
iFixit App Pulled from Apple’s Store - davidbarker
http://ifixit.org/blog/7401/ifixit-app-pulled/
======
matheweis
The hypocrisy at the end of the article is astounding: "Right now, we’re not
planning on it. [rebuilding their app]. Our APIs make it easy for anyone else
to build one, though. (Our old app is open source if you’d like an example to
build upon. Just respect our license and don’t put ads in it.)"

They blatantly violated the agreement for obtaining the pre-release hardware,
and then expect people to honor their own license terms?

IMHO, they are extremely lucky the worst thing that happened was their
developer account getting pulled.

[Edited for clarity after feedback]

~~~
ploxiln
It would be hypocrisy if they re-created a copycat apple tv and sold it or
distributed it with ads. They didn't do anything like that.

Also, they likely violate EULAs (the A is for agreement) for non-pre-release
hardware all the time. Not that big a difference.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Why isn't it hypocrisy to expect others to respect license agreements yet
blatantly violate them themselves for publicity? Yes, the terms aren't the
same, but, so?

~~~
ploxiln
I would compare the apple hardware agreement they violated to software
agreements which forbid analysis, reverse engineering, or even benchmarking
(there's some notable enterprisey software which forbids conducting benchmarks
and sharing the results).

I would not condone redistributing copies of software or significant portions
thereof in a way which violates the license, whether it be a copyleft license
or a commercial license. If apple distributed gerber files for the PCB of the
new hardware device, or original CAD schematics it uses to manufacture parts,
under some license, I'd also want the terms of the distribution of that to be
respected.

But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and
seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on
the internet. This is not a copy of source code or hardware schematic. This is
learned information. It's not vandalism - there is no expectation that any dev
kits be returned, each recipient can use theirs exclusively. This is something
everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more
or less.

What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and
arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run
on their own devices. That's really messed up. This is just one more great
example, in case you don't understand yet.

~~~
joesb
It's not about them reviewing the device. It's about them reviewing the device
and publish it before the product actually hits the market.

Apple didn't have problem with them tearing down other Apple devices.

And iFixit got the device because the sign the agreement not to publish the
information before it hit the market.

It's not about reverse engineering knowledge. It's about breaking the
agreement, which is what iFixit is asking others not to do when using their
API.

------
nathanb
I support iFixit in their quest to get useful information about hardware to
the masses. If you own a device, why shouldn't you be able to disassemble and
repair it yourself? And why shouldn't we be able to know what's inside that
device?

But releasing a teardown of the new Apple TV (and breaking NDA while doing so)
is not doing that since, critically, _the device is not available for purchase
yet_. I feel like this move is hiding behind "technology wants to be free and
open" while actually making a grab for clicks and views.

You're not a martyr for the cause of freedom in this case. Nobody was
attacking you. Apple was holding the sword and you fell on it. Had you just
waited until the device was released, it would be a different story.

iFixit are making it really hard to be on their side.

~~~
scintill76
Yeah, I hope this doesn't damage whatever relationship iFixit may have with
Apple, or in any other way inhibit the flow of information and resources for
consumers to understand and fix their own devices.

~~~
madeofpalk
I highly doubt they've ever had a relationship with Apple. I don't think
they've ever gotten a prerelease iPhone - they just send someone to Australia
where they launch first and do the teardown before they go on sale 12 hours
later in the US.

------
zacwest
> The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they
> didn’t intend for us to take it apart.

They won an Apple TV in a prerelease developer lottery, rather than being sent
a demo unit by Apple like they do with the press.

> Unfortunately, iFixit’s app was tied to that same account, so Apple pulled
> the app as well.

This doesn't seem like a coincidence: _because_ they are iOS developers, they
were able to receive an Apple TV unit.

~~~
bdcravens
Yes, I believe the Apple TV dev units had an accompanying NDA. (I registered,
but didn't get lucky; I can't recall the exact terms)

~~~
mikeash
Apple made it quite clear that the whole thing was under NDA and you were not
to talk about it under any circumstances. This was mentioned repeatedly
throughout the process.

I'm no fan of Apple's App Store policies, but this one is entirely iFixit's
fault.

