Apple's Beef With Nokia Gets Intense, All Withings Products Pulled From Online Store (recode.net)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's Beef With Nokia Gets Intense, All Withings Products Pulled From Online Store (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on Monday December 26, 2016 @07:00AM from the fighting-back dept.

In less than a week after Nokia sued Apple for patent infringement in courts around the world, saying that Apple has refused to license its patents, Apple has pulled all Withings products from its stores. Earlier this year, Nokia bought Withings, which makes Wi-Fi scales and other digital health and fitness gear.

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Stop it you two! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:07 · Score: 0

Can't you see that you're in love?
Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2016-12-26 07:14 · Score: 1

Wanna bet on who wins this particular game of Mutually Assured Destruction?
1. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Lawyers.
2. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  IBM. I'm sure they have some lurking submarine that covers what both Apple and Nokia are doing.
3. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Solandri · 2016-12-26 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Last time Samsung won, but Apple got bailed out by Obama. Which has the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging companies to play chicken in the game of MAD because they might get a last-minute reprieve even after they've lost.
4. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · 2016-12-26 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  IBM. I'm sure they have some lurking submarine that covers what both Apple and Nokia are doing.
  IBM will outlive both companies. They are not sexy, but they spend a fortune on R&D and they don't chase yesterday's trends. They reinvented themselves a few times over the decades, their problems of late is nothing they can't handle.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
5. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by GerryGilmore · 2016-12-26 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hhhmmm, let's see: Over the last 10 years, IBM has spent more on share buybacks than R&D. I wish I had more faith in their long-term prospects, but this knid of malarkey does not bode well.
6. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · 2016-12-26 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Over the last 3 years, Apple has spent 87 billions on buyback and about 16 billions on R&D. During the same time, IBM has spent 28 billions on buyback and 14 billions on R&D. And Apple has twice IBM revenue.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
7. Re: Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like Microsoft up to its old games again. They bought Nokia, Nokia (Microsoft) buy Withings for the patents and use them to attack Apple. Microsoft have changed? Not a hope in hell.
8. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Holi · 2016-12-26 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  Your R&D claims do not match reality.
  The top 20 in R&D Spending for 2016:
  1 Volkswagen
  2 Samsung
  3 Amazon
  4 Alphabet
  5 Intel Co
  6 Microsoft
  7 Roche
  8 Novartis
  9 Johnson & Johnson
  10 Toyota
  11 Apple
  12 Pfizer
  13 General
  14 Merck
  15 Ford
  16 Daimler
  17 Cisco
  18 AstraZeneca
  19 Bristol-Myers Squibb
  20 Oracle United States
  
  Sorry to say IBM is not on the list.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
9. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · 2016-12-26 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Your number are wrong, and they are also suspicious because unless you got some amazing insider network it's not possible to have numbers for 2016 as the last quarter ends in 5 days and none of those companies have released them yet.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
10. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Over the last 3 years, IBM has converted way more American jobs into offshore ones than Apple has. So fuck IBM in its ass sideways with a dull rusty spoon just abrasive enough to perforate the intestinal wall and introduce a slow and painful yet terminal sepsis.
11. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by rtb61 · 2016-12-26 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a global spend and in some countries financial year is the calender year and in other countries July to June is the financial year (it makes far more sense as that accounting period avoid the holiday season) and other countries allow a nominated financial year (this makes sense because it spread tax returns over the whole year spreading the work load).
  Now due to major tax benefits for shuffling off admin cost to research or paid executive holiday bonuses as research or consultancy fees charading as research or any other lie they can come up with to cheat taxes, means the number is also likely to be complete and utter bullshit.
  How good is Nokia case, well, filed in Texas the land of corrupt patent judges ie shite. At least Apple will be costing them money from day 1 and it will be years until Nokia sees a cent. Not that I favour Apple over Nokia but it always seems to be shit once the use Texas courts, what a reputation. Texas the state of bullshit patent trolls, be proud Texans, yours courts are seem as the scum of the world and favoured by trolls.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
12. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Keruo · 2016-12-27 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Just like Nokia keeps reinventing itself few times over the decades too. Nokia was founded 45 years before IBM so it's not a new player really.
  
