Apple Yanks Toddler's Speech-Enabling App

theodp writes "TIME reports that four-year-old Maya Nieder's speech-enabling 'Speak for Yourself' app was yanked from the App Store by Apple due to an unresolved patent dispute at the behest of Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS), makers of designated communication devices (not iPad apps). 'The issue of whether or not Apple should have pulled Speak for Yourself from the App Store before the case was decided is trickier. Obviously, Apple would rather be safe than sorry and remove a potentially problematic app instead of risking legal action. The problem, however, is that this isn’t some counterfeit version of Angry Birds.' 'My daughter cannot speak without this app,' writes Maya's mom, Dana. 'She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she's tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.' If you're so inclined, Dana suggests you drop a note to appstorenotices@apple.com."

Comments

Side Loading

[Nerdfest]

Don't you wish you could just decide for yourself what you could were allowed to install on your device?

Stephen Hawking

[rodrigoandrade]

He's the greatest mind of our time, very famous around the world, has millions of pounds in the bank, the best medical care money can buy, etc.

Yet he refuses to upgrade the archaic system that allows him to spak.

This is exactly why. You just don't trust something that important to a fly-by-night company that sells their wares through the Apple Store, of all places.

Re:Stephen Hawking

[jimicus]

Historically, devices to help speech and hearing-impaired people to communicate were fantastically expensive. Mainly because they comprised a lot of custom-built hardware that simply doesn't sell in sufficient quantities to get mass production economies of scale.

You needed to be rich and/or have some sort of a connection to an organisation that would fund such a unit for you. Make no mistake, if Stephen Hawking hadn't been blessed with the incredible good fortune to be a genius - and if he hadn't already started to establish himself as an excellent physicist before his ALS reached the point whereby he had difficulty with speech - it's much less likely he'd have had access to the sophisticated technology that allows him to communicate as early as he did.

The iPad, however, is a complete game-changer here. It's truly a disruptive technology - suddenly, reasonably sturdy hardware with a touch-screen that's large enough for someone who hasn't (for whatever reason) got particularly good hand/eye co-ordination can be had for under £400. Pair it with appropriate software and maybe some sort of case and you've got a complete solution for under £1,000.

Yes, the app's expensive. But the whole lot is still a fraction the price of a traditional solution.

I'm not surprised the developers are in court. The companies who produce the custom-built equipment are probably terrified that their entire business model is in the process of evaporating and they'll be left with a product that is basically unsellable.

Re:why not?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Because some disabilities can leave you mute whilst still able to understand verbal communication (Deformed larynx for instance) although god knows what disabilities have left you such an insensitive clot.

Re:But she still can...

[Bad Ad]

So do not update your iOS. Keep your iDevice how it is right now. If its that important to you, treat it as a non up-datable speech tool. It will work as it does right now...

Re:Four-year-old's app?

[Anonymous Coward]

The spin is necessary.

If you want "ordinary people" to understand why a walled garden controlled by a corporate monolith might not always be a good idea, this is an excellent story. If you want "ordinary people" to understand the stupidity of software patents, this is also an excellent story.

If you would like to see software patents stifle all creativity in the tech industry, and don't like the concept of people being able to own what they paid for, then I can see why you would dislike this story.

Re:But she still can...

[BasilBrush]

Apps generally don't stop working when an new OS or device comes out. But if at some point in the iPad she has stops working, and new devices are incompatible with the app, she can buy an older one second hand. And restore from iTunes.

Sorry but the sensationalism of taking away an app from a child that needs it just doesn't hold water. And the law, as best as the legal dept see it, must be obeyed.

This is NOT Apple's Problem

[l0ungeb0y]

Why should we be flooding Apple's inbox with requests to put the App back in the AppStore?
By doing so, they expose themselves to legal liability and potential lawsuits.

It seems that if you are angry about this and wanted to see this app back in iTMS, you'd write the software creators and patent claimant urging them to settle their differences fairly and amicably in the interests of the consumer. iTMS will promptly put the app back online when instructed to do so and can be assured they will not be sued for doing so.

Re:But she still can...

[deathguppie]

My wife is a speech language pathologist. Years ago I remember looking at a Prentke Romich tablet she brought home to customize the interface for a student. I couldn't help but think how simple it was for a device that cost around $3k. Just for the basic version from there they go up to nearly $10k.(yes I know there is a bit into putting together the icon sets and sounds.. I'm speaking relatively) Prentke Romich sells to hospitals, and other major medical institutions that have need for such a device, and can afford it, they do not sell to individuals per se, simply because the average family cannot afford one. They charge a lot of money for them. I very much doubt they are concerned with the "actual" needs of people as much as they are their pocket book.

Re:But she still can...

[Empiric]

And the law, as best as the legal dept see it, must be obeyed.

Back in my day, we had a thing called...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Now that maximizing shareholder value (or, compatibly, keeping your job) is serving as a no-thought-required stand-in for ethics, though, by acting in effect as a rubber-stamping arm of the government on issues like this, that seems to be less and less in the public consciousness...

Sorry, your post's phrasing seemed to have a certain... disturbing automaticness about it, and I haven't had my morning coffee yet.