Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Media Cellphones Programming The Internet IT Technology

iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ... 800

Posted by Zonk
from the nothing-you-wanted-to-use-anyway-right dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by downix (84795) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:26AM (#22715794) Homepage
    The SDK made the iPhone interesting and attractive to new developers. Sun adding java added to that. But now Apple slamming the door on innovation will only drive those that wish for such a product to go elsewhere, such as to Googles Android or the OpenMoko, for examples.
    • Complicated Issue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by keirre23hu (638913) <j2k4real@nOspam.gmail.com> on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:31AM (#22715910) Homepage
      On one hand, this reeks of the same type of behaviour microsoft have engaged in for the past two decades, and was rightfully sued over and over and over again about. At the same time, how is Apple's behaviour different from retarded mess that Verizon puts on its cellular phones to lock out developers and cripple the functionality. Noone goes after the cellular carriers and their enablers (handset makers). Also, where is the Zune SDK (not that Zune == IPod Touch/IPhone, but still)?
      • troll bait (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why is it that 99% of the developer reaction I've seen has been enthusiastically positive, and yet the spin here is so negative? Apple has dramatically exceeded people's expectations and are even allowing VOIP applications that use WiFi. 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, since their interests will be completely aligned with users: they make their money on hardware, not software. And w
        • Re:troll bait (Score:5, Insightful)

          by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:14AM (#22716772)
          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 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bnenning (58349) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:21AM (#22716910)
          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by e4g4 (533831)

            lots of other AT&T phones don't have these kinds of restrictions
            The phones themselves may not have built in restrictions, but AT&T's terms of use sure as hell do. Any heavy bandwidth usage over edge can subject you to cancellation of service - edge is even explicitly restricted to "(i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) corporate Intranet access."
          • Re:troll bait (Score:4, Interesting)

            by cowscows (103644) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @02:50PM (#22720470) Journal
            Apple will allow you to distribute free applications for the iPhone. I don't understand where you expect all this nickle and dime'ing to come from. As for shutting out hobbyists, I'm just guessing here same as you were, but I haven't seen anything from Apple that leaves me to believe that they'll be particularly selective about who they allow to distribute through iTunes. You just have to make apps that follow their rules.

            The mac world has a very strong history of high quality shareware/freeware. I think a hobbyists windows developer trying to make the jump from the windows and/or linux world to the iPhone will have less to worry about in terms of selectiveness from Apple, than they will from end users. Apple users tend to be much more picky about the appearance/interface of their software.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kelbear (870538)
        The action is exactly the same.

        However, the conditions are not. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the phone or smart phone market. Pretty much every phone on the market is closed in some form. The iphone in providing an sdk is considerably more open than it's competition.

        I have never owned an Apple product.

        If the demand for these apps is strong enough and the business model is profitable enough, perhaps a competing phone would like to offer what Apple isn't. (Android? It'd sure be nice, it'd cause me to buy
    • by armada (553343) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:31AM (#22715920)
      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.
      • by MacDork (560499)
        They would be leveled against Apple the same way they were leveled against Microsoft. Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market. And before you argue that iPod dominance and a content distribution network does not give them an advantage in the phone market, allow me to point out that /.'ers have been awarded +5 insightful [slashdot.org] to people for s
        • by vijayiyer (728590) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:59AM (#22717700)
          Your Honor, I will refer to exhibit "A", a Slashdot post. Note that it was moderated "+5 insightful". Courtroom: The defendant, Apple Corp, is found guilty as charged!
        • by ContractualObligatio (850987) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @01:48PM (#22719354)
          Two logical errors there:

          Microsoft's illegal abuse of its monopoly position is not from simply having a mere "advantage" in the browser market. A browser requires an OS - whoever controls the OS has strong control over the browser. The OS is itself the distribution mechanism for the new browser. Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.

          Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up. It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating. It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.

          "I'm sure /. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though."
            - The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
        • by itsdapead (734413) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @03:20PM (#22720862)

          Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market.

          If and when

          1. Apple engages in anti-competitive practices to force all portable music players to come bundled with iTunes software, forcing lots of existing music players and online music services into oblivion
          2. Apple gimmicks iPods so that they will only play music from iTunes (or so they need to be re-booted between playing iTunes and regular MP3s)
          3. The music industry finally throws in the towel on DRM - which is the main reason iTunes tunes won't play on non-Apple players, and why many of the competitors to iTunes won't play on iPods...

          then, maybe you can start to compare Apple's role in the music player market with Microsoft's role in the operating systems market.

