6 ms·

I have no objection to Apple running an official App Store with strict rules for compliance. I don't even mind that they take a cut of the profits. However, I

I have no objection to Apple running an official App Store with strict rules for compliance. I don't even mind that they take a cut of the profits. However, I find it utterly reprehensible that Apple doesn't allow developers to distribute their applications on their own. iPhone owners should be able to install whatever they want on the device they purchased.

jodrellblank 17y ago
iPhone owners should be able to install whatever they want on the device they purchased. Why? It's such an entrenched idea, but you don't get to rewrite paragraphs of books, or scenes in films, or suits in a pack of playing cards or the firmware in your alarm clock. The iPhone is sold as is, why should we expect to use it any differently?
- rbanffy 17y ago
  There is a fundamental difference. It's not like rewriting parts of your book, but about preventing you from using your book as a monitor stand when you no longer want to read it. The iPhone and iPod Touch are, unlike the average alarm clock, single purpose machines implemented on top of general purpose ones. I see many good reasons to want to change the firmware, use your own iPhone on your carrier and pay full price for unlocked units. If it's yours you should be allowed to do anything with it.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    It's not like rewriting parts of your book, but about preventing you from using your book as a monitor stand when you no longer want to read it. Bad example. Apple does nothing to prevent you from using an iPhone as a monitor stand, doorstop, hammer, frisbee, or whatever else. The limitations that people complain about all have to do with the software, which like the contents of the book, you do not own.
    - ujjwalg 17y ago
      what the hell are you talking about? I make my own notes within a book. A lot of times I even add things I have read from other sources in the book I buy. Once I own the book, I am allowed to do anything with it as long as I am using it for my own personal use.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        You own a copy of the book, but you do not own the contents of the book. Similarly, the owner of an iPhone owns the hardware, but does not own the software. Claiming that one should have the same rights over Apple's software that you have over a copy of a book that you own strikes me as nonsensical. I understand that people want Apple's software to allow certain things, but I think stating it as if Apple is impinging on the user's rights because it does not is a dishonest exaggeration.
        ujjwalg 17y ago
        The point I am saying is that when I buy the book, I can do whatever I want with the content as long as it is for my own personal use and am not distributing it. I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. And the same is true for software. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. Same for books.
        GHFigs 17y ago
        I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. It's a very simple point: there is a difference in the rights you have over hardware and software just as there is a difference in the rights you have over a book and the contents of the book. Pretending that the rules of one should apply to the other is nonsensical. The reason this distinction is important is that many people claim that Apple is impinging upon their rights with the restrictions built into the OS, but they don't actually have any rights over the OS and ownership of the hardware does not grant them any. By analogy, owning a book does not grant you any rights over the copyrighted contents. People readily understand the latter, but seem to violently reject the former. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise?
- thras 17y ago
  Come on. Playing card companies don't spend money and time to restrict the "playing card platform." Alarm clocks don't even have firmware to restrict and alarm clock companies don't care one way or another if their users take them apart and mess with the circuit boards. Apple, on the other hand, has worked pretty damn hard to restrict their customers from being able to install their own software. That is very much a "fuck you" direct from Steve Jobs.
  - joubert 17y ago
    Isn't it a balancing act to give the END USER the best quality the company believes the user should get?
    - redrobot5050 17y ago
      And protect a developer's investment? Easily hacked platforms become easily pirated platforms....just ask anyone who developed games for the Dreamcast....
      - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
        The Wii, the Nintendo DS, the original Xbox, the PSP... All were easily hacked and are super easy to load pirated games onto. And yet, publishers seem to still be making money quite handily on these platforms. It seems highly unlikely that Apples draconian restrictions on iPhone apps has much to do with piracy.
        menloparkbum 17y ago
