Apple's Arrogance in UK Apple V Samsung

Apple lost its patent case against Samsung in which UK court ruled that Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe on iPad. Court ordered that Apple had to publicly apologize to Samsung and clear up any
confusion that customers might have had about the two companies.

You would have thought this would have been over except that Apple arrogance and childishness is prolonging the saga causing further damage to the company. Apple posted an apology (see screenshot) that exactly wasn't an apology and Judge wasn't impressed. My personal take was that it read more like Apple claiming victory everywhere except in UK implying that UK courts made an error.

The UK Judge wasn't impressed and the it deemed Apple’s apology “non-compliant,” and gave the company 48 hours to post a new apology on the company’s homepage. The world's most valuable technology company stated that it couldn't post the apology in 48 hours and wanted 2 weeks to post!!

48 hours later, you would think Apple complied and sincerely apologied? Not really. As one reader pointed out, Apple resized the page so that the apology isn't visible on on the home without having to scroll. I was annoyed by the color which is not readable and is at the bottom of the page.

I now really wish Judge forces Apple to do it right in their home page :-)

Photographer Sues Apple Over the Use of Her Photo to Promote the Retina Display

Full Story: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/12/photographer-sues-apple-over-the-use-of-her-photo-to-promote-the-retina-display/

While Apple ferociously defends its IP, Trademark and Copyright, it often doesn't respect others as one would expect. While one could argue that these infringements/violations were the result of someone in the food chain overlooking things, I would expect the company to have put process in place to ensure that it uses other's IP, TradeMark or Copyright lawfully. BTW for every one public dispute, there are 10 others possibly that are settled/resolved out of public's view. So I wouldn't dismiss this as an isolated incident.

Here is another story that hit the headlines barely few weeks ago. This time, Apple stole the clock design from a swedish company that owned the copyright.

See Engadget's coverage long ago at Apple's little problem with ripping off artists

While researching this topic, I came across a Wikipedia entry detailing litigations involving Apple. Enjoy!
 

An investigation into the work ethics of the world's biggest tech company

I came across this beautiful motion infographic while browsing shortlisted entries at Information is Beautiful Awards. While beautiful, the content is very relevant and so here goes:
Apple - Beast File from Duncan Elms on Vimeo.

Apple iPhone5 Purple Camera Flare Issue

Apple's response again is along the lines of "You're holding it wrong!". It also had no problems pointing out that Apple iPhone5 isn't the only one impacted by the purple flare issue. Everytime Apple cops out by pointing fingers at others, the halo will wear little by little thus making them not special.

From WSJ

PC Magazine’s Jim Fisher noted late last month that Apple is right in saying that the iPhone 5 is not the only smartphone with this problem.
Fisher did a “Purple Flare Shootout” with the iPhone 5, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, Samsung Galaxy S III and HTC One S. In his tests the the iPhone 4S and Galaxy S III did the best at cutting down violet tinge when shooting into a light source— though he said the iPhone 5 was the “worst offender of the bunch.”

Apple ripping EU customers over Warranty?

Full story: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410413,00.asp

Apple is "prominently" advertising its one-year warranty, but does not appear to be telling customers that EU law requires a minimum two-year warranty. As a result, customers might be buying pricier Apple Care plans rather than taking advantage of free, two-year plans. "These are unacceptable marketing practices,"

Guess this isn't new given that Italian AntiTrust authorities fined Apple for similar practice as the article notes

The letter comes about a year after Apple incurred a 900,000 Euro ($1.2 million) fine from the Italian Antitrust Authority for misleading consumers when it comes to warranties. Apple provided "unclear information on payments for additional assistance offered to consumers" and had not "fully implemented the two-year guarantee by the producer," Italian officials said at the time. 

The New iPhone5 Is Here But Disappointing

Apple had settled for taller, thinner, lighter and faster phone but nothing revolutionary! BBC put it best

 

From http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19557497

"To use a car analogy, six years ago the iPhone was like a sexy new flagship model from BMW or Porsche. Today it's a Toyota Camry. Safe, reliable, boring. The car your mom drives. The car that's so popular that its maker doesn't dare mess with the formula."
 

