Apple Says That You Can't Give Away A 'Free' iPad Or iPhone In A Contest

from the first-sale? dept

Apparently, Apple has recently decided to start trying to enforce its official "Guidelines for Third Party Promotions," meaning that they're telling people they can no longer offer contests and promotions where the prize is a "free iPad" or something of that nature. Specifically, the "guidelines" state:

• iPad, iPhone and the iPhone Gift Card may not be used in third-party promotions.
• iPod touch is only allowed to be used in special circumstances and requires a minimum purchase of 250 units.
• You may NOT use the Myriad Set font on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, or promotional/advertising materials.
• The use of "free" as a modifier in any Apple product reference in a prominent manner (headlines, call- outs, etc.) is prohibited.
• You must submit all marketing materials related to the promotion of Apple products to Apple for review.

That all sounds lovingly dictatorial on the part of Apple, but I'm left scratching my head how the company thinks these guidelines are even remotely enforceable. If someone has legitimately bought one of these devices, I can't see under what legal basis Apple can claim that a giveaway promotion violates the law. Perhaps there's a weak trademark claim, but I can't see it holding up in most cases (there could be a few exceptions). But, really, what is Apple thinking here? People use its products in giveaways and contests because the product is desirable . Why fight that?

Filed Under: first sale, giveaway, ipad, iphone
Companies: apple

Console Manufacturers Pressure Google Into Pulling Emulators From The Android Market

from the it-takes-a-lot-of-effort-to-make-your-IP-worthless dept

In what is a rather unsurprising move, Sega and Nintendo have pressured Google to remove certain emulators from the Android Market. Some of the details via Geek.com:

Over the weekend developer Yong Zhang, known on the Android Market as yongzh, saw his Android developer account revoked and all the apps he offers removed from the Market. The apps he was offering were all emulators for popular older systems including the NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, Atari, Game Gear, and Game Boy. But Google has seen fit to remove all of them ( including Nesoid, Snesoid, Gensoid, N64oid, Ataroid, Gearoid, and Gameoid).

Now, I know the rationale behind this. Or rather, I know of it. I don't know as in understand it.

I can see console developers having an issue with someone making money with their IP. I can understand why that's an issue. What I don't understand is why forcing these emulators and roms to be removed is the answer.

Reggie Fils-Aime has stated before his dislike of indie developers and the general race-to-the-bottom price competition, but has anybody at Sega or Nintendo or Sony ever considered the possibility of contacting these developers and licensing the emulators?

[CLARIFICATION (mainly for the benefit of console developers): By "licensing," I don't mean wave the lawyer stick around threateningly until they give up all commercial rights in perpetuity in exchange for a lawsuit-free existence and a signed copy of Tamigotchi: Party On!

I mean actual fair licensing agreements in which both parties have a chance to make some money. END CLARIFICATION.]

There are thousands of fans out there, cranking out amazing stuff simply because they love the consoles and the games. Emulators, ROMs, fan fiction, fan movies, translations, you name it, somebody is out there doing it.

And it's not like most of these consoles are still available from the developers and they're certainly not cranking out new titles for the Genesis or the SNES. So why not take all this fan power and harness it into something that makes you money (granted, not at $40-50 a pop) rather than just shutting it down and collecting a big fat $0 for your efforts.

Mobile gaming is the new console gaming. All those kids who grew up with a NES or a Genesis are now cruising around with their smartphones looking for a hit of nostalgia. Besides, any gamer worth his fanboyism will tell you that all the best games were released at least a decade ago, if not longer. (See also: Final Fantasy VII, Sony Playstation, 1998.)

Besides, all the programming and debugging (well, most of it) has already been done. All it needs now is the official go-ahead from the console manufacturers and everyone can start printing money or bitcoins or whatever. You're not going to get rid of them. The fans are everywhere and they've got more enthusiasm than you've got lawyers. If you can't beat 'em, monetize 'em.

 

UPDATE: As Chris Rhodes (and others) have pointed out, this emulator removal does not have anything to do with Nintendo. In fact, it looks as if yongzh brought this upon himself by selling open source code as his own.

The two links I used to put this story together (the one in the post) and this one over at Engadget both mention Sega's hand in getting some emulators pulled and conjecture that Nintendo may have been involved with getting the rest removed. It's not until you start reading the comment thread at Engadget that any of yongzh's misdeeds are even mentioned. Generally, I don't head to the comment threads to get the real story, but there's a first time for everything and unfortunately, this wasn't it.

