Why Apple Denied the Google Latitude App

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Apple Denied the Google Latitude App

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 2, 2010 @05:18AM from the what-a-coincidence dept.

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."

26 of 308 comments (clear)

I Smell Patent War by Bigjeff5 · 2010-01-02 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
1. Re:I Smell Patent War by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Either way, this is a pretty clear example of why no company should be allowed to have control over what software consumers can put on devices that they own. It was wrong when the phone companies tried to be sole arbiter, and it is just as wrong for Apple to play that role. It is guaranteed to be abused sooner or later in a way that prevents competition in the marketplace and harms consumers. It was only a matter of time.
  I so badly want to see the FTC slap Apple with fines every day until they open the iPhone up to apps sold outside the app store without Apple vetting. That is the only action that sets a strong enough precedent that consumers are in charge of devices that they paid for and have a right to tinker.
2. Re:I Smell Patent War by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 05:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You mean raises the question. Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy which basically means that you are assuming something is true/false in order to prove that it's true/false.
3. Re:I Smell Patent War by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While I agree that it is in the consumer's best interest to have Apple open the store to all comers I don't agree that the FTC has legal grounds to slap them with fines (I know you didn't SAY that they had it - just sort of implied that maybe they could). Anyway, the lack of open access to the store is why I don't have an iPhone and instead waited and waited and waited and finally got a Droid (which I am thrilled with). It's also why anyone who cares about this type of issue shouldn't get an iPhone. We all talk about voting with our wallets. Some even practice it. But I sure see a lot of iPhones in the hands of folks who really (if they practiced what they preached) should have known better.
4. Re:I Smell Patent War by toppavak · 2010-01-02 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The patent application was filed on June 30th 2008. Google released Latitude February 4th, 2009. This would seem to indicate Apple was first, but there's a key difference between the products. The Apple patent specifically deals with sharing location information by text message and only by text message, Google Latitude makes use of mobile internet connections. There's no patent dispute here, merely Apple acting like Apple and rejecting apps which may compete with current or planned functionality that Apple wants to deliver over their platform.
  
  I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.
5. Re:I Smell Patent War by Belial6 · 2010-01-02 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. It is not. When they sell it to you, it stops being their product and becomes your product. If Apple wants it to remain theirs, then they should not sell it. They should rent it, or just keep it for themselves.
6. Re:I Smell Patent War by Ragzouken · 2010-01-02 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This just begs the question "Who the hell cares?"
single good thing? by Darkness404 · 2010-01-02 05:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:single good thing? by ColdWetDog · 2010-01-02 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Looking at the actual patent language (not just the abstract) I cannot find one little bit where a) it's not obvious and b) there is any real creativity or difficulty in the overall concept. The hardware and programming end of it of course can be difficult but that is not what is covered here.
  
  How did this stinker end up as a patent rather than having the actual implementation of said obvious idea?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:single good thing? by Bigjeff5 · 2010-01-02 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's my biggest beef with most software patents - the whole idea of the patent is to lay down HOW to do some revolutionary new idea. That's supposed to be the cost of getting your limited monopoly. Software patents usually only give you the what, not the how, and in my opinion should be null. How can I be violating his patent if he never describes how he does it? Or, if it's so simple that they did not need to describe how it is done, how the hell did they get a patent in the first place?
  These patents should be loaded with pseudo-code to achieve the stated goals, and if someone comes along who can significantly improve the design of the pseudo-code then they should get a patent too, just like with physical inventions.
  That's my opinion. I wouldn't mind software patents if they were treated the same as hardware patents, but they aren't.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Times change by Qwavel · 2010-01-02 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Times change by Burdell · 2010-01-02 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My crappy little free phone can run Google Maps and any of a half-dozen or so other GPS mapping programs that I can download for free. The people that write them don't need my phone manufacturer or cell provider's permission. They can compete with the GPS app that came with the phone. The same is true for web browsers and so many other things. Why is it that when Apple is afraid of the slightest bit of competition and locks it out at every opportunity, people accept it (even for one minute, much less for two years)? Apple's app may be the best thing every made, but if that is the case, it'll be more widely used than Google's on its own merits, not because Apple is afraid to let Google compete with them.
2. Re:Times change by Gadget_Guy · 2010-01-02 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Apple does shitty things, but isn't in a position of direct power over other companies
  What was the topic of this story again? Oh yes, that Apple denied Google's app from the app store because it would compete with Apple's own offering. Sounds like power over other companies to me.
  But the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" argument never really worked for me. If both Microsoft and Apple do something that is morally wrong, then more people will be affected by Microsoft. But this doesn't make it less morally wrong for Apple. Not being the monopoly is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Obviously? by mliu · 2010-01-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.
The evil of a closed platform by KingSkippus · 2010-01-02 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The evil of a closed platform by Rockoon · 2010-01-02 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  yes. Many people just don't know this about Apple. In the mid to late 80's Apple was well known for being extremely obtuse about low level programming information and tools for the Mac. Not only did they refuse to give out development tools for free, but they also refused to allow others to have enough information to develop their own .. at any price.
  
  Apple has been asshats since the first Mac, but somehow in the 90's they managed to turn popular opinion around while remaining asshats.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
2. Re:The evil of a closed platform by Rockoon · 2010-01-02 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers
  You mean besides bricking jailbroken phones?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
3. Re:The evil of a closed platform by Bigjeff5 · 2010-01-02 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's been pointed out before that Apple doesn't crackdown on jailbreakers
  Other than occasionally pushing out updates with little purpose other than to brick jailbroken phones, you mean.
  Besides that, you're right...
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
4. Re:The evil of a closed platform by gad_zuki! · 2010-01-02 07:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >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.
  Same here. Im leaning towards an android phone bought without subsidy and getting on T-mobile's non-subsidized plan for 59.99 unlimited text/data and 500 minutes. Thats about 30 dollars less a month than the equivalent plan on ATT and Im only going to pay an extra 200 dollars down, which pays for itself in less than one year.
  >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.
  Turns out history was right: There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Turns out centralization from an unaccountable group leads to abuse. Apple is just a thug in the market and with its controlled devices, its helping no one but its bottom line.
5. Re:The evil of a closed platform by pydev · 2010-01-02 08:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Steve Jobs doesn't "hate" using open source. For example, he tried to keep the Objective-C extensions to GCC closed source in violation of the GPL; it took a lot of legal saber rattling by GNU to get him to comply.
  Apple is somewhat better now than they were 20 years ago, but they are still taking much more from the open source community than they are giving back. Without FOSS, Apple would be out of business; but even if all of Apple's contributions to FOSS disappeared overnight, people would hardly notice.
Not everybody by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-02 05:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Fundamental principle by QuoteMstr · 2010-01-02 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
My device by Andy+Smith · 2010-01-02 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.
Re:Not for the iPhone by dangitman · 2010-01-02 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Equivalency by Powys · 2010-01-02 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Equivalency by toriver · 2010-01-02 11:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, it's not like Microsoft explicitly aded code to DOS to prevent Lotus 123 from running under the motto "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run". Oh wait, they did.
  These days they stick to FUD instead of code, thankfully. Maye because they were one presidential election away from an antitrust conviction back when Bush Jr. came into the office?