Apple Forces Largest-Ever Kickstarter Refund

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apple is once again setting records. Too bad this time it is for causing the largest-ever Kickstarter refund. :(

In September, Jamie Siminoff and Edison Junior raised $139,170 on Kickstarter to support the creation of POP, a minimalist multi-device charging station. Today, in the largest Kickstarter refund yet, they’re giving that money back. Siminoff let backers know that the problem is with Apple’s Lightning adapter. With new rules to be announced shortly, Apple is forbidding the inclusion of non-Lightning adapters alongside their newest connector. That means no micro-USB and not even the classic 30 pin iPod/iPhone adapter.
Click to expand...
 
Who's setting these "rules"? Why the fuck is Apple allowed to say what kind of device other people can, or cannot make?
 
Typical Apple. Force their proprietary crap on the world, then use licensing/patents/whatever to block anything else that is non-apple.
 
So fucking sick of Apple, so glad I ditched my stock earlier this year.
 
Ruoh said:
Who's setting these "rules"? Why the fuck is Apple allowed to say what kind of device other people can, or cannot make?
Click to expand...

Well... don't they have to license it out to the people who build it? It's basically saying, no we won't, so hah.
 
And yet this will be defended by the apologists. Funny how everyone rails against every single other manufacturer went it comes to proprietary cables, but somehow apple is exempt.
 
Car manufacturers, home entertainment centers, etc all did well to include the Apple 30 pin dock... they had a significant marketshare advantage. Hopefully they all switch to MicroUSB instead of the lightning connector for the same reason...
 
Serpent said:
Well... don't they have to license it out to the people who build it? It's basically saying, no we won't, so hah.
Click to expand...

So, saying you have a monopoly on a specific cable? That's not a smart move.
 
Ruoh said:
Who's setting these "rules"? Why the fuck is Apple allowed to say what kind of device other people can, or cannot make?
Click to expand...
Because it's their proprietary interface. If you want to license the tech, you have to play by Apple's rules.
 
If that isn't anti-competitive behavior, I don't know what is. Where's the FTC now? Why aren't they looking into this? Oh, yeah, they're owned by Apple already. That's why Microsoft was prosecuted and Intel wasn't.
 
Serpent said:
Well... don't they have to license it out to the people who build it? It's basically saying, no we won't, so hah.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But its an asinine move that is typical of Apple. Just like not adopting the industry standard connections that most other hardware makers seem perfectly capable of doing. For a company that tries to claim they are 'innovative' and designed for 'ease of use' for the consumer, they sure make it extremely hard to use industry standards.
 
Ok, I like Apple and it's products. Well, at least the products.

But I do hope they are sued over this. And not because it's Apple (grow up people :))...

Because this is a practice that just about every manufacturer out there has done, or does.

Every tried to buy a non Microsoft Wireless device for the XBox?

So this needs to go to court to stop every company from doing it.

If Apple has to be the first target, so be it.
 
Ruoh said:
So, saying you have a monopoly on a specific cable? That's not a smart move.
Click to expand...

Not me, but that's exactly how it works. If you build something with a USB port, you're going to have to pay them the amount they want. It seems Apple either wants too much or none at all. I'm guessing they chose the second option on this because it's an attempt at making a universal connector.

I doubt they'd say no to a car dealer wanting to put it in the vehicles they build though. And when that happens, if I does, I'm sure they'll ask for a tremendous amount per unit, which will then trickle to the customer.
 
NoOther said:
Yes, they do. But its an asinine move that is typical of Apple. Just like not adopting the industry standard connections that most other hardware makers seem perfectly capable of doing. For a company that tries to claim they are 'innovative' and designed for 'ease of use' for the consumer, they sure make it extremely hard to use industry standards.
Click to expand...

It's not just apple, it's almost every company. Even Microsoft does it with their xbox, though they have sinced abandoned their own port for the controller. I'm sure there are many other cases though.


TechLarry said:
Ok, I like Apple and it's products. Well, at least the products.

But I do hope they are sued over this. And not because it's Apple (grow up people :))...

Because this is a practice that just about every manufacturer out there has done, or does.

Every tried to buy a non Microsoft Wireless device for the XBox?

So this needs to go to court to stop every company from doing it.

If Apple has to be the first target, so be it.
Click to expand...

