Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Apple Your Rights Online

Apple's iPhone Developer License Agreement Revealed 483

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-agree-not-to-be-google dept.
nigham writes "The EFF is publicly disclosing a version of Apple's iPhone developer program license agreement. The highlights: you can't disclose the agreement itself (the EFF managed to get it via the Freedom of Information Act thanks to NASA's recent app), Apple reserves the right to kill your app at any time with no reason, and Apple's liability in any circumstance is limited to 50 bucks. There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.' The entire agreement (PDF) is up at the EFF's site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's iPhone Developer License Agreement Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • by Em Emalb (452530) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <blameme>> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:43AM (#31413480) Homepage Journal

    I'm not sure what the uproar is about...if you agree to develop apps for Apple's devices, this is the agreement you sign. If you don't like it, don't make apps for Apple products.

    Am I missing something? This has nothing at all to do with "My Rights Online"...IMNSHO.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcombel (1557059)
      the big deal is that there is an entire marketplace being controlled by a party with interests that conflict with the entrepreneurs that would be setting up shop in that marketplace.

      to rephrase the mantra: if microsoft had these requirements on developing software for Windows operating systems, you'd be typing up a furious reply condemning "M$."
      • by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:02AM (#31413728)

        If MS had this policy, they wouldn't control 90% of the market. Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.

        • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:33AM (#31414152)
          Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.

          Apple has always made a big thing of pointing its marketing at "creative types" who supposedly think outside the box. This just goes to confirm that what this really means is "You'll think outside the box in the way that WE tell you to, dammit".

          Is it just me, or has Apple become more and more oppressive to users and developers over the last couple of years? Barely a day seems to go by when they haven't fucked someone over.

          [Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft shill - this is typed on a 2nd-hand 2.16GHz MacBook, and my desktop machine runs Arch Linux.]
          • by Raffaello (230287) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:50AM (#31414434)

            "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton

            When Apple was the underdog, they weren't in a position to bend developers to their will. Now that they are in the driver's seat wrt mp3 players and smart phones, they can. Most of the time you'll find that when people can do something that is in their interest but screws other people over, they will choose to do that thing, because most people are quite selfish. Apple as a group of self-interested people (a.k.a., a corporation) is no exception. Moreover, the law in the US actually requires that corporations always act in the best financial interests of their shareholders, which has always been interpreted by courts to mean that the corporation has a positive duty to maximize profit in any legal way.

            Apple now has the market power to impose draconian license agreements on their developers. Apple takes this option because having the abilities that this license agreement gives them (e.g., ability to arbitrarily remove any app at any time) increases profit - for example, no lengthy court proceedings over app removal, no defending lawsuits from flyover bible thumpers who think app X is too explicit for their 7 year old children (and your 7 year old is using your iPhone why exactly?)

            When we enshrine selfishness as the highest legal good it should come as no surprise that corporations act selfishly.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by tepples (727027)

              (and your 7 year old is using your iPhone why exactly?)

              Apple has been marketing iPod Touch, which runs most of the same apps as iPhone, as an alternative to Nintendo and Sony handheld video game systems.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by billcopc (196330)

                Except the iPod/iPhone sucks as a gaming platform, and costs four times more than the Nintendo or Sony devices. Sure, I have games on my iPhone, they're the 5-minute-break-type games like Bejeweled and friends. I don't think of it of a gaming device, I think of it as a time-killing device to avoid eye contact with the sketchpads on the bus ride home. Much the same as I used my ancient Palm Tungsten back in the day.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by tepples (727027)
                  Here's the page from Apple's web site about iPod Touch gaming [apple.com].

                  Except the iPod/iPhone sucks as a gaming platform

                  How is this the case, other than that it is designed for touch control as opposed to D-pad control?

                  and costs four times more than the Nintendo or Sony devices.

                  DSi: $169. iPod Touch: $199. It's not exactly four times more, unless you're including a used GBA.

                  Sure, I have games on my iPhone, they're the 5-minute-break-type games like Bejeweled and friends.

                  How long does a game of Meteos or WarioWare or Tetris or a track of Mario Kart last?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by natehoy (1608657)

            "You'll think outside the box in the way that WE tell you to, dammit".

