Entrepreneur Wins $625 Million Payout From Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/10/entrepreneur-wins-625-million-verdict-against-Apple.html <comment><USER2> Interestingly, he was a victim of the Unabomber.

From Wikipedia:

 _In 1993, Gelernter was critically injured opening a mailbomb sent by Theodore Kaczynski, who at that time was an unidentified but violent opponent of technology, dubbed by the press as "the Unabomber".[2] He recovered from his injuries but his right hand and eye were permanently damaged. He chronicled the ordeal in his 1997 book Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber._

<comment><USER3> He has also made some significant contributions to computer science — linda/tuple spaces in particular have been extremely influential in distributed computing. Not to mention his sci-fi works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Mirror Worlds patents that are probably the issue here:

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XJ4SAAAAEBAJ>

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=pcASAAAAEBAJ>

Personally, I find it outrageous for an academic to demand credit for "inventing" displaying files side by side, searching files by content, and archiving files by time. The Sumerians probably already did this.

<comment><USER5> Pretty much all software patents boil down to "method of organizing information".

<comment><USER6> I'll just file a patent on a business method profiting from patents on methods of organizing information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am glad the mobile world is blowing up in global thermo nuclear patent war. I hope that it will be so bloody that it leaves a bad taste in everyone mouth for a long time in regards to software patents. I am happy to see a little guy win who was actually trying to push software based on his patent rather than a patent troll or Apple but I would have rather he had not had a case due to software not being patentable. I think the mobile space highlights the damage that software patents do.

<comment><USER8> Apple might have lost this time. But the only winners are the big companies when it comes to patents. MS and others have a huge portfolios that crushes everyone who does anything like what they have a patent for. Why are you glad? Do you think patent laws will be overturned by this in the future? They're all just going to continue playing the same game.

<comment><USER7> _Why are you glad?_

No one can win at the game they are playing, it was always mutually assured destruction, when it came to the big players suing the big players. Apple made a move on HTC thinking that they where not a big enough fish to start a meltdown. Their analysis was wrong, it did. Now with the big fish not focusing on their core competency it gives others an opportunity in the market. The mobile patent wars has grown to big for any of them to control, now the only way they will be able to draw it to an end will be to lobby for patent reform. There is no doubt in my mind that these wars are close to boiling over into the desktop market. Until someone mistepped and started the unwinable war, it was a game stack against the little guy and a tool used exclusively on them. Now the weapon has been turned on the wielders, which was the logical first step that had to happen before any weight would be put behind reform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The verdict would suggest, and it's a common misunderstanding to think that, the person who comes up with the idea first is more important for innovation than the person who executes it. This is encouraging talkers and discouraging doers.

Yes Gelernter may be the first person that came up with the "mirror world" idea (not to mention he has already made money from the books he sold), but instead of suing Apple for money, he should have praise Apple for making his vision a reality.

<comment><USER10> If the world worked this way no one would innovate because the bigger players would start their copy machines every time someone with courage and a few great ideas sought to change the world.

If someone has a plan to rid us of the patent system and protect innovation I have yet to hear it...

<comment><USER11> This is a common claim but easily debunked.

We know that patent protection is not necessary for innovation. Patents are relatively new invention (1623 in UK per Wikipedia). And yet there were so many things invented before that, of much more fundamental nature than any software patent.

Second argument is an economic thought experiment. Let's say there is no word processing software yet and there's a million dollars to be made in word processing software. If we go by your "no innovation without monopoly" rule, no one will invent word processing out of fear that someone else will take part of the possible profits.

That's complete bollocks. If there's money in it, people will do it. Patents are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and lack of competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and less possibility to build on stuff that has been done before. This case shows this well: the guy's idea might be swell, but do we really expect everyone to either not to anything similar in the future or pay him $625 million for the privilege? Does anyone really claims that given billions of educated people on the planet no one would come up with this idea independently even if this one guy kept it to himself?

<comment><USER12> _If there's money in it, people will do it._

Hence, by allowing inventors to secure a temporary patent monopoly, you greatly magnify the profit potential, encouraging risk and speculation that might not otherwise be worth the time and capital.

 _Patents are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and lack of competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and less possibility to build on stuff that has been done before._

Nonsense. You're talking about turning everything into a commodity, which by definition means everything trends towards being the same. Sure, it drives prices down, but it makes improving the product a sucker's game.

Suppose your company can make 10,000 widgets a month. My company can make 7,500 widgets a month, but they're twice as good as your widgets because we invested more in widget R&D, and we are able to ask a higher price for them. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to patent my improved widget, and you're smart enough to realize that my widgets are better, so you copy them. Now you're making the same widgets I am, but more of them. Damn, looks like investing in R&D was dumb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's getting to be so many patents that it might be harder to determine if original software you've written is patented than actually developing it.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am interested to see when a broader coalition against the existing patent system is forming. or even _if_ ...

 _The world of patents has become perverted in recent years: patents are seen as valuable things in themselves – the more the merrier – irrespective of whether they do, truly, promote innovation. Worse: in the world of software, they are actually brakes on that innovation, particularly as they begin to interact and form impenetrable patent thickets._

[http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Is-Microsoft- running-o...](http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Is-Microsoft-running-out- of-steam-1102654.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Prior art: Zoomracks. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomracks>

</comment><comment><USER16> a really bad thing about current patents (enforcement) is that it redistributes significant resources - time&money - from possibly productive purposes in an engineering company to [both sides] lawyers' pockets. A "40% patent layers tax". A parasitic drag if to speak aerodynamically.

</comment><comment><USER17> Coverflow wasn't even developed in-house at Apple, they acquired it. According to wikipedia "Cover Flow was conceived by artist Andrew Coulter Enright[1] and originally implemented by an independent Macintosh developer, Jonathan del Strother. Enright later named the interaction style fliptych to distinguish it from the particular Cover Flow implementation.[2]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_Flow>

</comment><comment><USER18> I have mixed feelings about this.

