Apple Bans iFixit Repair App From App Store After Apple TV Teardown 366
alphadogg writes: iFixit, the fix-it-yourself advocate for users of Apple, Google and other gear, has had its repair manual app banned from Apple's App Store after it conducted an unauthorized teardown of Apple TV and Siri remote. iFixit blogged "we're a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNA -- and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway." iFixit does still have Windows and Android apps, and has no immediate plans to rewrite its Apple app to attempt being reinstated.
Break The NDA (Score:3, Insightful)
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:4, Insightful)
But was the NDA valid?
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you buy the new Apple TV yet? I'm sure if iFixIt had waited until they could purchase one instead of using a preview unit, they wouldn't have gotten as much flack as they did. They threw caution to the wind and it boomeranged back in their face.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
I see your point but at the same time, what was APPL thinking giving a developer unit to iFixit, a website whose sole purpose is to take apart things?
Apple was daring iFixit to break the NDA. Sort of like giving a two year old a marshmallow, telling him not to eat it, and then leaving the room. Who is at fault, the two year old or the person giving the marshmallow?
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Interesting)
I am thinking that Apple was thinking that iFixit would do a teardown of the AppleTV and keeps it under NDA, until the AppleTV units are available.
Giving iFixit some time to prepare before putting the photos and repair guides on their website and app.
I think Apple doesn't mind iFixit, Apple probably supplies most of the spare parts to iFixit.
I think Apple does mind that iFixit breaks the NDA, and I am not sure but the App was probably rejected because the contents contained information that was under NDA.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Informative)
What happened was that iFixit broke the NDA by posting the pics before the device was released. Apple then cancelled their developer account, which as they also used that developer account for their App, had the knock-on effect of pulling their app from the App Store
http://ifixit.org/blog/7401/if... [ifixit.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point but at the same time, what was APPL thinking giving a developer unit to iFixit, a website whose sole purpose is to take apart things?
I'm just spit-balling here but maybe Apple thought that iFixit would be working on an app for the new AppleTV SDK instead of taking apart the unit which they were told they could not do.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably so they can study it, do their teardown, prepare their materials etc, and then wait until the product is released before publishing their results.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Interesting)
But if you give a 30 year old a marshmallow, and tell him not to eat it, then leave the room and he eats it, then it's his fault.
Grownups are supposed to know better.
Kyle Wiens. Must Apple investigate every developer (Score:2)
It seems likely that the developer account would be registered in the developer's name (perhaps Kyle Wiens), or perhaps in the company name, which is probably something like IFI LLC. It probably wasn't registered using the domain name of the web site.
So even assuming someone at Apple looks at all new developer accounts, how are they to know that Kyle Wiens is associated with ifixit.com? Should Apple launch an investigation of everyone who wants a developer account?
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, people shouldn't be getting angry at Apple for revoking their "developer" status. It's like if, after the two year old ate the marshmallow, Mom came in and said, "Ok, I'm not leaving you alone with any candy anymore."
If you can't blame the kid for eating the marshmallow, then you can't blame Mom for refusing to trust the kid with more marshmallows.
Re: (Score:3)
They got the developer model through the developer program. Violating the terms of the developer program can get your status as a developer revoked.
What, you want them to create special tiers within their developer program, determining who has access to which resources based on who has broken which rules? I think that's a bit much to ask.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, he's arguing that if you mail your house keys to a serial burglar, you're asking to get robbed.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
It was pretty foolish of them to publish a teardown of a pre-release developer unit. They could have taken it apart, published something on the repairability of it, etc., and left the teardown until the product was available for sale. Apple only really cares that the information was leaked and people got a look at it that wasn't the look they wanted to be first.
All iFixit has done here is made sure they won't receive any developer units from Apple in the future.
Re:Break The NDA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be like buying a European diesel vehicle and then being surprised when you have to take it in for an "update" that destroys your mileage, performance, or some mixture of both.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Twain [lhup.edu], "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
I know Slashdot has been around for a while. I didn't think Taco was that old.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not conjecture, Jackass. RTFA. iFixit admitted it:
"The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they didnâ(TM)t intend for us to take it apart. But weâ(TM)re a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNAâ"and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway."
It is speculation (Score:2)
So yeah, whole arguments develop over conjecture.
The only thing for sure is that iFixit knew that Apple might not like it. They knew Apple might take action, and they were OK with that.
Puts Apple in a bad position for coming down hard on people for doing exactly what they usually do.
Re: (Score:3)
If there was no NDA agreement signed, then the legal team couldn't do much.
They signed a Developer Agreement, and an additional Agreement when they got the Pre-Release AppleTV.
While I have not seen the Agreement that came along with the AppleTV Pre-Release "Kit", Apple's Developer Terms & Conditions [apple.com] clearly prohibit the release or discussion of Trade Secrets when it comes to "Pre-Release Materials", which clearly the AppleTV is.