          Meanwhile, I'll keep using my iPod Nano to play MP3s made from my own CDs (and, slowly, MP3s bought online as decent services such as Play.com start offering unencumbered legal downloads for sensible prices) with absolutely no compulsion to buy from iTunes and absolutely no compulsion to buy another iPod unless I happen to prefer Apple's design.

          What's more - I can buy a Symbian/Windows Mobile/Brand X phone and it still accepts incoming calls and texts from an iPhone! - so I can choose not to buy an iPhone too!

          So, please explain again how the Apple "monopoly" (which doesn't force anybody to buy an iPod and/or buy from iTunes unless they like the product) remotely resembles the MS operating system monopoly (which means that many Mac and Linux users are pretty much obliged to dual-boot or run emulation software - usually requiring us to buy a copy of windows & MS Office - in order to interoperate with the masses)?

    • by llamalad (12917) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:38AM (#22716034)
      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.
      • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:32AM (#22717144)
        > decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints...

        Why the docile obedience? Just because it is Apple?

        You buy it, you do whatever the hell you want with it! Isn't that the mantra here at Slashdot? Except when it is Apple.

        I want to see someone port Iceweasel to the damned thing, post a torrent up on a server somewhere anonymously and watch Apple suffer the PR nightmare of trying to ban it. If we can't outright outlaw stupidity we can certainly make it painful.

        Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue. Come on, they stared Microsoft down over their mistreatment of Java, why be scared of Apple when, again, this is a case they can't lose. Because it won't ever make it to a court of law, Apple would get their asses handed to them in the court of public opinion years before the wheels of justice could turn.
    • 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.
      • by e4g4 (533831) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:29AM (#22717092)
        Bah, you're so far off it's not even funny. I'm running a native terminal on my iPhone. It's got Ruby, Python, and (horrors) Java running on it - each with Objective C bridges (except Ruby). I have root on my phone, for the first time ever. So, yeah - the iPhone does not officially support the hacker/tinkerer ethic - so fucking what? Unofficially supporting it is good enough for me - it is by far the best *nix based phone on the market (oh wait, it's the *only* *nix based phone on the market - that actually works).

        The 2.0 software may break the current jailbreak methods, but again, so what, I've already got 3rd party apps on my phone.
        • by Longstaff (70353) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @02:22PM (#22719994)
          (oh wait, it's the *only* *nix based phone on the market - that actually works)

          My Linux-based Motorola e680 from 2003 would beg to differ. It worked wonderfully, thank you. Full touch screen, minimal buttons (keypad was in the touch screen), mp3 audio, mp4 video playback (this all sound familiar?)....oh yeah and a (vga :-/) camera, video capture, fm tuner and an SD card slot...
      • by demachina (71715) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @01:18PM (#22718950)
        ...and Apple doesn't care one little bit about you because 99.99% of their market is people who are completely happy with iTunes and iPhone like they are.

        Something slashdotters need to get a grip on is you are a tiny, extremely hard to please, demographic. Most companies recognize it will cost them a lot in one form or another to satisfy you, and the revenue they get off you wont make up for it. The only impact you have in this particular arena is Apple apparently wants geeks to develop apps for their phone. But there are probably going to be about a million geeks doing that even with the restrictions in their terms of service.

        I like Linux and the myriad options it gives personally, but Apple wants to maintain a coherent and stable software ecosystem for their phone. They really don't need to have 5 different browsers, and a bazillion apps designed for geeks instead of polished standards conforming apps that fit in to their phone experience. The iPhone works pretty well the way it is now, if they can grow their software ecosystem some they will be happy. I'm pretty sure they don't want to turn it in to a confusing train wreck, kind of like the Linux desktop with 10 different window managers, a half dozen GUI toolkits, 20 different browsers, some awesome apps and a lot of brain dead broken ones, none of which adhere to the same set of UI guidelines.
    • by sitkill (893183) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:08AM (#22716642)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yetihehe (971185)

        Actually, I'd gladly accept a no-plugin firefox. No more bloated firefox.

        You can just not use plugins. But I would like to use them. So it is crippled.

        They haven't BLOCKED anything

        They legally have. I can not develop firefox with plugin on iphone, or use skype with edge.

        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.

        But maybe some people don't like what author said? For a fanboi: Hurray, we have sdk!. For normal

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FyRE666 (263011) *
      The funny thing is, Apple have always had far more overt anti-competitive practices than MS. It's a blessing that MS actually managed to prevent Apple from owning the desktop OS market, as the tie-in with hardware too would make the IT world a much less innovative, and much more expensive place to be.

      Many people could have guessed Apple would pull this stunt too - remember, the ONLY reason this SDK exists at all is due to the existing cracked iphone/itouch development movement. Apple want to cash in, but on
    • by celtic_hackr (579828) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:27AM (#22717026) Journal
      restricted people's ability to build clone machines back in the day.