Between those two articles and a long history of console developers battling emulator/ROM programmers, not to mention Nintendo's obvious lack of interest in developing for smartphones, I assumed that Nintendo was involved.

Well, as the old saying goes: "Never assume, because it makes an ass out of the author and often leads to public evisceration and eternal damnation thanks to Google cache."

My thanks to everyone who pointed this out and my apologies to everyone else.

Filed Under: android, emulators, market
Companies: google, nintendo, sony

Streaming Music To Phones Is Officially The Oldest Trick In The Book

from the remind-me-again-what's-so-"smart"-about-your-smartphone? dept

Everyone has a friend who's seen everything, done everything and grown bored of everything. They're everywhere. And if you don't have a friend like this, a quick visit to any forum or comment thread will provide you with one of these "friends," whether you wanted one or not.

You know the type:

1989

[Show friend your brand-new copy of "President Yo La Tengo."] "Have you heard these guys? They're out of New Jersey, I think. They just kicked out this album.

Friend: [Underenthusiastic shrug] "Yeah. They used to be pretty good until they sold out and released their debut. I used to design guitar picks for them until they went mainstream. Pffft."

You: [Disappointed sigh]: "Well, it's an awesome album. But it may be their last great one, I guess... I'm starting to like it less already... thanks."

1999

"Whoa. Have you seen this? Just caught a few minutes of a working print for something called 'The Matrix'. Mindblowing!

Friend: [Noncomittal headnod] "This thing's been circulating the web since it appeared untitled on a Geocities page. It looks alright but I'm wondering why they didn't go with Nick Cage like the original production notes stated. I worked with Lana for a couple of years as a scriptrunner. Maybe I'll watch it when it comes to Blu-ray. "

You: [Frustrated and confused glare]: "Blu-ray?" "Lana?"

2009

"I just got a leaked beta of "Civilization V"!

Friend: "Well, I hope they fix the siege AI. Everything I see on the alpha build of 'VII' is still in need of nerfing."

You: [Unitelligble growl that rises quickly to a full roar as you strangle your 'friend' with his own tongue while screaming] "YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING, DID YOU!! THIS IS MY CLOSED-BETA [kidney punch] PRE-RELEASE [rib kick] LIMITED 7-INCH [eye gouge] BEATDOWN!!! [sleeper hold]

So, it is in the spirit of vindictive upmanship that I bring you this handy bit of pre-knowledge from Scientific American, via Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

The next time your friend mentions some brand new streaming service that brings music to whatever shiny piece of early-adoption he's currently using as a cellphone, sniff haughtily and backhand him (or her, although this really seems to be a "him" quality) verbally with this:

"Streaming music to a phone? Yeah, that's alright if that's the sort of thing that still impresses you. I've been streaming music to my phone for 120 years."

[Note: you do not need to be over the age of 120 to make this statement. It would be much more awesome if you were, but it shouldn't make your bombshell any less devastating.]

The July 2, 1892, Scientific American Supplement reported on the use of a device called the theatrophone that had been in use for two years already in Paris. The basic idea was to be able to call into a theater and hear live music being played. One could either subscribe to receive the service in home or utilize one of the theatrophones set up in various locales such as hotels, restaurants, vestibules, and cafes throughout the city.

While said friend is still trying to wrap his "been-there-done-that" mind around a concept that includes places he's never been and things he's never done, add insult to injury by pointing out how advanced this system was:

The theatrophone had 3 cables, 2 used for the transmission of music and the other for an alarm set for 5 minutes, keeping track of the listener's time and changing theaters at each interval. If a listener happened to catch the live performance as it was ending or during an intermission, he would be wired into a different location for the remainder of time paid for. If all theaters were in an intermission, then the listener would be treated to recorded piano music so his money was not wasted.

As your friend devolves into a blind panic as he searches for a pre-19th century rebuttal, drop this final piece of science onto his trend-setting ass:

At the time of the article, there were 100 theatrophones installed in Paris running on 11 different lines, as well as a number of private subscribers who paid a fixed amount for a certain number of listenings in the home.

Subscription service? Streaming? Multiple users? Home version? Been there. [BAM!] Done that. [BOO-YAH!]

