iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ...

An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"

Vote with your money

[hypergreatthing (254983)]

And don't buy it. It's that simple.

It's not like comcast which is a monopoly in certain areas. There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy. Whoever wrote the summary is an idiot.

What's the issue here?

[Oxy the moron (770724)]

Look, I know the iPhone is all "snazzy" and "cool" and "trendy," but I think it's been known for a while that Apple would do this, yes?

If you're looking for a platform with more open SDK access, just don't write for the iPhone. Go for a mobile device with a Linux-based OS, or even Windows Mobile. That gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of writing your own software (I write C# on a Moto Q, myself) and you usually end up paying less, too.

Apple has a choice as to whether or not they open up their hardware just as you had the choice of buying the phone in the first place.

Could Apple Face Regulators...

[neonmonk (467567)]

Could Apple face regulators for restricting third party development on THEIR SOFTWARE which is on THEIR HARDWARE which does not in any sense of the word have a monopoly.

Somehow.. I doubt it.

People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All.

Whilst I may disagree with their tactics, I'm certainly not going to tell them how to run their business. And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. Windows & Office locks people into a platform by being an established monopoly, it also uses this established monopoly to lock people into their other products. What this is, is simply Apple giving people a piece of cake and not letting them eat it. Sure it sucks, but you know what - don't like it; don't develop for it. Simple.

and no python, perl, ruby...

[mzs (595629)]

borne shell, etc:

"no interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."

Re:It is their phone

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course. :P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.

My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.

Re:It is their phone

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

They just won't support you doing it through their framework.

There's a difference between not providing support and using legal means to restrict the usage. Apple isn't just not supporting the SDK (which would be fine), they're saying that you LEGALLY cannot do this with your phone and the SDK.

Re:It is their phone

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

The rules change when you have a monopoly position in a market - there are many things one business can do while another can't do. It doesn't mean the action itself is inherently right or wrong.

Re:It is their phone

[tkrotchko (124118)]

"Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device?"

It's "their" device right until I pay for it. Then it's "my" device.

Let me turn the question around. Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?

Re:It is their phone

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

Incidentally, you can load whatever you want on it, through the jailbreak system. If the device is screwed up because of what you did, then the device maker has no obligation to help you.

You can choose not to buy it. A lot of devices are like that, consoles are a very popular example. If you don't like the limitations of the system, that's fine, don't buy it. The rules don't change just because someone buys it.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[armada (553343)]

I agree. I am a fan of most of the industrial design and ui design that comes out of Apple but if they lock this up I will be buying an Android or an Openmoko instead (i've been wating for a 3g Iphone and the release of the SDK). However, unless the government forces us all to buy iphones or all the other manufacturers go out of business because of it's leet crunchy goodness, I dont see how this could warrant antitrust sanctions and government involvement. If you don't like it. Buy ze other one.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[llamalad (12917)]

You've got it exactly right.

I've been planning on snagging an iPhone as soon as the next model is released.

Unless a) this situation plays out differently than currently seems likely or b) I come to decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints... I will not be buying an iPhone after all.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[thomas.galvin (551471)]

I got modded all to hell for saying this in the last article, but whatever: Apple's decision regarding the SDK and iTunes distribution model have assured that I will not be buying an iPhone. I was holding out, waiting to see what the SDK had to offer, and I've come to the conclusion that it's better to wait for Android than to lock myself into Steve's phone. The Mac is probably the best development platform I've ever used, but the iPhone is useless to me. It flies in the face of the hacker/tinkerer ethic.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[sitkill (893183)]

This slashdot post is entirely sensationalism at its worse. If anyone had read the articles attached: Skype banned: "Apple To Allow VoIP on iPhone But...", it doesn't talk about Skype being banned, but being restricted. The firefox issue seems to be dealing with the fact that no interpreted languages are accepted (javascript I assume), and no plugin arch. are allowed. Actually, I'd gladly accept a no-plugin firefox. No more bloated firefox. And really, how many other mobile browsers allow plugins? (I'm honestly asking...). For sun, it's some legal issues that have come up. They haven't BLOCKED anything. To go from the article (which is entirely positive on Apple), and turn it around to be negative is doing a disservice to the original author. Saying that everything is being blocked is silly. If you want to play in the game, you gotta follow the rules. If you don't, well, there's always hockey.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[Ultra64 (318705)]

"how dare Apple tell their customers they can't run the apps they want on the phones that they *OWN*,"

is more like it

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[b96miata (620163)]

Which phones are you referring to?

With the exception of Verizon, who does a similar lockdown deal with BREW, most phones have a J2ME VM on them and are quite capable of running just about anything.

I've got Gmail/Gmaps/Opera mini among others running on my plain old (non-smart) phone. They were all free and the only way my carrier impeded my installing them right over the air was with a single warning screen about installing 3rd party apps.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[recoiledsnake (879048)]

It could be like all other cell phones and not allow you to put anything on it.