      The same Apple that restricted what software could run on their machines.
      The same Apple that restricted ...

      Nothing new here, this is Apple's secret formula to ensure they never have more than 3-5% market share of anything they do in the long term. I remember a time when Apple was very popular, but due to their complete lack of business acumen doomed their ability to take over the hardware and software markets. They could of taken the computer world by storm and buried IBM and Microsoft, but they have no clue how to market long term. Short term marketing and hype they've got down, but I didn't buy an iPhone, because, I know the end result, which we are now starting to see more clearly. Some people might say I was psychic, o which I would say know your history and you won't be doomed to repeat it.

      Same ol' Apple. It's comforting to know I can rely on them to be consistent. Isn't Steve Jobs at the helm again?
  • by hypergreatthing (254983) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:28AM (#22715842)
    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.
  • by Oxy the moron (770724) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:29AM (#22715852)

    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.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:29AM (#22715854) Journal

    Could Apple face government regulators?"
    If possible regulation is the result, Apple would be better off saying "fuck it, opening up was a mistake, we are not going to do it, sorry."

    What other cell phone company might be facing government regulators over their extremely locked down software choices?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Oxy the moron (770724) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:35AM (#22716010)

      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.

  • It's their party (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Badbone (1159483) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:29AM (#22715872)
    How is this an issue for regulators? If Apple if determined to make their product not work, its not the regulators job to change their mind. If Apple decides they want no Opera and no Java and nothing else, its their decision. Let them make it and face the consequences.
  • by neonmonk (467567) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:30AM (#22715888)
    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.
    • by Millennium (2451)
      :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.

      By the time someone would be installing applications on an iPhone, it is not "Apple's hardware" anymore. That ended when the buyer paid for it. My iPhone is my property, and I will install whatever I please on it. If Apple tries to stop me, I will do my utmost to stop their intrusion onto my property by any means necessary. This is a simple
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.

      It's not just a matter of "making it easy". They have made it legally impossible for you to run Java, alternative browsers, and other applications on a product that you shelled out serious cash for.

      And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same.

      No, it's not. It's worse. This is akin to Microsoft releasing a version of Windows, let's call it Windows Fist-up-your-ass edition, and then saying "Our EULA states you cannot install Firfox, Opera, or Java," while, at the same time, adding rules to the Win32 API that block out these applications.

      If Microsof

  • Er wha? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brunes69 (86786) <`slashdot' `at' `keirstead.org'> on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:31AM (#22715900) Homepage

    Could Apple face government regulators?

    For what reason? Last I heard Apple did not have a monopoly on cell phones, or even on smart phones. The only thing they seem to have a monopoly on is fanboys.

    Don't like the iPhone's rules, don't buy the phone. There are a multitude of alternatives. The FCC does not regulate what US providers can and can not restrict on their cell phone networks currently in any way.

  • by Kagato (116051) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:32AM (#22715940)
    Most cell phone applications are written in J2ME. The lack of J2ME support means existing applications already on AT&T's approved app deck would need extensive porting. The only exception is Verizon which has their own language (called BREW), which has less apps than most other companies because of it. Even the Black Berry supports J2ME.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      It's not a big deal unless Apple really wants all of that software ported over to iPhone very quickly without the developers putting in additional work. And why would they want that?

      Apple wants people to use their SDK so everything is using power efficiently, interacting with the OS properly, and has an interface that fits with OSX and other iPhone apps. They're not going to take a shoddy port of a crappy program written for another cell phone and put that up on their store anyway, so why would they both

  • by mzs (595629) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:36AM (#22716014)
    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)."
  • by InfraredAD (904482) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:39AM (#22716072)
    1) "Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked." Yeah they're going to be blocked over the cellular network, not over WiFi, this is NOT NEWS. 2) The article that the "are forbidden" link goes to talks about the possible lack of Photoshop (among other apps) on the iPhone. Photoshop, come on. There is no way I'm going to take an article seriously that talks about the lack of Photoshop ON A PHONE. If you wanna use Photoshop get your own lappy 486 or Desktop. 3) Sun Java VM - Where the heck is the back peddling? This whole thing was announced less than a week ago, the article even states "if our crack engineers are able to build it" let alone where they mention the licensing in less than one full sentence... Get real. This is a Doom n' Gloom / FUD post.
  • by DarkDust (239124) <marc@darkdust.net> on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:46AM (#22716220) Homepage
    I've taken a look at the documentation, and as always it's excellent. Lot's of examples and stuff, so the SDK itself seems to be really good. And I personally think that their distribution system is a good idea (they NEED control for various reasons). I also have no problem with the fact that they don't allow voice services over the cellular network, only via WLAN (they have to, the providers would kick Apple in the nuts if they'd allow that).