        It's as easy to hack the iPhone as the PSP or DS - you just need to jailbreak it.
        redrobot5050 17y ago
        ...And people have already called the PSP a "dead" platform because of the ease and rate of PSP game piracy. Its definitely turned some developers off, and made others decide to "half-ass" their ports to the PSP, for fear of losing money on the platform.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- zacharypinter 17y ago
  That's a valid question. I tend to take it as a given, considering that the iPhone is essentially a miniature computer and the past decade or so has thrived on customizable, hackable personal computers. Apple has always wanted to assert extra control on the products they ship. With Mac's, they've controlled the hardware. Now they're trying to control the software. Imagine a version of OS X where every application had to be approved. Does that not strike you as horribly wrong? I wouldn't want to use an operating system with those restrictions, though I imagine the best response to such an OS would be to not purchase it.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    I don't think Apple would agree with you and, since they make the device, they pretty much get the final (official) say on that. They view it as an appliance that happens to combine several different sets of functionality into one physical device. If you break out each component you'll see they're almost always very tightly controlled and otherwise not open to general purpose (unlicensed) access. iPod / PMP (Apple, Microsoft, Creative) Camera (Cannon, Nokia, Sony, etc) GPS unit (Garmin, Tom Tom, etc) Phone (cheap flip phone) Gaming device (PSP, DS) There are exceptions of course -- and workarounds/hacks to circumvent protection (just like Jailbreaking on the iPhone) but more or less these sorts of closed appliance like devices are quite popular on their own. Apple simply combined them into one physical device and kept the same rules. Apple doesn't sell the iPhone as a general purpose computer so any consumer who buys one expecting it to function that way probably bought the wrong product. I can understand why someone might want that option but it doesn't change the fact that Apple does not sell a product that fits those needs and, based on the success of stand alone devices sold in the same fashion, it is almost completely irrelevant in real world sales or usage for most people. There is of course jailbreaking -- there's also Linux on iPhone hardware. I'm not sure how much progress they've made but I seem to recall they at least had a booting kernel a while back.
  - jstevens85 17y ago
    Consider video game consoles like the Nintendo DS, PSP, Xbox, Playstation, Wii. All of those appliances are unable to run unapproved code, and sell in huge numbers. A mobile phone is really more like a video game console than a computer. Simple, reliable, easy to use and fast.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Oh but I do get to rewrite paragraphs in books to my hearts desire. I may not be allowed to sell the books so made to others, but in the privacy of my own home I get to do what ever I want. Not so in the case of the iphone et al.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Not true, as evidienced by the existence of jailbreaking, unlocking, etc. Apple has not taken any legal action against people for doing these things. What legal action they have taken has been against people allegedly infringing on their software copyrights. The difference is crucial.
    - fatdog789 17y ago
      No, it's not. They haven't yet gone after people who jailbreak their phones. That doesn't mean they won't. And btw, they have gone after sites that talk about how to jailbreak the iPhone. Copyright was just an excuse.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        That doesn't mean they won't. On what grounds would they aside from copyright? Copyright was just an excuse. I don't understand. Are you saying they have not had legitimate copyright claims, or that they have but that they are somehow irrelevant?
      - Zev 17y ago
        * They haven't yet gone after people who jailbreak their phones* I like how you can predict the future... How else do you know what a company is going to do, before the company does it?
        jcl 17y ago
        http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking... If Apple honestly believed they would never go after someone for jailbreaking, then they wouldn't waste their time laying the legal groundwork to do so.
- zmimon 17y ago
  > The iPhone is sold as is, why should we expect to use it any differently? Wow. It's almost sickening to see the inversion of the principles of software freedom that Apple is able to get away with and not get criticized in the fanboi community. Geeks have been lambasting Microsoft for merely having proprietary formats for 20 years. They even got fined for billions of dollars just for not documenting their protocols well enough. Now Apple plays god and controls every single application that can ever even run on a platform. They make developers sign NDAs that prevent them even talking about technical details of the platform publicly. They do these things that are the antithesis of everything the open software community have been trying to achieve for the last 15 years and not only do people like yourself give it a pass, you go out of your way to stand up and defend it. I find it breathtaking.
