5 ms·

This is illogical and amateurish. The title of the petition claims that Apple (1) tramples free speech and (2) innovation. Yet the detailed verbiage of the com

This is illogical and amateurish. The title of the petition claims that Apple (1) tramples free speech and (2) innovation. Yet the detailed verbiage of the complaint gives no evidence that they trample free speech, and if their contract terms trample innovation it is a matter of interpretation. Apple's developer agreement bans developers from talking about the developer agreement. A bit draconian, perhaps, but hardly a trampling of "free speech", and actually quite common within contracts generally. The other complaints are simply silly. What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices? What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates? And we can debate about the morality of DRM, but if you want to see the difference between a DRM-protected environment and an unprotected environment, look at the difference between the App Store and Google Play. Profitability for developers, quality of software, absence of viruses... DRM does accomplish some positive results. And whether it does or doesn't, in no sense are anyone's "rights" quashed here. It's a contract, people. It can say whatever the parties to the contract agree it should say. If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.

davexunit 12y ago
This comment just shows how good Apple is at what they do. They trample upon your freedom to do your computing as you wish and are praised for it. Look at how nice life is in Apple's walled garden! If someone other than Apple controls your computer, someone else could do something bad to it!
- _Simon 12y ago
  So don't use Apple kit! Simple, really. But, if you espouse freedom of speech and freedom of choice, you must logically accept that people will want this choice. That's the problem with the OSS Stasi; the choice they mean is their choice or no choice...
  - quadrangle 12y ago
    You just stepped into an argument between an enormous corporation that imposes extremely long and draconian terms on their closed system they control and others who use pretty mild legal terms to keep their work in the public commons, and you called the loose bunch of community folks "Stasi".
Flimm 12y ago
> actually quite common within contracts generally Really? > What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices? It's my device and I have the freedom to do with it as I wish. EFF goes into a lot more detail if you want to read it. > What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates? It's not their own security updates, it's security updates to other people's apps. > we can debate about the morality of DRM This is about the fact that developers are forced into shipping it even if they don't want it. > If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it. I won't sign it, and and I will sign a petition, and I will warn other developers about it. It's my right to point out bad behaviour and to complain. You presumably accept this since you just posted a comment complaining about something.
- fortytw2 12y ago
  Developers aren't forced to develop for Apple products. They aren't forced to do anything
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Flimm 12y ago
    s/forced/contractually obliged/g
  - thomasahle 12y ago
    It always surprises me when people say this. If somebody forced all fishermen to only sail in circles, catch fish with their tongues and drink a liter of sulfuric acid every morning - they would be up in arms. Sure they're not forced to be fishermen, but you can't blame them for caring.
    - putzdown 12y ago
      Well but the key word there is "somebody." If there was a single, all-encompassing, global world government that forced all fishermen to do this, then yes, we'd have a problem. If the United States (for example) caused its fishermen to do this, then the people of the United States would be well-advised to change this law, else they'll soon be out of fish. But even if they didn't, it's still not a question of "forcing" or "rights." Fishermen would simply fish elsewhere; at great cost, perhaps, with a loss of opportunity, no doubt, but it's still a question of choice.
fpgeek 12y ago
Yes, it's a contract. It's a contract that moves the world in a direction the EFF thinks is bad. You may disagree with that, but they (obviously) don't. What do you expect them to do? Ignore what they consider a serious problem just because many people choose to accept it? Might as well tell them to ignore the DMCA because it was (and, AFAICT, still is) overwhelmingly popular in Washington.
- putzdown 12y ago
  If the EFF thinks developers are unwise to agree to this contract, they should carefully, logically, and constantly explain to developers why that is. They should persuade developers. They should not treat the contract as if it were or should be illegal or a violation of "rights." Appeal to developers, don't petition against the contract.
hawleyal 12y ago
Disagree
will_brown 12y ago
It is very strange to me when I see public discourse about Free Speech in any context not involving the government. Free Speech is not some unlimited right, Free Speech is more akin to a limitation on the Government's power to restrict my speech. However, just as important as Free Speech is my right to contract, including contracting away certain rights - it is for the free market to decide if the terms are acceptable. The free market has spoken and it appears Developers are willing to contractually exchange their right to publicly disparage Apple in exchange for their apps appearing in the App Store. Of course Developers would prefer not giving up any rights, just as I am sure Developers would prefer not sharing revenue with Apple, and if the Free Market did not accept Apple's terms then Apple would have to change or fail allowing room for new competition. While this is a guess, I would be shocked if the EFF does not include similar provisions in their employment agreements (i.e. restricting the rights of their employees to publicly disparage EFF, or at minimum restricting employees right to speak about EFF's trade secrets) - not that I am suggesting anything nefarious on behalf of EFF or some double standard, simply that such provisions are boiler plate and industry standard.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  > The free market has spoken What a crock of bovine excrement. Calling iOS a "free market" is utter lunacy.
Arjuna 12y ago
To add to your comment... My first game was approved and released on Apple's App Store 2 days ago. It's currently displaying in the "Featured" section of its category. As a fledgling game developer who is learning to fly, trying to make a dream come true, I can say that I simply do not have the financial resources or marketing muscle to reach the audience that my game is reaching on my own. I just would not have this exposure available to me as a solo coder, and for that I am grateful. Also, I'm not saying that I'm special in any way; actually, I suspect that my story isn't much different from the stories of other game developers who are just getting started. Up until the point that I started developing the game, I'd never owned an Apple product. I figured that I might as well try something new, and get some exposure with OS X, Xcode, etc. So, I ordered a Macbook Pro, an iPhone 5S... and then I lit the fuse. And that is why the game ended up on iOS. Yes, I know that I've sort of locked myself in with a single platform, rocking Swift over cross-platform options, embracing that beautiful, "Walled Garden", etc., but, I had to start somewhere. In the final analysis, I own the code. I can convert the code and create versions of the game on the platforms of my choice. I can certainly understand if people have issues with Apple, and of course they have every right to voice and discuss their concerns. However, the restrictions outlined in the petition have not prevented me from delivering on my dream.

davexunit 12y ago

This comment just shows how good Apple is at what they do. They trample upon your freedom to do your computing as you wish and are praised for it. Look at how nice life is in Apple's walled garden! If someone other than Apple controls your computer, someone else could do something bad to it!

