Hi Alex, The opening sentence appears to have no less that three factual errors in it, but my thoughts on security will take more time to write down than I have at the moment so I will leave that reply for another day.
On another front, however, you seem to be saying that Apple has treated you shabbily over the Address Book Server affair. From what I can determine from a quick search, Apple released Address Book in 2002 in Mac OS X v 10.2 Jaguar. They released it under that name Address Book with an icon that was a brown book with a white @ sign on the cover. You say your product came out around the time of OS X 10.4 Tiger in 2007 was called Address Book Server and had as an icon a red book with a white @ sign on the cover. I think you did well not to hire a a layer and challenge their demand that you change your logo. I would guess there would be a strong case to be made that consumers may well be confused as to origin of the your software and as to whether it was in some way officially connected to Apple. Cheers, Carlo On 18/02/2012, at 23:13 , Alexander Hartner wrote: > Hi all, > > So we are really happy that somebody is telling us what software we can run > on our computers under the pretence of blessing it and which software is of > lesser quality and not intended for public consumption. > > Several years ago I started developing Address Book Server. This was around > the time 10.4 came out so it goes quite a while back. Initially I was using a > red book with an white @ sign in the middle. About a year after release Apple > legal team contacted me and demanded that I change my logo as it was too > close to their own logo for Address Book. So I changed my logo as it was > easier then consulting a lawyer. Since then Apple have release their own > product with the same name as mine, "Address Book Server". Unfortunately the > term is too generic to do anything about, which I accept and understand, but > what are my changes of submitting my application to the Apple App Store. So I > can either change the name of my established product and hope they will > accept it, or simply continue hosting my own website. One one hand they take > objection about a logo being too similar, while on the other they use the > name of an existing Application. You may say they didn't know about my > product, well they should have as it was listed on their Downloads Index. > This is the kind of behaviour which worries me. > > I don't have a problem with Apple promoting approved applications. They have > done this for many years with their own listing applications running on > Apple. Previously this was done under the Download section and developers > could submit their own application for listing. So users had the option of > getting approved and established applications. However to start enforcing > where people get their applications from and presenting applications obtains > from non-Apple channels as sub-standard is just wrong, and this is the part I > do have a problem with. > > I suspect this is much more about controlling the channel and maintain the > link with the end-user then about security. Remember the "Are you rich" > application which was allowed into the iTunes Store > (http://isource.com/2008/08/06/are-you-rich-999-iphone-app/). That > application was supposedly vetted and apple got their 30% (or whatever) from > the sales. Yes I know they had to refund them later. > > If you really concerned about security there are already great products > available. Little snitch for example should alert you of any un-authorised > network traffic for example. And if you really insist on downloading software > from suspect sources, legal or otherwise you on thin ice in any case. > > IT is often compared to the car industry. Lot of jokes about cars being like > Windows. However if Ford told us we can only used Ford approved accessories, > such as tires, oil, wiper blades etc we would not accept this. We all know if > we buy dodgy retreads we put our lives at risk, so most of us don't do this. > What amazes me how eager we are to give away our liberties and still defend > those who do it to us. > > “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin > > Enough said on this from me. Maybe I am taking this way too serious and need > to relax. > Have fun > Alex > > On 18/02/2012, at 10:43 , Ronda Brown wrote: > >> Excellent reply Carlo, >> >> I too have been doing a lot of reading and research on Mountain Lion and its >> security. >> I’m very impressed with the way Apple is moving into the future with OS X, >> especially with security. >> >> There are ‘cosmetic’ things I don’t particularly like about Lion & I guess >> Mountain Lion, but they are / will be the most solid stable and secure >> operating system. >> >> Alex, your comment below: >>>>> Personally I am really concerned about this. >> >> I would be very concerned if Apple were not doing anything about this! >> >> Cheers, >> Ronni >> >> On 18/02/2012, at 9:31 AM, cm wrote: >> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> This is bound to be a contentious point and one, no doubt, that the >>> anti-Apple press will try to get as much mileage out of as they can by >>> claiming that Apple is a closed system and that Windows and Android are >>> open. So it is important to look at the what Apple is actually implementing >>> rather than what some claim they are doing. >>> >>> The process is not finalized as this is a beta release, but according to >>> what is currently known, Gatekeeper will allow you to decide whether or not >>> to run software not developed by Apple registered developers. This setting >>> can be turned off which will leave your Mac to run any software as it does >>> today, or when left on (the default setting) it will bring two important >>> safeguards to your computer. >>> >>> 1) A completely unknown developer in, say, Tajikistan can no longer develop >>> key-logging software and sell it to you over the internet or even give it >>> away for free. >>> >>> 2) An official piece of software that is signed (say Photoshop) can not be >>> modified with an embedded virus. So if you obtain an official copy of >>> software, even illegally, it will be unmodified if it is signed by the >>> original developer. >>> >>> As is now the case, the restrictions on becoming an Apple registered >>> developer are minimal. They require confirmation of your identity and >>> address, and the submission of business name and registration details if >>> you are operating as a business. A developer being registered does not >>> guarantee that they will produce software that is virus free, but it does >>> mean that if they transgress their membership can be revoked and software >>> will no longer run on any Mac that has Gatekeeper enabled. >>> >>> One of the main advantages of the iPhone and iPad over Android devices is >>> that currently all software on the iPhone and iPad have been approved by >>> Apple. It is thus an lot more difficult to sell malicious software. Google >>> is scrambling to implement their own curated stores to reduce the flood of >>> malware currently being circulated on Android phones. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Carlo >>> >>> >>> On 17/02/2012, at 23:27 , Alexander Hartner wrote: >>> >>>> This might be of interest : >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/mountain_lion_preview/ >>>> >>>> Personally I am really concerned about this. I don't like the notion that >>>> software which is not blessed by Apple is of a lesser standard. >>>> >>>> Have fun >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> On 16/02/2012, at 22:00 , Daniel Kerr wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just when you thought you were getting used to Lion,...Apple have >>>>> released the first Developer release of Mountain Lion! >>>>> And it's ready to gain more iOS features,...and more,.... >>>>> >>>>> Read more here:- >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/16/apple-releases-first-developer-preview-of-os-x-mountain-lion-public-launch-in-late-summer/> >>>>> TinyURL - <http://tinyurl.com/6s3kz89> >>>>> >>>>> Enjoy >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> Daniel >>>>> --- >>>>> Daniel Kerr >>>>> MacWizardry >>>>> >>>>> Phone: 0414 795 960 >>>>> Email: <daniel AT macwizardry.com.au> >>>>> Web: <http://www.macwizardry.com.au> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **For everything Macintosh** >> >> -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- >> Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> >> Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> >> Settings & Unsubscribe - >> <http://lists.wamug.org.au/listinfo/wamug.org.au-wamug> > > -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- > Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> > Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> > Settings & Unsubscribe - > <http://lists.wamug.org.au/listinfo/wamug.org.au-wamug> -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> Settings & Unsubscribe - <http://lists.wamug.org.au/listinfo/wamug.org.au-wamug>
