Slashdot Mirror
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."
But its still on her device - so she still can do all those things. If she syncs her phone/ipad with itunes, she even has her own back up of the app and can reinstall it just fine.
An app being yanked from the AppStore doesn't mean it gets removed from your device.
Don't you wish you could just decide for yourself what you could were allowed to install on your device?
Don't use iOS devices for anything important. This kind of risk is the exactly one of the reasons the App Store and iOS' close ties to that store, is such a dumb idea to become dependent upon.
It's not your computer. Get that into your head.
And if people would stop buying them because of that, then developers would target some other, much more friendly, computer. Then you wouldn't be screwed right now.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If the Buddhists are right, some patent lawyers and company executives are looking forward to an reincarnation as a pile of petrified sh*t at the bottom of the ocean.ï
There is no way they can make up that amount of bad karma.
This partial quote is extremely misleading. Apple simply removing something from the App Store does not delete it from devices it is already installed on. They can still use the application. That is part of a hypothetical "What if Apple remote wiped it from our device" which has not happened.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I have absolutely no compassion for these people who chose to support a proprietary software ecosystem that they KNOW is run by fascists who care only about money.
I have even less compassion for them if the developer is an Apple fanboy who cannot see past the stars in his eyes, and is blind to the fact that Apple has been bad to developers in general.
Apple has boned developers time and again by not respecting their rights. Anyone who would develop an app they personally need and then distribute it to their own devices via the App Store is a fool when they can use Android and have zero of these problems. Android already has all the significant functionality that the new IOS is getting.
Apple also bones users regularly, when they make an error they tell the customer that it's their fault. B&W G3s have a well-known data corruption error and Apple's answer was "buy an IDE card", not "we will replace this hardware in accordance with the law because it is defective". When Apple folded the TIL into the knowledge base they expunged this article though earlier and later articles made it. Apple will steal from you (in this case, someone is really deprived of something, and the hardware was sold under false pretenses because it does not comply with specifications it claims to meet) and then cover it up.
When you lie down with the dogs, you wake up with disease.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is still in court right? Innocent until proven guilty? What would apple do with Miranda??? /Rant
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Yeah, it was a bad summary. That was the way I interpreted it at first too; I wondered if someone had made an app-designer so simple that even toddlers could be writing them now (hey, it's Apple. This will probably happen).
worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
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.
From: http://techland.time.com/2012/04/04/a-little-girl-finds-her-voice-thanks-to-threatened-new-ipad-app/#ixzz1xfwxflS6 Maya smiles and gives me a big hug as soon as I sit on the couch, or as big a hug as a tiny three-year-old girl can manage. Her mother, Dana Nieder, laughs and explains that because Maya has difficulty speaking, she often has to express herself in other ways. She is as smart and curious as any other girl her age; the problem is that the muscles that control her speech are weak and disorganized, making saying a single word incredibly difficult. Doctors have run multiple tests but all they can determine is that it is probably a genetic condition.
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.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
"the problem, however, is that this isn’t some counterfeit version of Angry Birds."
This cracks me up. Angry Birds was a pretty solid ripoff of "Crush The Castle." At least CtC authors acknowledged their inspiration from "Castle Clout." Pulling anything imitating Angry Birds is pure BS.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
If you RTFA, its says that she has a speech disorder. I don't know why they don't teach her sign language. I would imagine it would be more expressive and there are plenty of babies and toddlers that have already demonstrated that its easier to learn sign language than to speak.
While their examples are poor, the point still remains. Speech is a vital part of our way or life. Yes, there are a multitude of effective methods of communication, but I would prefer that my toddler say "Mommy, can I have some yogurt please?" instead of throwing herself on the ground in front of the fridge wailing. A lot of toddler tantrums stem from frustration at knowing what they want/need and not being able to communicate that want/need. Not to mention being able to tell stories and ask questions. I imagine it is mostly a quality of life issue.
It seems to me that sign language might be a viable alternative if the only issue is muscular. Granted, not everyone knows sign language (I've been half deaf since pre-school and only know two words), but in many cases it could prove superior to an iPad app.
Seriously, if the kid is mute she should have been taught sign language from day one, then she wouldn't be in the position of being unable to communicate at the age of three.