Here is some additional coverage that fits my world view :-)
The end of the beginning for the iPhone
Apple Plays Catch-Up With 'iPhone 5' But Still Comes Up Short
Not many new tricks for iPhone 5, but Apple still top of the heap
iPhone 5 Launch Plays it Safe. Can Apple Still Surprise Us?
 

Who is copying who?

I present

While Apple can get inspired, when others do so it is called stealing.

Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

Story: Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

First it was rejected with the reason

“The features and/or content of your app were not useful or entertaining enough,”

 The developer submitted again and was rejected again for a different reason

“We found that your app contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines,”

I just hope Apple doesn't get too big to have influence beyond the iPhones and iPads.

Rectangle with rounded corners is real innovation!

I am sure everyone was paying close attention to the Apple V. Samsung trial for the last few weeks. While I am happy that it is over, I am very disappointed with the outcome which shouldn't be any surprise to any of you. It is because I know that Apple isn't the first company to come up with a Mobile device with touch driven UI (since I have used PDAs such as IPAQ) not did it invent pinch-to-zoom and other gestures (I had the opportunity to use Microsoft Surface since early days). Worst of all, the trial was unfair as Judge did not allow some key evidence in the trial.

I really hope that Samsung appeals the ruling and taking it to Supreme Court if it has to. For more detailed analysis, here are some links for further analysis

A device with a touchscreen and few buttons i was i obvious

Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture?

 

Your iPhone is less reliable than your Andriod Phone

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/02/02/does-ios-crash-more-than-android-a-data-dive/

Apple has always done a pretty good job of creating the perception that its products are more secure and stable compared to alternatives. But data tells a different story:

Kudos still to Apple team for continuing to maintain the reality distortion field.

Apple's mind-bogglingly greedy and evil license agreement

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360

I may start sounding like a broken record but greed, the desire to control and uncompetitive practices are prevalent and is expeced of Apple. That seems to be in their blood. Until Steve Job's demise, I thought it was him who was influencing all this. But it continues in his absence which leads me to believe that either he has had indelible influence on the company's culture. Or, that is what Apple has always been.

Anyway, some choice quotes from the linked article:

"I have never seen a EULA as mind-bogglingly greedy and evil as Apple’s EULA for its new ebook authoring program."

"Under this license agreement, you are out of luck. They won’t sell it, and you can’t legally sell it elsewhere. You can give it away, but you can’t sell it. Updated to add: By “it,” I am referring to the book, not the content. The program allows you to export your work as plain text, with all formatting stripped. So you do have the option to take the formatting work you did in iBooks Author, throw it away, and start over. That is a devastating potential limitation for an author/publisher. Outputting as PDF would preserve the formatting, but again the license would appear to prohibit you from selling that work, because it was generated by iBooks Author."

If Apple Wins We All Lose

Original Gizmodo Blog - http://gizmodo.com/5869598/if-apple-wins-we-all-lose

I couldn't agree more! The patents that are used to claim infringement is outright silly as the author points out. Apple is very afraid of Google and they aren't able to innovate fast enough and so it is resorting to patent war!

Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it.

Original Article: http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/apple-never-designed-the-ipad-they-undesigned-it/

The author makes a strong case for why Apple's claim that Samsung Galaxy is an iPad clone is plain just dubious. What Apple is doing isn't anything new!

Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

Full Story: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/12/09/apple-w3c

Apple is clearly becoming the Microsoft of the 90's! On the other hand, why does the open source/ standards community think Apple would work with them when Apple prefers Walled Garden time and again with its various products?

Apple's Trademark BanHammer

Full article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01124516464/apple-continues-to-insist-only-it-can-use-apple-logo-threatens-small-german-cafe.shtml

Not a day goes by without us hearing about yet another lawsuit from Apple suing some poor company for trademark violation. It does not matter how remotely similar they are and it does not matter. So one has to wonder whether Apple is being very unreasonable in pursuing trademark claims.