~~~
kllrnohj
> I'm no fan of Apple's App Store policies, but this one is entirely iFixit's
> fault.

Not necessarily. It's not clear that Apple's rules were reasonable. If the dev
unit is identical to the production ones then an NDA is unreasonable unless it
was only under NDA until an embargo.

~~~
astrodust
If you think the NDA is unreasonable, don't agree to it and don't take
possession of the hardware.

If you do accept it and violate it, be prepared for consequences.

~~~
sitkack
How about take possession and then ignore? The world isn't isn't so black and
white.

~~~
bmelton
Well, that's what they did. It's called lying (or in legalese, violation of
contract) and the repercussions are that their relationship with Apple is
damaged.

This might well be the last pre-release thing they ever receive from Apple.
So, sure, things aren't black and white, but they didn't exactly leave room
for Apple to respond positively, especially given Apple's rather well known
positions on leaked information.

~~~
sitkack
I love how a bunch of nerds get super upset over iFixit doing a teardown on
prerelease hardware (lying, violation of contract (shrink wrap at that)). So
much easier than getting upset about things that matter. I'd say it ranks
about as high as jaywalking.

------
andrewguenther
The tone I get from this post is that they knew there would be consequences to
their actions and that they are apologizing that there users ended up being
impacted. There is nothing in here saying "Apply totally screwed us, bring
down the evil overlords."

I think this was really well written and had exactly the right tone. Please
read past the first paragraph if you want to criticize.

~~~
snowwrestler
What I take from this post is that they were ready to move away from their own
mobile app anyway (like almost every other publisher who built an app over the
past 5 years), and figured this would be an interesting and fun (and
attention-generating) way to do so.

We can't see it in the App Store anymore, but how many downloads did the
iFixit mobile app have? How many active users? What did it do that a mobile
website did not? As they admit, not really anything.

But they're in good company there. There are a lot of content publisher apps
still limping along in the App Store, despite delivering little value to their
publishers.

Generally speaking, content apps lost and connecting apps won. Everyone just
reads their content in their social network or aggregator now. NY Times has to
inject their content into Facebook to grab mobile mindshare, even though they
have had their own NY Times mobile app for years.

------
wpeterson
Another victory for the mobile-web over a native app that didn't need to
exist.

~~~
jws
It also neatly solved iFixit's problem of having an app out there that they
had abandoned and was giving users a defective experience. Pulling your own
app from the store will make someone angry at you. Having Apple pull it is
about ideal.

They could spend $100 for a new apple id, fix up the code enough to pass
muster, and get it back in the store if they wanted, but like they say in the
post, the mobile web is fine for what their app did and they don't want to
spend any money on the app.

Tangential, it would be nice if Apple left a tombstone for vanished apps. If I
read somewhere to get the iFixit app, I'd go to the store now and download an
app named "iFixit!" which is apparently some random collection of manuals.

~~~
simoncion
> They could spend $100 for a new apple id...

That's $100/year, every year, right? Apple hasn't yet made their iDeveloper
(or whatever) fees non-recurring, right?

~~~
chrisBob
Free apps remain in the store even after your developer membership has
expired.

~~~
simoncion
Are you _sure_? JWZ reports otherwise: [https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/dali-
clock-back-in-the-app-...](https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/dali-clock-back-
in-the-app-store/) (check 'graph 3)

Did that policy change in the intervening time? If it did, would you provide a
reliable citation? :)

~~~
chrisBob
10 months ago I accidentally let my membership lapse, and I am pretty sure
that only the paid apps were pulled. If I am not paying attention in January
maybe I will test it again to confirm this winter.

------
jakobegger
I would say the title is misleading. Their developer account was cancelled
because they violated the NDA. Apple didn't "pull the app", the app becoming
unavailable is just a side effect of the dev account being cancelled.

iFixit could get the app back in the store in a few days by signing up for a
new dev account. But they don't want to do that because, as they say, the app
is buggy and they want to focus on the mobile site anyway.

So, the title is clickbait. Apple didn't censor the iFixit app. But no one
would read an article titled "Apple terminates developer account after
contract violation".

------
ak217
iFixit, I love what you do, so please don't compromise your integrity by
breaking license agreements that companies try to get you into. You have the
power to refuse those agreements and post them for the world to see. If you
find yourself breaking them, please don't post blog posts with witty remarks
and ask that people abide by your own licenses.

Your mission is so important. You have gone so far in holding companies
accountable for e-waste and sustainability of their products. Please don't
screw it up with stupid mistakes like this.

------
sheraz
I like how they played it off by playing up their mobile site, and then
reminding us that their API is available to anyone who would make an app.

------
itg
iFixit is surprised their actions have consequences. I mean really you tore
apart a developer unit so you can get page hits and now want to complain?

~~~
cag_ii
This post didn't sound surprised or like a complaint to me. I think they new
very well what they were getting into and handled it quite well.

~~~
bdcravens
I would agree. It didn't have the crying and crisis and conspiracy tone that
usually accompanies these posts. They knew what they were doing, and the tone
was "it was totally worth it". Kudos to them for putting their grown-up pants
on.

~~~
mikeash
I don't know that I'd call it "putting their grown-up pants on" to receive
free hardware in exchange for an agreement not to talk about that hardware,
then publish a teardown of that hardware anyway. Keeping your promises counts
for something too.

~~~
bdcravens
No, I'd agree that's a bit ethically questionable. I guess I'm so used to
developers acting like entitled children that when someone doesn't take that
approach, it's a breath of fresh air (though in a way it's kinda like an
honest politician, it's a bit sad when what should be the baseline becomes
extraordinary)

~~~
mikeash
Maybe you're thinking of something else, but in my experience when people talk
about developers "acting like entitled children" it's because those developers
got screwed over by Apple for no good reason, exhausted every internal avenue
for redress, and decided to take their grievance public. (Been there, done
that.)

At least it's a breath of fresh air to see Apple smacking somebody down for an
actual, legitimate violation, instead of the usual imagined nonsense they do.

~~~
bdcravens
I'm not speaking of Apple specifically; I'm referring to examples where
someone blatantly knew of the risk they were taking (think violating NDA,
using copyrighted content, or basing their business entirely on someone else's
content) and then crying conspiracy when the rug was pulled out from
underneath them. (the app store situation you described obviously being a
different kind of situation)

~~~
mikeash
Gotcha, and I agree with your assessment on those. I've seen a lot of pro-
Apple arguments characterizing developers with IMO legitimate gripes as
"whiny" and that's immediately what I thought of here, but glad to be wrong in
this case.

------
ableal
[Off topic, curious bit in the original teardown:]

 _" We noticed a distinct lack of cables connecting the power supply to the
logic board. We're theorizing the power is either transmitted by magic, or
through the heat sink screw posts."_

------
icco
I love this story. iFixit knowingly violates a messed up TOS, and the only
outcome that happens is their app is taken down, which results in free press.

Even if you call the TOS an NDA (which iFixit didn't post, which is kind of
annoying), you do have to wonder, what did Apple expect to happen? iFixit has
been publishing teardowns and helping people repair Apple products for close
to a decade.

------
z3t4
If you have a mobile web-app, make sure users can use it while offline!

------
shanemhansen
Wow. This is how you write an announcement delivering bad news with class.
They are unapologetic for exercising their right to tinker, but feel no need
to whine about Apple's response.