  - gommm 17y ago
    I've always thought that the only difference between microsoft and apple on the point of view of behavior when keeping a monopoly is that apple hadn't been successful enough to actually be as aggressive as microsoft
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    And instead of answering the question, you bring Microsoft and the FSF into it and call me a fanboi. Again - it's only restricted if you look at it from the POV of a general purpose open and free computer, and that's not what it's sold as. Why are you trying to restrict what Apple can sell so it only covers devices that conform to your standards?
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    Wow. It's almost sickening to see the inversion of the principles of software freedom that Apple is able to get away with and not get criticized in the fanboi community. Irrelevant. Regardless of whether I am a fanboi, my question stands. Geeks have been lambasting Microsoft for merely having proprietary formats for 20 years. Yes, but also irrelevant. I don't like Microsoft (or any company's) proprietary formats, but I think they should have the right to create and use them. They even got fined for billions of dollars just for not documenting their protocols well enough. That both annoys and pleases me, but it's not relevant. Now Apple plays god and controls every single application that can ever even run on a platform. Yes. It's an Apple platform. They ought to be allowed to. (What kind of attack is "stop, you're playing God" anyway? Kids "Play God" in sandpits, that's no reason to ban sand pits.) They make developers sign NDAs that prevent them even talking about technical details of the platform publicly. Yes, and they ought to be allowed to do this. I don't personally enjoy it or think it fosters a great community, but that's also not relevant. They do these things that are the antithesis of everything the open software community have been trying to achieve for the last 15 years Where and why do the open source community come into this at all? The open source community pushes its own agenda, not no agenda. and not only do people like yourself give it a pass I give it a pass because I see no reason not to. This doesn't mean I like it and approve of it personally, but I think it should be allowed and acceptable. you go out of your way to stand up and defend it. It needs defending; most of the attacks are plain silly.
- amalcon 17y ago
  Yes I do. Well, maybe not alarm clock firmware, but if I want to, I can easily rewrite a paragraph of a book (or even insert and remove entire pages if I like). I may be unhappy with the resulting quality, but it's my choice to make. If I want a deck of cards with five suits, I can easily add the extra suit. I remember a cut of Star Wars 1 surfacing at one point that omitted Jar-Jar; while distributing this cut was a copyright violation, creating it certainly was not. Now, of course, this doesn't restrict Apple from building in mechanisms to prevent this sort of thing. I won't buy their device because of them, but I doubt this bothers Steve Jobs one bit.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "It's such an entrenched idea, but you don't get to rewrite paragraphs of books, or scenes in films, or suits in a pack of playing cards or the firmware in your alarm clock. " It's entrenched idea because, for most of these, I do get to do those things. I'm free to rip pages out of the books I own, or write in the margin, or re-word stuff with white-out and a pen. I'm free to mix several decks of cards to make my own weird set. I would expect I can hack on my alarm clock too, except I have no idea how to alter the firmware. :) I have "re-purposed" analog mechanical clocks. And why not? I owned them. Why should "as is" mean "stays as"?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
GHFigs 17y ago
iPhone owners should be able to install whatever they want on the device they purchased. They can. It is the iPhone OS, which they do not own, that does not support this.
- ankhmoop 17y ago
  No, it's the boot loader, locked to the device that they own, that actively blocks loading unsigned software.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The boot loader is likewise software which you do not own. You're free to replace it along with any other software.
    - vorador 17y ago
      But practically it's impossible to write a bootloader with equivalent functionnality.
      - axod 17y ago
        Software's hard! Let's go shopping!
    - nostrademons 17y ago
      I'm kinda curious how Apple would respond if someone did come up with a custom bootloader and OS that worked on the iPhone... Ah well. There's always Android.

