Someone's stealing our identity on Apple's App Store(flipagr.am)
flipagr.am
Someone's stealing our identity on Apple's App Store
http://www.flipagr.am/press/
26 comments
As developers and entrepreneurs we need to be more outraged about this and not start off attacking the victim and just adding compassion at the end of your comment. I really sympathize with this guy, the hard work you put in, the countless hours sacrificed and someone rips that from you. Even if it s for 5 minutes those minutes will feel like a really long time. This app should not have been approved in the first place since it is such a gross ripoff that it is actually theft and apple failed it's developer community here. Every hour that passes this guy has customers having a different product experience and he is losing money. Sucks!
[deleted](1)
> Frankly it sounds like you were under the impression that Apple is able to universally and fairly adjudicate all claims in less than 24 hours. That's silly.
Well, it would certainly be a good start if they would use their lengthy review process to actually look at the apps. Their employees probably are too occupied judging what is morally appropriate for an adult Apple user to look at.
Well, it would certainly be a good start if they would use their lengthy review process to actually look at the apps. Their employees probably are too occupied judging what is morally appropriate for an adult Apple user to look at.
more likely too occupied combing the internet to find another company to sue for copyright infringement.
I think you're a being a bit disingenuous here. Within 24 hours, Apple did respond.... but in the negative.
A quote from the article:
> The next day we finally received a response which indicated that Apple had no intention of helping us with this situation. They asked that we communicate with the developer and keep them apprised of our progress
I'm not certain of the contents of the email from Apple, but it readily appears that there isn't any transparent procedure. Essentially, they're saying you should sue the company, get an injunction, and turn it over to Apple because Apple isn't going to help you without legally being forced into it.
A quote from the article:
> The next day we finally received a response which indicated that Apple had no intention of helping us with this situation. They asked that we communicate with the developer and keep them apprised of our progress
I'm not certain of the contents of the email from Apple, but it readily appears that there isn't any transparent procedure. Essentially, they're saying you should sue the company, get an injunction, and turn it over to Apple because Apple isn't going to help you without legally being forced into it.
> because Apple isn't going to help you without legally being forced into it.
As it should be. People don't like Apple being judge, jury and executioner, until they want it done for them.
There are proper ways to do what they need to do, Apple is not one of them. This is a legal complaint with the other developer, handle it through those means.
As it should be. People don't like Apple being judge, jury and executioner, until they want it done for them.
There are proper ways to do what they need to do, Apple is not one of them. This is a legal complaint with the other developer, handle it through those means.
> Frankly it sounds like you were under the impression that Apple is able to universally and fairly adjudicate all claims in less than 24 hours. That's silly.
I didn't get the same impression from reading the article.
To me it sounded less related to the time it took Apple to reply, and more related to the content of that reply, specifically where they basically washed their hands of it and said (paraphrasing) "you deal with it, and let us know how it goes".
I didn't get the same impression from reading the article.
To me it sounded less related to the time it took Apple to reply, and more related to the content of that reply, specifically where they basically washed their hands of it and said (paraphrasing) "you deal with it, and let us know how it goes".
Going from what the author says, Apple have asked that they try to settle it through the third-party developer first before getting Apple involved. But:
> Unfortunately since the developer is acting maliciously and mostly likely without any intention of ever responding to us, we have no way of settling this matter through that channel.
Basically, it sounds like they just decided -- without even trying -- that it wouldn't work and that they want Apple to do all the hard work for them.
I mean, I kind of understand if you're giving Apple a 30% cut of all your revenue that you'd expect something in return, but this sounds like a bit of an overreaction from the developer to me.
> Unfortunately since the developer is acting maliciously and mostly likely without any intention of ever responding to us, we have no way of settling this matter through that channel.
Basically, it sounds like they just decided -- without even trying -- that it wouldn't work and that they want Apple to do all the hard work for them.
I mean, I kind of understand if you're giving Apple a 30% cut of all your revenue that you'd expect something in return, but this sounds like a bit of an overreaction from the developer to me.
A 30% cut is a rip-off and the least they can do is to solve issues such as these.
If I were in this developer's shoes, I would send Apple a DMCA request. After which, if Apple fails to solve the issue, I'd sue Apple.
If I were in this developer's shoes, I would send Apple a DMCA request. After which, if Apple fails to solve the issue, I'd sue Apple.
Yeah, I agree this does indeed look like exactly the sort of situation the DMCA was designed for and that's certainly the route I'd be looking at taking.