[Make some sort of victorious karate chop/touchdown/"suck it loser" motion and stroll away from the blubbering wreck of a human being you've left behind. Casually toss a $180 faux-vintage Pong shirt at him to dry his eyes on and head to the nearest forum/comment thread to gloat.]

Filed Under: history, mobile phones, streaming

Two Can Play At This Game: Samsung Wants To See Apple's Next Gen iPhones & iPads

from the patent-disputes dept

Last week, we noted that Apple had successfully convinced a court that Samsung should be forced to hand over unreleased prototypes of its new phones and tablet computers as part of its patent dispute with Samsung. In response, Samsung (which filed countersuits over other patents) is demanding Apple hand over its next generation iPhones and iPads to Samsung. The whole thing is getting pretty childish, which is basically what happens in patent disputes of this nature. Why can't these two companies just focus on competing in the marketplace, and letting the best company win based on who's buying what?

Filed Under: ipads, iphones, patents
Companies: apple, samsung

Apple Sues Teen Who Sold Repair Parts To Make Your iPhone Into A Mythical White iPhone

from the oh-come-on dept

People have been talking about a "white iPhone" for ages, expecting that Apple would eventually reintroduce a model with a white back, which it had on an older model. However, one enterprising teen started offing a conversion kit last fall that would let people "repair" their own iPhones and replace the back with a white back that he sourced from China, where they were apparently labeled as "repair parts." All of that sounds like something that should be perfectly legal. After all, you bought your phone, you should be able to modify it, and the kid selling the parts should be able to sell you those parts. But, instead, Apple sued NYC-based teenager Fei Lam last week, and he's apparently taking on the company without a lawyer. It's too bad, but he's expected to settle the case rather than fight Apple. I can totally understand why he'd settle, but it's really quite ridiculous that Apple would sue over this.

Filed Under: fei lam, lawsuits, white iphones
Companies: apple

Al Franken Grandstands Over Meaningless Privacy Policies

from the come-on-al dept

We were just discussing the whole misguided focus on privacy policies. For years, now, there's been this false and silly belief that, if we just required that websites have "privacy policies," it would somehow lead to more privacy. But it's a completely false sense of security. No one reads privacy policies. They're meaningless. And you can put anything in one -- including claiming to freely give up anyone's data to anyone who asks. And yet... the obsession continues. My original post on the subject was due to a silly study about how many mobile apps don't have privacy policies. In true grandstanding fashion, it appears Senator Al Franken has picked up on that report, and is saying that Apple and Google should require privacy policies.

I'm sure he means well, and I'm sure he thinks this is about protecting people's privacy. But it's not. What good does a privacy policy do in this situation? It presents a bunch of policies that no one will read, no one will pay attention to, which the company can change at any time, and which can be written so broadly as to be the opposite of actually protecting anyone's privacy. And yet, if Google and Apple require such things, Franken and others will think they're protecting people's privacy, when they're not. Stop worrying about privacy policies, and start focusing on stuff that actually matters.

Filed Under: al franken, mobile, privacy, privacy policies

Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs

from the captive-audience dept

For years, the TV industry has been at war with the DVR, because of their fear that people would just use DVRs to skip over commercials. And, of course, there were the requisite reports about how DVRs were causing massive totally made up "losses." Except, the reality turned out to be completely different. Various studies found that DVRs changed watching habits in that they actually drove more TV watching, and actually increased retention of what was in the commercials viewers did see. Of course, the "fear" from TV folks was totally misplaced -- and they were going after the symptom, not the actual heart of the issue: which is that people don't want to watch TV commercials because the TV commercials suck.

TV commercials worked because people were a captive audience and had nowhere else to place their attention. Yet, when they have other options for their attention, they tend to take them. In fact, the latest study (sent over by Eric Goldman) shows that DVRs were never really a huge threat in terms of taking people's attention away from ads. Instead, it seems the real threat is that everyone has a smartphone now, and when commercials come on, they turn their attention to their smartphone, check their social network/email/etc.:

It was found that simply turning one's head to ignore video ads had far greater impact than DVR fast-forwarding is assumed to have. Magna Global estimates that 35% of U.S. households have DVRs and 10% of their total TV consumption is time shifted, within which 65% of ads are fast-forwarded, meaning 35% x 10% x 65% = 2% of total TV ad impressions are avoided through fast-forwarding. Our study found that 63% of TV impressions were avoided simply by not paying attention to the screen.