  --
  There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Can't you see? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-12-26 07:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Can't you see how courageous Apple is to do this? *cough*

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Can't you see? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  You are assuming that Apple actually did something.
  From the article, that isn't clear. What is somewhat clear is that some apps that used to be in the store, aren't any more. Nokia or Withings could've pulled them down for all we know. Perhaps Nokia intends to rebrand them and thus pulled them down?
  We don't know, so it is kinda early to pass judgement.
2. Re:Can't you see? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's not apps, it's physical products pulled from both the online store and the physical stores worldwide.
3. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · 2016-12-26 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, the "courageous" meme is already super old. Try and be original.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
4. Re:Can't you see? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  I smell a courageous Trump here. I call it the "Trumpple."
5. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-26 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Try and be original.
  A sentiment better communicated to Apple's C-levels.
6. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · 2016-12-26 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  It already has been a million times over but maybe you don't pay attention to tech news.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
7. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-26 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Purposefully excluding features and making stuff as thin as possible (even over the objections of your more loyal customers, most of whom at this point would just prefer a better battery) doesn't really count as innovation, sorry.
  
  Speaking as someone who paid $300 to import a Sharp Zaurus in 2006 and later owned a N900, I can tell you that the iPhone in particular was not revolutionary. It was a massively overpriced, under-spec'ed phone lacking major features (3G and MMS), but Apple was smart enough to use that extra money (along with the kickbacks from their exclusive AT&T deal) to put a capacitive screen on it and some UI glitter and that was enough to convince people like you that they were geniuses that had done something truly original. A little while later they did the same damn thing with their app marketplace, even though it sucked until competition from Android forced them to loosen the rules.
  
  Copy the competition, make some 'stylistic' changes that either don't matter or are actively harmful to the UX (thinness), charge an obscene price to reinforce it as a premium thing, pump out advertisements, pretend like you invented it, and ride the synergistic waves as the economies of scale kick in and developers flock to your platform. That was Job's main scheme on his return to Apple, and it worked brilliantly. Occasionally, they buy up some good patents or companies that have made good original stuff (NeXT was a decent move), but that's about it. They're not innovators. Never have been... at least, not in the past quarter-century.
8. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-26 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe you're agreeing with me in which case, no, I don't read a lot of tech news when it comes to Apple. But it's hard to avoid.
9. Re:Can't you see? by hideki.adam · 2016-12-26 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, I remember when the iPhone came out
  
  I was quite surprised to see Apple inventing the smartphone when I'd been using an HP Jornada PocketPC phone for some time at that point which was cheaper and could do far more than the iphone of the time,
10. Re:Can't you see? by Holi · 2016-12-27 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  You mean they did not pull actual products from their physical stores?
  
  While some of us should probably wait to see what the outcome is, others should probably refrain from making comments that prove they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
11. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · 2016-12-27 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever dude. If you can't see how Apple completely changed the cellphone industry and what people expect from phones, there's not hope for you. Enjoy your pos Zaurus.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
12. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-27 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  They "changed" it because they had an ultra-loyal fanbase that would scream endlessly about their products (primarily iPods in those days) to non-techies to the point where they could simply charge 2x for a middling product. Android was right around the corner, Apple or no Apple, and Nokia was obviously going to put Maemo on a phone (it was out on PDA devices prior to the iPhone 1) just as soon as they figured the battery life out (little did they realize that people would simply adjust to the reality of charging their phones nightly, or even multiple times per day if under heavy use. In those days, reviewers would complain if you could "only" get a few days' worth of standby time.) But Apple preempted them both with a shittier and more expensive product and thereby convinced people like you they invented it.
  
  The N900 was superior to the iPhone 1 in pretty much every way. (As was the G1.) It's a huge pity Nokia played such a conservative game with Maemo, but then again they never had the power to leverage the Apple Tax or command such over the top hype so they might not have been able to pull it off regardless.
  
