9 ms·

Very typical of Apple, using opaque approval procedures. They're acting like bullies because they didn't get what they wanted and because they have the money/po

Very typical of Apple, using opaque approval procedures. They're acting like bullies because they didn't get what they wanted and because they have the money/power to do so. Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it), and so from then onwards started the downhill ride. I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from what I had in mind) just so that we could all be happy right now ;-)

jb1991 5y ago
> Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it) Man, these Apple threads are always so full of open speculation. Edit: I find it very interesting that after multiple downvotes, suddenly I'm getting downvotes on lots of older comments of mine also. Are folks just going into comment histories to go on a downvote rampage?
- LeoNatan25 5y ago
  This is not a speculation, it is according to Kosta Eleftheriou, the developer of FlickType.
- sodality2 5y ago
  > In one blatant example, Eleftheriou said he was approached by Apple’s head of mobile keyboard technology, Randy Marsden. The latter (who created the Swype keyboard) wanted to buy FlickType to add a native QWERTY for the Apple Watch and improve typing on the device. When Eleftheriou rejected Apple, it refused to remove copycat and scam apps from the App Store. https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-paying-ios-app-is-suing-apple-for-exploiting-small-developers/ https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-...
  - buran77 5y ago
    Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and revenge in response to the rejection. The two softwares aren't actually competing, one now comes with the OS whether you want it or not. If Apple now bans the use of an alternative keyboard despite it not breaking the rules then that's the real issue: they'd be arbitrarily choosing when to apply or ignore the stated terms of use of the store. Reinstating the app later on once the damage is done is a small price to pay from Apple's perspective. On the other hand if your product is actually just a feature for someone else's product you're always exposing yourself to a situation where the product developer just builds that feature in. Think of other fields where you may offer an aftermarket solution like a car seat heating cover but the market evaporates the moment the manufacturer starts offering that as standard.
    - sodality2 5y ago
      >The two softwares aren't actually competing Well yeah, duh, they literally cannot compete. They were kicked off. The fact that you defend banning an app from the store as childish retribution for not taking a lowball offer is telling.
    - windexh8er 5y ago
      > Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and revenge in response to the rejection. The two softwares aren't actually competing, one now comes with the OS whether you want it or not. You have to remember that to companies like Apple everything is competition and financially related. Apple sells widgets based on product release cycles. Those cycles generally focus on features, whether those are hardware or software. Keep in mind that not everyone knows about FlickType. So in that case Apple may choose to release a FlickType clone as part of a new Apple Watch series, exclusive to that version and above. This helps sell more product for Apple. More new features that resonate with their buyers == more profit. Also you can't stand on the stage for 10 minutes and talk about a keyboard that your buyers go to the App store to get, now can you?
  - commoner 5y ago
    hitechglitz.com is one of those spam blogs that copies articles from other sites and changes a couple of the words around. The original article from PhoneArena also contains the lawsuit filing: https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-suit-against-apple_id130849 https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-su...
- NKosmatos 5y ago
  It's not speculation, Apple for sure wanted to buy and had invited over Kostas to demo FlickType. Kostas for sure wanted to sell, since he went over at Apple to showcase his very good and usable watch keyboard. They didn't agree on a price and thus parted ways.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  This took vouching to be able to reply. People, if what the commenter said were all that wrong, it should be pretty fucking easy to post a coherent and convincing rebuttal. Just downvoting in stead shows that it's the downvoter, not the downvoted, who lacks good grounds for their opinion. And the retroactive downvote sprees of other comments -- which I've also seen before, so don't even try to deny their existence -- are just beyond despicable. Shame, shame on anyone who is enough of an asshole to do shit like that.
sva_ 5y ago
> just so that we could all be happy right now To be honest, I'm quite happy about big companies revealing their ugly real face. And some people might benefit from such a reality-check.
- yummypaint 5y ago
  I wish the plaintiffs luck in court. I remember apples courtroom privateering where they persuaded the justice system they invented rounded corners and got their competitors phones pulled from the market. If only the same standards and rigor of enforcement could actually apply to them. Once all is said and done I suspect whatever apple has to pay will not meaningfully impact their profitability, and will be seen as a cost of doing business. This is a core reason these companies are so caustic. Penalties need to be harsh enough to make this behavior unprofitable. The board needs to be pissed at their executives.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Larger discussion: Is this what being a hacker is now? Knowing your project is going to get stomped out with uncompetitive practices from day 1, still doing and carrying it all the the way through to court with a big player?
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      25 years ago, that was still the hacker ethos. Linux stood no chance against the commercial operating systems of the day, and Microsoft was in the process of accretion to a similar position Apple is in today. Yet, against all odds, David sprouted wings and Goliath kneeled.
      - andrekandre 5y ago
        how much of this was initially enabled by the anti-trust settlement and subsequent restrictions on microsofts behavior?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
windexh8er 5y ago
> I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from what I had in mind) just so that we could all be happy right now ;-) Seems like Apple has a very anti-competitive position, no? To me this goes all the way back to the walled garden argument. Apple sat on, what some may consider, a straw man arguing that they couldn't deliver security to their customers without it. Fast forward all these years and Apple's walled garden seems to be failing rather regularly for the trifecta of their: users, developers and the system in general. Users get less choice in the app store when Apple wants to compete directly, developers with good ideas who aren't willing to sell out to Apple will pay the price of their livelihood drying up over night if you don't give Apple what they want and finally we get things like no-click zero days on a routine basis these days.