            I don't think I've ever heard another definition of the term "think outside the box". It's almost invariably used to mean, "I do not agree with what you are saying, therefore your worldview is too limited to comprehend the magnificence that is my idea. I am Ozymandias, king of thinkers! Look upon my thoughts, ye mighty, and despair!"

            It is very rarely used to mean "innovate" or "be creative". After all, management asks it of people they pack like lemmings into dull beige-fabric boxes.

          • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @12:28PM (#31415096) Journal

            Is it just me, or has Apple become more and more oppressive to users and developers over the last couple of years?

            Depends on the market. OS X is still very open to developers. A lot of the source code (outside of the high-level frameworks) is open and they've openned some things like libdispatch and their blocks runtime to encourage their support on other platforms, as well as funding most of the development of a BSD-licensed Objective-C/C++ compiler and opening the WebKit repository to encourage outside contributions (previously they were just providing KHTML with a big code dump every release). On the desktop side, they've become more open over the last few years

            The iPhone and iPod, however, have always been very locked-down devices. They didn't allow any third-party code on the iPod until the fifth generation, and then only from a few companies. The iPhone allows third-party code, but with a lot of restrictions.

            The problem seems to be that Apple makes a strong distinction between computers and consumer electronics devices, while to the rest of us they are just computers and less-powerful computers.

          • by vijayiyer (728590) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @01:48PM (#31416378)

            Not everybody who thinks outside the box wants to write software that doesn't fit the iPhone developer agreement. Don't confuse the real end user, who might be an architect or a doctor, with the exceedingly small group of people who want to run Sendmail on their iPhone but not pay the $100 to join the developer program which allows them to do so.

          • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @03:35PM (#31417796)

            How does Apple telling developers that to use their App Store, they can't write applications that bypass security of their App Store limit creative types? This is a limitation of the App Store. You can still develop on your own iPhone as long as you have the tools. Apple will not accept the app until you agree to bide by their rules.

            So when you go to a ball game, are you also enraged that you can't bring weapons?

        • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:57AM (#31414540)
          No, it's actually more like how when you buy a car, you can only use the manufacturers parts as replacements or additions, only use their fuel and oil, brake pads and shock absorbers, and only buy these things from their approved $Manufacturer branded retail channels.

          Wait, what?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Em Emalb (452530)


        to rephrase the mantra: if microsoft had these requirements on developing software for Windows operating systems, you'd be typing up a furious reply condemning "M$."

        Actually, I wouldn't. See, I'm not a developer. I'm in the industry (security/networking) but in this instance, I'm considered a consumer. And the agreement that Apple has devs sign is good IMO, because of the "end user" protections that are in place.

        But what do I know, I mean, I'm not a developer.

      • by Karlt1 (231423) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:44AM (#31414340)

        to rephrase the mantra: if microsoft had these requirements on developing software for Windows operating systems, you'd be typing up a furious reply condemning "M$."

        How is this any different from the requirements for developing for the XBox, Sony Playstation/PSP, or the Wii/Gameboy?

      • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wor f . n et> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @12:24PM (#31415034)

        to rephrase the mantra: if microsoft had these requirements on developing software for Windows operating systems, you'd be typing up a furious reply condemning "M$."

        And I'm sure we can see that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have even more draconian license agreements if you want to develop for their consoles. Except perhaps that there's a security level requirement to ensure NDA'd materials don't leak out (more than just a locked office door), the requirement for separate development offices (apart from developer's normaly residences) etc. The only real exception is Microsoft has an official "indie gamer" exemption (XNA studio).

        The iPhone and iPod Touch are Apple's consoles. Same thing.

    • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:53AM (#31413622) Homepage Journal
      Actually that agreement has some pretty decent customer protection clauses. ie.: not to use Push Notifications to spam, phish or advertise, not to use unnecessary traffic on the cellular network.

      One that caught my eye was no VoIP over the cellular network.
    • by beelsebob (529313) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:03AM (#31413740)

      I also don't get why there's any uproar at all about "if you make apps for our store, please don't try to hack our store". I'm pretty sure that any shop like Tesco will have at least an implicit "if you want to sell stuff in our shop, please don't make one that disables all our security scanners" in their agreement.