  If you aren't wiling to discuss specific technologies, be they capacitive screens or MMS or 3G, then I'm pretty sure you're the one there is no hope for. Keep swallowing that blue pill. After all, if it's popular it must be innovative.
13. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · 2016-12-27 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  lol...you realize that the reason there's "always on internet" for cellphones is because of Apple, right?
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
14. Re:Can't you see? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-12-27 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, the "courageous" meme is already super old. Try and be original.
  Seriously, telling people that memes are "already super old" is super old. Try and be creative (since you can't be original).
  PS- all your memes are belong to us.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
15. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-27 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, what? I had internet in 2006 and it was EDGE speed, just like the iPhone 1. I don't know what you mean by always-on. You could leave apps running and they would stay connected and the 'EDGE' logo would stay on screen as long as you were within range of a tower. Not sure what you call it, but I call that always-on.
16. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · 2016-12-27 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  ROFL...yeah, you had that if you were willing to pay a shitload of money for it. The prices for online access were outrageous. Keep in mind AT&T had to do massive system upgrades to support the iPhone. Why? Because the internet on the cellphone up till that point was a fucking joke. Please don't try and deny it.
  Also, the iPhone had Wifi. Suck on that.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
17. Re:Can't you see? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  LOL apple has been a disgrace to the entire tech industry for years.
18. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · 2016-12-27 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  ROFL...yeah, you had that if you were willing to pay a shitload of money for it.
  As I recall, T-Mobile had a perfectly usable option that was a $6 add-on. YEAH ROFL SO EXPENSIVE!!!! Granted, one generally didn't use it to stream video (I don't think the iPhone 1 had a Youtube app at launch, either... and Youtube was only like a year old at that point), but it was snappy enough.
  
  Keep in mind AT&T had to do massive system upgrades to support the iPhone.
  
  Not for bandwidth they didn't. Their routing may have sucked, I don't know. As far as I can recall, the real problems didn't pop up until the iPhone 3G finally came out.
  
  Because the internet on the cellphone up till that point was a fucking joke.
  
  As I just pointed out, streaming video was still a fairly new thing when the iPhone 1 came out. The internet went through a pretty massive change in the late 00s, but I hate to break it to you... it turns out Apple didn't actually invent Netflix or Youtube or Hulu.
  
  Also, the iPhone had Wifi. Suck on that.
  And you think this is even remotely revolutionary because?
  
  You should really take a step back and listen to yourself; just imagine a BMW fan talked the way you did about Apple. I don't have a problem complementing Apple when they do good. OS X was a decent OS. Objective-C is a good language (if a little immature in the early years). Capacitive screens would be superior to resistive if only they would work on higher quality plastic ones. Magnetic cables are amazing.
  
  But Apple didn't develop any of those things in-house. They (wisely) purchased them. Apple is not an innovator to any remarkable degree; they are primarily a marketing powerhouse. Why is that so hard for you to admit?
Apple's Beef With Nokia Gets Intense by FrankHaynes · 2016-12-26 07:21 · Score: 1

But at least Nokia is not chicken.

--
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Abuse of position by Richard_at_work · 2016-12-26 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

And if this isn't abuse of Apples position, demonstrating exactly why Apples walled garden should be illegal, what is?
And no, I don't care that Apple doesnt have "a monopoly", this is anti-competitive and Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it
1. Re:Abuse of position by ColdWetDog · 2016-12-26 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  You can have whatever temper tantrum you want, but since a 'walled garden' and random snit fits by the Apple owned Apple store has nothing to do with antitrust law you've got nothing but angst here.
  Enjoy.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Abuse of position by Richard_at_work · 2016-12-26 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Please demonstrate where I mentioned "antitrust law"...
  Why can't we have a discussion on abuse of position without twats like you snarking in and saying "it has nothing to do with antitrust, so Apple is fine".
  Abuse of position and anti-competitive behaviour DOES NOT require violation of antitrust law. Apple doing this is wrong, and something should be done about it.
3. Re:Abuse of position by gravewax · 2016-12-26 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws. no idea if they have breached any of those here but being apple owned and operated doesn't excuse them from the requirement to not engage in anti competitive behaviour.
4. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws.
  