But surely Apple does a search of the App store for other products with the same name, as part of the submission process ? Another app with almost identical name and same icon from a different developer, red flag no ?
How would the fraudster complain about a stolen app if the allegedly stolen app had been on the app store for a considerable time before the fraudster's app was submitted ?
How would the fraudster complain about a stolen app if the allegedly stolen app had been on the app store for a considerable time before the fraudster's app was submitted ?
It really isn't that simple.
How do you know which of the two apps has legal ownership of that name ? Or whether any of them do ?
How do you know which of the two apps has legal ownership of that name ? Or whether any of them do ?
It's really not that hard.
1. App released first by Appname LLC
2. App released much later by ENTER MOBILE APPS, a company with a lot of other obvious copyright violations like using the Skitch logo in a totally unrelated app.
1. App released first by Appname LLC
2. App released much later by ENTER MOBILE APPS, a company with a lot of other obvious copyright violations like using the Skitch logo in a totally unrelated app.
Easy. I'll just wait for companies to announce their upcoming app, release a shell fake, and make the original developer pay for the privilege of using the name.
I've received warnings from Apple just for using other products names in the keywords for My app. The person who filed the request for me to remove their app name said that having my app named caused "confusion." I think that in this case, they could move swiftly to warn the clone especially if they are using the same name.
Google pulls apps too rapidly and without proof; just fill a (incomplete) DMCA request and they'll shut down the app first, ask questions later. Thorough research and actual proof are how it's supposed to be, not a half baked DMCA request.
Google does nothing about "cloned" fake apps, just look at this ask.fm clone, for example, which has been there for years and the developer is getting rich from 5M+ users and tons of ads inside: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wAskFM
Maybe the difference is that you actually need to copy the actual assets to be thrown out?
Actually, their Developer Program Policies prohibit "a webview of a website not owned or administered by you": https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html But this is only a rule, that does not mean anybody enforces these guidelines ...
Slightly off-topic, but how smart is it to build a startup that depends on not one but two platforms that can both unilaterally kill you at any moment?
The product isn't even interesting enough for Instagram/Facebook to bother to buy the company if they wanted to add that particular feature.
This isn't a startup, it's the virtual equivalent of a temporary pop-up store.
The product isn't even interesting enough for Instagram/Facebook to bother to buy the company if they wanted to add that particular feature.
This isn't a startup, it's the virtual equivalent of a temporary pop-up store.
The funny (well not for them) is that Flipagram falls afoul of Instagram's new naming policy. So it looks like without the identification with Instagram the app/startup could well die.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
I guess their plan might be to be bought-out by instagram when they get popular enough.
It doesn't sound like their livelihoods depend on the app though, if it didn't get many downloads in its first year.
It doesn't sound like their livelihoods depend on the app though, if it didn't get many downloads in its first year.
Actually, this is not off-topic at all if the "startup" is trying to build a viable business if it is dependent on platforms (Apple/Nokia/Android/etc) that are not under your control. If at all you want to be a mobile app developer, you are better off developing apps for clients who want a mobile presence. The odds of being the Next Big FadApp is decreasing by the minute as app discovery is becoming more of a problem due to the crowding.
> The next day we finally received a response which indicated that Apple had no intention of helping us with this situation. They asked that we communicate with the developer and keep them apprised of our progress.
INAL, but doesn't the DMCA apply here? They took content (images, etc...) from your app and attempted to distribute / sell it as their original work. If Apple's response is not an immediate takedown of the accused app, haven't they violated the safe harbor provisions?
INAL, but doesn't the DMCA apply here? They took content (images, etc...) from your app and attempted to distribute / sell it as their original work. If Apple's response is not an immediate takedown of the accused app, haven't they violated the safe harbor provisions?
Unless the company submitted a formal DMCA notice to Apple, then Apple have no obligation to do anything under the DMCA, and so cannot have violated the DMCA process.
(Pre-emptive edit): Although the company says they filed "filed copyright and trademark violations" that doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright notice was a DMCA notice.
(Pre-emptive edit): Although the company says they filed "filed copyright and trademark violations" that doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright notice was a DMCA notice.
Thank God they ignored it. I've been developing apps on iOS for 3+ years and we get legal notices from Apple all the time that another company is trying to get our app shut down for completely frivolous reasons. If Apple put themselves as the arbiter of these disputes it would be horrible.
