7 ms·

EFF on Apple's iPhone Developer Program Agreement

102 points by dpifke 17y ago

stanleydrew 17y ago
Section 14 states that, no matter what, Apple will never be liable to any developer for more than $50 in damages. I dislike what Apple is doing with the app store as much as the next guy, but to be fair don't most contracts try to include some clause limiting liability like this, that in reality is almost never enforceable? Is this really so strange? (Honest question, so would love some real answers.)
- edwilliams612 17y ago
  but hey come on, the developer program costs $99.. they really will only refund 1/2 of that cost should installing the SDK cause your iMac to blow up and kill your entire family?
- protomyth 17y ago
  Deal with PayPal or read the agreements from Microsoft and no - you will not find it unique to Apple.
praptak 17y ago
If I were to agree to such draconian terms there would have to be a huge incentive. This is not the case: http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-app-store-hype/ http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-app-store... Entering such an unfavorable contract for mere hope of raking 20 bucks a day? Count me out.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Thanks for posting that, those numbers were really interesting.
- ynniv 17y ago
  1) Don't underprice your app. 2) It's a plate, not an IV - you still have to make something people want to eat, and then convince them to eat it. This guy has 20 apps floating around the store... how much analysis and marketing can he really be doing? Then he justifies this by saying it might only take him from "$20 to $30" a day. If you are a company, it is your job to experiment with acquiring customers and determining the ROI on marketing. The AppStore just attracts a lot of armchair entrepreneurs. Some of them hit gold, some didn't. I'm tired of hearing about all of them.
jrockway 17y ago
Yeah, but the lists spring back when you hit the end! And there is no ugly battery door!
- bmalicoat 17y ago
  I know you're being sarcastic but the springiness of the iPhone controls is one thing I miss when using any Android device. If nothing else it let's you know all your input is being recognized, which is very important. But yes, I'd much rather have an open device without a restrictive dev contract than springy scrolling.
  - alexandros 17y ago
    I am sure the android devs would love to implement that, but there were a few patents in the way...
    - ynniv 17y ago
      I understand that everyone is on a tirade against software patents right now, and a patent on a springy list control would seem pretty silly. Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.
      - sounddust 17y ago
        Well, Microsoft, for example, had been working on (and demoing) multi-touch for years before the iPhone existed, including the pinch, expand, flipping photos/pages, and everything else. I love what Apple has done with it, but I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that others shouldn't be able to implement some of their refinements.
      - alexandros 17y ago
        Tell that to Wil Shipley. Oh I forgot, he can't afford to patent and have lawyers to protect the patent, so it's all right. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar-youre-not-the-only-one/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
sublemonic 17y ago
In short, no competition among app stores means no competition for the license terms that apply to iPhone developers. What is impacting developers is the lack of competition between the iPhone and other mobile devices. Apple's app store is winning because iPhone is winning. This will not always be the case.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  Why do you assume that a phone should have no more than one app store?
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    OK, someone here apparently thinks that having 2 or more app stores for a smart-phone is obviously silly. A smart-phone is a computer. A damn computer. Would you want to have only one app store for your desktop? Like, you have to get Microsoft's seal of approval before you can publish any program at all? Would you like to be unable to run Open Office? GNU/Linux? The "only one app store" thing is good old "Trusted Computing" (I should say "treacherous", by the way). Now, anyone, please prove me that the size of a computer is significant enough to warrant lock-down in some cases, and not in others.
scootklein 17y ago
developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch. what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch. charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't care. time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor
- yason 17y ago
  developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch. Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still have it. I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc — a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980. Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and more stuff. I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as is the case with 80's and 90's games. It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or a tsunami. (Or something like that.)
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    People were writing free software long before the FSF existed.
    - bitdiddle 17y ago
      Absolutely, and thanks to the efforts of the FSF they will continue to do so hopefully long into the future. This Apple agreement is absolutely insane. I wonder to what extent Apple's arguably great software has been enabled by free software. I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.
jasongullickson 17y ago
Dear EFF, "If you've got a better way to make ice..." If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it. The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference. Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else. I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there. I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
- jrockway 17y ago
  The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers. They are merely enumerating how that happens, so that developers who are unaware of the strict contract they signed understand what freedom they gave away just to put an app in the app store. I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone. Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where this leads?) Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
JunkDNA 17y ago
I'm not trying to be snarky, but has the EFF given the same treatment to the PS3 and Nintendo Wii agreements? Xbox 360? Also, there is a bit of showmanship on the EFF's part here by going the FOIA route. You have to be able to read the contract before agreeing to it. Anyone (legally) can walk down the path of signing up for the developer account, and then bail when they get to the developer agreement. The reason that "public copies are scarce" is that anyone can go to Apple's website and go through the signup process and decide for themselves if the agreement is to their liking or not.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 17y ago
  I'm only trying to be a little snarky, but if Apple had limited themselves to producing a hand-held gaming console, I suspect folks would be a little less upset. There's a moral difference between locking down a purely entertainment gadget and one that's intended to store and manage most or all of my personal information. And yes, to the extent that consoles are moving out of the "purely entertainment" category, their SDK restrictions are becoming equally troublesome. I think a good argument can be made that this is one of the reasons they're having trouble getting beyond the gaming market, in fact.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Yes, consoles are bad for freedom. But they aren't trying to replace general purpose computers, as Apple is trying to do with the iPhone and iPad.
eplanit 17y ago
What's funny is how anyone is surprised. This isn't some new manifestation of Apple -- it's the Apple Computer I grew up resenting through the first 10 years of my career. Prior to OS X, Apple was always about being closed, proprietary, and all-controlling. That they ever ventured away from that must have been viewed by their leadership as a 'necessary evil', to be done for only a limited period. This agreement, which I rejected and thus did not become an iPhony developer, is not at all a surprise. It's as warm and familiar as Apple pie. I'll have cake, instead.