So the app was written by a toddler, right? No, it was two speech pathologists, Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender. So it was funded by the four-year-old? No again. So it's the only way she speaks, at least? Nope, just the one she likes the best.
This headline, most of the summary, and the majority of TFA are an appeal to emotion to cloud what's ultimately a bog-standard legal issue. The app's future sale and distribution has been blocked, just like Galaxy tablets, XBoxes, iPads, and many other products that are banned from sale until patent issues are worked out. The point of the story (I guess) is to point out that patent litigation affects innocent bystanders, but this is nothing new, and I personally find the intense spin disgusting. Somehow, the fact that a four-year-old uses this app supposedly makes it okay to copy someone else's research and development? What about the researcher at Prentke Romich whose income depends on the company's speech hardware, who has a toddler at home to feed? What about the toddler whose lawyer parents are working on this case?
Won't somebody please stop thinking of the children?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So she cannot speak without it, yet it begs to ask: "How did you speak before your iphone?" iphones haven't been around forever... what would you have done if it never existed... what did you do?
I don't know, if I was the parent of a kid with this condition, than it would not be an iPad app that I would use. Colourful buttons, cards, knocking, stuff like that. I don't think it is a story at all. Spend hundreds of dollars on such a device and an expensive software is completely out of my understanding. There are cheaper and apparently more sufficient methods for children with such a disabilities.
As for Apple, well, that's what you get from such a constrained software environment. If they would have the source code they could use an other device and make their own build. Or their friendly nerdy neighbour.
This is a non-story, just re-iterating the "think of the children" with some patent controversies.
Troll doesn't mean "something I don't believe in"
It means "something the poster doesn't believe"
I believe every statement I made in this post. Anything that can be factual IS.
In any case, here's someone volunteering to recreate this trivial app on Android so that the fact that Apple is abusive to users and developers alike does not have to keep this kind of app from existing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sounds like lots of room in that market to undercut the opposition.
Like anyone can even know that
I was trying to put this information in such eloquent forms but Sarten-x has done it
Why can't the kid communicate these things?
Because the kid is DISABLED you insensitive clod.
I realise this is slightly OT, but it annoys me a little to have Buddhism replaced by cartoon-Buddhism. Buddhism is not Christianity. It's medieval Catholicism in which the patent lawyers and company executives would spend eternity in a nasty place. For traditional Buddhists, any and all engaging with the illusion that is the world of the five senses is karma.
Modern relativism has largely obsoleted religious sanctions - and I'm not about to regurgitate Durkheim - but the fact is that there are an awful lot of people who in the past would have had the fear of Hell to create a check on their antisocial behaviour. Now, they just don't care. Hence increasing inequality and doctrines like Libertarianism (which basically comes down in the end to, he with the most money to pay lawyers always wins).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If you are going to do this sort of thing, maybe you should do it on a device you can control. Lots of android stuff out there that you can sideload on with no problems.
But this app does let the child communicate with anyone. Not just people that understand sign language, or the specific cues that the child has learned from the parents.
And if it only took two people to write something that somehow broke 100 patents, then I would suggest that maybe those 100 patents were rather fucking obvious and shouldn't have been granted.
Friendly computers are immune to a patent dispute causing previously-installed software to stop working, yes. Poster tried to tug at heart strings by implying this happened (RTFAing tells me this is not actually the case; they won't have a problem unless they need to replace hardware, migrate, etc).
Furthermore, friendly computers are immune to patent disputes allowing someone other than publisher to interfere with the market, prior to a court order. Apple should not have any say in whether or not this product is on the market. Even a stolid authoritarian would agree this is a matter for the courts, not Apple (or the marketplace, since we're using an authoritarian PoV). But the platform's unreasonable reliance on Apple-only repository makes it an Apple problem.
That is a design flaw. A known and very high-profile (and staggering) design flaw since day 1, which is one of the reasons I never bought any of these products.
And really, if you think about it, a truly friendly computer cannot even have its software interfered with by an injunction, even if we think that's a bad idea. Unless government forces have knowledge of a specific computer, that computer ought to be answering to its owner rather than another party.
