Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:13 UTC
Apple Well, this is an interesting double standard. Remember Apple's reaction to Palm trying to tap into iTunes? They were pretty pissed, right? Well, it seems that in Apple's world, it's not okay to access their services unauthorised, but when Apple needs to do the same to someone else's services, it's suddenly not a problem. As it turns out, Apple violated Facebook's terms of service, knowingly, and willingly.
Order by: Score:
Comment by poundsmack
by poundsmack on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:22 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

"...but from a company which so fiercely defends its own terms of service, you'd expect some respect for other's."

Quite the opposite. I'd expect that as jobs starts to believe more and more that he is some sort of god, the rules would apply less and less. So far, I seem to proved right rather often...

Edited 2010-09-02 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by poundsmack
by Comadr3am on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 11:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by poundsmack"
Comadr3am Member since:
2009-05-26

I could not has said it better.

Reply Score: 1

I suppose...
by mrhasbean on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:33 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...at least they tried to negotiate, unlike some that thought it was their right to utilise Apple's software as the conduit for their own devices without so much as a "may we?"

Double standards about double standards Thom?

Reply Score: 5

RE: I suppose...
by poundsmack on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:38 UTC in reply to "I suppose..."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

"some times it is easier to ask for forgiveness, than acceptance."

Reply Score: 2

RE: I suppose...
by Delgarde on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:41 UTC in reply to "I suppose..."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

...at least they tried to negotiate, unlike some that thought it was their right to utilise Apple's software as the conduit for their own devices without so much as a "may we?"


Actually, I think that they tried to negotiate makes it worse. To just go ahead without asking is one thing, but to go ahead after asking and being explicitly told not to... that's pretty bad.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: I suppose...
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: I suppose..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I think that they tried to negotiate makes it worse. To just go ahead without asking is one thing, but to go ahead after asking and being explicitly told not to... that's pretty bad.


But the situation isn't comparable; Facebook is designed for interoperability - iTunes was never designed by Apple as something to be used with non-Apple products. If Palm wishes to do something remotely useful they would have funded and made a customised Songbird player which supported their device and call it a day. The cold hard reality is that a dying company in the dying days were desperately looking for something or someone to latch onto as to improve their profile and financial fortunes.

As I said, the two situations aren't even close to comparable.

Edited 2010-09-03 13:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I suppose...
by spagnolia on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I suppose..."
spagnolia Member since:
2010-09-03

Uh, actually iTunes existed before the iPod.

From Apples own site:

Apple Announces iTunes 2
Best Digital Music Software Gets Even Better

CUPERTINO, California—October 23, 2001—Apple today announced iTunes™ 2, the next generation of its award-winning digital music software for the Mac® that has been distributed to over six million users. iTunes 2 adds the three most requested features from iTunes users: MP3 CD burning, an equalizer and cross fading.

But iTunes 2’s most stunning new feature is its seamless integration with iPod™, Apple’s new breakthrough portable MP3 player.


Stunning new feature indeed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I suppose...
by kaiwai on Sat 4th Sep 2010 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I suppose..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, actually iTunes existed before the iPod.

From Apples own site:

Apple Announces iTunes 2
Best Digital Music Software Gets Even Better

CUPERTINO, California—October 23, 2001—Apple today announced iTunes™ 2, the next generation of its award-winning digital music software for the Mac® that has been distributed to over six million users. iTunes 2 adds the three most requested features from iTunes users: MP3 CD burning, an equalizer and cross fading.

But iTunes 2’s most stunning new feature is its seamless integration with iPod™, Apple’s new breakthrough portable MP3 player.


Stunning new feature indeed.


Gee, a press release from 9 years ago - you know exactly where I am going to tell you where to shove the damn thing. We are talking about NOW, the policy NOW not 9 years ago, no 10 years ago, not back when you were wanking over Susy Smith at highschool - we're talking about what the policy from Apple is *TODAY!*

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: I suppose...
by spagnolia on Sat 4th Sep 2010 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I suppose..."
spagnolia Member since:
2010-09-03

You're real touchy today. I was commenting on your statement:

iTunes was never designed by Apple as something to be used with non-Apple products.

If it came out before there was an iPod, then it's impossible to be designed for only Apple hardware.

They didn't even create the original, they bought it off someone else.

I just think it's bad form to lock out other vendors that are just trying to sync with iTunes, when it was possible in the past. They just did it to push iPods.

They also allowed Motorola to have iTunes on their phone -- until iPhone came out, of course.