Re:Nice speculation. (Score:5, Informative)
"The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they didn’t intend for us to take it apart. But we’re a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNA—and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway."
iFixit knew that Apple would not be happy with them disassembling it but did it anyway.
Plausible speculation, Nevertheless, speculation (Score:2, Troll)
Did you read the article? iFixit admits this:
Just where exactly in the quoted text does the phrase "NDA" occur?
Oh-- it doesn't.
iFixit knew that Apple would not be happy with them disassembling it but did it anyway.
"not happy" is not a synonym for "signed a NDA."
Reasonable speculation. Plausible. Fits the known facts. Very likely it's even correct.
Still: this is a speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we look at your rampant speculation?
Re: (Score:2)
You are speculating that Apple gave the unit to ifixit in the first place
Did you RTFA or the thread? iFixit admits that the AppleTV was a developer unit.
The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple.
Seems more likely ifixit got it from a friend and that friend would be the one that violated the NDA.
It is also a fact that the new AppleTV is not on sale yet. So where would iFixit get an Apple product that is not for sale yet? You say "a friend?" Because Apple just hands out units to people. Again iFixit admitted they got it from Apple. Thus, it is considered a fact.
You ask what risk there might be besides NDA violation? Well, Apple has given you answer already - banishment from the walled garden.
Er, what? Let's frame your argument to see if it makes sense. iFixit is worried about the risks of disassembling and posting pictures of an AppleTV. In th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What NDA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, I am speaking from ignorance about the specifics, but aren't the products in question, on the market?
No, they are not. At the moment you can only buy one if you are a registered developer and are willing to sign an NDA.
Re:What NDA? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they are not. At the moment you can only buy one if you are a registered developer and are willing to sign an NDA.
Not even that. They held a lottery for registered developers and gave the winning developers a developer kit. As a registered developer who was not selected for the lottery, I cannot even buy an early-access unit.
iFixIt signed up for that lottery and was picked to receive a developer kit. I remember when I signed up for the same kit, I did a very cursory skimming of the NDA and it was pretty explicitly stated that I wasn't allowed to publicly publish pictures or even publicly discuss the unit/software.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the new model will be officially released later this month. iFixit tore down one of these. [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The part you're getting tripped up on is that while the unit in question is being called "Apple TV" (and will still be called that when it's released later this month) and the units you can currently buy in stores are also called "Apple TV", the two devices are fundamentally different.
Specifically, the thing you can go buy today in stores for $69 is a third generation Apple TV (usually referre
Fools Tread. (Score:2)
While I like iFixIt they purposefully broke the terms of the agreement and got their just punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we know that or does it even matter in this case? Apple can remove apps from it's site for any reason it wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Would any other company be gracious about someone flamboyantly violating their NDA?
Re: (Score:2)
These were developer units given to developers under the terms of a very explicit NDA.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to bend over to fascist corporate rules is a holy endeavour. YOU'RE A FUCeeKINV SHEEP
So, you think Apple is alone in having people sign NDAs when they get Pre-Release materials?
How do you think all those equipment and software Reviews get published on the very DAY that a new tech Product is RELEASED?
In the Publishing world, they are called "Embargoed" stories. Same thing.
It's not corporate fascism. It is a compromise that works to both party's benefit. And to the Public's too. Or would you rather wait for a month or two before the first Review for a Product you were interested in was
Unauthorized teardown (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that this phrase even exists is a testament to how fucked up things have gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unauthorized teardown (Score:2)
No?
Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.
If iFixit waited till they could buy their own in store, then tore that down, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.
Even better, if I lent you my trade secret patented lawn mover v. 3.0 (TM) then you know better than to tell the world how I designed and built it, Jackass.
NDA applies, because I don't want to give my knockoff copycats a head start to market.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.
If iFixit waited till they could buy their own in store, then tore that down, then there wouldn't be a problem.
If you send a free lawnmover to a lawnmover pulling apart company, I would assume you intended for them to pull it apart, since that is the only thing they do with lawnmovers.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since Steve & Steve got their start building and selling blue boxes to bypass telco billing. "Think Different" applies only to them not to anyone who follows them.
They get to push the margins, nobody else can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score:5, Informative)
No, Apple LENT them one. Review units are not gifts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such terms are never negotiated, never discussed, and rarely even read.
They do not represent a legal meeting of the minds. They are invalid as contracts. Apple's NDA is no more than the NDA for a video game beta - it's a click through page. There's a reason Apple isn't suing over this (they'd lose, with major consequences to click wrap bullshit).
No, I have one, and I think I own it. (Score:2)
Of course iFixit's position appears legally indefensible, however for people who actually believe Jobs' famous "misfits/rebels" speech and are admirers of the illustrious Woz from days of yore, i
Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree with the above statement (and some of your others), they didn't buy the devices. It was a developer preview provided to them under NDA. I think iFixit is clearly in the wrong here.