102 points by dpifke 17y ago

Section 14 states that, no matter what, Apple will never be liable to any developer for more than $50 in damages. I dislike what Apple is doing with the app store as much as the next guy, but to be fair don't most contracts try to include some clause limiting liability like this, that in reality is almost never enforceable? Is this really so strange? (Honest question, so would love some real answers.)

edwilliams612 17y ago
but hey come on, the developer program costs $99.. they really will only refund 1/2 of that cost should installing the SDK cause your iMac to blow up and kill your entire family?
protomyth 17y ago
Deal with PayPal or read the agreements from Microsoft and no - you will not find it unique to Apple.

praptak 17y ago

If I were to agree to such draconian terms there would have to be a huge incentive. This is not the case: http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-app-store-hype/ http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-app-store... Entering such an unfavorable contract for mere hope of raking 20 bucks a day? Count me out.

lutorm 17y ago
Thanks for posting that, those numbers were really interesting.
ynniv 17y ago
1) Don't underprice your app. 2) It's a plate, not an IV - you still have to make something people want to eat, and then convince them to eat it. This guy has 20 apps floating around the store... how much analysis and marketing can he really be doing? Then he justifies this by saying it might only take him from "$20 to $30" a day. If you are a company, it is your job to experiment with acquiring customers and determining the ROI on marketing. The AppStore just attracts a lot of armchair entrepreneurs. Some of them hit gold, some didn't. I'm tired of hearing about all of them.

jrockway 17y ago

Yeah, but the lists spring back when you hit the end! And there is no ugly battery door!

bmalicoat 17y ago
I know you're being sarcastic but the springiness of the iPhone controls is one thing I miss when using any Android device. If nothing else it let's you know all your input is being recognized, which is very important. But yes, I'd much rather have an open device without a restrictive dev contract than springy scrolling.
- alexandros 17y ago
  I am sure the android devs would love to implement that, but there were a few patents in the way...
  - ynniv 17y ago
    I understand that everyone is on a tirade against software patents right now, and a patent on a springy list control would seem pretty silly. Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.
    - sounddust 17y ago
      Well, Microsoft, for example, had been working on (and demoing) multi-touch for years before the iPhone existed, including the pinch, expand, flipping photos/pages, and everything else. I love what Apple has done with it, but I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that others shouldn't be able to implement some of their refinements.
    - alexandros 17y ago
      Tell that to Wil Shipley. Oh I forgot, he can't afford to patent and have lawyers to protect the patent, so it's all right. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar-youre-not-the-only-one/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar...