I think Gerlernter is an important computer science visionary. There are still good ideas for today's interfaces in his 1993 book predating the web 'Mirror Worlds'.

But I also don't think he deserves $625 million for having patented some of his ideas/predictions about computer interfaces.

In his own writings, the tone is often prophetic: not "here's my nifty invention" but "this is the inevitable path we're on". Seeing what everyone else will see a few years early is a valuable skill; it's not so valuable it needs to be rewarded with a 20-year patent monopoly.

<comment><USER19> But he followed up by forming a company, developing, and shipping actual software based on these ideas. This doesn't look like mere patent trolling.

<comment><USER9> He may have tried, but his execution wasn't anywhere near Apple's. Instead of suing Apple for money, he should have praise Apple for making his vision a reality

<comment><USER7> You mean like Apple praised Google for Android? or Microsoft for Windows? I am sorry but Apple is one of the worst offenders when it comes to litigating copycats. I think we need to get rid of software patents all together but historically Apple has never praised copy cats of their original ideas why should this guy be any different? Because it is Apple?

<comment><USER20> Is Google's Android better than iOS? Is Microsoft's Windows better than Mac OS X? There are no obvious answers.

Now, compare some screenshots of Gelernter's Scopeware and Apple's CoverFlow. In this case it's obvious that Apple's implementation is a lot better, in its presentation as well as its ease of use.

There are dozens of cases where Apple took someone else's idea and improved on it, but I can't think of any good examples where the reverse happened.

<comment><USER7> I think you are missing the point, either copying ideas is right or wrong. The quality of the reproduction is irrelevant. The point is that Apple felt that copying their idea was wrong when Google and Microsoft did it, yet they did not feel that it was wrong when they did it to this guy, in fact every graphical OS from Lisa on was founded on Apple copying someones idea, there whole Mac and later IOS industry was founded when apple copied the Xerox Alto. It seems that Apples compass of right or wrong when it comes to copying depends on what side of the fence they are sitting on. Or are you saying that because Apple copies ideas better than others it is OK for them?

<comment><USER20> _"either copying ideas is right or wrong"_

I am perfectly aware of the point you're trying to make. However, that was not what the grandparent, Tyng, was talking about. He suggested that, because Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, Gelernter should've just be grateful that Apple threw its R&D prowerss at it, making it what it is now. You then replied comparing the situation to Microsoft and Google copying Apple's work, which isn't exactly the same thing.

<comment><USER7> Yes it is, why should this guy be grateful, I don't understand why this guy should be grateful. I don't understand what is not clear about that. Apple was not grateful so why should this guy be grateful. I want to know why is their an acceptable double standard?

In my personal opinion he should not be anything, Apple should be free to implement anything on their system they want (as well as everyone else) but those are not the rules of engagement. So I want to know, under the current rules of engagement, why is it flattery when the little guy gets copied, but acceptable for the big guys to enforce that they can't be copied.

This kind of mentality reinforces the little guy getting victimized and I want to understand how someone comes to such a flawed conclusion. Whether right or wrong the big guys are using patents as a tool in their arsenal, so if those are the ground rules set out by the bigger players then why should a smaller player be flattered and give up advantage to a big company that has been known to use the same tools against others? If the shoe was on the other foot Apple would not consider it flattery (especially if it was superior), they have proved that and that is my point.

<comment><USER20> _"I don't understand why this guy should be grateful."_

I wasn't asserting that he should, Tyng was. And I don't want to get into a debate on the validity of software patents, because I'm still undecided on the matter.

Tyng stated that Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, and I don't think anyone will disagree with that. You compared the situation to Google and Microsoft copying Apple's ideas. I'm saying that isn't a fair comparison, because there is no consensus on whether Android is significantly better than iOS and whether Windows is significantly better than Mac OS.

 _"Apple was not grateful [for the creation of Windows and Android] so why should this guy be grateful."_

I very much doubt that Apple saw the initial versions of Windows and Android as major improvements over their own OSes. Imitation can be the sincerest form of flattery, but doing it badly is simply insulting.

I think it's hard to tell what Apple would do if some company took Apple's ideas and made significant improvements to them, since I can't recall such an event ever happening. Well, maybe one: the Palm Pilot versus the Newton MessagePad. And I don't think Apple sued USRobotics over it.

<comment><USER7> _I'm saying that isn't a fair comparison_

I contend that it is, the suit was about software patents, not quality of reproduction, just like the cases before it. Bringing quality in is just a straw man argument and that is what I am trying to ferret out.

As for Palm, software patents did not exist until 95 in their current form, given that Palm was founded in 92. As well US Robotics existed well before that. There was no way to enforce a software patent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Excellent. When software patents start costing huge companies $625 million a pop, they'll be gone Real Soon.

<comment><USER22> Or monkey see, monkey do - the huge companies might instead redouble their efforts to get their own patents. Years ago Microsoft got nailed by Stac for infringement of a patent on disk compression techniques (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_laws...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)), which seems to have spurred Microsoft into applying for patents of its own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> David Gelernter is an interesting guy; I remember hearing him on NPR's OnPoint talking about his book Judaism: A Way of Being. Link if anyone's interested: <http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/12/david-gelernter>

</comment><comment><USER12> "Steven Jobs may be no inventor, but to his credit he recognized elegance when he saw it and understood its significance." -- David Gelernter, in his 1998 book _Machine Beauty_.

About ten pages after the above quote, Gelernter describes pretty much everything this suit was about in some detail, e.g. a use of the "time travel" metaphor very much like Time Machine's Finder interface, wherein the whole interface reverts to a previous state. Even if you don't agree with the verdict (or the damages, _yikes_ ) it's unthinkable after reexamining this book that folks at Apple didn't get some ideas from Gelernter's work, perhaps without even realizing it.