From the article:
The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they didn’t intend for us to take it apart. But we’re a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNA—and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the above statement (and some of your others), they didn't buy the devices. It was a developer preview provided to them under NDA. I think iFixit is clearly in the wrong here.
You're expecting them to RTFA? I'd say "You must be new here", but your UID is lower than mine. In this particular case, I agree with you completely. iFixIt broke an agreement. I'd agree with the other posters completely if iFixIt had bought the unit. Seems to me like a fairly black & white case. And yes, I know the AppleTV's case is only black.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. If you buy an object, you have every right to take it apart.
This situation is complicated by the fact that it's a pre-release unit provided to developers who signed NDAs.
Re: (Score:2)
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Apple sent a chunk of hardware to a company whos mandate is dismantling chunks of hardware. That's a bit like giving an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey and asking them to only evaluate the packaging...
Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone is getting this wrong - the issue is not that they tore it apart but that they did an article on it before the NDA was up. If they did an article on the still-assembled unit they would be in violation of the NDA as well. They were not giving these things away to be reviewed, they were giving them to people to write apps for them.
Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.
Don't forget that copyright law should be ignored (ie., music, movies, etc.) unless it is to enforce GPL
Re: (Score:2)
The NDA in this case is basically an agreement which forces someone to not share information about their work. In that context, it's fairly understandable that Slashdot might not be keen on it.
And since the reasoning behind this NDA is basically to support a marketing agenda (i.e. that all information about the product be released on an arbitrary window)... yeah, Apple's not going to get a lot of sympathy
Re: (Score:3)
The NDA in this case is basically an agreement which forces someone to not share information about their work. In that context, it's fairly understandable that Slashdot might not be keen on it.
I hope you are not a lawyer. This is a term in law called consideration [law.com]. In exchange for a product that the public cannot buy right now, Apple has imposed conditions on transfer of the product. If you accept the product, you accept the terms. If you do not like the terms, you don't have to accept the product.
In the GPL, if you make modifications and distribute code, you must release the source code of your modifications. If you don't like those terms, then you should not modify and distribute. You can do
Yawn. (Score:2)
First off, you're an idiot.
Both Google and Microsoft also send out pre-release versions of hardware which are restricted use under NDA. iFixit can do whatever they want when they buy an Apple TV from a store.
Grow up. Nobody cares if you think Apple users are stooges. Apple users don't think about you at all.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't but the unit, Apple gave it to them. It is not for sale yet. When iFixit entered the lottery to get a unit, they agreed to a very explicit NDA. Apple is clearly in the right here. It is bizarre that there a some people so damn lazy they can't read the summary and understand what it is they are responding to.
Re: (Score:2)
And what did Apple think that they were going to do with it? Not tear it apart?
iFixit blog link (Score:5, Informative)
bad link to the iFixit blog link
here's the correct one
http://ifixit.org/blog/7401/if... [ifixit.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they took it apart and couldn't put it together correctly.
That's the downside of the iEcosystem (Score:2)
One of the reasons people buy iDevices (and Macs to a certain extent) is the fact that everything is provided in a neat little package that just works. The downsides are that you don't get to question how it works, and therefore Apple can just yank your app (and therefore your direct or ad revenue) if they decide they don't like you. Ironically, this is also a strength for the platform - they control the hardware and software. Android's wild west app store is a lot more chaotic, as is their hardware outside
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. iFixit buys things and takes them apart all the time and Apple has never complained. In this case, Apple gave the a unit after they agreed to an NDA and iFixit violated the NDA. Why is this so hard to grasp.
Think Different (Score:5, Funny)
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
Oh, unless they do things that we don't like. Then we ban them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, unless they do things that we don't like. Then we ban them.
Did you RTFA to see that the AppleTV they took apart was one that Apple lent them? That as a preview developer unit, many companies like Apple have explicit terms and conditions for their equipment such not disassembling and posting it all over the internet products that they don't sell yet as it gives their competitors an advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot, and there is a fine tradition of NEVER reading the article first.
The walls of the Walled Garden get a little higher (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe follow adult type, agreed upon rules. It's a walled garden, not a playground.
Development kit (Score:2)
New Developer acct (Score:2)
"and the offending developer account had been banned."
So make a new developer account and resubmit the same app to the store? Why would they need to rewrite it?
Clarifications: (Score:5, Informative)
Right after the Apple TV 4 (ATV4) was officially announced, Apple put a form on their Developer's site to give some of them away to developers. These are pre-release units, and the packaging on them even says "Developer's Edition" or something on it. There was a (since pulled) eBay auction [9to5mac.com] showing the packaging.