- Terretta 5y ago
  > walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Razengan 5y ago
      So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
defaultname 5y ago
The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all: Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut. At least without the App Store reviewers crawling all over everything you do, putting an enormous level of scrutiny over everything you do. And the functionality has to justify it (not that it should operate without it, but with it has to validate why -- is it using some massive cloud resource to guess your next word, etc?) That he ever got away with it was during confusion over keyboards on the watch where they weren't officially sanctioned and thus policed. But otherwise he's engaged in building features for someone else's platform. Eventually those features get first party inclusion. This is the surest thing in this industry, and people comparing it to sherlock, etc -- ridiculous. Apple made a larger Apple watch so they decided it's time for a keyboard. That this guy is trying to claim some sort of moral/intellectual ownership over keyboards and/or swype typing is ridiculous, and it's the sort of overreach that is usually criticized viciously on HN. And if Apple truly made an offer to "buy" his keyboard, it was certainly just to settle bad blood. The likely outcome would have been that they toss his solution and then do exactly what they did, which is build their own.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all: Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut. Completely wrong. I assume you saw some source online saying that network access was banned across the board for keyboard apps, maybe someone looked at the default restrictions and extrapolated from there. Easy mistake to make. Anyway, see below: ---- > To be clear, Apple’s own developer guidelines specify that “full access” isn’t a problem: the only dispute here is whether the app continues to work if a user turns it off — which it does, says Eleftheriou, if you turn VoiceOver on. “They’d have to try it as a VoiceOver user, something that they don’t seem to bother doing. I’ve had several rejections in the past because the reviewer didn’t know anything about VoiceOver,” Eleftheriou says.[0] And from Apple's (as far as I can tell, still current) developer documentation: > By default, a keyboard has no network access and cannot share a container with its containing app. To enable these things, set the value of the RequestsOpenAccess Boolean key in the Info.plist file to YES. Doing this expands the keyboard’s sandbox, as described in Designing for User Trust.[1] Which then goes on to extensively document how network access can be added to a keyboard utility. Pretty far away from a utility-wide ban. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-keyboard-discontinued-blind-visually-impaired https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-ke... [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/CustomKeyboard.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
VortexDream 5y ago
It's because of this kind of stuff that I wanted the Epic case about anticompetitive behavior to be successful. Unfortunately, they blew past this whole issue and focused solely on the issue of the store tax and payment processing. So we're stuck with crap like this.
piokoch 5y ago
That's not only Apple, other companies (like Microsoft) were eating their customers, who were providing service that followed their business line. On the one hand, this is not pretty, on the other hand, this was happening, happens and will happen, so anyone starting business should think of this - that's one more risk to take into account. I think there was a good post on this by Joel Spolsky - if you create app that improves someone else product, the owner of the product soon or later will come after you. Apple probably is not going to extend iOS with capabilities useful for plumbers, so one is safe building app for plumbers, however I would hesitate to build app for runners, as Apple is clearly looking on the health & sports sector.
FireBeyond 5y ago
The sad thing is that I've seen numerous comments here saying (of this and other situations), "Well, Apple offered him/them some money for it. They should have just taken the money", and that, to them, completely justifies it. "A gift he couldn't refuse", indeed.
- NKosmatos 5y ago
  When you're facing big tech giants it's very difficult to judge the best course of actions. They have the advantage, money, influence and usually the advantage in similar situations. I'm not saying the sell out (especially at a ridiculous price) is ok and should always be accepted, but most of the times it's the wiser thing to do. Anyhow, isn't this one of the purposes of most app developers/startups, to have a software/service that one of the big companies out there will want to acquire and give you cash and time to work on your "brain child" the way you want it?
  - woko 5y ago
    It depends on the offer. Remember that recent piece of news? > Newly-released emails reveal how Google hoped to pay $50 million for YouTube in 2006, and why it ended up paying $1.65 billion > https://www.businessinsider.com/email-reveal-google-hoped-buy-50-million-for-youtube-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/email-reveal-google-hoped-bu...
sushicat 5y ago
Personally, I doubt the blocking of app updates is due to failed acquisition. Yes, let’s admit the facts are Apple tried to buy FlickType, the attempt failed, FlickType is blocked from issuing updates, and Apple released keyboard for Watch 7. But let’s think from a different angle, Apple is a large corporation, all these steps were performed by different teams under different organizations. I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?) org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in this discussion process. For the M&A (I don’t know the actual name) org, IMO there is no incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition, they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are normal to them. For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app updates for a revenge? It’s possible but I think unlikely, they’re not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the FlickType, but they don’t have the pressure to increase adoption because the native keyboard will have better experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and only available on watch 7. Let’s say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org, for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you’re that app store review manager, someone down the line of another org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the company, but also yourself either externally or internally. Will you accept that request? To be clear, this is my guess, and I don’t know what’s really going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge. But my point is things may not connected as they look like.