    But the limitation that instantly kills a ton of useful potential apps is the fact that you can't run an app in the background. If you switch away from your app (say, accept a phone call), your application quits. Bye bye instant messaging and every other application that needs to run for a long time/wait for events.
  • It's funny... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wheatin (982347) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:48AM (#22716276)
    Game development is a hobby of mine. I was considering either doing some stuff in Microsoft's XNA Studio for the XBox or the IPhone SDK. It's funny that I'll be using a Microsoft product because it's more open.
    • Re:It's funny... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Spy Hunter (317220) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:57PM (#22724692) Journal
      How did your comment get modded up to +5 when it is so obviously wrong? Microsoft's XNA SDK for XBox 360 is *just* as restrictive as the iPhone SDK, if not more so. Perhaps you are confused because XNA can be used for unrestricted development of Windows games. Well, Apple allows unrestricted development of Mac games too; the iPhone SDK has nothing to do with that. The only valid comparison is between XNA's XBox 360 development capability vs. the iPhone SDK.
      • iPhone: You can run native code. XBox: no native code; all code runs in the .NET Framework VM sandbox.
      • iPhone: $99 one-time fee. XBox: $99 yearly subscription + $50 yearly subscription for XBox Live Gold
      • iPhone: free version with emulator for testing. XBox: free version but no way to test for XBox compatibility.
      • iPhone: iTunes is the exclusive distribution channel for iPhone programs. XBox: XBox Live the is exclusive distribution channel for XBox games.
      Since neither Apple or Microsoft can control what you do with the SDK on your own hardware, the following restrictions only apply to applications distributed through iTunes or XBox Live.
      • iPhone: programs of any type will be distributed. XBox: programs must be games for distribution on Live.
      • iPhone: distribution on iTunes store will be available to any developer. XBox: distribution on XBox Live restricted to a select few who win periodic voting contests.
      • iPhone: programs can use WiFi for any purpose; cellular network with restrictions. XBox: Network access only for XBox Live and local LAN multiplayer. Non-LAN play must enforce requirement of XBox Live Gold subscription.
      • iPhone: programs distributed through iTunes may not execute downloaded code or plugins. XBox: Microsoft would never approve a game for distribution on Live that executed downloaded code or could download plugins.
      • iPhone: Free programs distributed for free. XNA: not announced. Likely to limit or prohibit free games.
      • iPhone: Commercial distribution is 30% of gross revenue, no other fees. XNA: not announced. Likely to be higher than 30% based on rumors of XBLA royalty rates.
      As you can see, XBox development is *just* as restricted as iPhone development; more so, in fact.
  • by Jaywalk (94910) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:49AM (#22716280) Homepage

    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?
    Now that's just silly. In order to be subject to the antimonopoly laws, you need to have a monopoly in the relevant market. Just when did Apple corner the market on smart phones? Despite iPhone's current sales surge, Blackberry still has more phones out there than Apple. Add it Palm's Treo and the assortment of phones from companies like Nokia, and iPhone is practically a bit player.

    Antitrust laws are a last resort for when the market can't correct itself. If Apple keeps up with this crap they risk the more dire consequence of consumers simply abandoning their platform. Can you say, Apple Lisa [wikipedia.org]?
  • Honestly though... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Darundal (891860) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:49AM (#22716282) Journal
    ...who didn't expect this? Honestly, this is completely in line with how they have been acting with the iPhone/iPod Touch product lines. Commence Jailbreaking in 5, 4...
  • Predictions? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @10:59AM (#22716476) Homepage
    Will Apple face government regulation?

    I seriously doubt it. The iPhone has not given anything and then taken it away. Nor have they made any promises they didn't keep. Further, the level of ubiquity of the iPhone platform is not high enough to be on any government regulatory radar. (Blackberry *might* be just to illustrate a point of reference.)

    As to whether or not a "next version iPhone" will grant developers and users the freedom and flexibility they crave? I find it to be HIGHLY unlikely. Apple has been very consistent in stating their attitude about who controls their products. Apple does -- at ALL times -- especially after purchase. They're pretty good at blurring the lines of who actually owns the products they sell.
  • by tylersoze (789256) on Tuesday March 11, 2008 @11:01AM (#22716506)
    I'm guessing some of these limitations will or can only be enforced by not allowing these applications on the iTunes app store. However if you pony up the $99 to get a developer certificate presumably you'll be able to compile and run whatever the heck you want on your own iPhone subject to SDK limitations.

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.

Working...