talking about wrt App development on Apple. If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS or apps, they kick you out so they don't have any competition. IMHO, it's a real douchebag business decision, and anyone with a popular unique app should always expect Apple to screw you over with no notice and have a contingency plan in the works.

raganwald 14y ago
If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS or apps, they kick you out so they don't have any competition. Yes! Sharecropping in the Orchard: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard...
- earl 14y ago
  Your point is more than fair, but at this point, does anyone not know the deal with Apple (and Google and Microsoft for that matter?) All these companies are looking out for #1. If it becomes in their interests to screw you, look out. Apple: examples too numerous to mention. Microsoft: the whole world by delaying the internet for 6-10 years by killing off all alternate browsers then stopping any development. Everyone who purchased a computer basically ever by forcing manufacturers to always buy their OS no matter what they sold on the computer. Google: skyhook, google+, dropbox, etc.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    does anyone not know the deal with Apple Hopefully very few. I wrote that at the end of 2004, and it seems simpler to link to it than to repeat the same old, same old arguments all over again.
  - hristov 14y ago
    Google may create a competitor but will not try to prevent you from doing your own thing. That is really the most you can hope for. You cannot honestly expect another company to not enter your business because you thought of it first (except if you have a patent of course). But Google will not use any of its substantial infrastructure to prevent you from doing your own business. They will still list you in the search results, offer your software in the android store, allow you to buy ads, etc. This is very different from what is happening here.
    - earl 14y ago
      One of the examples I gave, Skyhook, so clearly contradicts your entire post that I have to assume you're intentionally lying. Because that was exactly google preventing someone from executing their business essentially via blackmail. See also their negotiations with Yelp / scraping their results. Oh, and twitter results. So all in all, bullshit.
      - hristov 14y ago
        None of these are examples of Google shutting someone out of their channels. All of these companies can be found on google search and can offer apps on the android marketplace. And I am sure they can also advertise on adsense if they wanted to. Twitter wanted Google to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to search tweets. Google was paying that money, but then Twitter wanted to increase the fee and Google refused. But again, if they wanted to have their tweets indexed by google on the same terms as everyone else (i.e., for free) they could.
        earl 14y ago
        Google told Motorola if they used Skyhook then their devices wouldn't be android compatible. [1] And from emails: one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want." [1] I'm sure you can come up with some way this wasn't Google shutting someone out of their channels... but please. Because everyone involved believes that was the case: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google. Motorola also told Skyhook that its carrier agreements require Google's apps be preloaded on its phones, so Google's compatibility decision was doubly important -- if Motorola shipped software that didn't have Google's blessing (and apps), it would immediately violate its contracts with carriers. [2] So Motorola can't use Skyhook's software because google used their control over Motorola's ability to include other google apps to screw Skyhook. Now, the lawsuit will decide whether this was legal, but it sure as hell was "Google shutting someone out of their channels." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-go... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...
- mikeryan 14y ago
  I'm not sure anyone cares but Arlo & Konfabulator ended up at Yahoo! and Konfab is the basis for their Connected TV App Platform http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/
bluthru 14y ago
So which is it, software patents are good and this is "stealing", or software patents are bad and this is inevitable?
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  "Stealing" features is one thing, taking advantage of your control over a particular market to shut out the "competition" you "stole" said features from isn't justifiable in any way (IMHO).
  - bluthru 14y ago
    I don't really like it either, but is this something that could be legislated somehow?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Hey, it's Apple's marketplace - private property and all that. Nobody has a right to sell there. Now, I also think this is a dick move, but it's because of dick moves like this that the patent and copyright systems exist in the first place, and why I think they need to be reformed rather than abandoned.
    - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
      Never said it was illegal, just unethical.
    - samineru 14y ago
