Judge Lets iPhone Antitrust Trial Move Forward

from the not-such-a-good-day-at-apple dept

Last year, we wrote about an antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple for sending an update that disabled, or "bricked," the iPhones of people who had changed the firmware to accept outside programs. While Apple tried to push for a dismissal of the lawsuit, a judge has denied the motion to dismiss and will let the case carry on. While a full-on antitrust finding seems unlikely, there are elements of the case that may get Apple into trouble down the road -- and it all comes back to Apple's Achilles' heel: its desire to control absolutely everything, even after you've bought it. Depending on how this case works out, Apple may discover that it (legally) needs to learn to loosen the strings a bit.

Filed Under: antitrust, bricking, control, iphone, lawsuits
Companies: apple

Apple Finally Realizes That NDAs For Developers Are A Bad Idea

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

It was definitely surprising to see Apple trying to enforce an NDA to stop iPhone developers from talking about their applications, so it's nice to see Apple (for once!) respond to the backlash by dropping the NDA. However, the company's explanation for why it had the NDA in the first place doesn't make much sense:

We put the NDA in place because the iPhone OS includes many Apple inventions and innovations that we would like to protect, so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before. While we have filed for hundreds of patents on iPhone technology, the NDA added yet another level of protection. We put it in place as one more way to help protect the iPhone from being ripped off by others.

It's unclear what "inventions and innovations" would be "stolen" (the company probably means infringed, not stolen, obviously) without such an NDA in place. Also, the patents are a separate issue. The whole explanation, frankly, is misleading. The NDA and the patents protect entirely different things in very different ways, and it's difficult to see how the lack of an NDA allows anything to be "ripped off."

Either way, it's good that Apple has recognized that such NDA's significantly limit its developers. It's tough to have much of a developer "community" when said developers are barred from communicating.

Filed Under: community, developers, iphone, ndas
Companies: apple

Apple's Response To App Rejection Backlash? Ban Developers From Talking About It

from the digging-a-deeper-hole dept

As the backlash against Apple's arbitrary banning of apps it doesn't like (or which it feels competes) from the iPhone App Store continues, it appears that rather than come clean, Apple is going in the opposite direction. It's trying to impose its own monolithic tendency for silence on developers as well. That is, it's now imposing non-disclosure agreements on developer rejections -- telling them they cannot tell anyone that their apps have been rejected. Once again, Apple may discover that gagging developers on how Apple is screwing them probably isn't going to do much to endear those developers to the iPhone platform.

Filed Under: app store, applications, competition, iphone, nda, podcasting
Companies: apple

Apple Shuts Off Loophole For Podcaster App Developer; He Switches Over To Android

from the pissing-off-developers dept

We noted that Apple had recently started banning any kind of competitive app from the iPhone App Store, saying that various iPhone developers must be eagerly awaiting the launch of Google-powered Android phones. And, indeed, that seems to be the case for the developer of the Podcaster app, who has announced that he'll now develop the app for Android phones instead. The final straw, apparently, was Apple closing the workaround he was using to get the Podcasting app to users -- and doing so with no communication or explanation whatsoever. Apple may believe it can get away with treating developers this way when there's no serious competition in the marketplace, but they may discover that pissing off your developer community has pretty long-term negative consequences when that competition actually arrives.

Filed Under: android, app store, applications, competition, iphone, podcaster, useful
Companies: apple

German Court Bans VoIP On The iPhone; Says It's Unfair

from the felony-interference-with-a-business-model dept

We've pointed to a bunch of stories that involved Apple somewhat arbitrarily forbidding or banning iPhone apps, but now it appears that the courts are getting in on the game as well. A German court has banned a VoIP iPhone app after T-Mobile, the mobile operator who offers the iPhone in Germany, complained. The court says that this VoIP app "makes use of unfair business practices," though it's difficult to see how. VoIP is a perfectly acceptable application, so why is it unfair? The court's explanation here seems a bit stretched as well. Apparently, the only way to run this particular VoIP app is on a jailbroken iPhone, and T-Mobile's contract forbids jailbreaking the phone. Of course, if that's true, isn't it an issue between T-Mobile and its customers who broke the contract? Why should the app maker be blamed? All it did was build a useful app? This seems like yet another case where a company is arguing that interference with a business model should be illegal.