jb1991 5y ago

> Apple wanted to buy FlickType but they didn't agree on the price or Eleftheriou didn't want to sell (I doubt it) Man, these Apple threads are always so full of open speculation. Edit: I find it very interesting that after multiple downvotes, suddenly I'm getting downvotes on lots of older comments of mine also. Are folks just going into comment histories to go on a downvote rampage?

LeoNatan25 5y ago
This is not a speculation, it is according to Kosta Eleftheriou, the developer of FlickType.
sodality2 5y ago
> In one blatant example, Eleftheriou said he was approached by Apple’s head of mobile keyboard technology, Randy Marsden. The latter (who created the Swype keyboard) wanted to buy FlickType to add a native QWERTY for the Apple Watch and improve typing on the device. When Eleftheriou rejected Apple, it refused to remove copycat and scam apps from the App Store. https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-paying-ios-app-is-suing-apple-for-exploiting-small-developers/ https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-...
- buran77 5y ago
  Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and revenge in response to the rejection. The two softwares aren't actually competing, one now comes with the OS whether you want it or not. If Apple now bans the use of an alternative keyboard despite it not breaking the rules then that's the real issue: they'd be arbitrarily choosing when to apply or ignore the stated terms of use of the store. Reinstating the app later on once the damage is done is a small price to pay from Apple's perspective. On the other hand if your product is actually just a feature for someone else's product you're always exposing yourself to a situation where the product developer just builds that feature in. Think of other fields where you may offer an aftermarket solution like a car seat heating cover but the market evaporates the moment the manufacturer starts offering that as standard.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    >The two softwares aren't actually competing Well yeah, duh, they literally cannot compete. They were kicked off. The fact that you defend banning an app from the store as childish retribution for not taking a lowball offer is telling.
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    > Blocking the app was probably just a dick move and revenge in response to the rejection. The two softwares aren't actually competing, one now comes with the OS whether you want it or not. You have to remember that to companies like Apple everything is competition and financially related. Apple sells widgets based on product release cycles. Those cycles generally focus on features, whether those are hardware or software. Keep in mind that not everyone knows about FlickType. So in that case Apple may choose to release a FlickType clone as part of a new Apple Watch series, exclusive to that version and above. This helps sell more product for Apple. More new features that resonate with their buyers == more profit. Also you can't stand on the stage for 10 minutes and talk about a keyboard that your buyers go to the App store to get, now can you?
- commoner 5y ago
  hitechglitz.com is one of those spam blogs that copies articles from other sites and changes a couple of the words around. The original article from PhoneArena also contains the lawsuit filing: https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-suit-against-apple_id130849 https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-su...
NKosmatos 5y ago
It's not speculation, Apple for sure wanted to buy and had invited over Kostas to demo FlickType. Kostas for sure wanted to sell, since he went over at Apple to showcase his very good and usable watch keyboard. They didn't agree on a price and thus parted ways.
CRConrad 5y ago
This took vouching to be able to reply. People, if what the commenter said were all that wrong, it should be pretty fucking easy to post a coherent and convincing rebuttal. Just downvoting in stead shows that it's the downvoter, not the downvoted, who lacks good grounds for their opinion. And the retroactive downvote sprees of other comments -- which I've also seen before, so don't even try to deny their existence -- are just beyond despicable. Shame, shame on anyone who is enough of an asshole to do shit like that.

