The Rogue Amoeba Calamitous Conundrum
I had refrained from commenting on the whole situation regarding rogue amoeba’s decision to stop developing for the iPhone because the whole thing had me seeing red with anger. No, not anger at Apple for it’s “unreasonable” app store policies, but anger that the story had gotten so much attention and that people weren’t calling rogue amoeba out for this bullshit. First of all, they claimed that tat the first rejection was ambiguous. Unless you’re suffering from a concussion, when Apple tells you your app is being rejected because it uses their copyrighted images, and you know you’re using Apple images, regardless of where they came from, to claim that you weren’t sure what they were referring to is disingenuous at best.
Then there’s the way the story has been picked up by others. People are claiming that Apple delayed a bug fix of the software by three months, but this is simply not true. They told Rogue Amoeba what they had to do, but rather than comply they decided to stick to their guns. Make no mistake, it was rogue amoeba who caused the three month delay in getting a bug fix out to their customers, not Apple. John Gruber (whom I greatly respect) goes on the defence for RA claiming that the use of copyright statement is not in the SDK (it’s right there in black and white) and that they had no way of knowing that this was a violation until they had developed and submitted the App, because the details of the infringement were only in the rejection letter. This isn’t true though because it’s right there in the agreement. Gruber even posts the relevant section from the SDA agreement where it references the acceptable use of Apple logos and Images which contains the exact language of the rejection letter word for word. I also find it ridiculous that they claimed they weren’t sure why it was being rejected, but waited till the second rejection before they emailed Apple to get clarification.
The only sane response to this I’ve sen has been from Jeff Lemarche. He has a number of posts on the issue but I find his last one, where he defends his earlier statements and points out how wrong gruber is being on this issue to be the best:
But first, let me point out that there are actually two arguments that seem to be going on simultaneously, and not everyone is making a distinction between them:
Would it be good for the developer community and/or App Store Consumers if Apple allowed Rogue Amoeba to use these images in this way?
Was it unreasonable for Apple to reject the application?
I think we can all agree that the answer to the first question is a resounding YES. If I implied that I think otherwise, I apologize for it. It was not my intention.But, if you’re going to go storming off after throwing a temper tantrum that would make a pre-schooler proud, in my mind, the answer to the second question had better also be YES. As long as Apple had a valid, substantive reason for rejecting the application, then the answer to the second question is NO. Not getting your way does not mean somebody else is being unreasonable. If the other party wasn’t unreasonable, a hissy-fit is an inappropriate response to not getting what you want
I have to agree. This whole thing to me seems more like a giant plea for attention by Rogue Amoebae. He goes on to say…
That it took three months to get a final rejection is almost certainly due to the fact that there was a concerted effort by a number of people inside Apple on Rogue Amoeba’s behalf. In the end, I would bet money that the legal department just wouldn’t sign off on any solution that included Rogue Amoeba’s use of Apple’s trademarked images. Is it unreasonable for a company to protect its trademarks? Of course not. Every first year law student knows about aspirin and knows that corporations have to protect their trademarks. Was it unreasonable for a legal department to protect their company’s interests? Of course not either, that’s their fucking job description.
Again, rogue Ameoba should have done the right thing for their customers and simply replaced the offending images. It’s funny that they defend themselves on their web site by claiming that this is just the same as a vnc client displaying the dock. I’m sorry, but that’s really stretching things.
Lemarche also points out:
Anybody, who is claiming that the SDK agreement doesn’t prohibit the use of these images in an iPhone application (including John Gruber) is wrong. If an agreement incorporates another document by reference, that document becomes part of the legal agreement, and the trademark guidelines, which are incorporated by reference into the SDK agreement, explicitly disallow the use of “Apple-owned Graphic Symbols” without written permission. This is so unambiguous and clear, it’s almost hard to believe a lawyer wrote it.