      I wish that we could rely on the companies that are increasingly controlling semi-public commons like social networks and software repositories to have some integrity and respect for the roles that they are playing in this regard.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Exactly. If Apple clones this thing and produces a better product, it's a good thing, because we all have better software to use. Likewise, if Microsoft were to produce a better browser than, say, Netscape, no one would complain. When either company leverages its control over the market to exclude its competitors using mechanisms other than technical quality, that's a bad thing and needs to be condemned.
kalleboo 14y ago
I remember a time before Jobs returned when Apple would buy the third-party apps that they put into their OS, instead of just ripping them off.
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  iTunes (fka SoundJam), GarageBand[1], and Siri were all bought under Steve's watch. [1] strictly speaking, it's the developers they bought (along with Logic)
  - stuartjmoore 14y ago
    Coverflow was bought, too.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    It really just goes back to the concept of "barriers to entry". If Apple can reproduce your software easily, they will. They might even do it better than you. They'll only go out of their way to buy you anymore when you've implemented something like Siri that's actually difficult, or something like Logic that has a massive and lucrative installed base. If you implement something trivial, don't be surprised when your competitors reimplement it instead of giving you a millions-dollar signing bonus just for your ideas.
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    Good point. I guess the difference is those are apps they couldn't recreate themselves for cheaper than the purchase cost, whereas they used to buy trivial apps (MenuClock being a good example of that).
  - dctoedt 14y ago
    > all bought under Steve's watch It's on Steve's watch (a Navy term). /pedantry
    - josephcooney 14y ago
      a military term /double-pedantry
jsz0 14y ago
If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS AirTunes came out in 2004 and AirFoil followed a year later as a software accessory compatible with AirTunes.
cletus 14y ago
What you're describing is the situation every time you develop on someone else's platform: Apple's, Microsoft's, Facebook's, everyone's. If you're developing apps for a platform you want to be in one of two positions: 1. The app is secondary to whatever service you're providing (eg the Facebook app on iOS); or 2. You're developing games. Everything else has to walk a fine line between failing and being successful enough that it gets absorbed into the platform. Apple is just like everyone else in this regard. No platform owner is going to ignore something that they decide has become of critical importance to their platform. It's simply a fantasy to assume otherwise. If you're not in one of those two categories you're basically hoping to be the lucky one who gets bought out (eg the official Twitter mobile client).
- lucian1900 14y ago
  When Windows grows a new feature, old apps providing that feature don't get shut down instantly.
  - pantaloons 14y ago
    In fact Microsoft has in some cases gone to great pains to avoid introducing features for which independent ecosystems already exist.
    - gcp 14y ago
      Antivirus programs and CD burning are two good examples. Microsoft built a big developer base in part by not totally screwing them over. But looking at iOS, maybe they shouldn't have bothered.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  > What you're describing is the situation every time you develop on someone else's platform: Apple's, Microsoft's, Facebook's, everyone's. Ah, so that's why FireFox and Chrome were banned from Windows. Oh wait they weren't. Ah, so it must be why the Amazon Appstore for Android can't be installed on Android any more. Oh wait, it can, along with dozens of other app stores. But it does explain why the Kindle app is crippled on Android so that Google Books can take prime position. Oh wait, it's not. You have a point, but you try to use that point to gloss over the real issue here. On other platforms your product just has to be good enough to succeed (eg: Kindle app). On Apple's platform(s) it is not about being good, in fact the better your product is the more threatened it is by Apple's anticompetitive practices.
ryannielsen 14y ago
You're assuming you know why the app was pulled. Was it pulled because Apple's going to introduce a competing feature in iOS 6 and doesn't want the competition? Or was it pulled because the app is using the leaked AirPlay encryption key? Or was it pulled for some other unknown reason? We don't know. Frankly, I doubt Apple would give a damn about competition for a feature they plan to introduce in iOS 6. They don't care about other apps that reimplement iOS features, such as music players or (now) mail clients. Why give a damn about AirFoil? Finally, unless you own, or no one owns, the platform on which you're developing, you're always at risk for something like this happening. This is nothing new, and it's definitely not behavior that's isolated to Apple.
calinet6 14y ago
Trader Joe's does this too. They test your products in-store, then clone them and sell their own if they're successful.