jodrellblank 17y ago

iPhone owners should be able to install whatever they want on the device they purchased. Why? It's such an entrenched idea, but you don't get to rewrite paragraphs of books, or scenes in films, or suits in a pack of playing cards or the firmware in your alarm clock. The iPhone is sold as is, why should we expect to use it any differently?

rbanffy 17y ago
There is a fundamental difference. It's not like rewriting parts of your book, but about preventing you from using your book as a monitor stand when you no longer want to read it. The iPhone and iPod Touch are, unlike the average alarm clock, single purpose machines implemented on top of general purpose ones. I see many good reasons to want to change the firmware, use your own iPhone on your carrier and pay full price for unlocked units. If it's yours you should be allowed to do anything with it.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  It's not like rewriting parts of your book, but about preventing you from using your book as a monitor stand when you no longer want to read it. Bad example. Apple does nothing to prevent you from using an iPhone as a monitor stand, doorstop, hammer, frisbee, or whatever else. The limitations that people complain about all have to do with the software, which like the contents of the book, you do not own.
  - ujjwalg 17y ago
    what the hell are you talking about? I make my own notes within a book. A lot of times I even add things I have read from other sources in the book I buy. Once I own the book, I am allowed to do anything with it as long as I am using it for my own personal use.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      You own a copy of the book, but you do not own the contents of the book. Similarly, the owner of an iPhone owns the hardware, but does not own the software. Claiming that one should have the same rights over Apple's software that you have over a copy of a book that you own strikes me as nonsensical. I understand that people want Apple's software to allow certain things, but I think stating it as if Apple is impinging on the user's rights because it does not is a dishonest exaggeration.
      - ujjwalg 17y ago
        The point I am saying is that when I buy the book, I can do whatever I want with the content as long as it is for my own personal use and am not distributing it. I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. And the same is true for software. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. Same for books.
        GHFigs 17y ago
        I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. It's a very simple point: there is a difference in the rights you have over hardware and software just as there is a difference in the rights you have over a book and the contents of the book. Pretending that the rules of one should apply to the other is nonsensical. The reason this distinction is important is that many people claim that Apple is impinging upon their rights with the restrictions built into the OS, but they don't actually have any rights over the OS and ownership of the hardware does not grant them any. By analogy, owning a book does not grant you any rights over the copyrighted contents. People readily understand the latter, but seem to violently reject the former. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise?
thras 17y ago
Come on. Playing card companies don't spend money and time to restrict the "playing card platform." Alarm clocks don't even have firmware to restrict and alarm clock companies don't care one way or another if their users take them apart and mess with the circuit boards. Apple, on the other hand, has worked pretty damn hard to restrict their customers from being able to install their own software. That is very much a "fuck you" direct from Steve Jobs.
- joubert 17y ago
  Isn't it a balancing act to give the END USER the best quality the company believes the user should get?
  - redrobot5050 17y ago
    And protect a developer's investment? Easily hacked platforms become easily pirated platforms....just ask anyone who developed games for the Dreamcast....
    - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
      The Wii, the Nintendo DS, the original Xbox, the PSP... All were easily hacked and are super easy to load pirated games onto. And yet, publishers seem to still be making money quite handily on these platforms. It seems highly unlikely that Apples draconian restrictions on iPhone apps has much to do with piracy.
      - menloparkbum 17y ago
        It's as easy to hack the iPhone as the PSP or DS - you just need to jailbreak it.
        redrobot5050 17y ago
        ...And people have already called the PSP a "dead" platform because of the ease and rate of PSP game piracy. Its definitely turned some developers off, and made others decide to "half-ass" their ports to the PSP, for fear of losing money on the platform.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
zacharypinter 17y ago
That's a valid question. I tend to take it as a given, considering that the iPhone is essentially a miniature computer and the past decade or so has thrived on customizable, hackable personal computers. Apple has always wanted to assert extra control on the products they ship. With Mac's, they've controlled the hardware. Now they're trying to control the software. Imagine a version of OS X where every application had to be approved. Does that not strike you as horribly wrong? I wouldn't want to use an operating system with those restrictions, though I imagine the best response to such an OS would be to not purchase it.
- jsz0 17y ago
  I don't think Apple would agree with you and, since they make the device, they pretty much get the final (official) say on that. They view it as an appliance that happens to combine several different sets of functionality into one physical device. If you break out each component you'll see they're almost always very tightly controlled and otherwise not open to general purpose (unlicensed) access. iPod / PMP (Apple, Microsoft, Creative) Camera (Cannon, Nokia, Sony, etc) GPS unit (Garmin, Tom Tom, etc) Phone (cheap flip phone) Gaming device (PSP, DS) There are exceptions of course -- and workarounds/hacks to circumvent protection (just like Jailbreaking on the iPhone) but more or less these sorts of closed appliance like devices are quite popular on their own. Apple simply combined them into one physical device and kept the same rules. Apple doesn't sell the iPhone as a general purpose computer so any consumer who buys one expecting it to function that way probably bought the wrong product. I can understand why someone might want that option but it doesn't change the fact that Apple does not sell a product that fits those needs and, based on the success of stand alone devices sold in the same fashion, it is almost completely irrelevant in real world sales or usage for most people. There is of course jailbreaking -- there's also Linux on iPhone hardware. I'm not sure how much progress they've made but I seem to recall they at least had a booting kernel a while back.
- jstevens85 17y ago
  Consider video game consoles like the Nintendo DS, PSP, Xbox, Playstation, Wii. All of those appliances are unable to run unapproved code, and sell in huge numbers. A mobile phone is really more like a video game console than a computer. Simple, reliable, easy to use and fast.
