Should Nokia Sue Apple for iPhone Patent Infringement? [Poll]

Nokia Sues Apple Over iPhone

Mashable reports that Nokia has sued Apple, claiming that the iPhone infringes “on 10 of the company’s patents relating to GSM, UMTS and WLAN technologies.”

The lawsuit, analysts predict, could cost Apple $1 billion. And some say Nokia has a strong case.

What Do You Think?

Is Nokia right to sue Apple? Will the lawsuit award Nokia some much-deserved money or will it hurt Nokia’s image more than help it? Please share your opinion in this poll:


Would Apple Ban a Google Audio iPhone App?

Tech Crunch reports that Google will soon launch a music service, which may be called Google Audio.

Google Audio for iPhone

The question for us iPhone users is: Will Google attempt to launch a Google Audio iPhone app, and if so, will Google Audio for iPhone go the way of Google Voice?

Remember when Google submitted its Google Voice iPhone app to the App Store last July? Apple banned the app, citing “duplicate features that come with the iPhone,” because Google Voice would create competition for AT&T’s calling & SMS services. Would a Google Audio iPhone app be banned for competing with iPod and the iTunes Store?

What Will a Google Voice iPhone App Look Like?

We don’t yet know what Google Voice will look like, or what it will do. But if Google’s history of innovation is any indication, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is somehow a game-changer. And that could be bad news for Apple.

After all, iTunes is by far the leader in music downloads. Any competition from Google in the market for online music would certainly be unwanted.

Of course, there’s already a Pandora iPhone app that lets you stream music and bypass the iPod, but Pandora doesn’t give you on-demand access to specific songs. Google Audio will presumably offer music downloads. What if a Google Audio iPhone app let you download songs to the app itself?

Could a Google Audio iPhone app make iTunes irrelevant? If so, can we expect Apple to ban Google Audio from iPhone? What do you think?

Apple Blocks iPhone Video Camera App

The makers of iVidCam, a video recording app for the iPhone, contacted me about how Apple blocked their iPhone app ahead of the release of the iPhone 3G S, which features a video camera.

I regret not seeing this letter in my inbox earlier, but I think it´s worth sharing. Of course, take this with a grain of salt. Here it is:

This is our story of how we created a breakthrough video camera app for the iPhone only to have our hopes unfairly crushed by Apple.

In October, we started development on iVidCam, a video recording app for the iPhone. We invested a lot of capital and resources because we knew if we got a video camera app working, then it would be an instant hit. By January, we had finished the mp4 video encoding engine, but we needed a way to take multiple pictures per second to make video.

In February, our breakthrough came. Apple featured 25shot, an app that took 25 pictures in 5 seconds. The app used a custom camera view and took 5 screenshots per second. Our team studied the app and integrated the same function into iVidCam. We saw Apple’s featuring 25shot on the front page of the App Store as a signal to developers that this function was highlighted and encouraged by Apple.

In March, we finished development of iVidCam and even added wireless transfer and YouTube upload functions to the app. We were confident that this app would go #1 in the App Store. It had everything users wanted – a functional video camera app, mp4 encoding, wireless transfer, and YouTube upload of the recorded videos. We posted the app to iTunesConnect for Apple approval on March 27. Several days later we were shocked to discover Apple had rejected the app due to what they said was an “unpublished API.”

The same day we called the highest management person at Apple we knew, John Geleynse. We met him at the L.A. Tech Talk last year and he appeared to be the main iPhone evangelist. We thought that he could surely help us. On the phone, he was cordial and even agreed with us that talking to the regular reviewers was not going to do anything. He told us to email him an email stating our case with specifics and that he would forward it to Lead of the App Review Team. He assured us this was the way to go.

We emailed John Geleynse the same day. And this was the beginning of almost 2 months of being ignored, neglected and overlooked by Apple. Our emails to the Lead of the App Review Team were not being directly responded to. We asked for dialogue, and they gave us no personal replies but sent us form letters intead. Throughout this process, we were committed to working with Apple and not complaining publicly. We wanted to give every opportunity for Apple to address our concerns. Apple deeply disappointed us by ignoring us for months.

* March 31-May 18 correspondence with Director of Tech Evangelism, John Geleynse

By mid-May we had reached the point of exasperation. Our efforts to dialogue with Apple, their main iPhone evangelist, and the Lead of the App Review Team had led to nothing. We decided to try one more time with Apple, this time writing to the highest management possible, Steve Jobs. Here’s our May 18th letter to Steve Jobs that we asked several high management people at Apple to make sure it got to him:

* May 18 letter to Steve Jobs

We ended up getting a reply from Senior VP Phil Schiller, who ironically is going to be giving the keynote speech at June 8, 2009 WWDC where Apple could announce their own video camera app for the iPhone. Phil Schiller’s email and following correspondence ended up to be another big disappointment. Apple never took us seriously and refused to dialogue with us on the issues we brought up.