sva_ 5y ago

> just so that we could all be happy right now To be honest, I'm quite happy about big companies revealing their ugly real face. And some people might benefit from such a reality-check.

yummypaint 5y ago
I wish the plaintiffs luck in court. I remember apples courtroom privateering where they persuaded the justice system they invented rounded corners and got their competitors phones pulled from the market. If only the same standards and rigor of enforcement could actually apply to them. Once all is said and done I suspect whatever apple has to pay will not meaningfully impact their profitability, and will be seen as a cost of doing business. This is a core reason these companies are so caustic. Penalties need to be harsh enough to make this behavior unprofitable. The board needs to be pissed at their executives.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Larger discussion: Is this what being a hacker is now? Knowing your project is going to get stomped out with uncompetitive practices from day 1, still doing and carrying it all the the way through to court with a big player?
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    25 years ago, that was still the hacker ethos. Linux stood no chance against the commercial operating systems of the day, and Microsoft was in the process of accretion to a similar position Apple is in today. Yet, against all odds, David sprouted wings and Goliath kneeled.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      how much of this was initially enabled by the anti-trust settlement and subsequent restrictions on microsofts behavior?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

windexh8er 5y ago

> I fully support Eleftheriou on this just for the principle, but if I were in his place I would have agreed at a very large sum from Apple (even lower from what I had in mind) just so that we could all be happy right now ;-) Seems like Apple has a very anti-competitive position, no? To me this goes all the way back to the walled garden argument. Apple sat on, what some may consider, a straw man arguing that they couldn't deliver security to their customers without it. Fast forward all these years and Apple's walled garden seems to be failing rather regularly for the trifecta of their: users, developers and the system in general. Users get less choice in the app store when Apple wants to compete directly, developers with good ideas who aren't willing to sell out to Apple will pay the price of their livelihood drying up over night if you don't give Apple what they want and finally we get things like no-click zero days on a routine basis these days.

Terretta 5y ago
> walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Razengan 5y ago
    So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.

defaultname 5y ago

The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all: Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut. At least without the App Store reviewers crawling all over everything you do, putting an enormous level of scrutiny over everything you do. And the functionality has to justify it (not that it should operate without it, but with it has to validate why -- is it using some massive cloud resource to guess your next word, etc?) That he ever got away with it was during confusion over keyboards on the watch where they weren't officially sanctioned and thus policed. But otherwise he's engaged in building features for someone else's platform. Eventually those features get first party inclusion. This is the surest thing in this industry, and people comparing it to sherlock, etc -- ridiculous. Apple made a larger Apple watch so they decided it's time for a keyboard. That this guy is trying to claim some sort of moral/intellectual ownership over keyboards and/or swype typing is ridiculous, and it's the sort of overreach that is usually criticized viciously on HN. And if Apple truly made an offer to "buy" his keyboard, it was certainly just to settle bad blood. The likely outcome would have been that they toss his solution and then do exactly what they did, which is build their own.