By having a review process Apple did put themselves up as the arbiter of any disputes.
If the guys from Flipagram are reading this - why would you contact Apple about this? Eastern European countries have lawyers and courts too. And not only can hiring a good lawyer in some Eastern European country be much (much!) cheaper than in the US but if you win the lawsuit the other party will probably have to pay reasonable part (if not all) of your legal expenses.
And it might be helpful to try to understand the mentality of post-communist countries. One of the biggest damages that communist regime did to our society is the perception still engrained in minds of many that 'if you don't steal you are stealing from your family'.
It is totally plausible that the fraudulent developer is just 'trying their luck' and all it would take to stop them would be threatening them with the lawsuit. One letter written by your Enghlish speaking lawyer hired over the internet - $500 and you will be done with it.
And it might be helpful to try to understand the mentality of post-communist countries. One of the biggest damages that communist regime did to our society is the perception still engrained in minds of many that 'if you don't steal you are stealing from your family'.
It is totally plausible that the fraudulent developer is just 'trying their luck' and all it would take to stop them would be threatening them with the lawsuit. One letter written by your Enghlish speaking lawyer hired over the internet - $500 and you will be done with it.
The comment by 'victorantos' here is useful. But he seems to be hellbanned. Please turn on showdead in your prefs so that you can see his comment.
Totally OT- but I can't figure out why he was banned. A few 'Show HN' posts in a row (for the same product) maybe? He was probably just trying it at different times to get traction. Weird.
Next time reproduce the comment:
" I did google the guy who put the fake app. He seems to be from the same country I am, Moldova. I doubt there is any company behind this app, maybe he is just a lonely hacker with lots of free time...
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380 "
" I did google the guy who put the fake app. He seems to be from the same country I am, Moldova. I doubt there is any company behind this app, maybe he is just a lonely hacker with lots of free time...
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380 "
It strikes me as absolutely insane that Apple doesn't have a way to verify that the submitter of an app is from the company that submitted the app before. This seems like a no-brainer. Like the OP, I would also go to Apple in this case and be absolutely furious if they didn't respond.
IANAL, but I would be pretty surprised if there wasn't some recourse towards Apple for this. If I bring counterfeit 'Tide' (a laundry detergent made by Proctor and Gamble) to my local shopping store and Proctor and Gamble points this out, I think the grocery store has to remove the product.
IANAL, but I would be pretty surprised if there wasn't some recourse towards Apple for this. If I bring counterfeit 'Tide' (a laundry detergent made by Proctor and Gamble) to my local shopping store and Proctor and Gamble points this out, I think the grocery store has to remove the product.
IMHO the store has no way of reliably determining whether the 'Tide' you bring is fake or not (that's what courts are for) and therefore should not be responsible.
Generally I understand your anger but I think that the concept of 3rd party responsibility is very dangerous and can create more damage than the fraud it is trying to prevent. If we make companies liable for actions of their clients they will preventively block everything that they are not absolutely sure about which would create huge chilling effect. And we already have one great example - see how widely is DMCA process abused to stifle competition, suppress criticism etc.
Generally I understand your anger but I think that the concept of 3rd party responsibility is very dangerous and can create more damage than the fraud it is trying to prevent. If we make companies liable for actions of their clients they will preventively block everything that they are not absolutely sure about which would create huge chilling effect. And we already have one great example - see how widely is DMCA process abused to stifle competition, suppress criticism etc.
All it takes is a phone call. Certainly there is an account number where the money goes or some way to authenticate. I'm actually a little incredulous that Apple didn't try that- to the point of actually wondering if we are getting the whole story here.
I remember this being a big deal a while back in a slightly different way: bootleg hair products. There is pretty good money in ripping off 'for salon sale only' stuff and selling it to retail outlets- but I don't know what the penalties are if caught. And that's not really fraud (on behalf of the retailer)- that's more like violating a TOS.
I remember this being a big deal a while back in a slightly different way: bootleg hair products. There is pretty good money in ripping off 'for salon sale only' stuff and selling it to retail outlets- but I don't know what the penalties are if caught. And that's not really fraud (on behalf of the retailer)- that's more like violating a TOS.
All it takes is a phone call.
You call one of them - he claim he has the rights. You call the other - he claims he has the rights. Now what?