  The question is, should companies selling apps be at the whims and mercy of one or two companies (like Apple and Google)? It is abuse of position because only two companies control access of apps to mobile platforms. It would be great if multiple retailers had something similar to App store and Google Play and were allowed to sell apps to the consumer.
5. Re:Abuse of position by CanadianMacFan · 2016-12-26 08:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Since when is a store a walled garden? If Amazon or Walmart stopped selling Withings products would you be complaining?
  Only the physical products are no longer available through the Apple Store and their physical locations. You can still get the applications in the App Store which you normally associate with the walled garden.
  I don't agree with Apple's business practice but please try to get your facts right.
6. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  This is outrageous! It's clear that Apple has a monopoly on Apple Stores, somebody should do something about it!
  I hope you've realized how fucking stupid you are.
7. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  learn the law moron, simply owning and operating something doesn't mean you can't abuse your market position. Ask MS how that went for them.
8. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'm against any government legislating morality, which is what a law as you propose would do. iPhone/iPad users WANT a walled garden; they choose Apple because it's not the "Wild West" of Android.
  That said, legislators could pass a law allowing consumers a new 30-day return period when an app a consumer owns is removed from a Store. That would make any walled garden product manufacturer think twice before they get into a urinating match with another company, and protect any consumers who might be harmed by it...
9. Re:Abuse of position by ahabswhale · 2016-12-26 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  You're actually saying that Apple shouldn't have control over what they stock in their stores? WTF is wrong with you?
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
10. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  learn the law moron, simply owning and operating something doesn't mean you can't abuse your market position. Ask MS how that went for them.
  Looking in the rear view mirror, I'd say they went swimmingly well.
11. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  WTF?
  If I own a small store I can sell whatever I want to. If a company pisses me off I can stop carrying their shit.
  Same concept here.
  Damn, you are a dumb motherfucker.
12. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Where you mention antitrust law:
  
  And if this isn't abuse of Apples position, demonstrating exactly why Apples walled garden should be illegal, what is?
  If this isn't covered by antitrust law, what would you say it's covered by?
13. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well much of that court debacle was about having Windows declared as a de facto monopoly, so that antitrust law would apply.
  Please learn about something before citing it as precedent.
14. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in cases of all things legal, intent is important. It's their own store, and they can carry what they want. But this becomes interesting because the used to carry a product, and then immediately stopped stocking it when they were sued over their own violation of the law. This can be viewed as retaliation, and very often in the US legal system, retaliation is illegal. And even if in this case it isn't criminal, if Nokia decided to sue them over this, they're going to have a hell of a time in front of a jury. Overall, from Apples standpoint, it's an extremely stupid move. I know if Nokia sued Apple over this and I ended up sitting the jury, I'd tell Apple to go fuck themselves. You decide to break the law, a company sues you for it, you retaliate, fuck off. Apples the bad guy, and they need to eat some humble pie.
15. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  "If Amazon or Walmart stopped selling Withings products would you be complaining?"
  I don't know if he would, but I would.
  The fact they have been selling them means people want to buy them. The items being removed is against the consumer's interest, by definition.
  What's left is just the question of where exactly on the spectrum of bad for the consumer (i.e. me, you, and him) the decision lies.
16. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  It's covered by Apple buying legislation.
17. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Two things: 1) Apple has a monopoly on apps on iPhones, which have a dominant market position.. This puts them into anti-trust territory, though they've bought an exemption to that legislation. 2) I forget the legal term, but responding maliciously to hurt a company in revenge for filing a suit is illegal and very easy to demonstrate to a judge.
18. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  And if this isn't abuse of Apples position, demonstrating exactly why Apples walled garden should be illegal, what is?
  And no, I don't care that Apple doesnt have "a monopoly", this is anti-competitive and Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it
  You are simply too stupid to be allowed to breathe.
19. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  Please demonstrate where I mentioned "antitrust law"...
  Why can't we have a discussion on abuse of position without twats like you snarking in and saying "it has nothing to do with antitrust, so Apple is fine".
  Abuse of position and anti-competitive behaviour DOES NOT require violation of antitrust law. Apple doing this is wrong, and something should be done about it.
  You implied it, you utter and complete moron.
20. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws. no idea if they have breached any of those here but being apple owned and operated doesn't excuse them from the requirement to not engage in anti competitive behaviour.
  I don't think you understand that Term of Art.
21. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws.
  The question is, should companies selling apps be at the whims and mercy of one or two companies (like Apple and Google)? It is abuse of position because only two companies control access of apps to mobile platforms. It would be great if multiple retailers had something similar to App store and Google Play and were allowed to sell apps to the consumer.
  You are completely free to start your own Mobile Device Company. Hell, you can even Fork Android. There's half the battle won already!
  