Incidentally, it is a great book that I highly recommend.

<comment><USER7> Sure they did, The iPhone was a eerily similar concept to a device patented in the late seventies or early eighties. I wish I could dig up the link, but man it looked like a wholesale copy of this patent. Multi-touch and everything. Someone at Apple is rifling through old patents for ideas.

<comment> b-man Not exactly patented, but the concepts behind tablets, smartphones, and the PC itself can be traced directly to -> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm curious to know how the technology is used after a patent suit like this. Do companies like Apple usually license the patented technology or do they remove the offending code?

I imagine there could be a lot more money involved if the appeals are shot down.

</comment><comment><USER25> Notice it says Apple is going to appeal. Of course, they'll drag this out a while, and will likely settle for a much lower number in the end.

</comment><comment><USER26> Gelernter isn't exactly what I think of when I read "entrepreneur". Technically, I suppose he is, but I just think of an entrepreneur as someone with more on the line.

It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig and their commitment to breakfast. He's the tenured chicken providing the idea eggs, not the pig providing the bacon and working to make a viable business.

</comment><comment><USER27> These images do a good job illustrating the similarties between coverflow and scopeware:

<http://www2.freedownloadscenter.com/ReviewImages/s1025.jpg>

[http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/10503519...](http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/1050351976600vgat436.jpg)

And a review of the original patents via Apple Insider 2008:

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/lawsuit_target...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/lawsuit_targets_time_based_sorting_in_apples_ipods_time_machine.html)

An interesting 5 year old Google answers thread about the fate of Scopeware ->

<http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/603242.html>

<comment><USER28> Wow, Longhorn is cited as putting them out of business. If only they could've seen the future...

<comment><USER29> You've just touched on why the 'release early, release often' mantra, in some cases, makes sense.

If he were in fact going to be beaten by Longhorn (who knows), it's likely that Apple would have gotten him anyway, but this proves that giving up on the rumor that Microsoft is swinging into your space is naive, pussy-footed thinking at its finest.

If, in fact, Longhorn WAS his only threat, he would have had what, 6 years in which to prosper, and possibly even dominate as a 'preferred' alternative to what Microsoft was offering.

He did just fine on his own, of course, so the conversation is moot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> More like failed entrepreneur who turned bitter. First blamed Microsoft, now Apple. Maybe he should blame himself.

<comment><USER11> His motivations are irrelevant.

The problem is with the patent system that allows getting monopoly for minor (however useful they might be) ideas and awards mind-boggling damages after long and costly trials.

Blaming actors in that system is not helpful because it changes focus from relevant (the patent system is broken) to irrelevant (motivations of people or companies that take advantage of the system).</comment></comment>


Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ <comment><USER2> > We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the > line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I'll > know it when I see it". And we think that you will also know it when you > cross it.

This line makes my blood boil. Futhermore, later they define disallowed sexual content as:

> 1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster's > Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or > activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional > feelings."

Do they not know from which ruling that quote comes from?

<comment><USER3> I can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this.

It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever we want anyway" image.

<comment><USER4> I'm really surprised. Did Apple shake up their PR or legal flacks? The language they've used recently (I'm thinking of the Epic stuff, too) feels different than their famously cool, considered tone; looser, more assertive, and much easier to argue with.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. They have always been this arrogant. You are just noticing it right now. Do you remember when they essentially said _don 't run to the press if we don't allow your app, it won't help you_, which I personally interpreted as _or else_? Or how almost every time someone criticizes Apple they sandwich a one-sentence criticism between 50 sentences of praise because they know the cost of not doing that could be their entire business? Since the launch of iPhone, Apple has been the 800lb gorilla in the room and has acted like it.

EDIT: From App Store Review Guidelines on September 2014:

> _" If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. > If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."_

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/)

<comment><USER6> Which is such a lie, because going to the press is exactly what gets a lot of apps re-evaluated and accepted.

<comment><USER7> Eh, it _can_ be a lie. This is some form of the quandary "if you owe the bank a million dollars, you're in trouble; if you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble."

99% of app devs will not benefit from "running to the press." Those that will will know it for certain.

<comment><USER6> I've seen apps get their decisions reversed simply due to a post becoming popular on HN or Reddit. You don't have to be a major player for public shaming to work against apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Relevant section:

3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in- app purchase.

This is huge news. Being able to use third-party payments methods to bypass Apple's 30% charge is essential for service driven marketplace apps. Classpass and AirBnB bumped into this issue [0], but, I wonder if this exception will apply for them?

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app- stor...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-store-airbnb- classpass.html)

Edit: In excitement, I missed the last sentence; group services aren't covered by the exception :(

<comment><USER9> > One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase.

WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?

<comment><USER10> _This is so arbitrary and petty_

It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

<comment><USER11> No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app purchases for concert tickets, Apple gets 30%

<comment><USER12> Aren't concert tickets "Goods and Services Outside of the App:"? Thinking about it more, aren't most person-to-person experiences outside the app?

<comment><USER13> Not if they are virtual concerts, which have exploded in popularity in 2020.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile:

[https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909...](https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/20200901190956/https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/)

What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section 3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services":

>You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

To me, this was the most draconian rule in the entire agreement since it governed how you could communicate with your customers _outside of your app_ (such as on your own website). IANAL, but this change seems to allow mentioning the 30% Apple cut to your users and nudging them towards alternatives.

<comment><USER15> It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.

<comment><USER14> Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).

<comment><USER16> Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of- band messages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed.

We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way.

We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are too small to have any influence.

<comment><USER18> >Platforms need to be regulated

No. God no.

Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR, Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.