raganwald 14y ago

If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS or apps, they kick you out so they don't have any competition. Yes! Sharecropping in the Orchard: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard...

earl 14y ago
Your point is more than fair, but at this point, does anyone not know the deal with Apple (and Google and Microsoft for that matter?) All these companies are looking out for #1. If it becomes in their interests to screw you, look out. Apple: examples too numerous to mention. Microsoft: the whole world by delaying the internet for 6-10 years by killing off all alternate browsers then stopping any development. Everyone who purchased a computer basically ever by forcing manufacturers to always buy their OS no matter what they sold on the computer. Google: skyhook, google+, dropbox, etc.
- raganwald 14y ago
  does anyone not know the deal with Apple Hopefully very few. I wrote that at the end of 2004, and it seems simpler to link to it than to repeat the same old, same old arguments all over again.
- hristov 14y ago
  Google may create a competitor but will not try to prevent you from doing your own thing. That is really the most you can hope for. You cannot honestly expect another company to not enter your business because you thought of it first (except if you have a patent of course). But Google will not use any of its substantial infrastructure to prevent you from doing your own business. They will still list you in the search results, offer your software in the android store, allow you to buy ads, etc. This is very different from what is happening here.
  - earl 14y ago
    One of the examples I gave, Skyhook, so clearly contradicts your entire post that I have to assume you're intentionally lying. Because that was exactly google preventing someone from executing their business essentially via blackmail. See also their negotiations with Yelp / scraping their results. Oh, and twitter results. So all in all, bullshit.
    - hristov 14y ago
      None of these are examples of Google shutting someone out of their channels. All of these companies can be found on google search and can offer apps on the android marketplace. And I am sure they can also advertise on adsense if they wanted to. Twitter wanted Google to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to search tweets. Google was paying that money, but then Twitter wanted to increase the fee and Google refused. But again, if they wanted to have their tweets indexed by google on the same terms as everyone else (i.e., for free) they could.
      - earl 14y ago
        Google told Motorola if they used Skyhook then their devices wouldn't be android compatible. [1] And from emails: one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want." [1] I'm sure you can come up with some way this wasn't Google shutting someone out of their channels... but please. Because everyone involved believes that was the case: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google. Motorola also told Skyhook that its carrier agreements require Google's apps be preloaded on its phones, so Google's compatibility decision was doubly important -- if Motorola shipped software that didn't have Google's blessing (and apps), it would immediately violate its contracts with carriers. [2] So Motorola can't use Skyhook's software because google used their control over Motorola's ability to include other google apps to screw Skyhook. Now, the lawsuit will decide whether this was legal, but it sure as hell was "Google shutting someone out of their channels." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal-go... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...
mikeryan 14y ago
I'm not sure anyone cares but Arlo & Konfabulator ended up at Yahoo! and Konfab is the basis for their Connected TV App Platform http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/

bluthru 14y ago

So which is it, software patents are good and this is "stealing", or software patents are bad and this is inevitable?

ConstantineXVI 14y ago
"Stealing" features is one thing, taking advantage of your control over a particular market to shut out the "competition" you "stole" said features from isn't justifiable in any way (IMHO).
- bluthru 14y ago
  I don't really like it either, but is this something that could be legislated somehow?
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Hey, it's Apple's marketplace - private property and all that. Nobody has a right to sell there. Now, I also think this is a dick move, but it's because of dick moves like this that the patent and copyright systems exist in the first place, and why I think they need to be reformed rather than abandoned.
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    Never said it was illegal, just unethical.
  - samineru 14y ago
    I wish that we could rely on the companies that are increasingly controlling semi-public commons like social networks and software repositories to have some integrity and respect for the roles that they are playing in this regard.
- ajross 14y ago
  Exactly. If Apple clones this thing and produces a better product, it's a good thing, because we all have better software to use. Likewise, if Microsoft were to produce a better browser than, say, Netscape, no one would complain. When either company leverages its control over the market to exclude its competitors using mechanisms other than technical quality, that's a bad thing and needs to be condemned.