  Stop whining and start building your own phones, or STFU.
22. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  "If Amazon or Walmart stopped selling Withings products would you be complaining?"
  I don't know if he would, but I would.
  The fact they have been selling them means people want to buy them. The items being removed is against the consumer's interest, by definition.
  What's left is just the question of where exactly on the spectrum of bad for the consumer (i.e. me, you, and him) the decision lies.
  So a corporation MUST sell EVERYTHING you think it should sell, or be "Operating against the consumer's interest"?
  
  Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!
  
  You REALLY need to get out of your Mom's Basement, comrade!
23. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  learn the law moron, simply owning and operating something doesn't mean you can't abuse your market position. Ask MS how that went for them.
  As soon as Apple has close to 100% of ANY market, THEN you MIGHT have a point.
24. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  This can be viewed as retaliation,
  No it can't. Sorry, moron.
25. Re: Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Two things: 1) Apple has a monopoly on apps on iPhones, which have a dominant market position.. This puts them into anti-trust territory, though they've bought an exemption to that legislation. 2) I forget the legal term, but responding maliciously to hurt a company in revenge for filing a suit is illegal and very easy to demonstrate to a judge.
  You are sadly mistaken on how Antitrust Law works.
  
  Do some studying, or STFU.
26. Re:Abuse of position by tlhIngan · 2016-12-26 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Abuse of position and anti-competitive behaviour DOES NOT require violation of antitrust law. Apple doing this is wrong, and something should be done about it.
  Last year, Amazon stopped selling the Apple TV because "it doesn't support Amazon Video". Except Amazon refused to write an app for the Apple TV (it exists for iPhones and iPads, but not AppleTV).
  So perhaps we should sanction Amazon too?
  It's just a crappy IoT thing that Apple stopped selling. I'm sure you can find it at Best Buy if you really really really needed it.Just because Apple refuses to sell you one, doesn't mean you can't find it at Best Buy, or Amazon or any other place that sells the things.
  It would be anti-trust if Apple removed the apps from the App Store, or recinded the "Made for iPhone" branding so it no longer worked.
27. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  He said "should be illegal", not "is illegal". Something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong.
28. Re:Abuse of position by Holi · 2016-12-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  "It would be anti-trust if Apple removed the apps from the App Store,"
  
  or removed products from their physical stores?
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
29. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Their stuff is too shitty for that to ever happen.
30. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-28 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  This has nothing to do with apps. Their BS is still in the app store. They just stop selling physical product.
  You are a dumb fucklenut.
31. Re:Abuse of position by gravewax · 2016-12-28 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work that way. There is a significant barrier of entry in order to be able to compete with google or apple app stores and hence the legal onus is on them to ensure they are not misbehaving, it is not good enough to say someone could just start their own.
32. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-28 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work that way. There is a significant barrier of entry in order to be able to compete with google or apple app stores and hence the legal onus is on them to ensure they are not misbehaving, it is not good enough to say someone could just start their own.
  Sorry. It works EXACTLY that way in a free market.
  
  Apple started with two guys in a garage, financed by the $1500 sale of a VW Microbus.
  
  Google started with (IIRC) two guys in a dorm-room. One at least was a fairly poor Student from Russia, maybe both.
  
  What's YOUR excuse? As I said, the OS has already been written for you. You can call up Qualcomm and Samsung and buy all the special-purpose silicon, RF stuff and touchscreen hardware you need. They will also provide you with reference designs and pre-built drivers for the radio, display and network stuff. You can contract a design firm to do the chassis, etc.You can contract Foxconn or TSMC to build the things.
  
  So, all that's left is... Profit!
33. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  How is not selling a physical product anti-trust?
  Brick and mortar stores do it daily.
34. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Apple has 100% of the Apple market... /sarc
  There are too many frothing at the mouth idiots on slashdot these days.
35. Re: Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  This is not about apps on iPhones. It is about physical products in physical stores.
  Learn to read.
Apple removes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:23 · Score: 0

I'm not familiar with Apple app store procedures. From the article it seems that there once was some app on the app store, and now there isn't. And Apple being blamed for it.
Couldn't Nokia have pulled the apps? Or is Apple the only one able to remove apps in this way?
1. Re:Apple removes by MichaelJ · 2016-12-26 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  I have a Withings scale and use the Withings Health Mate iOS app to control it. I just checked and Health Mate is still available in the iOS App Store. They may have pulled the scale or other "physical" products out of the Apple Store (online and/or brick and mortar) but do not appear to have done anything with the iOS App Store.
  