    • by Speare (84249) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:19AM (#31413976) Homepage Journal
      The only thing I don't like about the agreement (as summarized here) is that the agreement itself cannot be disclosed. That level of secrecy is not necessary. I'm just surprised that nobody else has gotten a copy of this legal document, decided not to sign it, and gave it to WikiLeaks already. Why does it take a Freedom of Information Act just to learn what kinds of terms you're going to face if you think about entering the development program?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by C10H14N2 (640033)

        Anyone who has negotiated a software licensing purchase has had to agree to similar terms. Anyone who has after accepted a severance package has agreed to similar terms. Hell, anyone who has accepted an offer of salaried employment has done so. This is common in just about every type of contractual agreement.

        Besides, anyone can go to developer.apple.com, click about three times and pull the thing up. There's about as much secrecy and coercion involved in reading a pay-walled article on the New York Times, s

    • by linguae (763922)

      I'm not sure what the uproar is about...if you agree to develop apps for Apple's devices, this is the agreement you sign. If you don't like it, don't make apps for Apple products.

      Well, if enough developers grow frustrated with Apple's restrictions to the point that they heed your advice, then Apple would have some problems selling iPhones/iPod Touches/iPads. I usually don't quote Steve Ballmer, but he was right when he paraded on stage many years ago about "developers, developers, developers!" One impo

    • by Hizonner (38491) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:37AM (#31414246)

      It's a bid deal because the contract is monstrously one-sided, and you'd think nobody would agree to it, yet somehow it manages to fly in a big chunk of the mobile phone market.

      It seems like you'd have to be nuts to invest in developing for the App Store, other than maybe for short-term, tactical purposes. Why, then, do so many people do it? Isn't that an interesting question?

      Apple has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an unreliable, capricious business partner. Apple is slow and inconsistent about approving apps. It changes the rules and yanks apps all the time... just as this agreement permits it to do. It makes errors that cost you money and doesn't compensate you. Apple has shown, repeatedly over the whole life of the App Store, that those overreaching clauses aren't just in that contract for CYA purposes. Apple fully intends to use those clauses to hose your business if it feels like it for any reason whatsoever, and the reason may have little or nothing to do with you.

      Personally. I won't even buy Apple's phone because of the way they handle software. Nonetheless, many people seem to be willing to bet their livelihoods on Apple. That includes people who aren't big players, and lack the leverage to make it to Apple's advantage to forget about certain contract terms.

      What's the reason for that? Even if the answer just turns out to be that they're stupid, it's valuable to look at the question. Heck, you might even get some of them to smarten up.

      If the answer is not that they're stupid, but, say, that they don't have any better options, then one might want to think about why we have a market that doesn't provide any better options. Maybe there should be some changes. Maybe somebody reading this will figure out how to make them. I think there are better options, but obviously those developing for the iPhone think otherwise. Maybe they can explain why?

      And, yeah, it's about rights. First of all, the whole point of any contract is that you give up some rights. Second, the law, and the underlying moral philosophy, sometimes have some nasty things to say about one-sided contracts, interference with competition, artificial limitations of liability, and the like. Not everybody agrees, but there's a perfectly respectable and intellectually consistent body of thought that says a contract like that shouldn't be legal.

      • by samkass (174571) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @12:11PM (#31414770) Homepage Journal

        Apple is slow and inconsistent about approving apps.

        My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.

        It changes the rules and yanks apps all the time.

        This is the biggest issue with Apple. Even so, it has affected a few percent of all the apps available for the platform, and most of those were "cookie cutter" apps that took virtually no resources to develop. I'm only aware of a tiny fraction of a percent of apps that truly took an investment but later was undermined by Apple. Of course those developers made a lot of noise (and justifiably so), but in the end it's very, very rare.

        Nonetheless, many people seem to be willing to bet their livelihoods on Apple. [...] What's the reason for that?

        Money. The vast majority of all money changing hands in the mobile app market happens through the App Store. In fact for a small development house the App Store is likely to be significantly more lucrative than desktop development. Combine that with Apple's rather well-done SDK and a myriad of third-party tools to make iPhone/iPod Touch development easier, and you have a pretty good opportunity for a decent return on investment. The better businesses do things to mitigate the risk of running afoul of some Apple policy, such has having a more diverse portfolio than they might otherwise have, but you're right that it is a risk to such a business.

        It's hard to argue that this contract is too one-sided when so many people are making so much money in such an effective win-win agreement.

        • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @02:20PM (#31416758) Homepage

          My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.

          And some apps (like Google Voice) are permenantly "pending". I think that's exactly what Hizonner meant - Apple is inconsistent. Some apps are approved quickly and others aren't. You can't know ahead of time which yours will be.

          This is the biggest issue with Apple. Even so, it has affected a few percent of all the apps available for the platform

          The problem is you don't know that. You're assuming it. Remember that not only can a developer not talk about the agreement they signed, but they can't talk about rejection either. For every developer who chose to violate that agreement by speaking out when their app was rejected for some stupid reason, there are probably a lot more who didn't because they fear Apples lawyer army (and hey, they did sign the agreement). For all you know, 90% of all apps are rejected permanently.

          This is by far the biggest problem with the AppStore agreement. It's creating the exact opposite of Adam Smiths informed market. Nobody knows what the rules are, when they are enforced or how often because Apple tries hard to ensure developers work in an information vacuum.

          Nobody would tolerate Microsoft doing this, because there's an understanding that computers matter and that just because Microsofts platform is for many devs the only way to make money shouldn't mean Microsoft have absolute control over everything that happens on it. And in fairness, Microsoft have never tried to pull this kind of stuff. Windows always supported multiple, competing SDKs. There was never any kind of "instant death" rules or absurd contracts.

          Fortunately right now it's hard to argue smartphone apps really matter, especially the kind of dross found on the App Store. The only businesses that rely on the iPhone are Apple and app developers - once the majority of all businesses are using iPhone apps as part of their core competencies it might be time to demand the iPhone live up to the standards of openness set by Windows (and MacOS and Linux).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by seebs (15766)

        Well, the obvious reason would be that they make money on it.

        I signed up for that agreement. Haven't published anything yet, but I have an app I started on (before getting buried in work again). If I get it done, I'll submit it. If it sells even a relatively small number of copies, I get my money back. If it doesn't, hey, I get to use my app on my phone, and since I want the app, I win.

      • by CyberLife (63954)

        ... many people seem to be willing to bet their livelihoods on Apple. That includes people who aren't big players, and lack the leverage to make it to Apple's advantage to forget about certain contract terms.

        What's the reason for that?

        Simple. They are not you. They have different priorities and they value different things. What is important to you is not necessarily as important to others.

    • by Tharsman (1364603) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:54AM (#31414494)
      Agree, not sure why people cry this much, specially since Google's Android Marketplace agreement includes this:

      Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.

      • by wParam (162415) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @06:04PM (#31419902)

        Perhaps because you don't *need* google's marketplace to load a program on your phone? If google yanks your app, you can still sell it to people. Unlike with apple, where if they yank your app, you can only sell it to people with jailbroken phones, which is a tiny tiny minority.

        Apple should have every right to list or not list whatever they want in their store, because it's their store. The problem only comes about because their store is the "only" way to get programs onto the phone.

  • by SOdhner (1619761) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:43AM (#31413482) Homepage Journal
    At least the part quoted in the summary sounds like I assumed it would. They've got the high ground and there's no good reason not to have this sort of agreement. Interesting, but not even a tiny bit surprising.
  • Maybe its time ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phoxix (161744) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:44AM (#31413490)

    ... to change Apple's icon to be borg like the way Microsoft's [fsdn.com] is ?

    That 1984 commercial gets more ironic by the moment.

    • That 1984 commercial gets more ironic by the moment.

      Think different [eviloverlord.com].

    • by kiehlster (844523)

      But has Apple stooped to assimilating other people's technology? Consider this quote:

      We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. - The Borg, "Star Trek: First Contact" (1996)

      I guess, if you consider the app store as a method of assimilating other people's technology, then it would make some sense.

    • Um, No (Score:3, Funny)

      by Greyfox (87712)
      Apple is nothing like the Borg. For one thing, if Apple was the Borg, you'd want them to come in and take you over. The Borg cube would be this magical place with fairys and unicorns that crap clean user interfaces that never get infected with viruses!

      No, Apple is more like... like a giant solid gold wang! Oh sure it's shiny and all golden but in the end it's still a wang. And, like any wang, it has serious growth potential! [penny-arcade.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If Apple was the Borg the cube ship would be white and shiny, but lack USB ports.