To be honest, that 2% number seems crazy low to me, and I wonder how accurate it really is. However, even if it's noticeably higher, it appears that smartphones and other distractions are definitely taking people's attention away. In fact, even when people do fast-forward ads (as we noted in that study years ago) they still seem to see the ads:

When participants did use the DVR to fast-forward TV ads, nearly half of them paid full attention to the screen during that process. Fast-forwarded ads had 12% more attention levels than non-fast-forwarded ads.

Though, this study contradicts the other one from a few years ago concerning retention: saying people don't retain quite as much from fast-forwarded ads.

Of course, you can debate the statistics all you want, the basics are pretty obvious: if your method of advertising relies on a captive audience, and that audience is no longer captive, then you're going to have problems. TV execs were wrong to worry about DVRs, because they didn't really take people's attention away from the TV, and had the other side effect of making people watch more TV. However, there may actually be an issue with things like smartphones, because if people don't like what's on the TV (i.e., the ads suck) they now have a much more entertaining option right in their pocket. The captive audience is dead. Of course, that doesn't mean that there's nothing the TV guys can do. They could start making the ads more compelling such that people actually want to watch them, but I guess that probably sounds like "work."

Filed Under: captive audience, commercials, dvrs, interruptions, smartphones, tv

Samsung Forced To Hand Over Unreleased Products To Apple In Patent Dispute

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

In the ongoing silly patent fight between Apple and Samsung, the judge has ordered Samsung to give Apple some pre-release products (found via Copycense). While we've seen similar things before, this kind of order always bothers me, as it just seems wrong to order a competitor to hand over pre-release versions of competitive products. What if it turns out there's no infringement? Apple still gets to play with Samsung's products before they even hit the market? Why is this kind of thing allowed? Apple's -- and the court's -- argument is that this allows Apple to stop any possible infringement before it hits the market, but it also seems like there can be significant harm in sharing still secret info with a direct competitor. Even more bizarre is the basis for the judge's claim: that news reports quoted Samsung execs saying they wanted to change the Galaxy Tab to compete with the iPad 2. So what? In what way is it wrong for a competitor to shift gears once a new product hits the market? That's competition. What doesn't seem fair is Apple getting pre-release access to Samsung's products.

Filed Under: patents, phones, tablets
Companies: apple, samsung

Apple Says Lodsys Has No Case Against Developers; Will Defend Them Against Suits

from the patent-exhaustion? dept

With Lodsys providing an excellent case study in the patent system run amuck with its plan to sue a bunch of independent iOS developers for offering Apple's official in-app payment offering, one of the big questions was how Apple would respond. Lodsys insisted that Apple had a license, but that it only applied to Apple, not to any Apple developers. Apple has now publicly disagreed and claimed that it would defend developers against any such claims.

I was wondering if Apple would even contest the validity of the Lodsys patent or whether the in-app payment offerings were infringing, but the company didn't even bother. Instead, it notes that Apple has indeed licensed the patent, and any of the developers using the in-app payment solutions aren't doing their own thing, but are using the already licensed Apple technology, and under the famous Supreme Court ruling in the Quanta case, if a patent holder licenses a product to one player in the supply chain, it can't then go after others down the stream. While some are claiming that this will still involve a fight between Apple and Lodsys over the exact terms of Apple's license, I don't actually think that's the case. Apple's not arguing the nature of the license, but is claiming that since these developers are using Apple technology, the patent has been exhausted in this case. In fact, it seems like a pretty direct parallel to the Quanta case, which is going to make it difficult for Lodsys to get very far.

Filed Under: in-app payments, patent exhaustion, patent trolls, patents
Companies: apple, lodsys

Google Won't Let You Rent Movies If You Root Your Device

from the open? dept

For all the talk from the entertainment industry about how anti-copyright Google is, it's really quite amazing to see how the company seems to bend over backwards on most issues to please copyright holders at the expense of users. The latest is the news (submitted by a few folks) that Google's annoying movie rental offering won't work on rooted Android devices, because of Google's fear that it could get around the DRM of the movie service. Of course, this is silly. All of that content is already available from unauthorized sites. Purposely punishing those who want to buy but who use more open devices is pretty counterproductive.

Filed Under: android, movies, rooted
Companies: google