_Simon 12y ago
So don't use Apple kit! Simple, really. But, if you espouse freedom of speech and freedom of choice, you must logically accept that people will want this choice. That's the problem with the OSS Stasi; the choice they mean is their choice or no choice...
- quadrangle 12y ago
  You just stepped into an argument between an enormous corporation that imposes extremely long and draconian terms on their closed system they control and others who use pretty mild legal terms to keep their work in the public commons, and you called the loose bunch of community folks "Stasi".

Flimm 12y ago

> actually quite common within contracts generally Really? > What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices? It's my device and I have the freedom to do with it as I wish. EFF goes into a lot more detail if you want to read it. > What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates? It's not their own security updates, it's security updates to other people's apps. > we can debate about the morality of DRM This is about the fact that developers are forced into shipping it even if they don't want it. > If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it. I won't sign it, and and I will sign a petition, and I will warn other developers about it. It's my right to point out bad behaviour and to complain. You presumably accept this since you just posted a comment complaining about something.

fortytw2 12y ago
Developers aren't forced to develop for Apple products. They aren't forced to do anything
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Flimm 12y ago
  s/forced/contractually obliged/g
- thomasahle 12y ago
  It always surprises me when people say this. If somebody forced all fishermen to only sail in circles, catch fish with their tongues and drink a liter of sulfuric acid every morning - they would be up in arms. Sure they're not forced to be fishermen, but you can't blame them for caring.
  - putzdown 12y ago
    Well but the key word there is "somebody." If there was a single, all-encompassing, global world government that forced all fishermen to do this, then yes, we'd have a problem. If the United States (for example) caused its fishermen to do this, then the people of the United States would be well-advised to change this law, else they'll soon be out of fish. But even if they didn't, it's still not a question of "forcing" or "rights." Fishermen would simply fish elsewhere; at great cost, perhaps, with a loss of opportunity, no doubt, but it's still a question of choice.

fpgeek 12y ago

Yes, it's a contract. It's a contract that moves the world in a direction the EFF thinks is bad. You may disagree with that, but they (obviously) don't. What do you expect them to do? Ignore what they consider a serious problem just because many people choose to accept it? Might as well tell them to ignore the DMCA because it was (and, AFAICT, still is) overwhelmingly popular in Washington.

putzdown 12y ago
If the EFF thinks developers are unwise to agree to this contract, they should carefully, logically, and constantly explain to developers why that is. They should persuade developers. They should not treat the contract as if it were or should be illegal or a violation of "rights." Appeal to developers, don't petition against the contract.

hawleyal 12y ago

Disagree

will_brown 12y ago

It is very strange to me when I see public discourse about Free Speech in any context not involving the government. Free Speech is not some unlimited right, Free Speech is more akin to a limitation on the Government's power to restrict my speech. However, just as important as Free Speech is my right to contract, including contracting away certain rights - it is for the free market to decide if the terms are acceptable. The free market has spoken and it appears Developers are willing to contractually exchange their right to publicly disparage Apple in exchange for their apps appearing in the App Store. Of course Developers would prefer not giving up any rights, just as I am sure Developers would prefer not sharing revenue with Apple, and if the Free Market did not accept Apple's terms then Apple would have to change or fail allowing room for new competition. While this is a guess, I would be shocked if the EFF does not include similar provisions in their employment agreements (i.e. restricting the rights of their employees to publicly disparage EFF, or at minimum restricting employees right to speak about EFF's trade secrets) - not that I am suggesting anything nefarious on behalf of EFF or some double standard, simply that such provisions are boiler plate and industry standard.

quadrangle 12y ago
> The free market has spoken What a crock of bovine excrement. Calling iOS a "free market" is utter lunacy.

Arjuna 12y ago

To add to your comment... My first game was approved and released on Apple's App Store 2 days ago. It's currently displaying in the "Featured" section of its category. As a fledgling game developer who is learning to fly, trying to make a dream come true, I can say that I simply do not have the financial resources or marketing muscle to reach the audience that my game is reaching on my own. I just would not have this exposure available to me as a solo coder, and for that I am grateful. Also, I'm not saying that I'm special in any way; actually, I suspect that my story isn't much different from the stories of other game developers who are just getting started. Up until the point that I started developing the game, I'd never owned an Apple product. I figured that I might as well try something new, and get some exposure with OS X, Xcode, etc. So, I ordered a Macbook Pro, an iPhone 5S... and then I lit the fuse. And that is why the game ended up on iOS. Yes, I know that I've sort of locked myself in with a single platform, rocking Swift over cross-platform options, embracing that beautiful, "Walled Garden", etc., but, I had to start somewhere. In the final analysis, I own the code. I can convert the code and create versions of the game on the platforms of my choice. I can certainly understand if people have issues with Apple, and of course they have every right to voice and discuss their concerns. However, the restrictions outlined in the petition have not prevented me from delivering on my dream.