5 ms·

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 compel

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
  not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement What sort of agreement is that? From what I hear, none of this is unusual in mobile or consoles.
  - vetinari 17y ago
    It is pretty unusual in mobile. Since the dawn of smartphones (or J2ME feature phones before that), the Symbian and Windows Mobile development was free for all game. No NDAs, no contract, just download the SDK, develop and distribute whatever you want. That changed with RIM and Apple. After these, Symbian also began to act stupidly with their Symbian Signed initiative.
    - Maktab 17y ago
      I'm pretty sure that the Symbian Signed initiative was launched a number of years before the iPhone was announced and both RIM and Qualcomm have had paid app signing for the Blackberry and BREW platforms respectively for even longer. While there's much to criticise about Apple's approach with the App Store, I don't think it was unreasonable to require app signing and a developer fee in return for getting your apps hosted and easily available on the App Store. I would prefer it if there was also an alternative distribution mechanism available, but that aside I don't have any problem with the App Store as a concept.
      - vetinari 17y ago
        You are right, Symbian Signed was launched in 2005, it was new feature in Symbian 9/Series60 v3. The difference was, that Symbian Signed aimed for accountability - they wanted to trace back, who made which binary. They didn't really cared what the binary did, just in case of malware, there was accountability. You got your certificate upfront and in 99% cases, they didn't care what you are going to write and how you intend to distribute it. The rest 1% (still hugely inflated number) was, when you requested root-like capabilities (i.e. you would have a way to mess with hardware or DRM directly), then they wanted to hear your business case. BREW platform was, to put it bluntly, non-player on non-market (US was at the time considered backward contry mobile-wise and the rest of the world ignored BREW). RIM was never popular among third-party developers, and among users everyone was buying BB for the messaging, nobody cared for third-party apps. I do have problem with Apple's approach with the App Store. I think it is unreasonable to be bridge-watching troll between me and my device. IF there was a way to sideload unsigned or self-signed binaries, that would be not a problem, but App Store is the only way to put app on the device, and this way is gated. If the App Store was optional (althrough still preferred or popular) way, I would not have problem with paying for hosting and cataloging apps.
hoopla 17y ago
"I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is 'abusing' developers". Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA (who signed it to be able to upload their NASA app). So, in one sense, you only get to "hear" about this contract if people like EFF actually do some pretty clever workarounds to obtain the document. Secondly, the very fact that public bodies are agreeing to this document make it something that I'd like to know more about. After all, they're signing it on our behalf.
- jwr 17y ago
  Why couldn't they just sign up as a developer and then get the document conveniently displayed on their screen? It's not like anyone forces you to accept it.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA Why should it be any different? It's reasonable that the contract should be available that way for the reasons you state but you seem to be implying it was unreasonable for it to not be public even when it didn't concern a public entity. Do you feel that all contracts between two private parties should be public information?
gte910h 17y ago
Apple could quite easily make a second appstore that anyone could post anything to, and only approved apps get in the "approved store". Would cost apple 0.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Don't value you fellow programmers time implementing that?
  - gte910h 17y ago
    Implementing what? It would be a copy of the current store, just with a much higher crap volume. Hell, they could even take 50% of the price of the apps for the crapstore. They'd have to add a second data source in iTunes (a config file most likely) and probably unhardcode some URL's in the backend to the appstore where they hardlink to things. Additionally, they'd have to make a copy of their appstore app and point it at the crapstore.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      There are so many things wrong..... So, let me got back to the most important numbers in computing 0,1, and many. Transitioning any software from one of those numbers to another is generally a pain in the rear and requires a lot of testing, programming, and resources.

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
not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement What sort of agreement is that? From what I hear, none of this is unusual in mobile or consoles.
- vetinari 17y ago
  It is pretty unusual in mobile. Since the dawn of smartphones (or J2ME feature phones before that), the Symbian and Windows Mobile development was free for all game. No NDAs, no contract, just download the SDK, develop and distribute whatever you want. That changed with RIM and Apple. After these, Symbian also began to act stupidly with their Symbian Signed initiative.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure that the Symbian Signed initiative was launched a number of years before the iPhone was announced and both RIM and Qualcomm have had paid app signing for the Blackberry and BREW platforms respectively for even longer. While there's much to criticise about Apple's approach with the App Store, I don't think it was unreasonable to require app signing and a developer fee in return for getting your apps hosted and easily available on the App Store. I would prefer it if there was also an alternative distribution mechanism available, but that aside I don't have any problem with the App Store as a concept.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      You are right, Symbian Signed was launched in 2005, it was new feature in Symbian 9/Series60 v3. The difference was, that Symbian Signed aimed for accountability - they wanted to trace back, who made which binary. They didn't really cared what the binary did, just in case of malware, there was accountability. You got your certificate upfront and in 99% cases, they didn't care what you are going to write and how you intend to distribute it. The rest 1% (still hugely inflated number) was, when you requested root-like capabilities (i.e. you would have a way to mess with hardware or DRM directly), then they wanted to hear your business case. BREW platform was, to put it bluntly, non-player on non-market (US was at the time considered backward contry mobile-wise and the rest of the world ignored BREW). RIM was never popular among third-party developers, and among users everyone was buying BB for the messaging, nobody cared for third-party apps. I do have problem with Apple's approach with the App Store. I think it is unreasonable to be bridge-watching troll between me and my device. IF there was a way to sideload unsigned or self-signed binaries, that would be not a problem, but App Store is the only way to put app on the device, and this way is gated. If the App Store was optional (althrough still preferred or popular) way, I would not have problem with paying for hosting and cataloging apps.

hoopla 17y ago

"I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is 'abusing' developers". Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA (who signed it to be able to upload their NASA app). So, in one sense, you only get to "hear" about this contract if people like EFF actually do some pretty clever workarounds to obtain the document. Secondly, the very fact that public bodies are agreeing to this document make it something that I'd like to know more about. After all, they're signing it on our behalf.

jwr 17y ago
Why couldn't they just sign up as a developer and then get the document conveniently displayed on their screen? It's not like anyone forces you to accept it.
GHFigs 17y ago
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA Why should it be any different? It's reasonable that the contract should be available that way for the reasons you state but you seem to be implying it was unreasonable for it to not be public even when it didn't concern a public entity. Do you feel that all contracts between two private parties should be public information?

gte910h 17y ago

Apple could quite easily make a second appstore that anyone could post anything to, and only approved apps get in the "approved store". Would cost apple 0.

protomyth 17y ago
Don't value you fellow programmers time implementing that?
- gte910h 17y ago
  Implementing what? It would be a copy of the current store, just with a much higher crap volume. Hell, they could even take 50% of the price of the apps for the crapstore. They'd have to add a second data source in iTunes (a config file most likely) and probably unhardcode some URL's in the backend to the appstore where they hardlink to things. Additionally, they'd have to make a copy of their appstore app and point it at the crapstore.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    There are so many things wrong..... So, let me got back to the most important numbers in computing 0,1, and many. Transitioning any software from one of those numbers to another is generally a pain in the rear and requires a lot of testing, programming, and resources.