8 ms·

Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access t

Hrm. Dan Goodin. I recognize that name. This is the same author who published an article on The Register with the title "Skype bug gives attackers root access to Mac OS X", which was factually incorrect. He corrected the headline after much hoopla, but it strikes me that Mr. Goodin is a professional link-baiter. The title has it backwards. Isn't WiFi sync a fairly obvious feature that Apple has likely had in the works for quite some time? Based on what I've read, this sync app was only possible because of some low-level sync frameworks that were already present in iOS. The feature wasn't ready by Apple Standards, but Apple didn't want a poor implementation of what should be a system-level feature in the wild. One could argue that the rejection of his app was an act of protecting the user experience. This is something Apple does regularly. If you don't want the protection, you should head over to another platform. Acting shocked at any of these facts just shows that you haven't been paying attention.

bradleyland 15y ago
I had a feeling this would get voted down on the basis of it being ad hominem, but in the context of journalism, an author's history of editorial bias is important. If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  As the author is a link-bait artist, you are an Apple apologist. Which might have cause some impatient folks to click down-vote reflexively.
- sampsonjs 15y ago
  When I see "ad hominem" hauled out on HN, I always think of the following from Daniel Davies: "There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem". There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of "giving known liars the benefit of the doubt", but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world."
brudgers 15y ago
Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewer are further from the core. That's not to say you shouldn't develop a to-do app, but you should A) plan your product ramp in a way that you recover your investment quickly, and B) not be surprised when Apple announces a simple, integrated to-do solution.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc. More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon. All this makes it hard to consider Apple's actions in this matter to be ethical in any meaningful sense of the term.
    - tobylane 15y ago
      The icon was a mix of the Mac's wifi and sync icons. For all we know Apple didn't want their icons used by someone else, that's a legit reason that's been used elsewhere. Also judging by the comments on the TUAW post of this topic, the app was low quality, and the support was even worse. Apple don't like that, rightly.
      - brudgers 15y ago
        At the time it was submitted, Apple was not purging "low quality" apps - and as the noted in the Register story, Apple thought enough of its implementation to call the developer and request his CV. This would be more consistent with Apple's engineers being impressed by the implementation rather than it would be consistent with its poor quality being obvious. Furthermore, given your premise that Apple had something in the works but could not create an implementation which was good enough, it is clearly plausible that Apple's technical review of the app provided a roadmap for improving their implementation to the point where it was good enough. Finally, it is highly unlikely for poor support to have been a reason for rejecting the application because it can rarely if ever be determined for new apps. The infringing icon argument is not backed up by the fact that Apple did not mention it in their rejection and has not taken legal action in the year it has been in use for the jailbroken versions.

bradleyland 15y ago

I had a feeling this would get voted down on the basis of it being ad hominem, but in the context of journalism, an author's history of editorial bias is important. If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
As the author is a link-bait artist, you are an Apple apologist. Which might have cause some impatient folks to click down-vote reflexively.
sampsonjs 15y ago
When I see "ad hominem" hauled out on HN, I always think of the following from Daniel Davies: "There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem". There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of "giving known liars the benefit of the doubt", but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world."

brudgers 15y ago

Every app is based on features of IOS implemented in a way that Apple has not done yet.

bradleyland 15y ago
If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement? I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewer are further from the core. That's not to say you shouldn't develop a to-do app, but you should A) plan your product ramp in a way that you recover your investment quickly, and B) not be surprised when Apple announces a simple, integrated to-do solution.
- brudgers 15y ago
  One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc. More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon. All this makes it hard to consider Apple's actions in this matter to be ethical in any meaningful sense of the term.
  - tobylane 15y ago
    The icon was a mix of the Mac's wifi and sync icons. For all we know Apple didn't want their icons used by someone else, that's a legit reason that's been used elsewhere. Also judging by the comments on the TUAW post of this topic, the app was low quality, and the support was even worse. Apple don't like that, rightly.
    - brudgers 15y ago
      At the time it was submitted, Apple was not purging "low quality" apps - and as the noted in the Register story, Apple thought enough of its implementation to call the developer and request his CV. This would be more consistent with Apple's engineers being impressed by the implementation rather than it would be consistent with its poor quality being obvious. Furthermore, given your premise that Apple had something in the works but could not create an implementation which was good enough, it is clearly plausible that Apple's technical review of the app provided a roadmap for improving their implementation to the point where it was good enough. Finally, it is highly unlikely for poor support to have been a reason for rejecting the application because it can rarely if ever be determined for new apps. The infringing icon argument is not backed up by the fact that Apple did not mention it in their rejection and has not taken legal action in the year it has been in use for the jailbroken versions.