Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The hypocrisy at the end of the article is astounding: "Right now, we’re not planning on it. [rebuilding their app]. Our APIs make it easy for anyone else to build one, though. (Our old app is open source if you’d like an example to build upon. Just respect our license and don’t put ads in it.)"

They blatantly violated the agreement for obtaining the pre-release hardware, and then expect people to honor their own license terms?

IMHO, they are extremely lucky the worst thing that happened was their developer account getting pulled.

[Edited for clarity after feedback]



It would be hypocrisy if they re-created a copycat apple tv and sold it or distributed it with ads. They didn't do anything like that.

Also, they likely violate EULAs (the A is for agreement) for non-pre-release hardware all the time. Not that big a difference.


Actually, under their license (GPL) you are allowed to sell it, as long as you include the source when selling it. Most prominent example: Linux CDs sold before the Internet was fast and ubiquitous.

https://github.com/iFixit/iFixit-iOS/blob/master/LICENSE


Why isn't it hypocrisy to expect others to respect license agreements yet blatantly violate them themselves for publicity? Yes, the terms aren't the same, but, so?


I would compare the apple hardware agreement they violated to software agreements which forbid analysis, reverse engineering, or even benchmarking (there's some notable enterprisey software which forbids conducting benchmarks and sharing the results).

I would not condone redistributing copies of software or significant portions thereof in a way which violates the license, whether it be a copyleft license or a commercial license. If apple distributed gerber files for the PCB of the new hardware device, or original CAD schematics it uses to manufacture parts, under some license, I'd also want the terms of the distribution of that to be respected.

But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet. This is not a copy of source code or hardware schematic. This is learned information. It's not vandalism - there is no expectation that any dev kits be returned, each recipient can use theirs exclusively. This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less.

What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices. That's really messed up. This is just one more great example, in case you don't understand yet.


It's not about them reviewing the device. It's about them reviewing the device and publish it before the product actually hits the market.

Apple didn't have problem with them tearing down other Apple devices.

And iFixit got the device because the sign the agreement not to publish the information before it hit the market.

It's not about reverse engineering knowledge. It's about breaking the agreement, which is what iFixit is asking others not to do when using their API.


> But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet.

> This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less.

Most people get their devices by purchasing them when they are released. iFixit have been given the enormous privilege of being sent a developer unit.

> What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices.

Apple aren't "retaliating". iFixit broke the developer terms. Their developer account was thus suspended. That developer account happened to contain their app.


Some devs that actually wanted those for good didn't get any because asses like these guys wanted them to get more page views (thus taking slots).


Many would say that iFixit also wanted the devices for good. They put out informative information about the devices.


About pre-release hardware, which can change for consumer versions. Still a dick move IMO.


Wow, that's some pretty blatant hypocrisy. I didn't notice that bit.

I don't know about the downvotes. I upvoted you to try to compensate.

I think people are misunderstanding what happened here, maybe thinking that Apple is punishing them for disassembling retail hardware or something.


> They blatantly violated the agreement for obtaining the pre-release hardware, and then expect people to honor their own license terms?

I assume that most people were taught things like "Two wrongs don't make a right", or some other Aesopian adage at some point in their lives to similar effect.

Just because they violated Apple's NDA/EULA terms does not entitle anyone else to violate theirs.


Violating NDA/EULA terms result in repercussions — one it sounds like they were almost certain they would incur. Don't make this some facile argument about how "two wrongs don't make a right."

Also, your last statement makes absolutely no sense. "Just because they violated Apple's NDA/EULA terms does not entitle anyone else to violate theirs". Wut?


>IMHO, they are extremely lucky the worst thing that happened was their developer account getting pulled.

What else can Apple do? Send the device teardown Police?

They never acted like they did not violate the terms of the agreement, or that Apple did some injustice. I don't see the hypocrisy. Even if they were hypocritical, it is an overrated vice. Asking people to honour their agreement does not become wrong just because they are hypocrites.


Well, everyone breaks rules. It's like saying they're hypocritical because sometimes they don't obey parking laws but expect people to obey their licensing terms.

I think the idea here is that being able to fix your own devices rather than put them in a landfill is a moral stance and such rules deserve to be broken.


The new AppleTV is not yet available for sale. The justification of "help people fix their devices" simply does not apply in this case.


Of course it does. I may or may not choose to buy X product because of how easy or difficult it is to take apart and repair myself (and that's not limited to iDevices, as iFixit covers many consumer products beyond Apple's lineup). iFixit is offering a valuable service to me, the consumer, with their preemptive teardowns.


> Of course it does. I may or may not choose to buy X product because of how easy or difficult it is to take apart and repair myself

Then Ifixit should have waited until it's available on the market then did the tear down. They consumed a valuable and limited resource that is known as the dev kit. A dev kit, which I may remind you, could have ended up in the hands of an actual developer and put to real use. Instead, they broke the rules and tore down a product that's not on the market yet.

They got off easy, and anyone who attempts to argue that they are in the right simply have not done their homework regarding the matter.


iFixit traditionally does teardown on the first day of availability. If you need to see a teardown before buying, you just have to wait 24 hours after availability. You'll need to do that anyway in case Apple changes something between dev unit and production unit.

Sure iFixit provides a great service. I happily support them by buying tools and parts from them. "Public service" simply isn't a valid reason for this teardown. It was regrettably thoughtless of them to do this just because they can.


For additional context, please note that the Apple TV device is provided to developers for $1 (would have been free if not for address verification) under the NDA with the specific intent of developing apps for it. It's not like repairing their own device they paid full price for.


> Well, everyone breaks rules.

That's not valid justification for what occurred at all. They broke the rules, and Apple gave them what many consider a light punishment.

Ifixit has learned a valuable lesson for a cheap price. This was not ok.


The OP isn't using it as a justification for what occurred. They're rightly stating that iFixit breaking a license agreement doesn't then give other people the right to break a license agreement (in this case the license of their app) with iFixit.

If you start going down the rabbit hole of "You violated their license terms so I'm going to violate your license terms" then things would fall apart very quickly. Is it morally OK to pirate Justin Bieber's music because he faced drugs charges? Is it reasonable to shoplift from Walmart because they broke a contract with a supplier?

iFixit broke their contact with Apple, and for that they should (and apparently have) faced repurcussions. That doesn't give anyone the moral right not to respect the license they publish their app source code under (by putting ads on it or selling it).


I don't fully understand the hypocrisy here when they acknowledged their mistake (or at least in the article, moreso a risk they chose to take) and are living with the consequences.


I don't see any contrition on their part. They're trying to have it both ways – the tone of the article is clearly engineered to raise the heckles of people who are sympathetic to the "Apple is authoritarian" meme without explicitly saying so.

"In the meantime, we will continue to support our Android app" they say. Not subtle at all.


s/heckles/hackles/

:)


Fortunately they can continue buying released products and help the masses have an option for repairs.


Good point.


Why the downvotes?

The vindictive attitude.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: