Archive for June 13, 2012

Wednesday, June 13, 2012 [Tweets] [Favorites]

Retina MacBook Pro SSD

Anand Lal Shimpi:

Keep in mind that although the interface is electrically SATA, it is not physically SATA or mSATA or any other standardized interface - this is entirely Apple’s own creation. I suspect we’ll see 3rd party vendors produce SSD upgrades in the future, but unlike previous Apple SSDs, performance won’t be a reason to want to upgrade. Samsung’s PM830 is quite honestly the best behaved SSD controller I have used under OS X, it is no surprise that Apple chose it.

Apple is now advertising its flash storage as being faster than hard drives, whereas in the past it merely stressed that SSDs were more reliable.

The Missing Link Between Your iTunes Library and the iTunes Store

Kirk McElhearn:

Yet when you browse the iTunes Store, you see prices on albums and songs. Since iTunes knows what music you own, it should be able to show you which items you have already purchased when you browse the store, instead of showing you prices for songs or albums that are in your library. This is the case for apps in the App Store section of the iTunes Store, and I see this with TV shows (but not movies). Yet this is not the case for music.

Ping

Kirk McElhearn:

My Macworld colleague Chris Breen recently wrote about why he thought Ping failed, but I think both he, in that article, and I, in my article just after launch, missed the real reason. Ping was designed to be nothing more than a marketing tool, and it was wrapped within a proprietary application: iTunes on the Mac and iOS. Because of this, when users wanted to interact with others on Ping, they had to use these applications. They couldn’t access them via a web browser, which, in turn, meant they had to “visit a store” to do anything.

Speak for Yourself

Keith Wagstaff (via Jeff Johnson):

The app is being threatened by a joint lawsuit from Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems, which claim that Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender — the two speech pathologists behind Speak for Yourself — infringed on over 100 of their software patents. LoStracco and Collender fought back, claiming in court that the lawsuit is baseless.

Now it seems that despite the fact that the lawsuit is still in court, Apple has pulled Speak for Yourself from the App Store.

Speak for Yourself:

Now our sadness and disappointment have turned to indignation. Speak For Yourself will continue to fight this baseless lawsuit and the obvious, and blatant interference with your fundamental right to a VOICE which is motivated solely by their desire to drive SFY out of existence. That will not happen. We have started our fight in the Court with a motion for an injunction against Semantic and PRC. You can read our court paper by clicking on this link.

PRC employee JDonofrio:

Our patent attorney found more than 100 instances of infringement on the software patents that power our devices. We reached out to the developers of the app and offered various business solutions. All of our offers were refused and they started marketing the app in the iTunes® store late last year. This is the first lawsuit we have filed in our 45 years in business.

Dana Nieder:

According to this court document, here’s how this happened: PRC/SCS contacted Apple and requested that Speak for Yourself be removed from the iTunes store, claiming that it infringes on their patents. In turn, Apple contacted SfY and requested their response to these claims. The lawyer for SfY responded, explaining to Apple exactly why the infringement claims are unfounded, referring Apple to the current open court case, and pointing out that PRC/SCS had not asked the court for an injunction ordering the app to be removed from the store. For months, nothing happened . . . and then on June 4th Apple notified SfY that the app had been removed, due to the fact that the dispute with PRC/SCS had not been resolved.

Just because the app helps people doesn’t mean that it should be allowed to break the law. On the other hand, I have to wonder whether it actually infringes and how many of those software patents should have been granted in the first place. In my view, Apple shouldn’t be making this sort of determination. Let the courts decide the case and decide whether the product should remain on the market in the interim.

Update (2012-06-14): Dan Ravicher:

Savvy actors will learn and then exploit this policy, which will destroy competition and erode developer faith that the iTunes marketplace is hospitable to new entrants. It’s a nearsighted foolish policy that Apple will have to change at some point. Accusations are too easily made to allow them to be the sole basis justifying takedowns.