12 ms·

Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made this comment (that I paused is also interesting). Apple has placed very few restri

by ynniv 17y ago

Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made this comment (that I paused is also interesting). Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed. Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly different manner than a traditional business. To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet when Apple doesn't give them what they want.

thwarted 17y ago
The positions that Apple wants to be able to control the entire experience and that Apple would approve an augmented Safari experience provided by a third-party are at odds.
- ynniv 17y ago
  They are, but those are the terms we have been given. Opera could have complied with them, but instead they have decided to make a scene.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Apple allows, where "allows" means both "by the terms of service" and "exposes APIs to make that possible", apps that modify the way Safari works and the Safari web browser experience on the iPhone? (I'm asking, I honestly don't know).
    - ynniv 17y ago
      No, you can build a new application using the engine that powers "Safari". This includes page rendering, and more importantly JavaScript execution. The latter is important simply because the terms of service only allow 3rd party code execution using Apple's "interpreter". [ http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 ]
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Control does not necessarily mean total control. For the record, there are other iPhone browsers. Here are some examples: http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409
Shorel 17y ago
You should not care about who made a comment but the quality of the comment itself.
- ynniv 17y ago
  Of course. The commenter did not affect my vote, but did cause me to spend more time reflecting on it and to post a comment. I mentioned that it was interesting that I paused at all because it shows that the commenter does matter, particularly when (s)he is a prominent figure.
- ssp 17y ago
  That is just not how humans work.
  - mtarnovan 17y ago
    But this is how they should try to work. Otherwise it quickly turns to ad hominem arguments and some such. (The lack thereof is one of the reasons I like comments on hn)
lambda 17y ago
You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's their store; they own it. However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold them to me. If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house? Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?
- bonaldi 17y ago
  Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations. That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
    - DougBTX 17y ago
      IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
dusklight 17y ago
You know there was a time when slavery was a "traditional business" too. There was a time when democracy was considered a weird and new thing that would destroy society (mostly by the rich established aristocracy) I bet United Fruit Company totally agrees with you that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in order to maximize profits. I think it comes down to, are you a baby or an adult? Because the baby doesn't know much about the world, and wants a strong authority figure to guide and protect. The adult needs independence and the ability to make his own decisions.
ryanhuff 17y ago
Its an interesting problem. From the software developer's perspective, I see this as a free speech issue, in much the same way that an artist would feel harmed if his/her work was forced out of circulation. The iPhone platform is the quintessential place to be for mobile applications, and to not have access to the platform is certainly a huge disadvantage with reaching an audience. Disregarding the technical issues at play, as a developer, I would feel violated if my application, that I poured hundreds of hours into, was summarily denied access to the market. On the other hand, I understand Apple's perspective. They are product zealots who want to control the user experience much more-so than most other companies. They built the product, and should reap the rewards of their innovation. They see the user as their customer, and they are ultimately responsible for the complete user experience. That is their right. Also, its a dog-eat-dog market, as the various players maneuver to either protect their established markets (Adobe), stay relevant (Opera), or try to gain market share at Apple's expense (Google). I would not expect Apple to invite something like a Chrome runtime onto the iPhone. That would be tantamount to Google providing a version of Chrome that disabled all Google ads and tracking. In Apple's case, allowing completely open access would go against everything that Apple stands for as a product focused company. As a developer, as painful as it is, those are the ground rules. The only ways the rules will change are either via competitive forces or government regulation, the latter of which I hope we stay away from.
- blasdel 17y ago
  It's entirely a free speech issue, just not at all for the developer. The freedom of speech lies with the publisher (the final actor in the chain), not the author unless they are one and the same. The right of a newspaper to print whatever stories they want is concomitant with their right to not publish any particular story -- the right to be censors themselves.
  - carussell 17y ago
    That's a flawed analogy. There aren't artificial limitations preventing you from then publishing your own newspaper. You have no such opportunity to compete with the App Store. Pre-emptive note: countering with a response similar to "I wasn't referring to the App Store; I was referring to the iPhone itself, which you are certainly free to compete with." doesn't just betray your analogy as incongruous. It would reveal that your analogy was helplessly broken from the start.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
I've yet to hear a good reason for Apple's strict restrictions on what can/can't run on the iPhone. Initially a lot of people said the App store restrictions were to ensure the safety of the cell phone network from viruses, misbehaved apps, etc. But clearly that's hogwash. Phone's running Symbian, WinMo, BB-OS, Palm, etc. have been allowing the user to run apps without a nanny/gatekeeper for ages with no ill effects. I won't even mention the lack of problems with the Android Market to date.. Then there are folks who claim its "to control the user experience". That's also clearly hogwash. Is it O.K. if the RIAA decides that "to control the user experience" you're not allowed to rip CD's to your iPod? And of course, there is the easy counterexample that allowing users to freely choose their applications (that whole free market thing) hasn't seemed to have hurt the legendary user experience of OSX. What particularly bothers me is the combination of the strict restrictions in the iPhone App store and the App store being the only way to load an app on the phone. To say nothing of the vigor with which Apple has attempted to thwart users with "jailbroken" iPhones. It's almost pathological.
- blasdel 17y ago
  That's some lazy vigor -- they fix the software exploits after they're published. Sure it's nice to be able to root your own phone, but it'd be pretty obnoxious if other people could root my phone! It's entirely about "controlling the user experience" as you say. They don't really mind the jailbreakers all that much (it provides an outlet for the fiddlers) as long as it doesn't become mainstream. The way they see it, the problem with allowing people to install packages from elsewhere is that unsophisticated users would use it; fuck themselves; and blame Apple. They don't want the platform to grow out of their control -- Jobs would have a heart attack if it became perfectly normal to install customizations, themes, haxies, etc. There's nothing inherent about the platform that would restrain any of that, the gate at the App Store does it all. They want to keep it so that every iPhone works and behaves like an iPhone. In their opinion, you should go to another vendor if you want a different user experience, much less a self-created one.
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
    Hogwash. Unsophisticated users installing third party packages and "fucking themselves" doesn't seem to be a big problem in OSX. Nor does it seem to be a big problem for Symbian, WinMob, BB, Android, etc. Allowing Opera, as an example, to be installed on an iPhone isn't going to stop it from working and behaving like an iPhone. It'll just be an iPhone with 1 additional application installed on it. Hardly world changing.
mtarnovan 17y ago
You wouldn't expect Microsoft to allow a competing browser to run on their platform now, would you ?