Eh..... they did design the port, so I don't see why. Considering industry standards have a cost attached to them, I don't see this ever happening. If it's an "open-source" industry standard with no cost, then sure. I hope it's adopted, but if it's not, I can understand why they would make their own.

That said, are there any royalties associated with display port? If not, wtf are we still using all these other crappy connections?
 
TechLarry said:
Ok, I like Apple and it's products. Well, at least the products.

But I do hope they are sued over this. And not because it's Apple (grow up people :))...

Because this is a practice that just about every manufacturer out there has done, or does.

Every tried to buy a non Microsoft Wireless device for the XBox?

So this needs to go to court to stop every company from doing it.

If Apple has to be the first target, so be it.
Click to expand...

China is a wonderful country.
 
Serpent said:
It's not just apple, it's almost every company. Even Microsoft does it with their xbox, though they have sinced abandoned their own port for the controller. I'm sure there are many other cases though.




Eh..... they did design the port, so I don't see why. Considering industry standards have a cost attached to them, I don't see this ever happening. If it's an "open-source" industry standard with no cost, then sure. I hope it's adopted, but if it's not, I can understand why they would make their own.

That said, are there any royalties associated with display port? If not, wtf are we still using all these other crappy connections?
Click to expand...

DP is an open non-royalty standard. Why are we still using DVI/HDMI/VGA? Chicken and the egg. Everyone has DVI/HDMI hardware either in monitors or in GPUs. And DP is relatively new in the tech world.
 
Serpent said:
That said, are there any royalties associated with display port? If not, wtf are we still using all these other crappy connections?
Click to expand...

Well for starters, DP lacks analog, and it also has no audio pass-thru. Yes a lot of home users don't care about analog, but some still want audio if they want to use it with a reviver on a HTPC, and business still use the hell out of analog. You can see where this is going, MFGs want to use a port that does it all, and stay rolity free. Hence, the vass array output port solutions and no real standardization. And done even get me started on all the "mini" versions out there due to laptops getting smaller.
 
I(illa Bee said:
Well for starters, DP lacks analog, and it also has no audio pass-thru. Yes a lot of home users don't care about analog, but some still want audio if they want to use it with a reviver on a HTPC, and business still use the hell out of analog. You can see where this is going, MFGs want to use a port that does it all, and stay rolity free. Hence, the vass array output port solutions and no real standardization. And done even get me started on all the "mini" versions out there due to laptops getting smaller.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. DisplayPort has supported audio/video sending since v1.2. Since 2/2011, DisplayPorts on all HD6000 Radeons and up have had the ability to output audio as well as 4K resolution video simultaneously.

DisplayPort is FAR more capable than HDMI. Last I knew, most monitor manufacturers were planning on deprecating VGA/DVI in favor of DP.
 
Apple certainly isn't an open company, or reasonable about licensing (particularly not RAND, even with de-facto monopoly standards), but the problem is that this isn't news and the failure of the kickerstarter campaign is only the company seeking funding. It should have made a deal to acquire the rights first, then with a minimally complete business plan (costs known and licensing at least tentatively secured) ask for funding. My confidence in those clowns is close to zero because they obviously have no clue what they're doing, but are ready and willing to raise money. Scary so many people are Fry'ing pretty much anything with fistfuls of money.
 
Skripka said:
DP is an open non-royalty standard. Why are we still using DVI/HDMI/VGA? Chicken and the egg. Everyone has DVI/HDMI hardware either in monitors or in GPUs. And DP is relatively new in the tech world.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I personally don't ahve Display port on my monitor, but the fact that it's royalty free, and they don't include it just makes it seem silly. Hasn't it been out for like 4 to 5 year already? I would've thought it'd be more adopted by now.

I(illa Bee said:
Well for starters, DP lacks analog, and it also has no audio pass-thru. Yes a lot of home users don't care about analog, but some still want audio if they want to use it with a reviver on a HTPC, and business still use the hell out of analog. You can see where this is going, MFGs want to use a port that does it all, and stay rolity free. Hence, the vass array output port solutions and no real standardization. And done even get me started on all the "mini" versions out there due to laptops getting smaller.
Click to expand...

I can see that, but it seems like an easily circumvented problem. I'm not sure i get this:
MFGs want to use a port that does it all, and stay rolity free.
Click to expand...
I thought HDMI has royalties attached to it, as well as component and the older stuff as well.
 