<comment><USER19> We do need regulation that will protect developers and consumers from the huge monopolistic power of platform owners like Apple, Facebook, and Google. The regulation would be targeted specifically at those behemoths and not at small fry developers, since those don't have significant market power.

Today you don't need an army of legal people to deal with existing anticompetitive regulations if you're not a behemoth yourself. To argue that regulation designed to protect from monopolists will actually help those monopolists by its mere existence is ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.

<comment><USER21> Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that's okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."

<comment><USER22> "We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.

<comment><USER23> There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were plenty of website that calculated where the "share" button was in the browser app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.

<comment><USER22> There is no option to do so from any other browser other than Safari. And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow.

<comment><USER23> There is no "go to settings".

Click the share button, Scroll up, click "Add to home screen", click OK. The title is the title of the page.

<comment><USER22> And how do I do it from Chrome?

<comment><USER23> So now that you were factually proven to be incorrect you want to move the goal posts?

The initial post that we both responded to clearly stated Safari.

> We provide _Safari_ for a great web experience too, but don't implement any > standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, > _add to homescreen prompt_ , icons, launch screen, themes that would > actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they > should have said.

<comment><USER22> My initial argument was that Apple does not provide standard APIs - and they don't - so I don't see how there is any moving of goal posts. There is no way for a website to prompt a dialog to add itself to the home screen, despite it existing in the HTML spec and all other major browsers. In addition to that Apple forces other browsers to use its own web view, and doesn't expose the add to home screen functionality there either.

<comment><USER23> Whether that was your "initial argument" or not, your statement

> And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the > open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok > flow.

Was wrong.

Also, it's coming to iOS 14

[https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest](https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest)

<comment><USER24> You're talking past each other.

Look back at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692)

There are _two_ complaints in that comment.

You addressed one of those complaints, showing it to be wrong. You did not address the other complaint, and it was not "moving the goalpoats" to repeat it.

> Also, it's coming to iOS 14

Good.

<comment><USER23> Let's go with his initial complaints.

> push notifications,

Abused by spammers even on supposed reputable sites like PC Mag and Toms Hardware. I've made the mistake of clicking on Ok on my computer since every site now forces you to acknowledge that they use cookies. It's back to the toolbars of old level of annoyance. I would be okay if only websites that were added to your home screen could ask for permission.

> data persistent.

iOS has supported localStorage since 2007

> bluetooth, NFC

How many "web apps" are really being held back by either? And Apple and to a lesser extent Mozilla has said some of the standards are privacy invasive.

[https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting- priv...](https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-privacy/)

>add to homescreen prompt,

Already shown not to be true.

>icons

The icon when you add a web page to your home screen is the same that shows up in your browser bar.

> launch Screen

Is this really stopping you from creating a PWA because you want a launch screen?

But the larger question is if PWAs are so powerful, why aren't Android developers forgoing apps and just writing PWA's in droves?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It seems to me like Apple has created the appearance of a new exemption without actually changing anything.

All of the example transactions in the guidelines ("tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training"), are for real-world services performed by people. In-App Purchases have always been specifically and exclusively intended for digital content. The introduction for the IAP section explains: "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app […] you must use in-app purchase."

Apple Pay is the Apple-provided payment mechanism that has always been used for real world goods and services on the App Store, for which all of the above examples would qualify.

<comment><USER26> I think they're highlighting that they're specifically exempt when happening entirely within the app - e.g. if the app provided the service via video chat. Makes sense given a lot of those things are not currently happening in-person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores.

Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone experience.

But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it's holding a whole economy hostage.

<comment><USER28> > _a whole economy hostage._

iOS is not even near to the "whole economy" of mobile software.

Companies should just stop being based in the US.

With what's happening to TikTok and this ridiculous push for a Communist-style reappropriation of Apple's platform, it seems that the US may no longer be a safe place for businesses to become _too big_ in (except of course, the ancient titans of oil, guns, pharmaceuticals etc. that have been happily screwing the planet since forever..)

None of this indignation is really about protecting the people, is it, but rather about taking a slice of the billion user pie, which Apple has historically denied other companies ever since they refused to put AT&T bloatware on the first iPhone.

<comment><USER27> If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don't think that's good for the economy.

And I don't care if that company single-handedly invented roads - there should a limit to how far you can milk the society you operate in.

<comment><USER28> > _If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection_

Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only intersection/road/whatever analogy you want.

There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform.

Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the entire mobile industry, it is one phone among hundreds.

Will you move for a forced break up of their exclusive stores too if MS/Sony/Nintendo started allowing general-purpose apps on those consoles? (They already have YouTube, Netflix, etc.)

iPads on the other hand may be a different story, given how Apple likes to market them as general purpose computers, and the reason why they forked iOS into iPadOS I think.

<comment><USER29> This isn't about the iPhone, it's about iOS, which is one os out of two. And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones, while creating a market which can and will be regulated and being a publicly traded company and therefore subject to even more scrutiny and laws.

And people care a lot less about the consoles because they are a lot less important to the economy. This is like McDonalds complaining about paying fair wages and pointing to a two-location mom and pop shop and saying "but they do it too!". Classic whataboutism.

<comment><USER28> > _And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones_

Apple have a monopoly....on Apple products..?

<comment><USER29> The interactions between companies, no matter what the contract or tos states, are governed by law. Apple can't build anything or run any aspect of their business without the government saying ok.

And government has often ruled that anticompetitive behavior violates antitrust law.

From the Sherman Act: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

If Apple is restraining trade (which they obviously are according to any reasonable interpretation, whether or not a court has yet ruled on it), they are breaking the law. Obviously the courts have failed us before and they take ages to rule on anything regardless, but I suspect Apple will lose in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> They say:

> Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc > distribution available to Apple Developer Program members.

Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I've written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It's a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without having to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days?