Part of the agreement in getting this unit was an NDA which stipulated, amongst other things, that you can't take it apart.
iFixit got an ATV4 as part of the giveaway and decided to violate the NDA and get an exclusive article in the process. Since the developer program was what they used to get the ATV4, the developer program is what they were kicked out of. As a result their iOS app got yanked as well.
Several people have noted that their iOS app hadn't been updated in years (may still have been on the 3.5" screen) and so the app itself isn't much of a loss. The summary says something about being "rewritten" but that doesn't make any sense - if iFixit were to get another developer account they could just put the same app up again from the same source code. The content of the app is not what was offensive to Apple, it was the NDA violation. It may need to be upgraded for modern phones (i.e., be adaptive to the iPhone 6/6+ screen sizes) but it doesn't need to be rewritten in order to adhere to Apple's policies.
iFixit entered into an agreement with Apple that had consequences. It violated that agreement and so it's suffering the consequences. Which it knew would happen and it didn't care about. And since it's an old app that's being pulled it's not much of a loss to them, not compared to the exclusive early article and coverage this stunt's consequences has given them.
But to clarify for everyone, this wasn't a review unit, it wasn't on loan, it was a unit Apple gave them and other developers in order to develop for it early before the actual thing is released. And really, a number of developers didn't get these units and so to some extent the idea that iFixit got one not intending to write an app for it but instead just want to tear it down for page clicks and ad impressions is sort of offensive. If they had waited for the thing to be in stores and bought one retail and then tore it apart they would be in the clear.
Inappropriate Removal from the App store (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't arbitrary at all. The recourse under the NDA was removal from the program. That is what Apple did.
developer unit (Score:2)
What the headline isn't telling you is that what they tore down wasn't a retail unit, it was a developer unit. And Apple didn't specifically pull the iFixit app, they canceled the developer account for violations of the developer agreement.
I don't like Apple or their secretiveness, but in this case, it seems to me they are in the right: if you get a developer unit under a special development agreement, you should abide by your agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I expect that after the retail units hit the shelves and then after some additional "penalty box" time their app will re-emerge.
They kicked a dog and got bit as a result. Hard to see how Apple did anything wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a very cold day in HELL before I buy any of your crap products.
OMG! Apple is scared now!
Re:Unauthorized Teardown (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing stops you from opening a uint you purchased.
This unit wasn't purchased, it was a review unit that Apple lent to them. Meaning they dismantled someone else's physical object. And that's never OK without permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did iFixIt buy this device? It was a pre-release developers kit issued by Apple by application only, iFixIt didn't buy it and typically these units still belong to the issuing entity.
Re: (Score:2)
When they give it to you after you agree to a contract saying what you will and won't do? How hard is this and how fucking lazy are all you people incapable of reading 1 damn paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
...again with the corporate boot licking.
Only corporations can have rights. People don't have rights. They only are allowed to do what our corporate masters tell us we can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea they agreed not to to get the a sample unit as a preview.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an odd bird. He is not corporate boot licking. He is pointing out facts you are too lazy to scroll up and read up for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that they tore the thing apart, it's that they published said teardown [ifixit.com] on their web site.
In exchange for pre-release hardware you have to sit on any reviews, teardowns, unboxing videos or other public commentary until the release date. That's just how it works.
iFixit admits they violated their agreement with Apple. Apple didn't sue them or anything particularly nasty, they simply disabled their developer account which unfortunately was also the account iFixit used for their app.
Now iFixit will pro
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was iFixit signed an NDA to receive said unit. That NDA specified that not only could the unit NOT be taken apart, the unit was not to be publicly discussed.
So iFixit could very well take apart their unit. But then they violated the second part of their NDA by publishing the teardown on their website.
The legal concept is "breach of contract". The fact that Apple de
Re: (Score:2)
It was not iFixit's property so you wrote a lot of words that are irrelevant. Might have saved some time by reading...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well when ESR develops his own hardware, you'll have complete freedom to do whatever you like with it. He won't though, because he, is one of the Free Software flock that rely on the cathedrals (such as Apple) to produce hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with you people? Do you not even causally glance at the summary? This has nothing to do with monopoly, Steve Jobs, Republicans or Global Warming. It's not even Bush's fault.
It's just contract law. iFixit signed a valid, legal document. iFixit broke the terms agreed to on the document. Apple 'punishes' iFixit for doing same - in a fairly benign fashion. Apple could certainly afford to take iFixit to court and bury them in legal cowpies for the next millennium, but they didn't.
Jeez guys.
Re: (Score:2)
What is it that you think Apple has done here? They sent a free developer unit to a company. The company agreed to an NDA as a condition of receiving the unit. The company disassembled the free unit and posted pictures of it on the Internet. Apple enforced the contract the company agreed to.
What part of that is gold for an anti-trust case?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they didn't actually buy the unit so your argument makes little sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You of course are correct. Unfortunately for iFixit and you, they did not buy a unit.