* May 18-27 correspondence with VP Phil Schiller

After two months of being unable to dialogue with Apple, we learned that perhaps we were just too insignificant in Apple’s eyes. Even though we had published hundreds of iPhone apps in the App Store, we were just one developer with a complaint in Apple’s eyes. We decided to draft a petition letter to end the unfair practice of rejecting custom camera view apps by Apple.

* Petition Letter from Photo App Developers

And finally, we’ve decided to share our story publicly. Maybe Apple will change if enough people let them know they don’t agree with how they’ve handled this situation. We can no longer do it by ourselves, we need your help.

* Please email Apple to let them know you’re unhappy about their actions ( and

In closing, this saga has seeded many doubts about the partnership that Apple has with developers like us.

1. Our company has been damaged and devastated.

We’ve spent the majority of our resources on iVidCam, only to see it unjustly rejected and Apple closed to dialogue. It’s frustrating especially since we were big fans of Apple and our company of 6 iphone developers has been committed to developing iPhone apps and working with Apple. We were counting on iVidCam sales. Now our company is struggling to break even and we’re at the unenviable place of deciding whether continuing to develop for the iPhone is sustainable or not.

2. It doesn’t feel good to be disrespected, neglected, and misled as a developer.

It’s been a stressful process because we’ve tried our best to communicate and reach out to Apple, only to be ignored and not treated as a true dialogue partner. If Apple treats developers like this now, what is the future of Apple-and-developers relations? In our case, we feel like Apple misled us, changed the rules arbitrarily, and punished us for trying to be good iPhone developers that work within the system. Ironically, our company has been committed 100% to developing for the non-jailbroken iPhone, only to be punished by Apple. And if Apple comes out with their own video camera app on June 8, 2009 at WWDC, it will be a sad day for us and also thousands of developers. The App Store is not a good system when the people in charge can do whatever they want with no accountability, even at the loss and damage of other parties.

3. What’s a published API?

One of the key issues in our story is what constitutes a “published API”? We’ve stated this over and over to Apple, but we believe that one of the strongest publishing mechanisms they have is the front page of the App Store. Apple appears to meticulously choose which apps to feature. The featured apps encourage users to buy them and developers to develop them. In this case, Apple featured 25shot in February and QuadCam in May, along with approving dozens of custom camera view apps in between. These featured apps appeared to millions of iPhone users on their desktop and also on their iPhones (AppStore). If these apps were using an “unpublished API”, then why were they featured multiple times on the front page of the App Store? And why were dozens of these apps approved? If Apple was wrong in featuring these apps, then they misled developers like us to spend tons of capital and resources in development. Regardless, by featuring these apps, Apple clearly implicitly published the use of these APIs to millions of users and developers. And by continuously featuring these apps, Apple strengthened their published position of the custom camera api usage.

Please share this story with your readers.

David and Susan Lee
GP Apps

Apple Has No Right to Break Your Unlocked iPhone (See Proof)

Owners of unlocked iPhones are rightfully nervous after Apple said yesterday that it “has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs … will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed.”

Worse, if your unlocked iPhone breaks, Apple will not fix it under the warranty, which they say becomes void if you tamper with the iPhone software.

Panic over having your unlocked iPhone damaged by an Apple software update may or may not be justified. One user on an Apple Discussions thread thinks “Apple is going to make it sound a lot worse than it actually is since they are the ones who don’t want you to do it in the first place,” referring to the software unlock that lets you use your iPhone on cell phone networks other than AT&T.

I’m writing today to prove that Apple has no legal right to break your unlocked iPhone, according to U.S. Copyright law. There’s a lot of hard-to-understand technical jargon on the U.S. Copyright Office website, but bear with me and I’ll translate to English:

Read more

Apple iPhone Bluetooth Headset Review

Update: Apple has discontinued this headset.

I purchased the Apple iPhone Bluetooth headset three days ago for a thorough unboxing and review of the $129 iPhone accessory. The headset came neatly stuffed with a dock and travel cable in a simple black box the shape and size of iPhone’s.

See photos of the box and its contents in my iPhone Bluetooth headset unboxing after the jump. Or if you prefer, skip straight to my iPhone Bluetooth headset review.

Read more