<comment><USER31> Here you go: [https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c](https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c)

Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app needs to be re-signed and installed again.

You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over the air" (see [https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for- ios-1524](https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524) for an example).

<comment><USER30> Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free. They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home projects. What a pain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I am genuinely sad to write this:

Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants. They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they have lost their soul.

:(

</comment><comment><USER33> Here is a question I have not seen a satisfactory answer for. Why is having an App on iOS a must have? It seems like any discussion about the market fairness of Apples policies requires a shared understanding of how necessary the ecosystem actually is. If you can freely choose not to deploy to that ecosystem then you can vote with your "wallet" so to speak. If you can't freely choose however then there is an argument to be made regarding if they distort the market unfairly.

<comment><USER34> I own a small app and iOS's free organic app search results drive 98% of my user base right now. I could see it being much more challenging to build an app if you have to develop alternative marketing channels.

Personally, alternative marketing channels have yet to work for me.

<comment><USER33> Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS in the first place?

<comment><USER34> I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic from Apple.

I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any profitable non-store marketing channels.

<comment><USER35> iPhone users tend to buy "more" from store. Android users don't really care about apps.

It's not Apple or Google. It's users who are paying.

<comment><USER36> Checking multiple sources, Google Play store revenue was a bit over half the Apple App Store last year, so around the 8 billion mark for GPA and 14 billion for AAS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> In case it's useful to any - here's a diff of what Apple changed since the last update in March: [https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...](https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd70072dd1f/revisions)

</comment><comment><USER38> Seems like a lot of much overdue reform in here. In addition to the PtP Fixes, they also fix some of the more egregious issues we've seen this year which Hey and WordPress encountered.

Still a lot of room for improvement, but good to see they are moving in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER39> Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items they neither created nor sold? How magnanimous.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store, but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available.

* Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame.

This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable, then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple, at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the market decide.

<comment><USER41> For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap price-commission?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of > realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example > tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness > training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to > collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must > use in-app purchas

In Sweden, via-app medical consultancy gets a standard way for this services as a first - line support. Payment for this is fixed and goes to the registry, where after certain amount of payments, you're getting free consultancy (It's by the health care system). How they are going to handle that?

Too me this new guideline is like a wide net - most of top application will have to violate some rules there, but in case of miss subordination (like Epic) then having that rule is a simple case in court.

</comment><comment><USER43> Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?

<comment><USER44> don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's what it all boils down to..

<comment><USER45> You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to many for the longest time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.

<comment><USER38> From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.

<comment><USER47> Facebook joined in after Epic and talked about how it made their one on one feature for tutoring/guitar lessons/etc. infeasible. This seems targeted at allowing that, with the one to many restriction still asking for 30% of school tuitions if they have a remote classroom app and offer payments through the app, or refuse to offer in app purchases of tuition for a free app.

<comment><USER38> Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.

<comment><USER47> It was connected in that they were together in time:

> Facebook's complaints come a day after Epic Games Inc., the creator of > Fortnite, sued Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite from > their respective app stores over a payment dispute.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small- business/fa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small- business/facebook-says-apple-in-app-fees-hurt-businesses-during- covid/2020/08/14/2ce1cd80-de6f-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html)

Both were obviously also timed to go near the antitrust scrutiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App Store decades ago.

</comment><comment><USER48> Just as a data point, Wechat exists in the Chinese App store and has its own payment system. So people and businesses can buy and sell using Wechat in China on the iPhone while being in the Apple App store and avoiding the 30% Apple cut.

</comment><comment><USER49> > For example, apps should not encourage placing the device under a mattress > or pillow while charging

Is this rule referring to anything in particular? Was there an issue with a pillow-warming app that I missed out on hearing about?

</comment><comment><USER50> > _3.1.3(b): Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple > platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they > have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including > consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also > available as in-app purchases within the app._

This is worded so broadly, that it can perfectly be applied to browsers and email clients. User plays a browser or PBEM game that has subscriptions? _Ka- ching_

<comment><USER51> So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases, and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular price?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> so, in theory epic could add an option for a $5 coaching session, where a coach watches you play and coaches you over voice, and the student receives a skin upon completion.

Can a yoga instructor add personalized text to each individual stream to have 5 simultaneous 1-1 sessions?

etc.

this is so rife for double standards, in practice it basically boils down to "what we say goes"

</comment><comment><USER53> "Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases."

Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.

</comment><comment><USER54> Apple is really waiting to be toppled over. If only Microsoft could up their hardware game and start producing good computers.

</comment><comment><USER55> Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn't be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn't mind paying ~3%

<comment><USER56> I wouldn't mind paying $100 for an iPhone either. Unfortunately, you and I don't get to set the prices on the products we buy. And if you don't find the price reasonable, don't buy the product. Apple has no obligation to let you reach all of its customers just because they are successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is this new?

<comment><USER58> Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update. There's more juicy stuff in there besides this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps.

tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They've also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps that link to the individual App Store listings.

This is massive and strikes me as a great compromise solution. It separates the technical implementation (streaming) from the actual value proposition to users (the game itself). Essentially, each individual game needs be a separate app in the store and be reviewed individually.

I think the xCloud team at Microsoft is about to pull a few late nights to get this launched on iOS in the next few weeks.

<comment><USER60> I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games on Microsoft's developer page just to peruse through Microsoft's non-gaming apps to stumble upon something like Family Safety or Math Solver?

This sounds like a huge pain in the butt for users and kind of loses some of the value proposition of game streaming: trying games instantly, not needing to download anything, and not taking up a bunch of space for your whole library.

<comment><USER61> On a further note, what is preventing Stadia from running on Safari on iPadOS right now? I suppose it's making use of some non-standard Chrome only features?