And try the other perspective... try to imagine that you are the store owner and now someone makes you responsible for making sure that none of thousands of your suppliers is doing some dirty business... it's going to cost you a lot of money and despite that you can never be certain and you will basically live in constant fear of a lawsuit. That's huge burden on any business and it's very inefficient. That's one of the reasons that we have courts... they have tools that business owners simply do not have and only they can (somehow) reliably determine who is doing legitimate business and who is not.
You call one of them - he claim he has the rights. You call the other - he claims he has the rights. Now what?
And try the other perspective... try to imagine that you are the store owner and now someone makes you responsible for making sure that none of thousands of your suppliers is doing some dirty business... it's going to cost you a lot of money and despite that you can never be certain and you will basically live in constant fear of a lawsuit. That's huge burden on any business and it's very inefficient. That's one of the reasons that we have courts... they have tools that business owners simply do not have and only they can (somehow) reliably determine who is doing legitimate business and who is not.
I verify accounts all the time. By phone. I have an account number. The account number matches. The other guy doesn't have the account number. He fails step one. And that's a dead-simple, no-brainer level of implementation. It seems negligent to not even have that.
Every part of my business is involved in an account- from office supplies to banks to payment solutions.
It's not a huge burden at all for the business- and it's one that they certainly should be willing to bear.
I think it can be clearly shown that there is a reasonable level of expectation that any company would seek to ensure that they are interacting with an agent of a company.
Do you really think that if I were to walk into your bank, say I was you, withdraw all of your money, that you wouldn't be just a little pissed off that the bank simply took my word for it? Hell, I'm the founder of my company and when I withdraw from the company account I have to prove I have the right to do so.
I'll reiterate: this submission may not be telling the entire story. However, if it is, I think Apple should be made to repair damages in a very precedent-setting way, so companies are held to some reasonable behavioral standards.
Every part of my business is involved in an account- from office supplies to banks to payment solutions.
It's not a huge burden at all for the business- and it's one that they certainly should be willing to bear.
I think it can be clearly shown that there is a reasonable level of expectation that any company would seek to ensure that they are interacting with an agent of a company.
Do you really think that if I were to walk into your bank, say I was you, withdraw all of your money, that you wouldn't be just a little pissed off that the bank simply took my word for it? Hell, I'm the founder of my company and when I withdraw from the company account I have to prove I have the right to do so.
I'll reiterate: this submission may not be telling the entire story. However, if it is, I think Apple should be made to repair damages in a very precedent-setting way, so companies are held to some reasonable behavioral standards.
I did google the guy who put the fake app. He seems to be from the same country I am, Moldova. I doubt there is any company behind this app, maybe he is just a lonely hacker with lots of free time...
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380
Well, in a way this is still correct mentality, it reflects reality of life. For example, theft is perceived as norm in the workplace and included in people's salaries (people doing same jobs but in circumstances that makes theft easier get less). Most typical example is the wage of a salesperson: those selling pre-packed goods measured in pieces get more, sometimes way more, than those selling weighted goods, because they can't 'hack' the scales.
There are almost no good salaries, and very little chance to get caught, so this is really, the norm. And it happens on all levels of society. Frequently people who get caught for theft on the workplace are not even fired, let alone prosecuted: they can't be replaced because new ones will steal, too.
As for developers, there is still 'we vs they' mentality, fraud against Westerners is commonly looked upon as almost a patriotic act. While same kind of action against Russian devs may have bad consequences and few would dare to try (while this last may not work for Eastern Europe outside ex-Soviet Union because they never looked upon Westerners as 'they' - rather, Soviets were 'they').
There are almost no good salaries, and very little chance to get caught, so this is really, the norm. And it happens on all levels of society. Frequently people who get caught for theft on the workplace are not even fired, let alone prosecuted: they can't be replaced because new ones will steal, too.
As for developers, there is still 'we vs they' mentality, fraud against Westerners is commonly looked upon as almost a patriotic act. While same kind of action against Russian devs may have bad consequences and few would dare to try (while this last may not work for Eastern Europe outside ex-Soviet Union because they never looked upon Westerners as 'they' - rather, Soviets were 'they').
It strikes me as dangerous that developers seem to think that Apple (or Google) have a role in resolving disputes with 3rd parties. It seems odd to me that your attorney is focusing on Apple. I did a quick trademark search at the USPTO and at WIPO and I see no applications or registrations--that's a basic tool with which you can use to lever 3rd parties, including Apple.
Well, wouldn't Apple or Google be responsible for serving illegal content, especially after being notified?
Apple or Google, or the ones who contact them like Flipagram here, should not be responsible for determining whether content is illegal or not.