I just think Apple looks really whiny (like a certain other commenter here) when they turnaround is on them

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I suppose...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 6th Sep 2010 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I suppose..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

But the situation isn't comparable


You're right. Palm did nothing even remotely illegal, and merely undermined iTunes+iProducts as a lock-in mechanism. Apple, on the other hand, used Facebook's resources not only without permission, but knowingly violated a legal agreement in the process.

At the very least, Apple should be forced to reimburse Facebook for any bandwidth costs that Apple caused.

iTunes was never designed by Apple as something to be used with non-Apple products.


Of course not. For that to happen, Apple would need to put usability, functionality and user experience ahead of their desire to lock users into iTunes. It's extremely lucky for Apple that Microsoft is above those kinds of tactics. "Sorry, Steve-O, but Exchange was never designed to be use with non-Microsoft clients. Say buh-bye to Exchange support on the iProducts."

The cold hard reality is that a dying company in the dying days were desperately looking for something or someone to latch onto as to improve their profile and financial fortunes.


Riiiiight, I'm sure it had nothing to do with Apple's "if we can't have them, nobody can" bitterness over Palm hiring former Apple employees. Or the pathetic, thinly-veiled patent litigation threats that Schiller made towards WebOS.

Reply Score: 2

In this corner ...
by HackDefendr on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 00:01 UTC
HackDefendr
Member since:
2010-05-21

A young overly cocky CEO, who's never even seen the block, much less been around it.

In the other corner ...

A mature well established, twice crowned, self-deemed ruler of all CEO.

Both are assholes in person and both would probably talk down to God himself.

THIS should be a very exciting match...

Now a word from our sponsors.........

Reply Score: 12

That's OK, you can Keep Facebook
by NeoX on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 00:10 UTC
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

I don't have any use for it's privacy and other issues. I like the idea of Ping and the simplicity of it all. As someone who has to remove malware from peoples computers for a living, I could do without facebook and the security/privacy issues that it seems to never get right.

Reply Score: 0

fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

OMG, is Facebook the new Flash??

Obviously, I didn't get the memo and came late to our 15 minutes of hate. Hope Brother forgives me.

[in case you didn't get it: it's a double-punch 1984 reference]

Reply Score: 1

organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

We were always at war with Facebook - just ask the Ministry of Truth.

Reply Score: 2

fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

:)

Reply Score: 1

Thom's on a roll
by Ventajou on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 00:15 UTC
Ventajou
Member since:
2006-10-31

"... companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil ..."

Trying to get more love letters like the one from Commodore? ;)

Reply Score: 10

"And yeah, you guessed it. Slow day."
by mrhasbean on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 00:16 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03
OfficeSubmarine Member since:
2006-12-14

I'm glad they ignored the flash article. It's just blatant trolling for views. It's not shockingly bad, and anything stating it is just pandering. Now a case can be made that it's bad, or substandard, but anyone putting it at either perfection or horror is blinded by their own ideology.

Reply Score: 3

fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Did you care to read the comments or watch the "counterexample" video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9jfdltkUU

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06



I watched that and then compared it to the YouTube link provided by some of the others who have replied to your post - it is pretty clear there is something wrong with that guys internet connection given that all other examples I've seen of it being used there aren't the major issues he is having. Even for me as a long time Flash hater, 10.1 on my MacBook is very fast and reliable on 10.6 due to the ability now for plugins to access Core Animation and other goodies that offload onto the GPU many of the things.

Reply Score: 2

Your an idiot
by sigzero on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 02:18 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

"In the end, both Facebook and Apple are companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil"

That is the most stupid statement I have heard today.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Your an idiot
by WereCatf on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 03:39 UTC in reply to "Your an idiot"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"In the end, both Facebook and Apple are companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil"

That is the most stupid statement I have heard today.


I've never understood Thom's obsession about these things. A company is a company, and sure, larger companies are often run by people who only care about money. But smaller companies are not necessarily so. Many small owners are actually very humane and warm and actually do care about their customers and their needs. I see absolutely nothing evil in that.

So, I do agree with you. But alas, this really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Just learn to ignore the frogs that Thom lets out of his mouth sometimes.

Reply Score: 5

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I agree, the majority of small companies retain there humanity. But between Facebook and Apple, which one is a small company?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Your an idiot
by sithlord2 on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 06:53 UTC in reply to "Your an idiot"
sithlord2 Member since:
2009-04-02

I agree...

OSNews used to be one of my favorite news-sites, but Thom seems to have this uncontrollable urge to throw insults at everybody (apple, ms, facebook, you name it).

I guess that's the real difference between a "real" news-site, and a hobby blog, and the primary reason why bloggers are not considered as real reporters in the first place ...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Your an idiot
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Your an idiot"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you've been here for that long, then you should also be aware of how I write. Don't take everything so literally, go out, and enjoy the sun.