lutorm 17y ago
Oh but I do get to rewrite paragraphs in books to my hearts desire. I may not be allowed to sell the books so made to others, but in the privacy of my own home I get to do what ever I want. Not so in the case of the iphone et al.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Not true, as evidienced by the existence of jailbreaking, unlocking, etc. Apple has not taken any legal action against people for doing these things. What legal action they have taken has been against people allegedly infringing on their software copyrights. The difference is crucial.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    No, it's not. They haven't yet gone after people who jailbreak their phones. That doesn't mean they won't. And btw, they have gone after sites that talk about how to jailbreak the iPhone. Copyright was just an excuse.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      That doesn't mean they won't. On what grounds would they aside from copyright? Copyright was just an excuse. I don't understand. Are you saying they have not had legitimate copyright claims, or that they have but that they are somehow irrelevant?
    - Zev 17y ago
      * They haven't yet gone after people who jailbreak their phones* I like how you can predict the future... How else do you know what a company is going to do, before the company does it?
      - jcl 17y ago
        http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking... If Apple honestly believed they would never go after someone for jailbreaking, then they wouldn't waste their time laying the legal groundwork to do so.
zmimon 17y ago
> The iPhone is sold as is, why should we expect to use it any differently? Wow. It's almost sickening to see the inversion of the principles of software freedom that Apple is able to get away with and not get criticized in the fanboi community. Geeks have been lambasting Microsoft for merely having proprietary formats for 20 years. They even got fined for billions of dollars just for not documenting their protocols well enough. Now Apple plays god and controls every single application that can ever even run on a platform. They make developers sign NDAs that prevent them even talking about technical details of the platform publicly. They do these things that are the antithesis of everything the open software community have been trying to achieve for the last 15 years and not only do people like yourself give it a pass, you go out of your way to stand up and defend it. I find it breathtaking.
- gommm 17y ago
  I've always thought that the only difference between microsoft and apple on the point of view of behavior when keeping a monopoly is that apple hadn't been successful enough to actually be as aggressive as microsoft
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  And instead of answering the question, you bring Microsoft and the FSF into it and call me a fanboi. Again - it's only restricted if you look at it from the POV of a general purpose open and free computer, and that's not what it's sold as. Why are you trying to restrict what Apple can sell so it only covers devices that conform to your standards?
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Wow. It's almost sickening to see the inversion of the principles of software freedom that Apple is able to get away with and not get criticized in the fanboi community. Irrelevant. Regardless of whether I am a fanboi, my question stands. Geeks have been lambasting Microsoft for merely having proprietary formats for 20 years. Yes, but also irrelevant. I don't like Microsoft (or any company's) proprietary formats, but I think they should have the right to create and use them. They even got fined for billions of dollars just for not documenting their protocols well enough. That both annoys and pleases me, but it's not relevant. Now Apple plays god and controls every single application that can ever even run on a platform. Yes. It's an Apple platform. They ought to be allowed to. (What kind of attack is "stop, you're playing God" anyway? Kids "Play God" in sandpits, that's no reason to ban sand pits.) They make developers sign NDAs that prevent them even talking about technical details of the platform publicly. Yes, and they ought to be allowed to do this. I don't personally enjoy it or think it fosters a great community, but that's also not relevant. They do these things that are the antithesis of everything the open software community have been trying to achieve for the last 15 years Where and why do the open source community come into this at all? The open source community pushes its own agenda, not no agenda. and not only do people like yourself give it a pass I give it a pass because I see no reason not to. This doesn't mean I like it and approve of it personally, but I think it should be allowed and acceptable. you go out of your way to stand up and defend it. It needs defending; most of the attacks are plain silly.
amalcon 17y ago
Yes I do. Well, maybe not alarm clock firmware, but if I want to, I can easily rewrite a paragraph of a book (or even insert and remove entire pages if I like). I may be unhappy with the resulting quality, but it's my choice to make. If I want a deck of cards with five suits, I can easily add the extra suit. I remember a cut of Star Wars 1 surfacing at one point that omitted Jar-Jar; while distributing this cut was a copyright violation, creating it certainly was not. Now, of course, this doesn't restrict Apple from building in mechanisms to prevent this sort of thing. I won't buy their device because of them, but I doubt this bothers Steve Jobs one bit.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"It's such an entrenched idea, but you don't get to rewrite paragraphs of books, or scenes in films, or suits in a pack of playing cards or the firmware in your alarm clock. " It's entrenched idea because, for most of these, I do get to do those things. I'm free to rip pages out of the books I own, or write in the margin, or re-word stuff with white-out and a pen. I'm free to mix several decks of cards to make my own weird set. I would expect I can hack on my alarm clock too, except I have no idea how to alter the firmware. :) I have "re-purposed" analog mechanical clocks. And why not? I owned them. Why should "as is" mean "stays as"?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

GHFigs 17y ago

iPhone owners should be able to install whatever they want on the device they purchased. They can. It is the iPhone OS, which they do not own, that does not support this.

ankhmoop 17y ago
No, it's the boot loader, locked to the device that they own, that actively blocks loading unsigned software.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The boot loader is likewise software which you do not own. You're free to replace it along with any other software.
  - vorador 17y ago
    But practically it's impossible to write a bootloader with equivalent functionnality.
    - axod 17y ago
      Software's hard! Let's go shopping!
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    I'm kinda curious how Apple would respond if someone did come up with a custom bootloader and OS that worked on the iPhone... Ah well. There's always Android.