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

sublemonic 17y ago

In short, no competition among app stores means no competition for the license terms that apply to iPhone developers. What is impacting developers is the lack of competition between the iPhone and other mobile devices. Apple's app store is winning because iPhone is winning. This will not always be the case.

loup-vaillant 17y ago
Why do you assume that a phone should have no more than one app store?
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  OK, someone here apparently thinks that having 2 or more app stores for a smart-phone is obviously silly. A smart-phone is a computer. A damn computer. Would you want to have only one app store for your desktop? Like, you have to get Microsoft's seal of approval before you can publish any program at all? Would you like to be unable to run Open Office? GNU/Linux? The "only one app store" thing is good old "Trusted Computing" (I should say "treacherous", by the way). Now, anyone, please prove me that the size of a computer is significant enough to warrant lock-down in some cases, and not in others.

scootklein 17y ago

developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch. what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch. charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't care. time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor

yason 17y ago
developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch. Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still have it. I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc — a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980. Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and more stuff. I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as is the case with 80's and 90's games. It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or a tsunami. (Or something like that.)
- tedunangst 17y ago
  People were writing free software long before the FSF existed.
  - bitdiddle 17y ago
    Absolutely, and thanks to the efforts of the FSF they will continue to do so hopefully long into the future. This Apple agreement is absolutely insane. I wonder to what extent Apple's arguably great software has been enabled by free software. I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.

jasongullickson 17y ago

Dear EFF, "If you've got a better way to make ice..." If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it. The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference. Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else. I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there. I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.

jrockway 17y ago
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers. They are merely enumerating how that happens, so that developers who are unaware of the strict contract they signed understand what freedom they gave away just to put an app in the app store. I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone. Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where this leads?) Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.
- GHFigs 17y ago

JunkDNA 17y ago

I'm not trying to be snarky, but has the EFF given the same treatment to the PS3 and Nintendo Wii agreements? Xbox 360? Also, there is a bit of showmanship on the EFF's part here by going the FOIA route. You have to be able to read the contract before agreeing to it. Anyone (legally) can walk down the path of signing up for the developer account, and then bail when they get to the developer agreement. The reason that "public copies are scarce" is that anyone can go to Apple's website and go through the signup process and decide for themselves if the agreement is to their liking or not.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ajross 17y ago
I'm only trying to be a little snarky, but if Apple had limited themselves to producing a hand-held gaming console, I suspect folks would be a little less upset. There's a moral difference between locking down a purely entertainment gadget and one that's intended to store and manage most or all of my personal information. And yes, to the extent that consoles are moving out of the "purely entertainment" category, their SDK restrictions are becoming equally troublesome. I think a good argument can be made that this is one of the reasons they're having trouble getting beyond the gaming market, in fact.
orangecat 17y ago
Yes, consoles are bad for freedom. But they aren't trying to replace general purpose computers, as Apple is trying to do with the iPhone and iPad.

eplanit 17y ago

What's funny is how anyone is surprised. This isn't some new manifestation of Apple -- it's the Apple Computer I grew up resenting through the first 10 years of my career. Prior to OS X, Apple was always about being closed, proprietary, and all-controlling. That they ever ventured away from that must have been viewed by their leadership as a 'necessary evil', to be done for only a limited period. This agreement, which I rejected and thus did not become an iPhony developer, is not at all a surprise. It's as warm and familiar as Apple pie. I'll have cake, instead.