Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Denied the Google Latitude App
awyeah writes "A recently revealed Apple patent looks remarkably similar to the functionality of Google Latitude, which Apple relegated to WebApp status earlier this year. Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."
This begs the question, if Google already had an app out, who did it first?
Obviously the patent process takes years.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Has there been a single good thing to come out of software patents? It seems like every single day there is a story posted about a patent that has clear prior art or is trivial and doesn't innovate or invent anything. The US needs to stop software patents if they want to let technology innovate.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Back in the day we (including myself) used to get mad at MS for all the anti-competitive things they did.
Now Apple comes along with stuff that MS never dreamed of (or could have got away with) and everybody loves them. Now I get to listen to my friends talk about what a wonderful and cool company Apple is and how they invented everything.
What is going on here?
"Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."
That's not obvious at all to me. It harms the vibrancy of their marketplace, it harms the goodwill of the developer community, and ultimately, it would appear to harm the competitiveness of the device by hindering competition for improved functionality. The only reason they can get away with this BS is because they're Apple, the 900 lb gorilla of the new generation smartphone market at the moment.
I have an iPhone, and it's a wonderful device, but as soon as my contract runs out (maybe sooner), I'll be moving to a different platform, and this is exactly why.
As long as the iPhone is a closed platform with the only way to get apps through the app store, you will be dealing with this. Apple isn't going to allow competing applications on the device because they simply don't have to. They give a good song and dance about how closed the device is being about the "user experience," but the simple truth is that they don't want competition from other sources. That's their business model, it's how they work.
It's a crying shame, because Apple really is a good company when it comes to style and design, and especially in figuring out exactly what scratches consumers' itches. But this is almost historically identical to what happened with the Macintosh a couple of decades ago. They kept it so closely-held and closed that when the PC came along, which allowed users to shrug off proprietary and use it how they wanted to instead of how some company told them to, Apple damn near went out of business.
I really do hate to see them rebuild their reputation (and market value) again, just to throw it all away like they did last time, but damned if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're trying to do.
There are many of us who view this stuff poorly. I have not, do not, and will not own any Apple products. I simply do not like their closed platforms and anti-competitive nature, and I certainly won't pay more for the privilege of being restricted. Yes they have some nice hardware, but that in itself cannot overcome their approach to doing business.
No manufacturer has the right to prohibit person A from installing on a device he owns software written by person B: any legal or technological measures to this end are immoral, and ought to be barred by consumer protection laws.
is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.
This is of course a possibility; it's also a possibility that there's an IP lawyer looking over every submitted (or even ever just-about-to-be-approved) app, for just that kind of thing. But that doesn't really fit with the workflow descriptions that have come out into the open, so I don't think it's very likely.
(It's also possible that he reviewers are given general directions occasionally, such as, "All Google-submitted apps must be sent to such-and-such for review" or "Any app that uses location services in a social network context must be approved by upper management." Obviously, I made those up :).)
is that it requires that the app approvers know what patents Apple has in the process.
...or far more likely it could mean that approves have a list of gidelines in which they refer to when approving apps, and those gidelines forbid certain kinds of apps, such as those that allow tethering or ones that show the presence of friends on a map that Latitude offers. I don't see why it would require anyone to be in the know of internal app development there.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
"they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices"
But, you see, it's my device. I bought it. I'd like to be able to choose between the Google product and the Apple product and use the best one.
Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Apple nearly went out of business because they went more open and allowed Mac clones. Now that they are (arguably) more closed in that respect, they are extremely successful.
Apple's woes had nothing to do with allowing clones; Apple nearly went out of business because MacOS was a bad, proprietary platform and because Apple was bleeding money at an enormous rate.
Apple is successful now because they have been piggy-backing on open source technologies (Mach, gcc, tons of libraries) and therefore been saving development costs and delivering a better product, and because they are tightly controlling expenses (including R&D expenses).
Again, what does that have to do with monopoly? You don't seem to know what that word means. It's like saying Toyota has a monopoly on making Toyota Corollas. It's nonsensical and meaningless.
... and then they built the supercollider.
What if Microsoft were to ban the installation of OpenOffice, LotusNotes, Word Perfect, etc. because they compete with their Office? I bet this would be a whole different conversation.
Good luck on keeping any American tech corporation in business.
Obviously if Apple is working on their own version of Google Latitude (or owns the IP rights to this functionality), they'd be hesitant to put an app with the same functionality on their devices from another company."
If this were Microsoft, we'd be talking about how evilly they were using their monopoly power, to quash a competitor.
How interesting that we say Obviously Apple would do this...
In other words, we have already taken for granted that Apple is an even more evil monopolist than MS.
Microsoft tilted the playing field by giving their software an advantage (such as private APIs), but they never (that we know of) "blocked" competing application programs altogether from their platform, for the purpose of ensuring they were the first to market...
Google's app was probably full of Googlish "we will scrape all info we can find on your device and send to or servers just in case" features that Google fans seem to find a shedload of excuses for.
I can distribute any Windows application I want to whomever I want in a multitude of ways to choose from with or without involving a third party in doing so. Is Microsoft open? No, but in that sense, it's a hell of a lot more open than Apple is.
Actually Apple's vetting process for developers is just as stupid as it is for apps. I paid my $99 to Apple to join their developer program. They demanded documentation that I was who I said I was. I sent them some more paperwork in addition to what I had already filled out. Then they demanded that I send them notarized documentation of my identity, I shit you not. It's not like I have a very common name or have been the victim of ID theft in the past. It's not like I've ever had a problem establishing who I was with anyone in the past.
After several months of trying to satisfy them, I finally said to hell with it, I want my $99 back, and told them that I'll be developing on non-Apple platforms from now on.
So yeah, I would completely disagree with your assertion that anyone can submit apps to the app store. Aside from the obvious (TFA that this submission is about), Apple makes you jump through as many hoops before you can even get to the point where you can submit an app.
You mean besides bricking jailbroken phones?
For one thing, before people started gratuitously applying the word "bricking" to iPhones, that used to mean an action that rendered a device useless beyond repair, which I've never seen happen to an iPhone. As messed up as it may get, you can almost always get back to a known working state.
For another -- unsurprisingly, updates that expect a given phone state are often unkind to phones in a modified state. Failing to test for and accommodate a hacked phone state is a bit inconvenient, but if it seems like a "crackdown" to you, I don't know what to tell you.
Tweet, tweet.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like how jailbreaking voids your warranty, DOESN'T IT. What were you complaining about again?
By the way, how many suits has Apple launched against jailbreakers?
They may not have filed any lawsuits yet, but they have petitioned the DMCA rulemaking committee to declare it illegal.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.