Serving at the Pleasure of the King

Full Story: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-king.html

Excerpt from the article:

As a consumer, I like that Apple is perfectly willing to throw its software developers under a bus to protect me (or, more cynically, Apple itself). But as a software developer, I'm not sure I can cope with that and I am unlikely to ever develop anything for an iOS device as a result. If you choose to deliver software in the Apple ecosystem, this is simply the tradeoff you've chosen to make. Apple developers serve at the pleasure of the king.

This is why I don't have any iDevices in my home and I request that you too as well. It is a matter of principles and I really do not want to make things worse than it is now. "Short Live The King"

Apple's New Subscription Model: Beginning of the end of iPad?

Apple recently launched their new subscription service to enable Newspapers & Magizines to sell subscriptions through the Apple's AppStore. Details can be found here

The most contraversial and publisher/consumer unfriendly piece is the new rule that requires publishers to sell their subscription for the same price or better in the Apple's AppStore. Here is why

• As a publisher, this requirement is utter stupidity (and monopolistic) as anyone with a little brain would tell you that publishers would be forced to move to AppStore. Why? Because they cannot sell the same product for less outside of the AppStore though they don't have to cut 30% of it to Apple. To give you an example, lets say that the cost of creating content is $.80. Assuming publishers want to have 25% profit, the price would be $1 which is what the consumer would pay excluding tax. With the new rules, Selling it for $1 means publisher will lose money as Apple takes 30% cut. So publishers are forced to price it as $1.43 ($.80+ 20% profit for publishers + 30% cut for Apple) if they have to retain their margins.
• As a consumer, because of the above restriction, either of the 2 will happen
• Publishers have to markup their price by 30% and consumer loses. Even if we consider 0% margin for publishers, consumers and publishers lose by not getting a fair price
• There is no competition in the marketplace and there is only one place to buy thus creating a monopoly. Publishers are forced to use AppStore since they don't gain anything by going out. Consumers would use AppStore as they don't get better price outside. Consumer loses again

It is not very publisher friendly and forces everyone to use the AppStore and costs the consumers & publishers dearly. I sincerely hope the FTC & DOJ that are reviewing this restriction and rule it monopolicstic.

Some more analysis below
Apple’s New Subscription Model Is Evil

Apple App Store subscription plan gouges publishers, eats their young
Apple's subscription model is boon to consumers, bad for publishers
Some publishers relieved, others irate over Apple subscription plan
Will Apple find publishing execs 'technologically innocent'?
Why Apple’s Subscription Rules Are Unfair to Publishers
Apple demands subscription revenue from publishers
Apple’s new subscription service: the good, the bad, and the ugly

UPDATE: Readability Inc in an open letter to Apple says "we believe that your new policy smacks of greed". I couldn't agree more

One Authority, One Design & One Way To Work

I really like the Motorola's latest Xoom teaser Ad and packs a good punch! This is the tablet I am looking to buy next month. It's time to live a free life :-)

Apple Turns Uncool in 2011

Full Story: Hedge Funds Crash, Apple Turns Uncool in 2011

"The Apple Inc. backlash starts. We used to think International Business Machines Corp. was sort of sinister. Then it was Microsoft Corp. But which business today has far too much power, is run by control freaks and puts profits before principles? That’s right. The world’s third-biggest company, measured by market value, is about to discover that the line between cool upstart and ugly monopolist is a very thin one."

If you have been following my blog, I predicted that 2010 would be the best year for Apple. I guess I am not alone in that prediction :-)

WikiLeaks App Removal - Another example of Apple Dictatorship

Full story: Apple Removes WikiLeaks Program From App Store

An Apple spokeswoman said the program was removed because it violated company rules that state apps must “comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way.” She didn’t respond to a question about why the app had originally been approved.

As of today, Wikileaks has not been convicted of any crime or even charged with anything. If so, why would Apple decide to pull the app with a vague explanation? What local laws were actually broken? Also, where is the proof that the app put any individual at risk? The app in question simply put a nice UI around what is publically available? Should Apple's Safari Browser be banned as well as it provides access?