Serpent said:
That's the thing, I personally don't ahve Display port on my monitor, but the fact that it's royalty free, and they don't include it just makes it seem silly. Hasn't it been out for like 4 to 5 year already? I would've thought it'd be more adopted by now.



I can see that, but it seems like an easily circumvented problem. I'm not sure i get this:

I thought HDMI has royalties attached to it, as well as component and the older stuff as well.
Click to expand...

The HDMI royalty is $0.04 per device and for "high-volume" manufacturers a $10,000 annual fee.
 
Serpent said:
It's not just apple, it's almost every company. Even Microsoft does it with their xbox, though they have sinced abandoned their own port for the controller. I'm sure there are many other cases though.
Click to expand...

Actually no, this is factually incorrect. Far less companies use proprietary standards these days. And mentioning the Xbox is funny, since it is the most open of all the game consoles. Also, it is particularly funny that you single out Microsoft, who made their money on opening up their OS to many standards and put money into developing industry standards. That is why the PC is so open while the Mac is so closed. But even Apple had to start adopting some of the standards that Microsoft helped fund, because of public demand.

Also, since the majority of the smart phone market belongs now to Android, and Android is essentially an open platform, I would disagree with your assertion. It is factually accurate for me to say that more companies produce Android based devices than produce iPhone and iPad devices...
 
NoOther said:
Actually no, this is factually incorrect. Far less companies use proprietary standards these days. And mentioning the Xbox is funny, since it is the most open of all the game consoles. Also, it is particularly funny that you single out Microsoft, who made their money on opening up their OS to many standards and put money into developing industry standards. That is why the PC is so open while the Mac is so closed. But even Apple had to start adopting some of the standards that Microsoft helped fund, because of public demand.

Also, since the majority of the smart phone market belongs now to Android, and Android is essentially an open platform, I would disagree with your assertion. It is factually accurate for me to say that more companies produce Android based devices than produce iPhone and iPad devices...
Click to expand...

Thar be Dragons when it comes to using "Android" and "Open" in the same sentence.

Sure the Android code itself may be sort-of open...but most manufacturers don't release driver code. What good is an OS without driver code to interface with hardware these days...when no one knows how to write device drivers? Torvalds asked the same thing and then yanked the Android code from the LKML kernel mainline, last I knew.
 
At first it seems like well the usual apple crap then you realize that this guy may not have tried everything to make the product work, he seems to be looking for a way to start his own kickstart competitor and this would be a great way to trash kick starter. If you were the conspiracy type you might suggest that they never planned to make a product in the first place at all.
 
Skripka said:
Thar be Dragons when it comes to using "Android" and "Open" in the same sentence.

Sure the Android code itself may be sort-of open...but most manufacturers don't release driver code. What good is an OS without driver code to interface with hardware these days...when no one knows how to write device drivers? Torvalds asked the same thing and then yanked the Android code from the LKML kernel mainline, last I knew.
Click to expand...

First off I said Android was 'essentially' an open system. It was very definitely developed with the intent of being almost completely open, but very little is 'completely' open and carriers then put in their own proprietary stuff for the phones they make. In any open platform there will end up being proprietary portions added to try and keep competitors from being able to copy your product exactly. Which leads me to...

Dar be Dragons when trying to use Linux Torvald for all things open as even Linux and its various different distributions aren't completely open either and some of them use proprietary code. The question isn't whether a company uses proprietary code or devices, the question is how many open and/or industry standards do they allow as well?
 
Skripka said:
DP is an open non-royalty standard. Why are we still using DVI/HDMI/VGA? Chicken and the egg. Everyone has DVI/HDMI hardware either in monitors or in GPUs. And DP is relatively new in the tech world.
Click to expand...

Its not just chiken and egg, its stupid design DP and HDMI were both designed by morons who didn't have the foresight to make them superior to what they were replacing. Because of this companies had to keep using older connections not just for backwards compatibility but also for raw capability. Almost all the 120hz monitors use DVI-D because HDMI could not do it, and DP only recently was able to pass audio, since it takes years once the standard is done for companies to start arming devices with the upgraded connection you just have way to much risk and way to much lag. Had either standard been smart enough to make sure they had more bandwidth, and all the connections for audio and Ethernet from the start they would have done better. It took HDMI forever to get to where it is, and now that lots of people have alot of HDMI components we aren't going to drop the money to replace $10000 worth of equipment just to change the cable. And why would we because in a couple years they will just change the standard again because how much you want to bet these things can't do 8k

So you can sit and wait for 5 years or more till DP finally has mass acceptance.
 
wonderfield said:
Because it's their proprietary interface. If you want to license the tech, you have to play by Apple's rules.
Click to expand...