by ynniv 17y ago

thwarted 17y ago

The positions that Apple wants to be able to control the entire experience and that Apple would approve an augmented Safari experience provided by a third-party are at odds.

ynniv 17y ago
They are, but those are the terms we have been given. Opera could have complied with them, but instead they have decided to make a scene.
- thwarted 17y ago
  Apple allows, where "allows" means both "by the terms of service" and "exposes APIs to make that possible", apps that modify the way Safari works and the Safari web browser experience on the iPhone? (I'm asking, I honestly don't know).
  - ynniv 17y ago
    No, you can build a new application using the engine that powers "Safari". This includes page rendering, and more importantly JavaScript execution. The latter is important simply because the terms of service only allow 3rd party code execution using Apple's "interpreter". [ http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 ]
GHFigs 17y ago
Control does not necessarily mean total control. For the record, there are other iPhone browsers. Here are some examples: http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409

Shorel 17y ago

You should not care about who made a comment but the quality of the comment itself.

ynniv 17y ago
Of course. The commenter did not affect my vote, but did cause me to spend more time reflecting on it and to post a comment. I mentioned that it was interesting that I paused at all because it shows that the commenter does matter, particularly when (s)he is a prominent figure.
ssp 17y ago
That is just not how humans work.
- mtarnovan 17y ago
  But this is how they should try to work. Otherwise it quickly turns to ad hominem arguments and some such. (The lack thereof is one of the reasons I like comments on hn)

lambda 17y ago

You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's their store; they own it. However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold them to me. If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house? Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?

bonaldi 17y ago
Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations. That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.
- jhancock 17y ago
  What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model? So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.

dusklight 17y ago

You know there was a time when slavery was a "traditional business" too. There was a time when democracy was considered a weird and new thing that would destroy society (mostly by the rich established aristocracy) I bet United Fruit Company totally agrees with you that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in order to maximize profits. I think it comes down to, are you a baby or an adult? Because the baby doesn't know much about the world, and wants a strong authority figure to guide and protect. The adult needs independence and the ability to make his own decisions.

