He would have waited for the drama to mostly blow over, and then, if they made a decision to put a stake in the ground over the story, would have written a plain-English 3 paragraph letter published on their website about what Apple's strategy moving forward regarding the issue would be.

Most of the time, though, Apple just doesn't get involved in stuff like this. What's in it for them? It's not actually a PR disaster for Apple; if anything, from a coldly calculated perspective, this is good PR for Apple.

>What's in it for them? It's not actually a PR disaster for Apple; if anything, from a coldly calculated perspective, this is good PR for Apple.

That's pretty much it. There's basically nothing they could say or do that works out for them in either the long run or short run.

If they leave it up after the C&D/DMCA/whatever complaint, they could be sued. If they make a statement that's remotely in support of PRC's case, the story suddenly isn't PRC vs. Speak for Yourself, it's Apple vs. a little girl. If they make a statement in support of Speak for Yourself, it's suddenly PRC vs. Apple. None of those outcomes are positive PR. While the third is a feel-good move, it doesn't actually do anything positive with the case.

It's in Apple's best interest to just pull the app and stay silent until the courts decide the case.

> If they leave it up after the C&D/DMCA/whatever complaint, they could be sued.

Sure, that's a risk (though probably a small one: they know the revenue this app is producing, so they know what the maximum likely damages will be -- this certainly doesn't look like a big market to me). Bad PR is a risk too (I mean really: did you see that girl's face? You seriously aren't sympathetic? You think no one else is?). Why'd they take it down if they were going to "stay silent"?

>Bad PR is a risk too (I mean really: did you see that girl's face? You seriously aren't sympathetic? You think no one else is?). Why'd they take it down if they were going to "stay silent"?

I really am sympathetic to her, and that's the problem for Apple. PRC's actions, while they may be legal and proper, just don't feel right after reading that story.

It's an intensely emotional story. It's hard not to feel that Apple and PRC are the "bad guys" here. Apple's actions could be, at from a purely unemotional and logical view, be defended as a proper response to the situation. PRC's suit could have merit. But because of the emotional baggage, the moment Apple makes a statement defending or explaining their actions, the story absolutely changes from "PRC sues Speak for Yourself, and little girl is caught in the crossfire" to "Apple vs. little girl".

Apple cannot win that. Nobody can.

I have a feeling that Apple's PR strategy of 'never respond' came from Steve Jobs. It's fairly typical for Apple to refuse to comment on most stories.

It's also fairly typical for them to take their time in carefully crafting a response in situations like these. We may see something from them yet on this, I think it's too early to say.

almost certainly not ask "what would X do?"

I understand the frustration with what apple has done here (which actually one of the prime reasons I haven't bought an iPhone or iPad; I don't buy computer products that don't give me root access or otherwise attempt to restrict how I use the product), but it's not like apple isn't being consistent with applying their policy.

They have taken down apps in the past that have been accused of violating patents/copyrights /trademarks without a court order. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is now actually liable for lost products or damaged reputation for not policing possibly infringing apps once notified of a lawsuit since they've set a precedent for doing so.

Not strong? Look at the cheap app versus the overpriced one - this is exactly the meat of the Apple vs Samsung case.