Apple pilfers rips off student's rejected iPhone app

What a load of rubbish!

Hasn't anyone noticed that this 'new' icon merely combines 2 icons Apple has used for many, many years? It's simply the standard 'sync' icon enclosing the standard wi-fi icon. Doesn't that seem obvious for wi-fi sync? Or do you think Apple should not be able to use its own icons without accusations of copying?

Slow News Day?

Seriously?

If i were a judge and someone bought that to a court and charge them with wasting time.

Apple (allegedly) borrows idea shocker

I don't know what the fuss is about, Apple have been putting their own spin on others ideas and passing them off as original and new for years.

Apple's insistence on disallowing custom APIs means there will never be any real innovation, there's only so many ways you can put the bricks together, unless you can invent new bricks. Developers will always be behind Apple since the rules don't apply to them.

It's fine to attack Apple, but for the right reason...

Synchronization of storage between networked units is an old concept. The problem isn't that Apple now has implemented such a function of their own (unless they've copied the source and thus violated copyrights). The problem is the terms that Apples customer have to accept which give Apple the authority to reject such an application from a 3rd-party developer.

decompilers?

@+++ath0 "Did Apple rip off the source code? No, because App Store submissions are for the binary only."

Do we KNOW they've not seen the source or is it just supposition, if they asked for his CV maybe they asked for more (or maybe he even voluntered more). But in any case there are decompilers, binaries can be reverse engineered - harder work than using the source but not necessarily harder than a clean room cloning of the functionality.

I guess one indication is what the controls, configuration etc look like, are the simiarities deeper than just logo, broad functionality and name?

Is anyone going to tell me Apple don't look at what's doing well on Cydia - and perhaps "take inspiration" from it? In their view that's not ripping-off the developers, the developers deserve what they get for evading the Apple Tax and wanting to get paid for their work developing worthwhile apps only to have them rejected by the Apple appstore on sometimes spurious grounds.

Fanbois are soooo funny

Samsung create a phone, that looks similar to the iPhone, and uses icons that are similar. Apple sues Samsung. Quite right say the fanbois, baaaaaad Samsung.

Amazon open a store selling apps, and call it an appstore. Apple sue Amazon for using thier name Appstore, which is not a generic term for a store selling apps. Quite right say the fanbois, baaaaaad Amazon.

Developer creates an app, submits it to Apple, who reject it. Then an app with the same name and same icon appear in iOS5, but, say the fanbois, that icon is just a what you'd expect the icon to be and the name is just a generic name. Quite right say the fanbois, baaaaaad developer.

But, the fanbois can't see the irony.

No patentable idea...

Those who suggest a patent have nothing to patent. Synchronising contents over WiFi and Bluetooth has been done for years. May I point to the iPAQ as example, which allowed MS ActiveSync to backup and synchronise content between a PC and a Windows mobile device? May I point to Nokia who allowed Bluetooth connectivity to be used with Nokia PC Suite to again, synchronise and backup a Nokia device with a PC?

Please people, stop getting yourselves in a froth over this... Yes, it sucks for the developer, having his app rejected, but then again, Apple specifically says that they reserve the right to if it breaks rules. And it did (sandboxing). However, Apple conceded that it was a brilliant idea, and it is quite likely that that kind of functionality was already in the works. If Apple was smart, they would probably have watched the popularity of WiFi Sync rise and adjusted their new feature priority accordingly.

As for those moaning about how they could've told the developer WHY his app was rejected (i.e. "we're working on a similar feature"), please cast your mind back to how Apple does its marketing. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is ever leaked ahead of time by Apple staff (unless they speak anonymously), so why would they want to break that mantra officially by telling an iApp dev that they are working on similar features?

Up- or down-vote this... I don't care. But I will say this... working in software I know how commercial software is developed and how things sometimes are just purely co-incidental (and sometimes not).

Eh?

Most seem to be missing the point.

It's not that Apple ripped off his idea (though that is iRonic, given Apple's stance on such things), it's that they denied this chap the full revenue stream.

In spite of this, the guy pursisted, to his absolute credit, and it proved popular on an open (jailbroken) system.

I hope he continues to distribute his application in as many ways as possible, and continues to do a better job than Apple.

We need entrepreneurs and the likes of Apple should, with every breath, be prevented from trying to control that.

That said, iPhone sales are static, so perhaps he should port it to an Android/Windows Phone 7 app. Might not get £9.99, but x10 the amount of sales at £1 should cover it.

Hmmm, what to call it...

So, we are synchronising stuff using wifi, and we need a name and an icon. What to do? Well, clearly the act of synchronising is to ensure that 2 or more things have a consistent state, so that gives us some simple language everyone might understand. And how do we explain Wifi? Perhaps we could mention that it is is a transport mechanism that does not rely on the plugging on of a cable in order to make a connection for the ensuring that 2 or more things have a consistent state. So that's our product name! iOS5, featuring the capability-th-ensure-that-2-or-more-things-are-able-to-maintain-a-consistent-state-using-a-transport-mechanism-that-does-not-rely-on-the-use-of-a-cable-that-needs-plugging-in!

Or...we could just use wifi sync...either that or we can have a bunfight as to where it was used first, Android? Windows Phone 7? Zune? Palm? Generic term guys. And as has already ben said, generic icon, made up of previously used generic icons.

This guys had his 2nd five minutes of fame now, we can move on.

The smart thing to have done

I think maybe the smart thing to have done at Apple would have been to offer him a job on the spot and brought him into the fold sharpish. Then, whatever the origins of iOS5's Wi-Fi Sync, they wouldn't have another shit-stain against them from Hughs being pissed, and they could boast that when they see talent, they try to get them into the fold to bring fresh blood, etc, etc to Apple.

It would save a lot of hassle, IMO.

Somewhat disingenuous

In order to modify the iPhone's iTunes library he almost certainly had to use some non-public API calls. As far as I'm aware they only added public functions to access the iTunes library in OS 4 and even then it was only read access. 'iPod library access lets your application play a user’s songs, audio books, and audio podcasts. The API design makes basic playback very simple while also supporting advanced searching and playback control.'. Use of such functions was always going to result in Apple refusing to circulate his app, so there was no point acting all surprised about it. All apps that use non public API calls get rejected.

By the same token, if it came to court, Apple would argue that the reason that they had kept those APIs private was because they were reserved for future iOS level improvements. That essentially his app broke their copyright by utilizing their code without permission. In fact they could probably have sued him over his app on cydia.

If I'm wrong about this by all means somebody post a link to the public API that allows modification of the iTunes library on iOS.

This guy should sue...

http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/tools/wifi-sync-screen_rizq.html