ryanhuff 17y ago

Its an interesting problem. From the software developer's perspective, I see this as a free speech issue, in much the same way that an artist would feel harmed if his/her work was forced out of circulation. The iPhone platform is the quintessential place to be for mobile applications, and to not have access to the platform is certainly a huge disadvantage with reaching an audience. Disregarding the technical issues at play, as a developer, I would feel violated if my application, that I poured hundreds of hours into, was summarily denied access to the market. On the other hand, I understand Apple's perspective. They are product zealots who want to control the user experience much more-so than most other companies. They built the product, and should reap the rewards of their innovation. They see the user as their customer, and they are ultimately responsible for the complete user experience. That is their right. Also, its a dog-eat-dog market, as the various players maneuver to either protect their established markets (Adobe), stay relevant (Opera), or try to gain market share at Apple's expense (Google). I would not expect Apple to invite something like a Chrome runtime onto the iPhone. That would be tantamount to Google providing a version of Chrome that disabled all Google ads and tracking. In Apple's case, allowing completely open access would go against everything that Apple stands for as a product focused company. As a developer, as painful as it is, those are the ground rules. The only ways the rules will change are either via competitive forces or government regulation, the latter of which I hope we stay away from.

blasdel 17y ago
It's entirely a free speech issue, just not at all for the developer. The freedom of speech lies with the publisher (the final actor in the chain), not the author unless they are one and the same. The right of a newspaper to print whatever stories they want is concomitant with their right to not publish any particular story -- the right to be censors themselves.
- carussell 17y ago
  That's a flawed analogy. There aren't artificial limitations preventing you from then publishing your own newspaper. You have no such opportunity to compete with the App Store. Pre-emptive note: countering with a response similar to "I wasn't referring to the App Store; I was referring to the iPhone itself, which you are certainly free to compete with." doesn't just betray your analogy as incongruous. It would reveal that your analogy was helplessly broken from the start.

theBobMcCormick 17y ago

I've yet to hear a good reason for Apple's strict restrictions on what can/can't run on the iPhone. Initially a lot of people said the App store restrictions were to ensure the safety of the cell phone network from viruses, misbehaved apps, etc. But clearly that's hogwash. Phone's running Symbian, WinMo, BB-OS, Palm, etc. have been allowing the user to run apps without a nanny/gatekeeper for ages with no ill effects. I won't even mention the lack of problems with the Android Market to date.. Then there are folks who claim its "to control the user experience". That's also clearly hogwash. Is it O.K. if the RIAA decides that "to control the user experience" you're not allowed to rip CD's to your iPod? And of course, there is the easy counterexample that allowing users to freely choose their applications (that whole free market thing) hasn't seemed to have hurt the legendary user experience of OSX. What particularly bothers me is the combination of the strict restrictions in the iPhone App store and the App store being the only way to load an app on the phone. To say nothing of the vigor with which Apple has attempted to thwart users with "jailbroken" iPhones. It's almost pathological.

blasdel 17y ago
That's some lazy vigor -- they fix the software exploits after they're published. Sure it's nice to be able to root your own phone, but it'd be pretty obnoxious if other people could root my phone! It's entirely about "controlling the user experience" as you say. They don't really mind the jailbreakers all that much (it provides an outlet for the fiddlers) as long as it doesn't become mainstream. The way they see it, the problem with allowing people to install packages from elsewhere is that unsophisticated users would use it; fuck themselves; and blame Apple. They don't want the platform to grow out of their control -- Jobs would have a heart attack if it became perfectly normal to install customizations, themes, haxies, etc. There's nothing inherent about the platform that would restrain any of that, the gate at the App Store does it all. They want to keep it so that every iPhone works and behaves like an iPhone. In their opinion, you should go to another vendor if you want a different user experience, much less a self-created one.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Hogwash. Unsophisticated users installing third party packages and "fucking themselves" doesn't seem to be a big problem in OSX. Nor does it seem to be a big problem for Symbian, WinMob, BB, Android, etc. Allowing Opera, as an example, to be installed on an iPhone isn't going to stop it from working and behaving like an iPhone. It'll just be an iPhone with 1 additional application installed on it. Hardly world changing.

mtarnovan 17y ago

You wouldn't expect Microsoft to allow a competing browser to run on their platform now, would you ?