Drinking koolaid much? A wide array of phones, including Windows Mobile phones allow you put everything on them. Windows Mobile itself has more than 5000 software titles available for it with none of the BS restrictions or 30% revenue 'sharing'.

Re:Good way to turn a positive thing negative

[b96miata (620163)]

....available to all
(all who already have or can afford to buy an intel mac with leopard)
, and easy to program
(to anyone who knows objective C)
and port apps
(so long as they don't do anything apple doesn't like, since they control the sole distribution channel)
without using java which is all but a dead language
(that happens to run on the majority of cell phones sold today, as opposed to ObjC which is apple's baby just as much as java is Sun's)

here's one

[by Anonymous Coward]

I find that the Azureus client for BitTorrent, while slow to launch, does a fine job of helping me pirate video, audio and software. A victory for Java!

Re:troll bait

[peragrin (659227)]

because on the surface the SDK and new software is awesome. It is when people started reading the legal fine print and found out if you develop apps for the iPhone apple owns your soul and IP.

Okay a slight stretch there but that is basically the point. I can make firefox for the iPhone but legally I can't install it. It isn't for technical(except for the skype over edge which is just a bad idea) reasons just legal.

Re:troll bait

[bnenning (58349)]

Why is it that 99% of the developer reaction I've seen has been enthusiastically positive, and yet the spin here is so negative?

For established Mac developers it's a great deal. Apple handles the distribution and payment processing, and they don't have to worry about competing with open source weenies. But hobbyists get shut out (apparently even if you try to pay Apple for a certificate, there's no guarantee they'll give you one), and end users get nickeled and dimed for apps that would have free equivalents in a competitive market.

When the competitive landscape in the cellphone world changes and the carriers just become dumb pipes, Apple will be the first to drop stupid restrictions

That would be nice, although I'm skeptical since lots of other AT&T phones don't have these kinds of restrictions.

Re:Complicated Issue

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

The iphone in providing an sdk is considerably more open than it's competition.

  The symbian SDK is free. You can get a developer certificate for free (Apple charges $100/year), you can distribute in any manner you choose (Apple insist on using itunes), you can use background apps, you can do VOIP over 3G/Edge....

So in what way is the iphone 'considerably more open'.

Re:Why?

[Oxy the moron (770724)]

I was thinking this exact same thing. The Motorola Q has some really great features, and it turns out a lot of them are masked or outright disabled (Java support) if you use Verizon as your carrier versus a different carrier. If anything, Apple is being more generous than the likes of some cell phone companies.

Re:What did you expect?

[Peter Cooper (660482)]

The EULA for OS X says:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

It's quite easy to label a home-built computer with an Apple sticker.

Re:No Skype makes sense, No GPLv3 is annoying...

[Durzel (137902)]

It's only "AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted" if you've been living in a cave.

Windows Mobile and Symbian have far more unrestrictive terms of use, in fact - simply being able to write an app in the relevant programming language is the only barrier to entry. There's no third-party enforcing distribution control, no ridiculous $99 sign-up fee - yet, ironically, some people justify the licence fee as "getting rid of the chaff". Unbelievable.

I try to credit people with intelligent reasoning for the most part but it's tough to argue in favour of people who advocate draconian control the likes of which Apple is putting into effect with its SDK, when if it was Microsoft or some other less-favoured darling at the helm there would - justifiably - be outcry.

Disclaimer: I own a Macbook Pro and an iPod.

Re:No Skype makes sense, No GPLv3 is annoying...

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

The "No Competing Browsers" I understand as well. You see, on the iPhone, the browser really isn't ordinary, but the keys to the kingdom of usability and utility. Apple wanting to protect that makes sense.

Actually, that makes no sense. If it's the most important thing to have work well, why wouldn't they welcome competition? If iPhone Firefox ended up being better than iPhone Safari, why wouldn't Apple be happy about this situation? Their customers get better utility out of the device, and Apple doesn't have to lift a finger.

What is probably the MOST annoying is "No GPLv3": Apple won't distribute GPLv3 code because it means giving aways the signing key for that app (the anti-TiVoization clause), and since all distribution is through apple, GPLv3 is out.

I guess this can be the first documented case of the GPLv3 actually working, and working well. I'm sorry, but a version of an app which you can't modify without paying $100 for a "developer key" is not free software.

However, for all the griping, this is actually an AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted platform, compared with say game consoles or other PDAs.

And amazingly locked down, compared with Android.

And for $100 to get a developer key (which allows you to directly run on your own devices), who cares about the distribution restrictions if you are some l33t haxor type who just HAS to run firefox on his iPhone.

In what way is this OK?

If Microsoft wanted to charge you $100 to run Firefox on Windows, you would burn them at the stake. The only thing that makes Apple different is that they aren't a monopoly... yet.