3 ms·

So what's the solution here? To me the outcry over this seems pretty contradictory given the general antipathy around here towards software patents. Either ide

So what's the solution here? To me the outcry over this seems pretty contradictory given the general antipathy around here towards software patents. Either ideas are something that an individual can own and control and others are forbidden to use without permission, or everybody is free to implement them and innovate around them. Is Marco going to have to do some work now to differentiate himself from Reading List? Totally. But is that a bad thing? He was no more entitled to a competition-free perpetual business model than the Record Labels or Movie Studios or Banking Industry or any other perennial target around here. Marco is a smart and skilled guy and there's no way this is going to kill him off unless he willingly lets it.

nathanb 15y ago
I agree completely; you can't have it both ways. However, the point in the OP about Camera+ seems a bit more legit. Rejecting an app for doing X and then doing X yourself in the next release seems like a huge double-standard, and where there are double standards there is foothold for allegations of anti-competitive behavior. That said, however, the difference between me (sitting in a cubicle typing this) and the creative forces behind Instapaper and Camera+ is (hopefully) that where I see small developers being turned into digital sharecroppers by a dictatorial corporation, they see an opportunity to differentiate themselves from the stock offering by excelling in the very specific area they're focusing on.
- alanfalcon 15y ago
  Actually, the Camera+ developers filed a feature request and asked Apple to add the volume-button-as-shutter feature. See: http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/ http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/ So I imagine they're pretty happy with this development.
wnight 15y ago
Remember Ballmer chanting "Developers! Developers! ..."? Well, here Apple is saying "Screw the developers". Sure, they have a right to do this, and perhaps an obligations, but the developers put out business without warning probably won't keep developing for Apple. Over time that will work to reduce developer uptake, and thus app selection on iOS, which is why they perhaps should have chosen to somehow lessen the blow to unlucky developers.

nathanb 15y ago

I agree completely; you can't have it both ways. However, the point in the OP about Camera+ seems a bit more legit. Rejecting an app for doing X and then doing X yourself in the next release seems like a huge double-standard, and where there are double standards there is foothold for allegations of anti-competitive behavior. That said, however, the difference between me (sitting in a cubicle typing this) and the creative forces behind Instapaper and Camera+ is (hopefully) that where I see small developers being turned into digital sharecroppers by a dictatorial corporation, they see an opportunity to differentiate themselves from the stock offering by excelling in the very specific area they're focusing on.

alanfalcon 15y ago
Actually, the Camera+ developers filed a feature request and asked Apple to add the volume-button-as-shutter feature. See: http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/ http://taptaptap.com/blog/cameraplus-volumesnap-rejected/ So I imagine they're pretty happy with this development.

wnight 15y ago

Remember Ballmer chanting "Developers! Developers! ..."? Well, here Apple is saying "Screw the developers". Sure, they have a right to do this, and perhaps an obligations, but the developers put out business without warning probably won't keep developing for Apple. Over time that will work to reduce developer uptake, and thus app selection on iOS, which is why they perhaps should have chosen to somehow lessen the blow to unlucky developers.