<comment><USER60> I'm pretty sure it's using some Chromium-specific functionality, but I can't say what exactly since it's not publicly stated as far as I can tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There original stance was wrong on so many levels. With Covid, plenty of people are having to go virtual. Before this change and before Covid, you didn't have to pay to book a personal trainer in person. Then when they went virtual, Apple asked for a cut. This reverses their previous rule.</comment>


Why was .NET called .NET? - <AUTHOR> http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/05/why-was-net-called-net.html <comment><USER2> I worked at a company that was a sometime-partner of Microsoft in its efforts to get other languages running on the CLR.

You have to understand that Microsoft had spent most of the 90s being clueless about the internet. Then actively trying to kill it. But by 2001, their strategy was to embrace and extend internet protocols and technologies so they would be forever tied to Microsoft.

My impression was that .NET was a marketing term for a number of unrelated technologies that all served this overarching goal, that all came out roughly around 2001. They were saying to big corporations, that your choice wasn't Microsoft versus the internet, Microsoft WAS the internet. Only better.

C# and the CLR were there to counter Java and the JVM.

Their concept of Web Services was to make web technologies a mere transport layer for an RPC protocol called SOAP, which you would build with Microsoft IDEs.

Hailstorm and Passport were an attempt to make Microsoft the centralized broker for all sensitive information on the internet. Think Facebook Connect, only imagine it was more corporate and business focused, and knew your credit card number.

Anyway, Hailstorm/Passport and Web Services are dead, but The ".NET Framework" lives on in the CLR and C#, which were actually rather good even apart from Microsoft's strategizing.

<comment><USER3> It's funny that you should mention their cluelessness of the web at the start. I remember when .NET was first released, my first question was "wow, how do they ever expect me to find _that_ in a search engine?!?"

Search engines were a little dumber back then :)

<comment><USER4> "dot net"

<comment><USER3> ... is fine now. It wasn't at the time, for me at least. It truly was difficult for a lot of people to search for anything on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was Summer intern at Microsoft in 2001 and back then the interns went to Bill Gates's house for a bbq near the end of the Summer. One of the interns asked "what other names did you think of before coming up with .NET?"

To the best of my memory, Bill's answer was something like:

      I didn't actually like the name .NET.  It makes people
      wonder if we are finally just starting to learn about the
      Internet.  Sadly, the other proposed name was even worse.
      Our mission statement at the time was 'work Anywhere,
      Anytime, on Any device,' so the proposal was AAAWare.

<comment><USER6> i worked on .net before it was .net. we didn't have a name for the runtime, we (a very large we) just forked the J++ compiler and started hacking, calling the J++ language "COOL", for Common Object Oriented Language. For a long time the runtime was only usable by building executable files with the "jvc" compiler but compiled C#. We started a VB fork that compiled to the "clr". Yet still no name. At the end of the day it was purely a marketing decision.

<comment><USER7> Curious, was the CLR also built off of the Microsoft JVM? And is any of the original code for either still rattling around inside modern .NET?

<comment><USER6> totally separate people who had never worked on the jvm for legal reasons

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "The question was deemed to be offtopic for StackOverflow,"

I've stopped using stackoverflow as a contributor, the moderators are really overzealous. Legit questions are killed way too easily, without any real recourse to explain or rephrase. Meta doesn't help because the same people are moderating both, and quickly end discussion there too.

It's really sad because the platform is great.

<comment><USER9> I have no problem with SO mods closing topics (the quality of new posts has really gone down as SO gains popularity), but I do have a _huge_ problem with them permanently deleting closed topics after some time.

Some of the most popular posts on SO with thousands of hits a day linked to from all over the web have been permanently removed _with no official archived location_. They're throwing away years and years of community posts and comments, with some very valuable info and data in there. It's really sad.

<comment><USER10> The biggest thing I loath about SO is when they close threads because the question has been asked before and then link to a thread that nobody has replied to 3+ years.

SO is becoming less and less useful as time goes on because they actually stop questions that need to be re-answered from being re-answered.

<comment><USER11> We could call this phenomenon the Wikipedia effect.

<comment><USER12> Actually, that's a reverse problem to Wikipedia. Wikipedia article quality increases hugely, then as people fiddle with the article the quality rapidly decreases. Then it increases again... _ad infinitum_. Sort of like a sine wave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think at one point .Net was going to be the next major brand for all MS products. At one point MSN Messenger was called ".Net Messenger" before it was renamed to Windows Live.

I imagine the branding didn't work for consumer products because nobody had any idea what it meant. Hell , I had no idea what it meant. I remember trying to figure out what .Net was because I had heard so much about it , but all I could get from MS' website was jargon and buzzwords about "enterprise web services".

It wasn't until I started writing C# code that integrated so seemlessly with old VB code and started being able to do things easily (like sockets , databases and GUIs) that I would previously have had to dig through obscure C++ APIs for that I "got it".

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm imagining a bunch of suits getting together deciding "Time to start working on the next generation of COM... COM2!".

And then the first developer gets ready to write some code, and goes "Explorer->Right click->New folder->COM2".

After a few attempts and some head scratching:

"Uhh.. I think we need another name"

<comment><USER12> That's interesting. But try creating a folder called .NET in Windows explorer... :-) Hint - you can't!

<comment><USER15> Sure you can.

Create a folder.

Rename it to ".Net.". The dot at the end of the folder name is important.