I could keep going on and on about this but I’ll just get more annoyed. It’s worth noting that if you look back on their blog you can see lots of incidences where rogue amoeba are complaining about the limits of the App store. That’s fair enough, but at the end of the day it is what it is. You know that going in. To then turn around and claim that you are surprised or shocked by the limitations is again disengenious. To be honest, I’m surprised they were developing for the iPhone at all as most of their Applications are glorified system hacks anyway. Still, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them back in the App Store once they realise what they’re missing out on and they’ve calmed down after their little temper tantrum.
Look, at the end of the day we’d all like the App store to be more open and the review process a little better. But remember the volume of Apps going through this process. Also remember that you know the rules going in. Sure there are times when they have made some pretty silly rejections, but I don’t think this is one of them. If anyone can show me a single other App which uses Apple’s images like airfoli touch does then I’d be happy to retract that statement but I highly suspect that there isn’t one. I think the only unreasonable thing about this rejection is that it was approved the first time. I suspect that is the mistake here.
At the end of the day, for every developer who leaves the App store there are a thousand more waiting to take their place. Many of these are talented programmers who are writing for the iPhone and doing so accepting the limits of the SDK and working to that rather than trying to publicly embarrass apple into giving them special treatment. As lemarche puts it:
Rogue Amoeba wanted an exception to the terms of the SDK agreement. They may not have realized that’s what they were asking for but that is, indeed, what they were after. They didn’t get the special treatment they wanted, so they decided to take their ball and go home, end of story.
For a very sane take on this whole thing please read all of Jeffs post on the subject: iPhone Development: My Last Word on Rogue Amoeba]
Also, I’d like to point out once again how similar this whole thing is to stock photography. There you have a distributer with a strict set of rules, and a slow approval process, that you can either accept or go elsewhere. And just like the App store you occasionally get rejections that seem harsh, make no sense or are just plain wrong, but unlike the App store most photographers accept that this is the price you pay for getting access to the marketing power and distribution channels of a large stock agency like iStock photo for example. You see very few photographers storm out of the stock market with a loud and public hissy fit every time they don’t get their way over a questionable stock rejection.
Subscribe To RSS feed
Sorry, but Lamarche really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. To wit:
“The fact that the images are available through a public API on the Mac is also irrelevant because those APIs are designed to let you show images that are already on the machine to the person who is sitting at that machine.”
This is just flat-out wrong. There’s no indication whatsoever in Apple’s documentation that the icon returned by NSImageNameComputer is intended only for use on the same computer. It’s an entirely obvious – and common – use to use it to represent a computer via Bonjour, for example.
There are dozens of instances of OS X applications which use NSImageNameComputer in exactly the same way – the only difference is that they do it between OS X machines, rather than between a Mac and an iPhone. Apple has never, to my knowledge, complained about trademark infringement over these – and remember, trademarks are “use them or lose them”. If it was a legal issue, they would be on it.
What’s more, his insistence that the trademark issue is “so unambiguous and clear, it’s almost hard to believe a lawyer wrote it” is ludicrous. Think about it: the OS X Developer SDK also incorporates the trademark guidelines by reference. If LaMarche’s reasoning was correct, no application would be able to make use of the icons returned by NSImageNameComputer (or any of the other NSImage functions) without written permission of Apple.
What’s more, his insistence that the trademark issue is “so unambiguous and clear, it’s almost hard to believe a lawyer wrote it” is ludicrous. Think about it: the OS X Developer SDK also incorporates the trademark guidelines by reference. If LaMarche’s reasoning was correct, no application would be able to make use of the icons returned by NSImageNameComputer (or any of the other NSImage functions) without written permission of Apple.
I think the difference is that it doesn’t cost Apple anything to block an iPhone application where as it wouldn’t be cost effective to sue everyone that used the icons or images, especially when a court might not uphold the suit. With the app store they can simply stop it.