  --
  
  Michael J.
  Root, God, what is difference?
Nah, just replaced! by Gravis+Zero · 2016-12-26 07:33 · Score: 1

All the Withings products have been replaced by Withoutings.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Nah, just replaced! by Hognoxious · 2016-12-26 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting for unixisc to come along and write it as w/ings.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wasn't Withings Apple OS only? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 07:45 · Score: 0

Or did they finally start supporting things like Android before this? Will Withings do the smart thing and just Open Source the code so anyone can talk to their withings?
Intense? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 08:07 · Score: 0

I dont think Apple sees much intensity here One random set of lawyers tries to get a payday.
Apple im sure has some thought. You know, when you get annoyed by a fly buzzing around your head, and have to get a fly swatter to swat them down so you can eat in peace?
The fly probably sees this as more a life or death struggle than the person doing the swatting.
1. Re:Intense? by coastwalker · 2016-12-26 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  As intense as one carnivore taking a bite out of another carnivore. It is just what they do, so no big deal really unless you enjoy watching one animal fighting with another. It is a bit monotonous IMHO, lots of noise, teeth and claws basically. Still it sells news outlets pontificating on the likely outcome, will the bear eat the lion or vice versa?
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
2. Re:Intense? by lucm · 2016-12-26 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  Are you trying to be smug by association?
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
Apple says... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 08:09 · Score: 0

How you like them apples?
Unreliable Apple Store by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 08:29 · Score: 0

So, people will know that if the owner of the product they bought pisses off Apple, their purchase will be neutered because Apple can close them down on the Apple store. Therefore the iPhone platform is unreliable if you want anything not by Apple.
Tell me, how will this be good for Apple users? Why should Apple users keep using Apple products tied to the Apple Store?
It's really no better than an internet run by China. Either agree with everything the Overlord says, or find yourself hiding with nothing to use.
And nothing of value was lost by CanadianMacFan · 2016-12-26 08:58 · Score: 1

I have a Withings scale and it's not that great. It's nice that it uploads the data but it isn't that accurate. I had an old, basic digital scale that only measured weight and it was far more consistent than the Withings.
1. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Just looked up the price on that. You paid $160 to avoid the exertion of manually typing a three digit number into a spreadsheet once a week? Bwahahahaha
Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:14 · Score: 0