Is Steve Jobs a hobo for always wearing the same clothes? Of course not. It's his style.

Reply Score: 2

Another Apple Blast...5 Minutes of Research
by mjhi11 on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 03:56 UTC
mjhi11
Member since:
2009-08-15

Thom, I love you like a brother but your anti-Apple bias has once again gotten the best of you. You take the article you link to at face value and assume that Apple is the villain, but 5 minutes of further research leads us to a significant change in the Facebook API terms and conditions dated only a month ago or so. Thanks to InsideFacebook.com ...

http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/07/29/facebook-updates-policy-te...

"Facebook has long required the largest application developers on its platform to agree to an additional set of terms that, while undisclosed, appear to be aimed at ensuring site performance quality. The company updated these terms this week to set a higher bar for which apps qualify for those terms.

Here’s the update to the developer policy document:

If you exceed, or plan to exceed, any of the following thresholds please contact us as you may be subject to additional terms: (>5M MAU) or (>100M API calls per day) or (>50M impressions per day).

We asked Facebook for more details on the change. The company’s response:

We recently revised our threshold policy from 5 million daily active users to 5 million monthly active users. We want to work closely with our largest developers in order to maintain a high level of performance, speed and uptime for Facbook Platform. Sudden, unexpected large increases in API usage could negatively impact both developers and users."

The article was dated July 29, 2010, little more than a month ago. Since it takes at least months to develop a new web based application or service (if not years) could a reasonable expectation not be that after Apple approached Facebook, only then did Facebook change the terms?

Could the change have been a result of Apple's desire to use the API? When did the negotiations start between Apple and Facebook?

Seems Facebook made an incredibly significant change in these terms only recently..."We recently revised our threshold policy from 5 million daily active users to 5 million monthly active users."

Can't we agree that 5 million daily active users is a HUGE change versus 5 million monthly users?

And what prompted our Facebook friends to make the change? And why such a significant leap 5 million daily versus 5 million monthly?

Apple clearly is NOT in violation of Facebook's terms now as they've removed any Facebook Connect functionality so why blast Apple?

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The article was dated July 29, 2010, little more than a month ago. Since it takes at least months to develop a new web based application or service (if not years) could a reasonable expectation not be that after Apple approached Facebook, only then did Facebook change the terms?

Most probably Facebook determined their old policy is in need of updating as they were facing a potential of up to 160 million users daily transmitting data? It's not uncommon for people to notice flaws in their policies or behaviour when presented with a new situation, and being integrated with iTunes and its huge userbase is clearly a new situation for Facebook.

It is wrong of Apple to condemn others for these things but then themselves go ahead and still try to use Facebook's API even without permission. It's called hypocrisy. But indeed, Facebook Connect is not anymore in effect so this article rings just like a flamebait and plain Apple-bashing.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

THEY DIDN"T!!!! DO YOU READ??????


Uhm, you clearly cannot read - not surprising considering the amount of punctuation marks in your post.

Apple didn't like Facebooks's terms, so the two parties couldn't come to an agreement. Terms of service are apparently only valid when they're Apple's, because agreement or not, Apple turned on Facebook Connect on Ping anyway. As a result, Facebook blocked Ping, since it violated its terms of service. Apple then pulled the plug on the feature entirely."

Reply Score: 6

Hypocrisy?
by Zenpsycho on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:24 UTC
Zenpsycho
Member since:
2010-09-03

Isn't it a bit nonsensical to apply traditional interpersonal ethics to a corporation? Corporations are legally and ethically obligated to optimise shareholder profit by any means. The whole concept of the golden rule, and hypocrisy doesn't make any sense at all within that moral framework.

In addition, it's a bit fallacious to conflate Apple with Steve Jobs himself. As fascistic and totalitarian as Jobs is, he's only one guy and can't be personally involved in EVERY single little decision that apple makes, and even if he was involved, he would be bound by his legal obligations as the CEO of a corporation, regardless of whatever his personal views or ethics might be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hypocrisy?
by WereCatf on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:30 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Corporations are legally and ethically obligated to optimise shareholder profit by any means.

Actually incorrect. There is no law against running a company poorly and producing no income to the shareholders as long as shareholders themselves are happy. Of course the shareholders will want as high income as possible, but the law doesn't actually require you to do anything possible to ensure that.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hypocrisy?
by Zenpsycho on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Hypocrisy?"
Zenpsycho Member since:
2010-09-03

I'll give you that since I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't really invalidate my point. Apple's obligations are to the shareholders, not to Palm or Facebook.