kalleboo 14y ago

I remember a time before Jobs returned when Apple would buy the third-party apps that they put into their OS, instead of just ripping them off.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago
iTunes (fka SoundJam), GarageBand[1], and Siri were all bought under Steve's watch. [1] strictly speaking, it's the developers they bought (along with Logic)
- stuartjmoore 14y ago
  Coverflow was bought, too.
- philwelch 14y ago
  It really just goes back to the concept of "barriers to entry". If Apple can reproduce your software easily, they will. They might even do it better than you. They'll only go out of their way to buy you anymore when you've implemented something like Siri that's actually difficult, or something like Logic that has a massive and lucrative installed base. If you implement something trivial, don't be surprised when your competitors reimplement it instead of giving you a millions-dollar signing bonus just for your ideas.
- kalleboo 14y ago
  Good point. I guess the difference is those are apps they couldn't recreate themselves for cheaper than the purchase cost, whereas they used to buy trivial apps (MenuClock being a good example of that).
- dctoedt 14y ago
  > all bought under Steve's watch It's on Steve's watch (a Navy term). /pedantry
  - josephcooney 14y ago
    a military term /double-pedantry

jsz0 14y ago

If Apple likes your product, and they steal your features for their OS AirTunes came out in 2004 and AirFoil followed a year later as a software accessory compatible with AirTunes.

cletus 14y ago

What you're describing is the situation every time you develop on someone else's platform: Apple's, Microsoft's, Facebook's, everyone's. If you're developing apps for a platform you want to be in one of two positions: 1. The app is secondary to whatever service you're providing (eg the Facebook app on iOS); or 2. You're developing games. Everything else has to walk a fine line between failing and being successful enough that it gets absorbed into the platform. Apple is just like everyone else in this regard. No platform owner is going to ignore something that they decide has become of critical importance to their platform. It's simply a fantasy to assume otherwise. If you're not in one of those two categories you're basically hoping to be the lucky one who gets bought out (eg the official Twitter mobile client).

lucian1900 14y ago
When Windows grows a new feature, old apps providing that feature don't get shut down instantly.
- pantaloons 14y ago
  In fact Microsoft has in some cases gone to great pains to avoid introducing features for which independent ecosystems already exist.
  - gcp 14y ago
    Antivirus programs and CD burning are two good examples. Microsoft built a big developer base in part by not totally screwing them over. But looking at iOS, maybe they shouldn't have bothered.
zmmmmm 14y ago
> What you're describing is the situation every time you develop on someone else's platform: Apple's, Microsoft's, Facebook's, everyone's. Ah, so that's why FireFox and Chrome were banned from Windows. Oh wait they weren't. Ah, so it must be why the Amazon Appstore for Android can't be installed on Android any more. Oh wait, it can, along with dozens of other app stores. But it does explain why the Kindle app is crippled on Android so that Google Books can take prime position. Oh wait, it's not. You have a point, but you try to use that point to gloss over the real issue here. On other platforms your product just has to be good enough to succeed (eg: Kindle app). On Apple's platform(s) it is not about being good, in fact the better your product is the more threatened it is by Apple's anticompetitive practices.

ryannielsen 14y ago

You're assuming you know why the app was pulled. Was it pulled because Apple's going to introduce a competing feature in iOS 6 and doesn't want the competition? Or was it pulled because the app is using the leaked AirPlay encryption key? Or was it pulled for some other unknown reason? We don't know. Frankly, I doubt Apple would give a damn about competition for a feature they plan to introduce in iOS 6. They don't care about other apps that reimplement iOS features, such as music players or (now) mail clients. Why give a damn about AirFoil? Finally, unless you own, or no one owns, the platform on which you're developing, you're always at risk for something like this happening. This is nothing new, and it's definitely not behavior that's isolated to Apple.

calinet6 14y ago

Trader Joe's does this too. They test your products in-store, then clone them and sell their own if they're successful.