danShumway 5y ago
> The original issues with the app weren't opaque at all: Keyboard utilities can't have network access. Then he noted that it can operate without it, but the entitlement can't even exist for any users, even optionally. That is very clearcut. Completely wrong. I assume you saw some source online saying that network access was banned across the board for keyboard apps, maybe someone looked at the default restrictions and extrapolated from there. Easy mistake to make. Anyway, see below: ---- > To be clear, Apple’s own developer guidelines specify that “full access” isn’t a problem: the only dispute here is whether the app continues to work if a user turns it off — which it does, says Eleftheriou, if you turn VoiceOver on. “They’d have to try it as a VoiceOver user, something that they don’t seem to bother doing. I’ve had several rejections in the past because the reviewer didn’t know anything about VoiceOver,” Eleftheriou says.[0] And from Apple's (as far as I can tell, still current) developer documentation: > By default, a keyboard has no network access and cannot share a container with its containing app. To enable these things, set the value of the RequestsOpenAccess Boolean key in the Info.plist file to YES. Doing this expands the keyboard’s sandbox, as described in Designing for User Trust.[1] Which then goes on to extensively document how network access can be added to a keyboard utility. Pretty far away from a utility-wide ban. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-keyboard-discontinued-blind-visually-impaired https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-ke... [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/CustomKeyboard.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...

VortexDream 5y ago

It's because of this kind of stuff that I wanted the Epic case about anticompetitive behavior to be successful. Unfortunately, they blew past this whole issue and focused solely on the issue of the store tax and payment processing. So we're stuck with crap like this.

piokoch 5y ago

That's not only Apple, other companies (like Microsoft) were eating their customers, who were providing service that followed their business line. On the one hand, this is not pretty, on the other hand, this was happening, happens and will happen, so anyone starting business should think of this - that's one more risk to take into account. I think there was a good post on this by Joel Spolsky - if you create app that improves someone else product, the owner of the product soon or later will come after you. Apple probably is not going to extend iOS with capabilities useful for plumbers, so one is safe building app for plumbers, however I would hesitate to build app for runners, as Apple is clearly looking on the health & sports sector.

FireBeyond 5y ago

The sad thing is that I've seen numerous comments here saying (of this and other situations), "Well, Apple offered him/them some money for it. They should have just taken the money", and that, to them, completely justifies it. "A gift he couldn't refuse", indeed.

NKosmatos 5y ago
When you're facing big tech giants it's very difficult to judge the best course of actions. They have the advantage, money, influence and usually the advantage in similar situations. I'm not saying the sell out (especially at a ridiculous price) is ok and should always be accepted, but most of the times it's the wiser thing to do. Anyhow, isn't this one of the purposes of most app developers/startups, to have a software/service that one of the big companies out there will want to acquire and give you cash and time to work on your "brain child" the way you want it?
- woko 5y ago
  It depends on the offer. Remember that recent piece of news? > Newly-released emails reveal how Google hoped to pay $50 million for YouTube in 2006, and why it ended up paying $1.65 billion > https://www.businessinsider.com/email-reveal-google-hoped-buy-50-million-for-youtube-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/email-reveal-google-hoped-bu...

sushicat 5y ago

Personally, I doubt the blocking of app updates is due to failed acquisition. Yes, let’s admit the facts are Apple tried to buy FlickType, the attempt failed, FlickType is blocked from issuing updates, and Apple released keyboard for Watch 7. But let’s think from a different angle, Apple is a large corporation, all these steps were performed by different teams under different organizations. I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?) org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in this discussion process. For the M&A (I don’t know the actual name) org, IMO there is no incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition, they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are normal to them. For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app updates for a revenge? It’s possible but I think unlikely, they’re not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the FlickType, but they don’t have the pressure to increase adoption because the native keyboard will have better experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and only available on watch 7. Let’s say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org, for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you’re that app store review manager, someone down the line of another org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the company, but also yourself either externally or internally. Will you accept that request? To be clear, this is my guess, and I don’t know what’s really going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge. But my point is things may not connected as they look like.