I think part of the issue might be too that they are using the api on OSX to get the image and they are then transmitting that image to the iPhone app where as apps on the desktop would probably use the api on the machine to generate the image of the machine connecting. I think it’s the collecting of the image and then sending it that they might have an issue with – but I’m just guessing.
Listen, I think personally it’s a stupid restriction. And it might not have been clear that it was a problem before they were rejected, but they spelled it out pretty clearly when they said that they were using their images and that it was a problem. Once it’s pointed out that that’s an issue and you then re-read the relevant part of the agreement it’s hard to interpret it any differently. You don’t have to agree with it but if the gatekeeper says it’s an issue, shows you the reason why, there’s no point in pretending that you don’t understand the problem as a way to get round it.
I think that’s what annoys me the most about all this. I can understand that they didn’t think it was an issue when they submitted the app, but to continue to claim ignorance once it was pointed out to them is just stupid.
First, I can easily understand how Rogue Amoeba couldn’t figure out what Apple was talking about, since their application passed with flying colors.
I create an App. It passes. I send an update. It doesn’t pass. Most smart people would assume that there’s something in the update, not in the original code.
I somewhat agree with the argument, though, that Rogue Amoeba–once they found out the issue–should have removed the images from their iPhone app (maybe with a snarky “Image Removed By Apple Legal Department” message) in order to get the bug fixes out to their customers. When customers are complaining about bugs, keeping the update from them because of legal wrangling is poor form. Get the update out now and worry about getting the icons back in later.
That said, I think Apple is in the wrong with the complaint. To say that you cannot show an image of the machine you are connecting to is just plain stupid. From a UI standpoint, it makes no sense. Apple wants developers to develop these attractive applications, then denies them the tools to do so? Rogue Amoeba’s use of the icons was appropriate.
I can understand Apple’s reticence about the images–after all, if Apple lets Rogue Amoeba do it, they have to let other people who may not be using them in the same way. So the solution is for Apple to be pro-active and actually come up with a piece of paper that says, “We will allow you to use the icons for this purpose and this purpose only.” Rogue Amoeba signs it and life is good.
After all, what the hell are developers paying 30% for? So that Apple can sit on their ass and say, “No”?
I completely agree with you that it is a stupid limitation, and that’s kind of beside the point in a way, because they were told what the problem was, shown the relevant agreement – they knew there are limitations to developing for the iPhone and yet they still carried on like this was somehow outlandish and confusing. I can’t help but wonder if this is an attempt to get apple to change their minds. If you look at some of the other rejected apps, once they were publicly blogged about Apple often relented. I wonder if this is part of Rogue Ameoba’s strategy by “abandoning” the app store. The only ones they’re abandoning though are their customers.
Absolutely you should they be allowed use the icons this way. It’s a silly restriction. But this isn’t the way to go about changing the situation. If they had written on their blog apologising for the delay in getting the bug fix out, stating that their first attempt was rejected and they tried to work with Apple (which according to their own posting they did) to get the issue resolved but failed to do so but their focus would be on their customers. Point out that you feel Apple’s decision is unfair – sure – but there was no need to play the marytr.
If you want to stop developing for the iPhone – then stop developing for it. You don’t have to go shouting it with a megaphone across the blogosphere. I wonder if that guy from Facebook hadn’t announced his leaving the platform a few days earlier they might have played this differently.
I really think you miss the point of Rogue Amoeba’s rationale for bull-horning their decision. These guys aren’t some upstart PC-programmers coming to the iPhone for the $$$. Rogue Amoeba has been developing for the Mac and OS X for a long time, they know Apple, and they have contributed much to the Apple community. The product in question, Airfoil, in its Mac-incarnation, single-handedly makes Apple’s Airport Express a worthy product…certainly Apple didn’t do much to make the product anything but a “hobby” accessory. They definitely have an altruistic reason for their announcement.