As far as I know, only the judicial branch of sovereign states are supposed to do that, even though these days it seems like everyone wants to circumvent it... and then whine when they are the ones on the wrong side of such a para-legal action because they don't deem it legitimate.
As far as I know, only the judicial branch of sovereign states are supposed to do that, even though these days it seems like everyone wants to circumvent it... and then whine when they are the ones on the wrong side of such a para-legal action because they don't deem it legitimate.
Since it sounds like they legally trademarked their app's name and brand then it's best to get an attorney involved and not wait around for Apple.
Competition and copycats exist - users have an appetite for new stuff and quality apps. Apps can be disposable - the average user has something like 64 apps on their device.
So the trick now is to make the app far better than the copycats and to get it back up on the charts.
Competition and copycats exist - users have an appetite for new stuff and quality apps. Apps can be disposable - the average user has something like 64 apps on their device.
So the trick now is to make the app far better than the copycats and to get it back up on the charts.
Seems like Flipagram itself is ripping off Instagram logo and name.
Put a string in the app that controls the title, subtitle, or other highly noticeable aspect of the app. Do a few bug fixes as well.
submit your app to Apple.
Wait a few weeks for enough users to download it, toggle the switch, and put in some text string that is profane. Make sure your servers detect your app from the Users Agent of the fake one.
Apple will pull the fake one, and block their account, in action to keeping an eye on them.
submit your app to Apple.
Wait a few weeks for enough users to download it, toggle the switch, and put in some text string that is profane. Make sure your servers detect your app from the Users Agent of the fake one.
Apple will pull the fake one, and block their account, in action to keeping an eye on them.
They just recently acquired a trademark, now apple can do something...
Word Mark FLIPAGRAM Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for transforming still photographs into video slideshows for sharing on internet social networks. FIRST USE: 20120607. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20120615 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 86042264 Filing Date August 19, 2013 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Owner (APPLICANT) Flipagram LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 3853 Reklaw Drive Studio City CALIFORNIA 91604 Attorney of Record Craig O. Correll Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Word Mark FLIPAGRAM Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for transforming still photographs into video slideshows for sharing on internet social networks. FIRST USE: 20120607. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20120615 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 86042264 Filing Date August 19, 2013 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Owner (APPLICANT) Flipagram LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 3853 Reklaw Drive Studio City CALIFORNIA 91604 Attorney of Record Craig O. Correll Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Perhaps in this case that's enough because the infringement is so blatant. Generally, I'd like to see any IP violations pass through the proper channels for deciding who's legally in the right.
I have an app in the store that's been doing reasonably well. Another developer released an app with the exact same name. (I'm not sure how, as the App Store normally prevents that). I filed a complaint with Apple, and they renamed their product, simply adding "Pro" to the name.
Search for any popular app name and you'll see the other apps trying to ride off the same search terms. Apple seems to be fine with that.
Where Apple will get involved is if you send them a properly worded legal request based on an actual trademark or intellectual property violation. They will act if they are compelled to, but only then.
Search for any popular app name and you'll see the other apps trying to ride off the same search terms. Apple seems to be fine with that.
Where Apple will get involved is if you send them a properly worded legal request based on an actual trademark or intellectual property violation. They will act if they are compelled to, but only then.
It seems ridiculous that Apple denounces responsibility, but if we think this through, it's better to keep disputes like this is in courts. There are laws and systems in place for handling this type of thing.
The real problem here is a technical one: Apple needs to be more vigorous about refusing to register app names to other vendors that are too similar to existing names. That would solve 80% of this.
I came up with an app name and registered it successfully. Before publishing the app, I discovered that there was an app in the store with the exact name I registered.
I contacted Apple for clarification of their policy and practice of excluding the use of existing names. They directed me to contact their legal department, but I had no reason to do so; the other app was first--my name had to change. I only wanted to know how it was technically possible that they allowed the registration.
I contacted the other developer and compared notes. He confirmed that we had both been assigned the exact same name despite Apple's documentation indicating that this was impossible. We both wondered what would happen if I published my app, but, of course, I registered a new name instead of risking harm to either business.
That said, if your IP is so easily copied that you are very vulnerable to this kind of thing, it may be an indication that you are picking the low-hanging fruit and that you need to step up your game a bit. Ideas are a dime a dozen, as are good names. If your algorithm and its implementation are very good, you will be much harder to catch.
