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.
One of the many announcements made by Apple yesterday was Ping, yet another social network thing geared towards music. It is built straight into iTunes (which now officially has more features than Mac OS X itself), meaning it has a potential user base of 160 million.
In order to find friends on Ping more easily, Apple included technology to connect to other social networks and search for your friends there. Facebook is a likely candidate, obviously, and its name indeed appeared on stage during Jobs’ demo. The ability to connect to Facebook in Ping also appeared in iTunes 10 for some who downloaded it, but the feature was completely turned off rather quickly. It is still being advertised on Apple’s site.
We now know why. Kara Swisher details how Apple and Facebook were in negotiations about connecting Ping to Facebook. Facebook Connect is an open API and doesn’t require permission for individual use, but when it comes to repeated access (160 million iTunes users, go figure), a special agreement is needed with Facebook to protect user data, and, obviously, to manage infrastructure impact.
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.
In the end, both Facebook and Apple are companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil, but from a company which so fiercely defends its own terms of service, you’d expect some respect for other’s. Word has it the two are still negotiating, so the feature may still arrive.
And yeah, you guessed it. Slow day. There’s only so much I can write about Android tablets with no shipping date.
“…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
I could not has said it better.
…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?
“some times it is easier to ask for forgiveness, than acceptance.”
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
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!*
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
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.
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.”
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.
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………
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.
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]
We were always at war with Facebook – just ask the Ministry of Truth.
🙂
“… companies which are pretty pure embodiments of evil …”
Trying to get more love letters like the one from Commodore?
What about this one…
http://newteevee.com/2010/08/31/video-flash-on-android-is-startling…
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.
Did you care to read the comments or watch the “counterexample” video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9jfdltkUU
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.
“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.
“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.
I agree, the majority of small companies retain there humanity. But between Facebook and Apple, which one is a small company?
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 …
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.
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?
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.
THEY DIDN”T!!!! DO YOU READ??????
They, unlike Palm, worked with Facebook to implement it, and when they couldn’t come to an agreement, pulled the feature BEFORE release, unlike Palm.
Your hate for Apple has made you blind.
Uhm, you clearly cannot read – not surprising considering the amount of punctuation marks in your post.
Oh Thom you do like to attack your critics dont you yes of course you are right about the punctuation its use is apparently archaic and unnecessary will you ever forgive those who arent as enlightened as you and continue to dare punctuate their comments love your adoring fans
Edited 2010-09-04 02:06 UTC
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.
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.
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
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.
uuummmmmmm, it did happen. Facebook blocked it and then afterwards apple disabled it.
Why let the details clog my vision?
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“.
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
… apple fanbois with compulsive facebooking tendencies which side they take in the issue.
Anybody wants to share my popcorns? 🙂
Implosion occurs
No worse I think than the Anti-Anything-Apple fanbois with tendencies to post here and on any other Apple article! hehehe
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.
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.
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
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