<comment><USER12> Interesting. But they didn't call it dot-net-dot :-)

<comment><USER16> Explorer silently strips the trailing dot and is tricked into doing the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Waaayback link to the deleted Stack Overflow Q&A referenced in the article. 2010/08

[http://web.archive.org/web/20100812155534/http://stackoverfl...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100812155534/http://stackoverflow.com/questions/628145/why- was-net-called-net)

</comment><comment><USER18> The new name ".NET" for NGWS was unveiled June 22, 2000. (Source: <http://heise.de/-26825> \-- in German)

In the months leading up to the announcement, Microsoft had registered a truck load of domains including: dot-in-the-dot.com, dot-in-the-dot-com.org, dot-in- the-dot-com.net, dot-in-the-dot-com.com, dot-in-the-dot.net, dot-in-the- dot.org, dot-truth.org und dot-truth.net. (Source: <http://heise.de/-27004> \-- in German)

So clearly the name .NET was a play on Sun's "we're the dot in .com" stategy. They noticed Sun's success with Java and the JVM in enterprise software development and started their Xeroxes as usual.

By the way -- Loved Sun's ad campaign back then: <http://www.bevinceengel.com/SUN-MICROSYSTEMS-THE-DOT>

</comment><comment><USER19> "Microsoft .NET, Microsoft's XML-based Web services platform, comprises four major pillars: 1) the .NET Framework and the Visual Studio® .NET suite of developer tools; 2) the .NET Enterprise Servers, which provide a robust infrastructure for Web services; 3) .NET devices and experiences; and 4) .NET services."

From a 2001 press release announcing "Hailstorm".

[http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/news/press/2001/Mar01/03-19Ha...](http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/news/press/2001/Mar01/03-19HailstormPR.aspx)

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting link - had to laugh at this bit ...

> "HailStorm" -based solutions allow users to manage and protect their > personal information, as opposed to today's world in which it is scattered > across the technology landscape, with no ability to control the privacy of > their information.

If anything, things are worse now than they were back then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I keep a list of my favorite (vaguely) CS-related quotes. At some point I stumbled upon this: "I think Microsoft named .NET so it wouldn't show up in a Unix directory listing."

(It was attributed to "Oktal", and I believe it was from the StackOverflow page linked by the article, which no longer exists.)

<comment><USER21> I was about to post the same quote :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Why was .NET called .NET?" Because they couldn't call it Java: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/30/asp_net_java_project...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/30/asp_net_java_project_cool/)

</comment><comment><USER23> I always figured it was a pun on COM.

<comment><USER24> There's actually some truth to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> What's with the deletionism at Stack Overflow. Do they really feel that these "off topic" posts detract from the overall quality of the site?

</comment><comment><USER26> Can't help you on why it's called .Net but it came very close to being called Microsoft ColdFusion

[http://www.sargeway.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=cat&catid=6D...](http://www.sargeway.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=cat&catid=6DB4A0CE-C29F-05EC-85F8D2889411C818)

<comment><USER27> While interesting, you're conflating .NET with ASP. One is a broad stack for application dev, another is an unrelated technology for web dev.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It certainly wasn't where it would be an easy distinct name to search.

</comment><comment><USER29> They were going to call it WinFX if I recall correctly

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I remember WinFX as well, but I think that was around 2005 - it was the codename for the set of .NET 3.0 technologies later known as WPF, WCF and WF ... there's something here about it - <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ianm/archive/2006/04/19/578851.aspx></comment></comment>


IOS 6 injecting should_group_accessibility_children to POST requests - <AUTHOR> http://logicalfriday.com/2012/10/03/ios-6-injecting-should_group_accessibility_children-to-post-requests/

<comment><USER2> So... the story here is

1\. They were blindly throwing the entire set of POST data into a Rails model.

2\. This started throwing errors when they got an unexpected key in POST.

3\. They "solved" the problem by writing a middleware to filter out that specific key from POST.

I don't even know where to begin.

<comment><USER3> Begin by reading up on Rails.

Mass assignment is a fairly normal thing to do, any parameters you want the model to ignore can be marked as so in the model and then mass assignment will work anywhere. Rails loves DRY.

Since the only way in which one can get wrong arguments is if somebody is hacking you (or attempting to do so) in which case just throwing an error at them is a fair thing to do.

<comment><USER4> I'm not a Rails guy, so you'll have to forgive ignorance here. Are you telling me that Rails only lets you blacklist parameters, not whitelist?

Because that seems entirely the wrong way around.

EDIT: looked at the link posted elsewhere here[1] and ound that it is possible to whitelist using "attr_accessible". Please tell me people know about and use this.

[1] <http://guides.rubyonrails.org/security.html#mass-assignment>

<comment><USER5> You can do either. The default used to be blacklist, but that was changed to whitelist recently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Most likely, their native client is blindly adding the objective c properties to the POST request, by using introspection. Apple is not adding anything to the POST request. This is similar to the problems people used to run into when the javascript object prototype was overridden and everyone's code would break because they were just doing

for (var prop in object)

<comment><USER7> Indeed. Why in the world would Apple inject this into POST requests?

[http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/uikit/r...](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/uikit/reference/UIAccessibility_Protocol/Introduction/Introduction.html#//apple_ref/occ/instp/NSObject/shouldGroupAccessibilityChildren)

<comment><USER8> Willing to bet it's a bug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This should not be an issue if you avoid mass-assignment with dumping all params, which is a security vulnerability anyway.

If you do something like:

@user = User.new(params[:user].slice(:name))

It will be safer, and avoid the problem.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does this parameter serve a documented purpose?

It's weird that iOS is doing that... but (at the risk of piling on) browsers do all sorts of weird stuff. Your app needs to deal with it.

<comment> brown9-2 Yeah, the discussion here seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

For non-Rails programmers an idea such as mass assignment sounds very strange, but if you ignore that, it still sounds odd at first request than an OS would inject parameters into a HTTP post request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> These folks are claiming that this is an issue without creating a minimal program that reproduces the issue. If it were a real issue it would be trivial to make an app that POSTs to an API and inspect the traffic.