What you may not know (since I don’t know you personally, I cannot say, but I have also worked for/with Apple for many many years, and I know) is that Apple is most definitely a company that ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT CHANGE COURSE ON ANYTHING unless they are wrestled to the ground, pummeled, given a noogie and a tittie-twister, and then made to believe it was their “brilliant” idea. For all the talk of “innovation” that goes on at Apple, it is a remarkably bureaucratic nightmare to steer. I have seen this intransigence from the inside, the retail sales space, and the engineering and design side. [Trust me, when you have Apple System Engineers (purportedly intelligent folks) telling you that 9 models of Performa 5/6xxx dreck is good for the Mac marketplace…or, with a straight face, that the PowerBook 5400 is a fine machine…or that AppleShareIP 6.1 is dead and Mac OS X Server 1.0 is the future...]
This mess of the App Store and the submission ridiculousness therein is NOT going to change, regardless of Phil Schiller’s involvement, unless Apple is embarrassed and/or there is a potential to the bottom line that gets Steve Jobs’ attention. That is Apple; that is no way to run a business.
But that is Rogue Amoeba’s strategy. Shame. Embarrassment. It has to happen. Apple’s App Store submission process is so laughably broken that no one should really even use it. Yet Apple is still proceeding on a path of public ignorance that can only be described as “insanity”. A slap to the face to “knock ‘em back to reality” needs to come sooner than later, or (as witnessed by Apple’s own past) this mess will be their undoing.
Keep in mind: the “fine, let them leave, there are a thousand more to take their place” mindset is a downward spiral to the mess that is the Windows world.
Scott,
just curious what is your contribution to Apple since you worked there before and did you help them to innovate into having billions in their kitty?
I worked -for- Apple Higher Ed over 15 years ago, in a time when Apple was post-Jobs/pre-Jobs and its management was oblivious to the absolutely obvious soon-to-come downfall. Not long after began the “Apple is dying” press. Apple as a company was as it is now: profitable, insulated, and absolutely deaf to its market. [PowerMac 7100 anyone? Pippin?] I went from Apple back into retail. and got to watch Apple self-destruct as Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, ME, and 2K ate their lunch. I got certified on AND SOLD both the A/UX and AIX servers; I saw “floundering” first hand.
I didn’t put billions in Apple’s coffers, but I sold a lot of really shitty products (aforementioned Performas). The whole while Apple was being bombarded with much better advice, externally, than the management, internally, was acting upon. The results are on record. There would be no Apple now if not for folks like Rogue Amoeba.
Quite simply, some of the worst “Jobsian” behavior stayed at Apple after he left the first time. We are seeing it once again in his return. Like MacArthur, Jobs and his tactics are good for a limited campaign, but not very good for prolonged growth. Long-time developers and long-time users are certain to start to have some deja vu…personally, I’d rather see Apple not repeat mistakes of the past and fix their problems. Certainly new-Jobs has done many things very right; certainly there has been some mind-bogglingly-crazy missteps. This App Store nanny-ism is one of them. (Keep in mind, this is the same company that initially announced that web apps would be all the iPhone ever needed!)
If Apple and its Fans do as before and blindly believe that its technological headstart and “obvious greatness” are enough to keep the “innovation” cash flow coming forever, I have a history lesson and a company named Google to slap them across the face with.
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/
So I assume you’ll want some seasoning forthat nice big hunk of crow you are about to eat?
Hey, as I said in the comments above, I think it’s a silly policy of Apple’s and I’m glad they changed it. So, yes, I’ll have some salt and pepper for my slice of crow, but I still think RA wen’t the wrong way about this. Threatening to storm out unless they got their way was childish, but it seems to have worked so good for them. I still firmly believe that the “problems” with the App store are blown out of all proportion given the sheer scale of the thing, and the recent worm for jailbroken iPhones highlights what could happen if Apple had no approval process.
I think all of this could be solved if Apple had a better way of escalating problems, with a way to contact someone up the chain properly without having to blog about it to get attention.