Edited 2010-09-03 04:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

What?
by Tuishimi on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:36 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Errr... Apple's violating nothing since the feature is not enabled. Apparently a VERY slow day if you must pass something that did not happen as news.

It's close to slander.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What?
by Devi1903 on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 05:57 UTC in reply to "What?"
Devi1903 Member since:
2009-11-05

uuummmmmmm, it did happen. Facebook blocked it and then afterwards apple disabled it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What?
by Tuishimi on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Why let the details clog my vision?

Reply Score: 2

Evil
by Gone fishing on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 05:59 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Facebook and Apple are companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil


I'm not sure about a stupid comment more of a meaningless comment - and I full admit to describing Apple as evil myself. What does evil mean, evil like Mengele, Stalin, evil like Serial killers, sadistic torturers what does evil mean in this context?

If evil means narrowly selfish, banal, incapable of or unwilling grasping the needs others or your effect on others then that would about fit. Arguably that would be a significant subset of the evil of Mengele etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Evil
by Laurence on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 09:08 UTC in reply to "Evil"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm not sure about a stupid comment more of a meaningless comment - and I full admit to describing Apple as evil myself. What does evil mean, evil like Mengele, Stalin, evil like Serial killers, sadistic torturers what does evil mean in this context?

If evil means narrowly selfish, banal, incapable of or unwilling grasping the needs others or your effect on others then that would about fit. Arguably that would be a significant subset of the evil of Mengele etc.


Sure Apple are the opposite end of the "evil" spectrum to Stalin, but most of these definitions still fit:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=define%3Aevi...

In all honesty though, I suspect Thom was using the geek slang "evil" as opposed to the literal definition.
IIRC (unable to confirm as UrbanDictionary.com is blocked at work), "evil" is also used as a euphemism for a large, powerful and controlling organisation. Much like "man" was used a few decades back when youths used to exclaim "I'm sticking it to the man".

Reply Score: 4

RE: Evil
by fatjoe on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 12:15 UTC in reply to "Evil"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Its actually pretty easy:

Google = Don't be Evil

Hence [by some obscure law of mathematics] :

Evil = Don't be Google

There you have it. Everyone but Google are evil.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Evil
by Neolander on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Evil"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Its actually pretty easy:

Google = Don't be Evil

Hence [by some obscure law of mathematics] :

Evil = Don't be Google

There you have it. Everyone but Google are evil.

Now, please note that this is a slogan from Google. We can trust a company speaking of itself. Therefore, the final version is :

Everyone including Google are evil

Welcome to Hell ;)

Reply Score: 2

I wonder...
by bitwelder on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 09:39 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

... apple fanbois with compulsive facebooking tendencies which side they take in the issue.

Anybody wants to share my popcorns? :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: I wonder...
by Neolander on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 10:02 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

... apple fanbois with compulsive facebooking tendencies which side they take in the issue.

Implosion occurs ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: I wonder...
by jeffsters on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 13:10 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
jeffsters Member since:
2008-08-26

No worse I think than the Anti-Anything-Apple fanbois with tendencies to post here and on any other Apple article! hehehe

Reply Score: 1

RE: I wonder...
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 13:58 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

... apple fanbois with compulsive facebooking tendencies which side they take in the issue.

Anybody wants to share my popcorns? :-)


So far on the intertubes so far most people think of the whole 'Ping' thing as a giant wankfest for those who have far too much time on their hands; even I with a YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have better things to 'inform' my followers about than what was the latest track of music I listened to.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What's the point of this sensational and misleading title? Apple has not violated Facebook's terms. The parties have just not reached an agreement. End of story.


READ. READ. READ. READ.

Reply Score: 4

iTunes v10.0 where is Facebook?
by macUser on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 19:32 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

I have iTunes v10.0 and see no references to Facebook. Is this something that was dynamically pushed from Apple as content? The article doesn't exactly state that.

Also, I'm confused. The API is free and open, but it isn't. Which is it?

edit: swapped Facebook/Ping

Edited 2010-09-03 19:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Why fair for Apple, but not others?
by ezylstra on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 21:03 UTC
ezylstra
Member since:
2010-07-16

Because Apple's violations increase utility. Other's violations simply make things crappier.

Reply Score: 1

macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

Because Apple's violations increase utility. Other's violations simply make things crappier.


The article is pretty light on details. How many connections was Apple's implementation spewing? Pretty ballsy thing to do if it were over Facebook's terms, but on the other side of the coin I can totally see Facebook blocking Apple solely for the news coverage.

Any more details on this?

Edit: As some have noted in that article, I think this is just some aggressive pre-deal posturing...

Edited 2010-09-03 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2