We have seen this principle at work in the past, where people used patented codecs, cryptographic software, and DMCA-prohibited software despite its illegality. This is the essence of a friendly computer: serving its owner over all other considerations. That's true even if you think it's a bad idea -- that there's such thing as "too friendly," and that society has a legitimate interest in having the capacity to forcefully deny users the ability to use their computers in certain ways.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sign language is great... if the receiving party knows it too, which works great with parents, but substantially limits the ability to talk to other people who don't know sing language.
Additionally, some disorders are more than just speech, but affect fine motor skills as well, they make signing very difficult, but can often still use a speech computer or app imitating the same.
Instead of blaming apple for respecting property rights, why not request a limited license from the alleged patent holders for permission for this app in this instance?
Except that a jailbreak wouldn't help address the concerns expressed in the article.
they already have the app, so loading it isn't the problem at this point. The problem is how to ensure that it doesn't get broken with future iOS upgrades. and jailbreaks are FREQUENTLY broken by iOS updates with no guarantee that another jailbreak method will come along.
A better long term solution would be to move to a platform where the official market place does not have a monopoly on software distribution, and to move to an open source solution. That way regardless of any one parties wishes, you are still safe.
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.
Take a look at these products. Any freaking icon that gets pressed and emits a predetermined sound for communication conflicts with their patent. What crap. US PTO and Congress needs to review Patent Law and preclude this kind of overreach.
http://store.prentrom.com/
The pseudo-patent system that allows this aburd behaviour to happen. Im kind of glad China, India and others don't give a rats ass about ACTA or patents.
Please,
Tell us more about your opinions regarding a disabled 4 year old. Make sure to be as abusive as possible, after all, she's 4.
Am I mistaken in believing this story has been posted here before??? If not, then there was one quite similar to this where a child with a speaking disability was "robbed" of their speaking tool.
The British people buy it and pay for it. They just don't mind that the person they are buying it for is the them from an alternate reality (you might have been the one needing life long care, so why not pay for it just because it didn't turn out that way? Don't bother republicans, you will never understand this, is something called being human).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
o Two companies have legal dispute over some speech thing.
o Apple is asked to pull app until legal dispute is settled.
o Apple: (shrug) OK. (pulls app) (App remains on iPads that downloaded it)
o Media: "ZOMFG!!1! APPLE DESTROYS THE ***LIFE*** OF CHILD WITH HANDICAP AND DRIVES MOTHER TO MISERY AND MADE FLUTTERSHY CRY!!!11!2657682365879!!"
o Slashdot AppleHateSquad: "LOVE ITSELF HAS BEEN OBLITERATED FROM THE ENTIRETY OF THE PAN DIMENSIONAL MULTIVERSE!!!!!"
But bulky, cumbersome, and akward. The artical is rather misleading. She would not be unable to communicate without the app, but rather communicating without the app would be much more difficult with the app. She has learned to use the app effectivly and a 4 year old isn't going to understand why she suddenly needs to learn something else that is more difficult. The article and summary try to up play it a lot more that it would probably really impact them. Unfortenutly, we see a problem and immediatly start coming up with solutions and wondering why the parents aren't implementing them. It's like saying you could make a button for your users to click or you can make them use the command line or setup an elaborate series of menus. All those options would work, but some of them might make your users curse you under their breath.
But the point is that normal people are starting to be impacted by the patent wars and now a patent has the potential to make life difficult for a disabled 4 year old child. It's not just big companies paying each other billions of dollars anymore.
Yeah didn't they do this in one of the Meet the Parents movies?
This is a perfect case for reworking the patent system. Clearly it isn't working for the betterment of humanity, this isn't a problem with apple but with the concept of "intellectual property". Companies should be rewarded for their ability to consistently make good products and not for their ability to patent overly broad ideas and win lawsuits. Why didn't the plaintiff write an easy to use app distributed version of their software before the other company? They had no incentive to do the research, they already own the patent and can charge whatever they want for their curmudgeonly versions so why pay someone to make it cheaper and easier to use? If patent owners aren't diligent in maintaining their "property value" then they shouldn't be able to complain when someone plants a garden on their weed ridden lawn.