Filed Under: ban, germany, iphone, voip
Companies: apple

Apple's Podcaster Block Backlash Getting Louder

from the not-so-good,-Apple dept

Apple is getting an awful lot of attention for blocking a podcasting app from the iPhone App Store because it competes with iTunes, and the more details come out, the worse it looks for Apple. In the original post on it, I had wondered, as an aside, if the app had useful functionality that Apple refused to provide -- and, indeed, that's the case. CNET is pointing out that the app is much more useful, since it lets you download podcasts directly to the iPhone -- something iTunes doesn't currently allow. Yet, Apple has no incentive to add this very useful feature, because it can just block out anyone who tries to do it for them. In the meantime, the developer of the app is forced to use a very limited workaround to offer the app to folks who want it (knowing that Apple could just come in and shut it down). Again, these moves are all well within Apple's right to do -- but it's going to piss off developers (and customers) if these sorts of activities keep up.

Filed Under: app store, applications, competition, iphone, podcaster, useful
Companies: apple

Apple Now Banning Potentially Competitive Apps From The iPhone

from the pissing-off-developers dept

Yet another day and yet another odd attempt by Apple to arbitrarily control what's in the App Store for the iPhone. A bunch of folks have submitted the news of a podcasting app that's been blocked because Apple claims it competes with iTunes. This should, of course, scare of iPhone developers even more than previous bans. After all, it means that should an app get particularly popular, Apple would most likely just create its own competing version and remove the popular app from the store.

While some are decrying this as being an abuse of power, Apple certainly has the right to do it. It's just not a particularly good long term strategy -- and likely to backfire badly. Pissing off your developers or making them worry isn't going to get very many good apps written going forward. Also, limiting competition is actually going to hurt Apple, because it no longer has anyone driving them to be better. What if this podcasting app had certain features that were really cool and useful -- and not available in iTunes? Right now, Apple has no incentive to include that functionality, thus making its own software worse.

In the meantime, you've got to imagine that a number of iPhone developers may be eagerly awaiting the launch of Google's Android platform which won't have such arbitrary restrictions.

Filed Under: app store, applications, competition, iphone, platforms, podcasting

Should Apple Really Be Determining What Is Useful?

from the steve-jobs:-the-decider dept

Ten years ago, if someone told you that they were going to create an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, at best, you would have decided the site would be of "limited utility." Five years ago, if someone told you that they were going to create a service to let people write 140 character updates, you would have decided the site would be of "limited utility." How about a site that will let you sleep on a strangers couch? The Internet has bred success stories because it allows inexpensive experimentation; in amongst the rickrolling and other dribble that fills the tubes are sometimes deceptively compelling ideas. These aren't ideas that come through corporate meetings or product development; they come from the edge. Yet, Apple continues to stifle innovation in their App Store by rejecting and removing applications. Now, the company is ejecting applications based on the rather vague rational of "limited utility." While I agree that the application in question has little use, this is a dangerous precedent that could easily have been used to ban Wikipedia, Twitter or CouchSurfing.

Filed Under: app store, applications, iphone, useful
Companies: apple

But Why Does Apple Wants To Take On The Role Of Content Gatekeeper?

from the how-does-this-benefit-anyone? dept

Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar -- though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it's not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn't mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.

Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple's part and it's hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that "bad" content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.

Filed Under: comic, content, gatekeeper, iphone, murderdrome

Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims

from the can-I-get-an-encore? dept

Over the past couple months we have covered the tale of Scrabulous, the popular Facebook application which brought the traditional game of Scrabble to the online environment. After more than nine months of threats, Hasbro, the owner of Scrabble, finally created their own version of the game and, more importantly, sued the makers of Scrabulous.

Now, an eerily similar situation is taking place through the iPhone App Store. The maker of a Tetris-like game called "Tris" reports that due to legal action by the Tetris Company, he is going to remove the application from the App Store. Apple, he says, demanded he resolve the dispute personally or they would "take action." Although the developer believes he is on fairly firm legal ground, as a poor college student, he cannot afford the time or money to defend his application. He calls the approach "little more than petty bullying."

This scenario and Scrabulous are indicators of the increasing importance of the platform operators who have the ability to shut down applications (and in the case of Apple, even disable previously installed applications). The developers who are building on these platforms are beholden to gatekeepers which, more often than not, err on the side of over-enforcement.

Filed Under: apps, copyright, iphone, tetris, tris