It is not "their" interface. You cannot "own" a connector design anymore than you can "own" the blueness of the sky.

Imaginary property is bullshit and this is exactly the kind of nonsense that arises from such mercantilist privileges granted by the state.
 
For the love of all things holy, would SOMEONE, somewhere PLEASE make a Win 8 RT device the size of my ipod 4g so I can get rid of this thing?

It's still one of the most capable pocket computing devices around, and it annoys me. GIVE ME ANOTHER OPTION and I'll give Apple the finger.
 
damicatz said:
It is not "their" interface. You cannot "own" a connector design anymore than you can "own" the blueness of the sky.

Imaginary property is bullshit and this is exactly the kind of nonsense that arises from such mercantilist privileges granted by the state.
Click to expand...

Wow, really? That is the argument you are going with? If someone uses their hard work to design a new interface or design, they do not own that design? Anyone should be able to take their hard work and make a profit off of it without ever having to put in all that time to actually design and develop the product? That is the most ridiculous comment I have heard. I agree that patent and copyright laws are ridiculous these days, but not nearly as ridiculous as your assertions here.

An interface design is certainly NOTHING AT ALL like the blueness of the sky. No man worked on and designed the blueness of the sky. The sky has ALWAYS been blue. There has not ALWAYS been a special interface for a new Apple device. While I hate the way Apple conducts their business, they still designed that interface for their device and have the right to license it as they see fit. Again, like most things if you don't like it, you have the right to not buy their products.
 
ballistic90 said:
In what way are they the most open of all game consoles?
Click to expand...

In the way that they were the first to start incorporating a system comprised almost entirely of conventional hardware. That they used programming languages that weren't completely proprietary. Before Microsoft the only console that used anything remotely 'standard' was the Playstation which used CDs. Why do games run better on Xbox generally than on PS3? Its not the hardware, most everyone agrees that PS3 has the better hardware. It's that it is easier to design games for Xbox and it uses much of the same design elements as making games for PCs. Please, tell me in what way the Xbox is NOT the most open of all the game consoles?
 
NoOther said:
Wow, really? That is the argument you are going with? If someone uses their hard work to design a new interface or design, they do not own that design? Anyone should be able to take their hard work and make a profit off of it without ever having to put in all that time to actually design and develop the product? That is the most ridiculous comment I have heard. I agree that patent and copyright laws are ridiculous these days, but not nearly as ridiculous as your assertions here.

An interface design is certainly NOTHING AT ALL like the blueness of the sky. No man worked on and designed the blueness of the sky. The sky has ALWAYS been blue. There has not ALWAYS been a special interface for a new Apple device. While I hate the way Apple conducts their business, they still designed that interface for their device and have the right to license it as they see fit. Again, like most things if you don't like it, you have the right to not buy their products.
Click to expand...

Let me break this down for you :

1.I own physical property
2.My rights of ownership over that physical property give me the natural right to arrange that physical property in any way I see fit so long as it does not aggress upon another person (e.g. building a spotlight and shining it on your neighbors property).
3.Imaginary property is a violation of physical property rights. How can one truly claim to own physical property when simply arranging that physical property in a certain fashion subjects you to government-sanctioned violence and property seizure?
4.However hard someone worked on something is irrelevant. That is a utilitarian argument in which you are trying to justify an inherently unethical action (the act of committing violence against someone for arranging their property in a certain manner) on the basis that the consequences of the action are somehow beneficial.
 
Based on these arguments, the Zune should have won the battle.

The problem is, people want all the "simplicity" of a proprietary device, but all of the universal usage of open standard devices.

It didn't take Apple much time to figure out that if they allow their port to be on a universal bar it screws with their whole closed ecosystem.

The situation is impossible until people actually reach a point of frustration where they really THINK about whether they want to stay on this path with Apple or not.

It's WHY the PC beat Mac all to hell in the first place.

With luck it will happen again.

Apple owned the PC world with the Apple, II, IIc, IIe, IIgs, but shortly after the Mac 512 and the mighty DOS PC went head to head, the open ecosystem of MS DOS and the PC architecture destroyed them.

The same is poised to happen with tablets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top