From your link: "To continue, you must enter the Apple ID and password you used to register as an Apple Developer."
At least CtC authors acknowledged their inspiration from "Castle Clout."
And Castle Clout ultimately goes back to Scorched Earth. Genre launches don't happen as often as some copyright maximalists would have you think.
A counterfeit version of Angry Birds would be a game that falsely purported to be Angry Birds, not just a game with similar mechanics.
The Tetris Company would disagree with you. Having the same mechanics is the very thing that makes it counterfeit in the worldview of Tetris author Alexey Pajitnov and his business partner Henk Rogers.
Then advocate a method that allows them to only communicate with select people rather than to break the law by communicating with a larger group.
I'm with most of the people here. Over sensationalized, and targeted at the wrong company. Why pester Apple about it when they are doing what they probably should and limit their legal liability. Why not complain to PRC and SCS to have them issue a statement that they will indemnify and hold harmless Apple with respect to this app. Then Apple wouldn't have a reason to pull the app, and the companies can still go after the alleged patent infringers. And the user can then get their updates (should the original developer choose to do any).
What about the researcher at Prentke Romich whose income depends on the company's speech hardware, who has a toddler at home to feed?
Then the maker of this speech hardware should have offered to license the relevant patents to the application developer at a reasonable royalty.
This article might pull at my heartstrings more if there weren't several low-tech solutions available to, yes, even an illiterate 4 year old. Chief among them being sign language, something that would be simple enough for a child of her age to learn and has a built-in infrastructure by being the language of the Deaf, which by rights afforded by ADA and other laws would always have types of access. Why not teach her sign language? Not only would she learn to communicate in a full language of her own, instead of being constrained by somebody's picturized version of English, but she could communicate without the aid of an iPad or any such tech device. What happens when the battery runs out or if there's a disaster and she's out of range of her iPad? How would she communicate?
/. readers think of, but for once it might be more appropriate here than the solution already in use.
I know low-tech is the not the first thing that
http://www.babysignlanguage.com/
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It is also why developers will not touch Android since it is impossible to gain a return on your investment. In return you are awarded with trashy buggy apps for the android.
Got Code?
The software supposedly infringes on over 100 patents. It sounds like Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems -- the makers of the original software -- put a lot of time and development into the original expensive product. Along comes a small company ( Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender) that duplicates much of their work and design in a lighter device (iPad) and sells it at a price that vastly undercuts them. The original sellers have to charge more because they are actually making a licensed medical device, working through channels to get approved by insurance and hospitals, and dealing with all the legal nightmares involved with that while the smaller company just uploads an app to the AppStore. The medical device for children has to survive drop tests and other ruggedization tests that an iPad doesn't (so it's bulkier) and because it's not manufactured in bulk in China (so it costs a lot more).
If it wasn't for the "Think of the Children" aspect, most of the time Slashdot comes down pretty heavy against app cloners.
Now, if we had mandatory FRAND licensing for software or for medical devices, perhaps they could offer their software on the iPad if they paid the licensing costs for those patents. However, the "fair price" for the cost of developing "approved" medical technology in the US is pretty huge and might drive the app cost up to $5000-10000. It sounds like the patent system is working to protect the original property rights owners from someone copying their technology and skirting around all the work they did in complying with the system.
There are any number of things that got jeopardize her voice, patent issues, the company going out of business, the company upgrading in a way that breaks her ability to use it, the company decided to charge a lot more money, Apple decided they don't want this type of app anymore. Only if it were free software on a free software device would her right to use this app have any sense of security. As of now, if she loses or breaks her iPad, she is SOL on this one.
Right. Helen Keller didn't need an iPad. She had a dedicated human being that helped here get around and interpreted signs for her so she could communicate with those not fluent in sign language.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
buy an android phone, cheap, off prepaid providers like cricket. don't bother hooking up a phone number to it. build your speech app in android, upload directly to phone. there, now the kid is talking and not texting while driving. or should i patent this process?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
she could get it from other sources, as well as updates.
Welcome to the Apple fenced garden.Screwed devs and customers.
People who would buy an iPad primarily for those app, and spend 300 bucks on the app, would certainly by an android device. They don't care about the device, they care about helping their child.