This is pathetic vindictive behavior on Apple's part.
However it is the sort of behavior I have come to expect from Tim Cook. What an incompetent
fool he is. Here's hoping he gets some terminal disease in 2017 and Apple can
replace him with a CEO who is actually competent.
1. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · 2016-12-26 09:44 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody can save Apple. They have 16,000 software engineers and they keep releasing the same 3-4 buggy products with little or no innovation. What are all those people doing all day? Moving buttons around in iTunes? It's like a DMV of epic proportions. Entitlement, bureaucracy and total lack of accountability.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
2. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's like a DMV of epic proportions.
  OP here.
  That's an awesome comparison ! ( above ).
  I'm going to "borrow" it when I discuss corporations which have gone wrong.
  And I really do hope some disease takes Tim Cook out this year. Otherwise he
  will be allowed to ruin Apple, and that is inexcusable.
3. Re: Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Has it occurred to you that the removal may have been at Nokia's request, and not Apple.
  i.e. "We are sueing you, stop selling our stuff"
  It's pretty normal (but not mandatory) when two companies are engaged in a major legal dispute that they don't sell each other's stuff.
4. Re: Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Has it occurred to you that the removal may have been at Nokia's request, and not Apple.
  The main point soared high over your tiny little skull.
  The main point is that Tim Cook is in control of Apple and Apple is producing crap products while
  Cook is in control. Cook is incompetent and loyal Apple customers are not going to buy the shit
  products clueless Tim Cook is pushing.
  Tim Cook seems to believe he is the smartest guy around - his performance indicates otherwise.
5. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by _merlin · 2016-12-26 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  He's taking a page straight out of Jobs' book. Remember when Apple stores pulled all Wiley publications because they published iCon? I lost a lot of respect for them that day.
6. Re: Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by liquid_schwartz · 2016-12-26 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Tim Cook seems to believe he is the smartest guy around - his performance indicates otherwise.
  While his performance is sub-par his bank account is quite healthy. This disconnect is quite common for CEOs sadly.
7. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-26 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody can save Apple. They have 16,000 software engineers and they keep releasing the same 3-4 buggy products with little or no innovation. What are all those people doing all day? Moving buttons around in iTunes? It's like a DMV of epic proportions. Entitlement, bureaucracy and total lack of accountability.
  You are free not to purchase their products. I'm sure they will survive.
8. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · 2016-12-27 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your username is the equivalent of a teenage girl putting posters of a boys band on her wall, except you're stuck with it
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
9. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by TheFakeTimCook · 2016-12-27 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your username is the equivalent of a teenage girl putting posters of a boys band on her wall, except you're stuck with it
  My, what a fact-filled and erudite post. I am so enlightened. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to?
10. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure they will survive too; unfortunatly. But they will become a shadow of what they where and the laughing stock of the tech industy
11. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing to learn new ways this despicable corporation is an embarrassment to the entire industry.
12. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-28 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  actually his username is a pretty funny steve jobs joke that you're too stupid to understand. to make the random comparison you made... you have a lack of original content so you came up with or heard the bland joke about the posters and then tried looking for a post where it would remotely fit. guess what - it didn't. the rest of us see something and make a funny joke on the spot and on topic.
  your username on the other hand I'm guessing is a joke that no one bothers to understand, since you're just an annoying little pest here who does not have anything interesting or funny to say. yet you keep trying and trying for some reason, just lke a real boy. sorry bud, you're much too ugly to be a real boy. that's why you're not funny - you don't have a chance to practice social things.
13. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · 2016-12-28 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  actually his username is a pretty funny steve jobs joke that you're too stupid to understand. to make the random comparison you made... you have a lack of original content so you came up with or heard the bland joke about the posters and then tried looking for a post where it would remotely fit. guess what - it didn't. the rest of us see something and make a funny joke on the spot and on topic.
  your username on the other hand I'm guessing is a joke that no one bothers to understand, since you're just an annoying little pest here who does not have anything interesting or funny to say. yet you keep trying and trying for some reason, just lke a real boy. sorry bud, you're much too ugly to be a real boy. that's why you're not funny - you don't have a chance to practice social things.
  Do you feel better now that you took that load off your chest? I tried to read it all but I lost you when you started talking about posters, I have no idea who you are talking about, but don't let that stop you. If you're posting confused rants here it means you're reading Slashdot and this is a lot better than doing something harmful like drugs or kiddie porn. Keep it up, pal!
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
14. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-29 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Your long winded, somewhat boring explanation does not make his username any less lame. I guess TheFakeTimCook2 was taken or you would have used it.
what if customer sues for lack of feature by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 09:52 · Score: 0

Im sort of wondering: if Nokia advertised "ios features" and now they wont work anymore due to arbitrary Apple action, would Nokia be liable in the US court for it?
1. Re:what if customer sues for lack of feature by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-03 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  What if you read the fucking article?
  You would learn that they stopped selling the physical item, the related app store stuff is still there.
Estranged bedfellows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 11:00 · Score: 0

So Apple puts a stop to the porking by forcing Nokia to pull out. Oh noes!
I guess Nokia will just have to find somewhere else to go put its product.
There's still plenty of fish in the sea...
Is msmash worst editor ever? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 11:21 · Score: 0

I know the bar is pretty low at Slashdot, but that first sentence in the summary suggests someone who failed remedial English.
Re:Carrier and phone manufacturer app stores by hackwrench · 2016-12-26 12:18 · Score: 1

Some carriers and some phone manufacturers have their own app stores. I don't think any consumers really want to use them though. Steam has branched out to beyond games as well.
Apple is a real patent bully by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 12:19 · Score: 1

they rely entirely on their size to avoid paying patents that they definitely owe to companies that do REAL innovation.
Time to move on by lucm · 2016-12-26 13:22 · Score: 2