~~~
uncoder0
I would have to disagree. They broke an NDA by tearing down and publishing the
internals of a device not available for public purchase. I don't they they had
a legal 'right to tinker' with the developer unit they received. It'd be a lot
different if they bought an already released device from a store and did the
same thing. With that being said, their response just sounds like they're
trying to save face after screwing up.

~~~
shanemhansen
You convinced me. This isn't like taking apart your car.

------
frewsxcv
Related to App Store removals:
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-
remo...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-removing-
drone-strikes-app)

~~~
jobu
> Related to App Store removals:
> [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-
> remo...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-removing-
> drone-strikes-app)

That seems completely unrelated, but it also seems a whole lot shittier.

Why would Apple remove an app for reporting casualties of US Drone strikes?
It's basically a very specialized news app.

~~~
caskance
The reason is right there in the article - excessively crude or objectionable
content.

If a porn website released their own video player as an app, you could call it
a "very specialized web browser", but it would still obviously violate the app
store ToS.

~~~
mikeash
That is the stated reason but it doesn't make any sense. There are games in
the app store where you actually _pilot a drone and blow people up_ and Apple
has let them be. Are we to believe that graphically simulating drone strikes
is not crude or objectionable, while textually reporting on real drone strikes
is?

~~~
caskance
You can believe what you want. Personally, I believe that either nobody has
bothered to report the apps that are still up, or Apple doesn't give a shit
about games because those are in their own bucket.

~~~
RIMR
I think what it boils down to is that Apple shouldn't be deciding if newsworth
facts are too obscene to be published. Should news apps be removed if they
report on murders?

~~~
caskance
There's a huge difference between a news app that happens to cover murders and
a "murder news" app that only covers that specific subset. The app in question
is clearly much closer to the latter.

~~~
simoncion
So, software that only provides reports on firearm-related-homicides in a
neighborhood is a "murder news" app and should be banned?

~~~
caskance
I've been deliberately avoiding talking about what should be banned. I would
expect Apple to remove such an app from their store once they found out about
it, yes.

~~~
simoncion
> I've been deliberately avoiding talking about what should be banned.

Given that Apple's de-listing rationale is arbitrary and capricious,
restricting one's comments to attempts to predict what Apple might ban
provides zero value to any conversation.

~~~
caskance
If you wanted to call their app removal criteria arbitrary or capricious, you
sure picked some bad examples.

Their offensiveness meter seems pretty obvious to me. The only thing I'd
really worry about is "apps that duplicate OS features" since you really can't
predict that without insider knowledge.

------
devit
It's sad to see that some companies so brazenly abuse their customer's trust,
and there are no consequences for them.

Users trust Apple to protect them from malicious and perhaps from low-quality
apps, and instead Apple abuses their power to try to silence those
distributing information they don't like.

~~~
mikhailt
Except iFixIt signed an NDA contract to not disclose these information and in
exchange, they get a free developer kit after $1 fee.

iFixit admitted they broke the NDA and they did so, to get clicks for their
sites. iFixIt broke the trust, not Apple.

~~~
fineman
No, iFixit engaged in corporate behavior with a corporation - no trust
ventured, none lost. Maybe there was harm - a lawsuit can settle that.

But Apple broke the trust of their users - by deleting a perfectly valid app
in retaliation for a third party doing something unrelated. Any user wanting
to see how to fix something is harmed by Apple's actions. Maybe iFixit
provoked them, but Apple pulled the trigger.

~~~
yoz-y
What would you suggest Apple should do? They can't let this blatant stomping
over a perfectly reasonable NDA agreement pass. The other option they had
would be to sue iFixit to oblivion which would have way bigger impact on the
users.

~~~
fineman
Well, they could disappear an App that many people used, or ... anything else
really. What they went with was pretty customer-hostile. It illustrates the
problem with a closed eco-system. Two other parties have a fight and you end
up stuck in the middle.

I don't know that they want to point this out, even if they think they're in
the right.

------
imaginenore
That's why I will never develop for iOS and never own their devices, unless
forced to.

~~~
monochromatic
Does Google not have any sort of terms of service for prerelease hardware?

~~~
imaginenore
I can install any apk without asking Google.

~~~
monochromatic
So Google wouldn't pull your apps, they'd just sue you?