I have inspected several POST requests from iOS 6 apps and have not seen anything like this yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> This has been solved already and will be part of Rails 4. Use strong parameters: <https://github.com/rails/strong_parameters>

<comment><USER7> Will this be a default in Rails 4? I feel like people should need to go through a lot of work to do something as dangerous as Rails/AR mass assignment...

<comment><USER12> > Will this be a default in Rails 4?

Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm amazed at how the discussion here has devolved into the merits of mass assignment. While that is a worthwhile topic in itself, specially given the recent github issues, any suggestion that the this issue would have been mitigated by the OP not using mass assignment is flawed.

Any webapp that I would consider secure MUST validate all input from clients. This includes white listing any and all parameters names, preferably in middleware, but at least in the controller. Allowing random keys in your input seems recipe for disaster, when you consider a multi layer app security policy. While this may seem like an overkill to some, this is best practice I've seen implemented in any project that deals with real money.

Hence, such a change in iOS WILL break any such application. Irrespective of your views on the sanity of mass assignment.

I would like to see a discussion on why apple thought it would be a good idea to introduce a new parameter to every request. Any ideas?

<comment><USER14> "Validating input" can yield a number of results, and ignoring incorrect data (keys) altogether is not only a valid reaction, it's a perfectly safe one and it's how the vast majority of systems work. Indeed, a number of usual patterns would break if that didn't work.

Mass-assignment and similar patterns (of shoving all request parameters into your trusted content, see also `extract` and `register_globals`) "allow random keys into your input", ignoring said keys doesn't.</comment></comment>


Land of Lisp: Learn to Program in Lisp, One Game at a Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593272006 <comment><USER2> Hi- Just saw this post- this is my book...

I'm finishing the last chapters this week and then there is still tons of editing ahead- The release date will be March next year!

It's going to be a FAT book with lots of games, will cover all the interesting parts of Lisp programming, including full coverage of functional programming, macros, and a lot lot more. Also, it has a zillion cartoons and illustrations.

I wanted to write a Lisp book that puts FUN first- I hope you will enjoy my book!

\- Conrad Barski

<comment><USER3> I tried for a while (unsuccessfully) to get any sort of graphics working with Lisp. Do any of the games in here use graphics? I feel like some really awesome "math art" could be made with Lisp.

<comment><USER4> You should check out lispbuilder-sdl or RLX. (I'm also working on CL bindings to Ogre but they're not really ready for public consumption.)

<comment><USER5> lispbuilder-sdl is fairly mature to the point that it even has a user manual

[http://code.google.com/p/lispbuilder/wiki/UsingLispbuilderSD...](http://code.google.com/p/lispbuilder/wiki/UsingLispbuilderSDL)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi folks, I'm working with Conrad on editing this book. If you're interested, you can keep your eye on the Land of Lisp page at the No Starch Press website:

<http://nostarch.com/lisp.htm>

We'll have an updated table of contents up fairly soon, and you'll be able to pre-order it as it gets closer to release. We'll also probably post some advanced samples as we move forward, so be sure to check back every once in a while.

Conrad's doing a great job, and it's going to be a really fun book!

Keith Fancher, No Starch Press

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Barski's website is also worth a visit: <http://www.lisperati.com/>

<comment><USER7> It's worth a few visits. There's a ton of really interesting content on Dr. Barski's site, and the illustrations are fun :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Funny, I just bought the old classic that I never got a chance to read:

"Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming: Case Studies in Common Lisp" by Peter Norving

[http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Artificial-Intelligence- Prog...](http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Artificial-Intelligence-Programming- Studies/dp/1558601910)

Guess Lisp is 'really' making a come back.

</comment><comment><USER9> It says it contains an evolution simulator? Oddly enough, I was thinking of something like this as a project to learn Clojure. Anyone know what that section of the book was like?

<comment><USER2> I might be able to answer that :)

It's an implementation of Dewdney's classic article "Simulated evolution: wherein bugs learn to hunt bacteria"

What's cool is that it lends itself to a very pithy implementation in Lisp that runs right in the REPL, with ASCII graphics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is the pre-requisite for reading this book? I'm mainly curious to see if this will be a useful way for beginners (such as kids) to start learning computer science. Given that many of us learnt computer science by writing games and other fun utilities, I'm hoping this will be a good CS beginner's book (and a fun one at that).

<comment><USER2> I tried to make it accessible to beginning programmers, but some advanced stuff is covered in this text and I it would have been hard to assume zero programming knowledge and cover everything. I think you'd need at least some programming experience in some other language in your past to feel comfortable with this book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm angry I have to wait a year to buy this book!

<comment><USER2> Sorry it's taking me so long :)

<comment><USER11> Better next year then never! I wish the authors of all the books we are interested in answered all of our questions so quicky and personally. Keep up the great work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Do not forget to post here when the book is released. I will be sure to buy it by then.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is this Common Lisp, or what?

I'm personally learning some Clojure at the moment and loving it so far.

<comment><USER2> Yes, it's a book on Common Lisp. However, I tried to emphasize techniques that are relevant for the "modern dialects" like Clojure.

For instance, I implement a Clojure-style sequence library using Lisp macros towards the end of the book to implement lazy evaluation for a boardgame AI engine.

<comment><USER13> Excellent, thanks for the additional information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> @Dr.Code - it seems that this book could be a tool for people to learn how to program, not necessarily targeting people who already know how to program and just want to learn Lisp. Am I correct?

<comment><USER2> I tried to make it readable for beginners, but I'm hesitant to say that it would be an easy book for someone who truly has _zero_ past programming experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is awesome! I have it in my wish list ready to buy as soon as It's out. I'll also make sure to be in the next Fringe DC meeting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Would a beginner be able to pick up this book easily? Would someone who knows of/about functional languages but not used them be able to pick up this book easily?

</comment><comment><USER17> Never been interested in learning lisp but from the comments and the table of contents of the book I may give it a try.</comment>