IBM has converted way more American jobs into offshore ones than Apple has.
First, that comparison makes no sense because Apple doesn't have a professional service division, which is the one that for the most part got outsourced at IBM. Also Apple could hardly convert American jobs into offshore ones since the bulk of their operations is *already* handled by Chinese cheap labor.
But that's besides the point. IBM basically invented professional services and IT outsourcing; they did that at a time when it was economically viable, and now that offshore firms are eating away at this market they're moving on. From a strategic perspective it makes sense; skilled labor is dirt cheap and it's now the norm, not the exception, for a large company to use offshore IT workers via one of the big European slave runners (E&Y, Deloitte, PwC, Cap Gemini, etc). Profit margin is gone, it's now a volume game and that's usually the moment IBM walks away from a business segment.
IBM is not cool and not sexy but they're a sound business that consistently adapts to new market conditions. I'd rather drink a tall glass of bleach than work for them, but they're definitely a blue chip stock. Just in 2016 for ytd return they're over 20%, while Apple (10%) is below S&P 500 (13%).

--
lucm, indeed.
1. Re: Time to move on by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Someone gave you some IBM stock for Xmas didn't they?
it's Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 13:36 · Score: 0

I know nobody ever RTFA but the sheer number of people aghast that Apple pulled the apps when they actually didn't and just pulled products out of their own retail stores is pretty amazing.
Re: Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent War by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 14:28 · Score: 0

Microsoft did not buy Nokia. Microsoft bought a license to use Nokia's name for ten years, but they have since sold that off. There is no connection between the companies anymore.
Nokia made a mistake by mysidia · 2016-12-26 18:17 · Score: 1

They should have spun off a patent troll division and assigned their rights.
You cannot sue large companies for patent infringement while you are a practicing entity that has a Technology product or service
THE OTHER COMPANIES WILL RETALLIATE AGAINST YOU.
Either by filing their own Patent lawsuits Or by interfering with your marketing or your business.........
OH yeah, And if you or a company you own partners with them to sell your products, then it's really dumb to sue them.
1. Re:Nokia made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  One word: Samsung
crybaby by SuperDre · 2016-12-26 21:07 · Score: 2

This is typical behaviour of a crybaby which Apple is.. If you use the patents, pay for it, Apple sue's other companies for using it and expects them to pay, so why not do it yourself..
1. Re:crybaby by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  RTFM. They are suing because Apple will not license their patents to Nokia.
Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 21:34 · Score: 0

Apple is a patent troll
No he isn't, you are. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-26 23:50 · Score: 0

Moreover, the courts take a VERY dim view of extra-judicial punishments done by non-court entities, so the GP is precisely correct if Nokia take them to court over this. YOU need to read up on the law AND case law, you moronic cockmumbler.
Re:Carrier and phone manufacturer app stores by Holi · 2016-12-27 05:57 · Score: 1

Name me one that works on the iPhone.

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Pathetic apple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-27 12:32 · Score: 0

simply pathetic.
IBM greatest patent troll ever. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-29 04:41 · Score: 0

The reason IBM spends a fortune on R&D is because IBM is the greatest patent troll ever. At one point in time, IBM patent trolling brought in $2 billion year. The stories are numerous of silly patents IBM is using just for the sake of money. Why is IBM called "Big Blue"? Because IBM had more lawyers in blue suits, than engineers. Is IBM a patent company, or engineering company?
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
IBM lawyers black mails Sun for silly non valid patents: "ok, maybe Sun does not infringe these seven patents, but we are sure we can find some patents Sun does infringe, are you going to pay us $20 million or do it the hard way?"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/17/golsing_on_sun_goofy_patent_contestas/
James Gosling, creator of Java explains: "We got sued by IBM for violating the 'RISC patent' — a patent that essentially said 'if you make something simpler, it'll go faster'. Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business."
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/twitter-paid-36-million-over-ibm-patent-threat/
Twitter paid IBM $36 million for patent trolling.
etc. There are maaaaany stories how IBM lawyers threatens other companies.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-patent-promise-targets-mainframe-emulator/
For instance, IBM released 511 patents to the open source community, and then sued open source TurboHercules for infringing one patent. TurboHercules makes a IBM Mainframe emulator, and because IBM Mainframes are slow, it is possible to emulate them on a x86 server with good performance. This threatens IBM lucrative Mainframe business.
etc etc etc. So IBM is not using R&D on constructive things, but for patent trolling.