I came up with an app name and registered it successfully. Before publishing the app, I discovered that there was an app in the store with the exact name I registered.
I contacted Apple for clarification of their policy and practice of excluding the use of existing names. They directed me to contact their legal department, but I had no reason to do so; the other app was first--my name had to change. I only wanted to know how it was technically possible that they allowed the registration.
I contacted the other developer and compared notes. He confirmed that we had both been assigned the exact same name despite Apple's documentation indicating that this was impossible. We both wondered what would happen if I published my app, but, of course, I registered a new name instead of risking harm to either business.
That said, if your IP is so easily copied that you are very vulnerable to this kind of thing, it may be an indication that you are picking the low-hanging fruit and that you need to step up your game a bit. Ideas are a dime a dozen, as are good names. If your algorithm and its implementation are very good, you will be much harder to catch.
Have you had a lawyer send the app developer a cease and desist? Have you contacted a lawyer?
Their blog says the offender is someplace in "Eastern Europe". I think that C&D would end up being a 300 dollar piece of toilet paper.
Like many other folks are saying, I think a DMCA filing citing infringement against their art assets would be most effective.
Like many other folks are saying, I think a DMCA filing citing infringement against their art assets would be most effective.
The curious thing to me is it took me 3 months once to get one of my apps through the app store because reviewer thought it was too similar to the app "Draw Something".
My app was called "Draw Wireless". It was a super dinky app that let people iPhones connect to each other via Bluetooth and draw on a shared whiteboard space in real time. It had a dark blue grey icon with a wireless symbol on it.
Other than the fact the icon had a dark blue background, it looked and behaved nothing like the app "Draw Something". But yet I had to redesign the icon three times and rewrite the app description four times before the reviewer felt I had distinguished enough from "Draw Something" and let it through. It took 3 freaking months.
TLDR; if your app is prominent enough then Apple will only let will go to extreme lengths to protect your app. I guess it's only if you are a small guy like these guys you need to worry about fakers.
My app was called "Draw Wireless". It was a super dinky app that let people iPhones connect to each other via Bluetooth and draw on a shared whiteboard space in real time. It had a dark blue grey icon with a wireless symbol on it.
Other than the fact the icon had a dark blue background, it looked and behaved nothing like the app "Draw Something". But yet I had to redesign the icon three times and rewrite the app description four times before the reviewer felt I had distinguished enough from "Draw Something" and let it through. It took 3 freaking months.
TLDR; if your app is prominent enough then Apple will only let will go to extreme lengths to protect your app. I guess it's only if you are a small guy like these guys you need to worry about fakers.
While I do not claim to be some creative genius, I feel like you shouldn't base your app off of another existing app. Without the creation of Instagram, your app would not exist.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
well, according to recent news, you're going to have to remove "gram" from your product name anyway.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
Apple are you doing this for real? This is so sad. Remove those fake apps!
I've been saying this for a while: http://benguild.com/post/14531541446/google-is-the-only-thin...
Wouldn't this be covered under the DMCA?
Apple has clearly demonstrated time and time again that the purpose of the walled garden system is to protect their revenue stream. They will not go through any lengths to protect your assets (that aren't automated), you might as well release it on the open web, because you'll get the same amount of support (none) and you'll have a bigger audience. In fact, you'll probably be safer if you can manage to fit most of the code on the back-end and present it as a web app. By releasing it to Apple, you're guaranteeing that it will be pirated in entirety.
I'm not being hyperbolic at all, you just don't generally hear about this on news agg sites. If your cloned App has been supported by spammy ad networks, chances are it's making more money than yours, and Apple has every motivation they need to protect their App before yours and to drag their feet as much as possible.
I'm not being hyperbolic at all, you just don't generally hear about this on news agg sites. If your cloned App has been supported by spammy ad networks, chances are it's making more money than yours, and Apple has every motivation they need to protect their App before yours and to drag their feet as much as possible.
"We were under the impression that Apple would protect us from being in a situation like this. "
Frankly it sounds like you were under the impression that Apple is able to universally and fairly adjudicate all claims in less than 24 hours. That's silly.
What if the fraudster complained about you and Apple acted too quickly and tossed your app? I mean sure your app was there first but in lots of cases the service exists before any app and you can imagine someone come in and puts out an app for foo.com before they put out the official one.
While your case is more cut and dried than most a big corporation is not going to have a different procedure for every precious snowflake. I do hope the book is eventually thrown at this creep though!