Developers, Be Warned: Apple Has Apparently TMed Those Glossy Chat Bubbles(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Developers, Be Warned: Apple Has Apparently TMed Those Glossy Chat Bubbles
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/01/developers-be-warned-apple-has-apparently-trademarked-those-shiny-chat-bubbles/
28 comments
There's obviously some inconsistency going on here in the app approval process, but the main gist from Apple has always been the same; they don't want users getting confused about whether or not they are chatting it up on Chess Wars or via SMS.
My company was told something similar by Apple reps at an iPhoneDevCamp event: make sure the chat bubbles look different so as not to be confused with our native app.
My company was told something similar by Apple reps at an iPhoneDevCamp event: make sure the chat bubbles look different so as not to be confused with our native app.
They can request you don't use it as condition for access to their platform - claiming it's a trademark is different. The mark (in the EC at least) needs to be indicative of the origin of goods or services and needs to be distinctive in order to achieve that aim - chat bubbles are not distinctive and are not indicative that Apple Computers Inc. are providing the service. Fail IMO.
Let's be fair here. These are chat bubbles. They're not buttons or text boxes. There's no inconsistency in behavior between different versions in different UIs. They're just a pretty way of displaying a chat conversation. It's generally pretty easy to recognize when you're in a chat, and bubble shapes are distinctive. You could even use the tried-and-true text chat approach. This is reasonable as a way to avoid phishing-type scams where you fake IM or SMS to steal information.
The problem is that Apple has decided that people might get confused that they are sending SMS', when in fact they are not. And they are right, some people will get confused, it doesn't take much for people to get confused. And people generealy use visual clues, so if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and accepts input like a duck, it is a duck.
To the developer of this app:
You know about Apple's inconsistent and oppressive policies. If you still choose to develop on the IPhone platform, you can't raise hell if your app gets rejected for any reason.
By continuing to develop on the IPhone, you are not giving Apple any reason to change its policies. If Apple sees that it is losing market share then they'll take steps to be more open and developer-friendly.
I always hear people saying that "I hate Apple's app approval policies, however, I'd still buy their products because they are so good."
It's like saying "I hate how China violates human rights but I'd still buy products made in China because they are of good quality and affordable."
You know about Apple's inconsistent and oppressive policies. If you still choose to develop on the IPhone platform, you can't raise hell if your app gets rejected for any reason.
By continuing to develop on the IPhone, you are not giving Apple any reason to change its policies. If Apple sees that it is losing market share then they'll take steps to be more open and developer-friendly.
I always hear people saying that "I hate Apple's app approval policies, however, I'd still buy their products because they are so good."
It's like saying "I hate how China violates human rights but I'd still buy products made in China because they are of good quality and affordable."
Even better, buy Apple products, which are made in China, for that elusive "double hypocrisy slam"
We've seen some pretty bad rejections – the whole "help, this app provides access to the web" dilemma and whatnot –, but this is (a) ridiculous, (b) random and (c) doesn't make a lot of sense.
I bet that the 40+ app approval people are actually rolling dice to determine whether to reject an app or not and what the rejection should be.
I bet that the 40+ app approval people are actually rolling dice to determine whether to reject an app or not and what the rejection should be.
I guess this comes down a question f whether the bubbles are a normal part of the API or not. If this is the case, then what next? 'We don't like your new Mac app...it's consistent with our design guidelines, and your buttons and window borders look just like ours'.
This whole App Store thing is starting to remind me of the great videogame crash, with Apple occupying Atari's role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...
This whole App Store thing is starting to remind me of the great videogame crash, with Apple occupying Atari's role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...
Except in this case, there is only one video game console (the iPhone) with many games (apps) while the original crash's "main cause was supersaturation of the market with dozens of consoles". Furthermore, recent reports still indicate the App Store is gaining momentum, not losing it.
It is my opinion that all these anti-Apple reports we've been seeing over the last few months are only angering developers, not end-users. Most users could care less that Apple is taking 6+ weeks to release an update, being inconsistent in their review process, or restricting "shiny" message bubbles.
It is my opinion that all these anti-Apple reports we've been seeing over the last few months are only angering developers, not end-users. Most users could care less that Apple is taking 6+ weeks to release an update, being inconsistent in their review process, or restricting "shiny" message bubbles.
Well, don't read 'starting to resemble' too literally. Try 'dozens of categories with thousands of apps'. Similarities (to my eyes) include the race to the bottom on price, the one-trick-ponyism of many apps, the breakout of fights over gatekeeping and so on, for one thing.
Another way to look at Apple and Atari, the former remind me of the latter as chief innovator and dominant force in a proprietary market space with many lesser-known imitators (doubtless, you've noticed the iPhone has had some influence on other competitors in the mobile space).
I just feel a change coming...not sure what it portends, exactly.
Another way to look at Apple and Atari, the former remind me of the latter as chief innovator and dominant force in a proprietary market space with many lesser-known imitators (doubtless, you've noticed the iPhone has had some influence on other competitors in the mobile space).
I just feel a change coming...not sure what it portends, exactly.
The business model Atari was using is almost exactly the same model being used today by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft for their gaming consoles. It's been pretty successful.
As above, they're not, so please disregard the first paragraph.
Didn't Apple lose on the Look & Feel front against Microsoft a long time ago?
Honestly, I think the Apple looks are not that great. The window resizing is smooth, but a lot of the designs remind me of the Java Swing Metal theme from sometime in the 90ies (I think). iTunes+AppStore are an example.
Didn't Apple change everything from "Metal" to "Plastic" a few years ago?
Anyway, I use 1px red borders as my window border. Why waste valuable screen real estate on something that you can't interact with?
Anyway, I use 1px red borders as my window border. Why waste valuable screen real estate on something that you can't interact with?
Aesthetics.
I thought they were called computers, not aestheticsers.
I don't spend most of my time on the computer computing, though I'm sure there are people who do. They're not called e-mailers or Webbers either. There's nothing wrong with tweaking your environment to provide a more comfortable experience. It's the same principle behind having a comfortably furnished house or apartment.
They settled.
[deleted]
This info was from a phone call, so unless it was recorded, there is nothing to prove what the content of the conversation was, or if there even was a conversation at all. This story sounds pretty sketchy to me.
If they trademark the navigation bar at the top will they stop developers from using that as well?