Anyways, there are so many stupid issues here:
299.99 for an app that does this:
http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html
really?
Using an app that is platform dependent? for this?
ug.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, that whole post is a lie.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" I don't see anything wrong with her."
with your magic eyes and extensive medical training?
you are a slime ball who will have a hard life. sadly, it won't be as hard as you deserve and you will probably inflict it on others.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Android has had these for a while. They don't pull apps like Apple. Seems like it's not a big problem.
Hi. I work with the FAA, two of my most recent projects were EFB related, in fact.
If a pilot is looking at his iOS based "FAA certified" EFB in IMC, he shouldn't be a pilot. They're not certified for use in flight, and have to be stowed (and turned off) before takeoff.
Nice straw man, though.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
It's terrible that this girl may not have this app forever but that is not the point. If patents were infringed upon that is a completely separate issue. It is not as if Apple execs woke up one night and decided to go out and do evil for giggles.
We should be angry with PRC or if Speak for Yourself actually gave the finger to PRC and wrote the app aware of every infringing line of code then people should be pissed at them.
...There goes my good karma.
OMG facts!
Move away from the walled garden. The grass is greener and there's more variety of plants.
-]Phreak Out[-
she is in no way breaking any law.
The programmers MAY be in violation of patent law, but that has yet to be proven in a court of law.
I e-mailed Maya to suggest this.
Her daughter doesn't have good enough finger coordination for sign language.
They did try.
she is in no way breaking any law.
A patent confers the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention. "Make, use, or sell" includes use.
I agree - but the concern you raised on backward compatibility on the iOS APIs is something that software developer would have to deal with either way. Whether the application is allowed to be distributed in the app store or not. So really to me the Jailbreak option should really mitigate the concern. As long as there is a published API set, jailbreak the phone and have someone make the enhancements.
Because they want to overcome the speech disorder?
Maybe when you break a leg, we should tell you to just limp.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Companies that make assistive devices like this know:
* Their customer is actually the government agency that pays them
* The customer will pay an incredible premium for a single-purpose device instead of software on a general-purpose device
That last one is important. In some states, agencies are precluded from giving their clients laptops with, say, scanners for the blind or textspeech software for the deaf, because the client might use the device to do things other than handle their disability.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I'm reading a lot of comments about keeping iOS where it is, dedicating the device to the task, second hand hardware should the iPad fail, etc.
I understand the article is overblown, but seriously none of these comments seem to have taken into consideration that these parents likely don't have the technical skills /. has, are possibly unable to dedicate the device to the task, etc.
There's a disturbing lack of empathy.
Get a Windows 7 phone
The problem is you can't guarantee the continued ability to jailbreak the device after the device is upgraded. Jailbreak is usually broken by the upgrades.
so the published APIs only help half of the problem, they are no good to you if you can't load them on the device because you can't find a way to jailbreak the newest iOS version.
The only long term solution is to move to a device where that isn't an issue.
What does this girls ability or inability to speak have to do with the patent infringement? If the app was infringing on the patent, and the app is no longer allowed to be sold, of course people won't be able to purchase it.
No, what I suggested that relying on an iPad is was foolish in the first place. While I absolutely agree with the great-grandparent post about the patent system, which I find disgusting, but there are other reasons why using an iPad was a bad decision. It's a fragile electronic device, which could perhaps fit just fine to an adult, but a 4 year old its too fragile. Too expensive if it needs replacement. The battery life is limiting and yes, there are situations when a person can not charge it, even in 2012. So I don't believe that these parents made the best choice for their child and it has nothing to do with Apple and the software patent bullshit. On the other hand, the moral of the story, that don't trust in propriety software environments perfectly adds up what I said before. Even with the best intention from these parents (I doubt however, that the iPad bit was not influenced by the usual consumer craze for trendy gadgets, at least in part, but I don't blame the parents for that, it's a fact of life, that must be changed IMHO), they did not make a proper assessment of their choices before they introduced the iPad and the app to their child.
Can I pick a side without the false dichotomy?
Maybe. *shrug* Didn't see as much of that, so I didn't choose to skewer it. When it's satire time, I'm agnostic and there are no good guys.