    • Microsoft are the Borg because they bought a lot of companies because they couldn't develop products themselves. "Your technology will be assimilated." Who did Apple buy the iPhone from?

  • I Love my iPhone But (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantom42 (174630) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:45AM (#31413516)

    I don't like the way this reads. Apple does need to exert some control over their device in order to preserve their branding, but IMHO some of the draconian shit in here goes way to far.

  • Kool-Aid (Score:4, Funny)

    by Das Auge (597142) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:49AM (#31413560)
    I will not drink the Kool-Aid [thebestpag...iverse.net].
  • Gem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:55AM (#31413644)

    There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.'

    Ok, could you please explain to me how that's a "gem". I'd have thought that it would be obvious that Apple would not approve an app that circumvents DRM. Yes, I know, it's your device and you should be able to do what you want with it. Yes, I know that DRM is evil and should be circumvented (and destroyed). Yes, I know all of that but how would anyone in their right mind think that Apple would actually support circumventing DRM, especially their own?

    Sorry, I know it's now all cool and whatnot to hate on Apple for everything and anything but I totally do not see anything worth getting riled up about here. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you don't like their developer's agreement, don't develop for them. On the list of "Big Bad Evil Companies", Apple is pretty damn far down the list and, really, if you're going to view this "gem" as a reason to view them as evil then you're just trying to find any and every excuse to hate on them.

    Non-issue. Boring.

    • by Aladrin (926209)

      I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't even need to be there... It's the law!

      • by timeOday (582209)

        It doesn't even need to be there... It's the law!

        Not so! The DMCA was sold to Congress with a number of exemptions [wikipedia.org] which "are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works" (to quote wikipedia). They're there for a reason. But to Apple, "fair use" means using Apple products in the precise manner dictated by Apple.

    • I would agree. Out of all of the agreement in the list this seems like the most reasonable... And rather the main selling point of the App Store. The fact that you can download apps that will not break your iPhone, unlike PC and Even Macs or Linux you can get software once installs breaks your computer and makes it unusable. DRM is a security feature of the system. But it is protecting the software from you vs. the other way around, and we all heard the arguments for and against DRM... But the fact is A

    • Re:Gem? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aceticon (140883) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:36AM (#31414228)

      Let me highlight the significant bits for you:

      'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.'

      The "otherwise" basically means "in any way whatsoever" (i.e. thus also when not using Apple hardware, software or documentation).

      The "in or by" means that it doesn't mater if the software does not at all target Apple products in any way: if the mechanism is used in or by the Apple software or services you can't do it.

      The "any services or other Apple software or technology" means anything that Apple uses (even if it's as simple as Basic HTTP Authentication in an obscure Apple website).

      The "or enable others to do so" means any tool that might help others do so. In my example above (Basic HTTP Authentication in an obscure Apple website) this means Packet Sniffers, HTTP Proxies (unless they have no logs) and in fact any means of intercepting an HTTP Request/Response. In fact (and given that Basic HTTP Authentication is easy to break) it could potentially be interpreted to cover an utility application that would allow you to more easilly read the RFC for HTTP 1.0 or a Base64 decoder (since that's the way the username:password are encoded in Basic HTTP Authentication).

      Here's a plausible scenario:
      - Security researcher accepts this. He/she just agreed to never create any software that would show the weakness in a mechanism that was also implemented or used in any Apple product or service (even if not done by Apple) now and forever. This even if said research and said software was otherwise completely unrelated to Apple software/hardware and was not even done using knowledge aquired in any way from the Apple docs.

  • Big Fat Hairy Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by turb (5673) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:59AM (#31413696) Homepage

    If you were to take the Apple agreement and compare it to many a confidentiality agreement or similar agreements when two companies are working together you'd find the language etc etc etc are pretty much the same.

    But alas that kind of reality check doesn't make good inflammatory "news" nor get the slashdot crowd up in arms to advance someone else's agenda.

    • by sammyF70 (1154563)
      I've got Karma to burn and I actually care about what I'm going to write for obvious reasons, so there we go : I wonder why my story [cosmic-bandito.com] didn't make it, but this does. Slashdot subsidized much my Google?
  • by srussia (884021) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:04AM (#31413744)
    They are in violation of the agreement after all for disclosing it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vlm (69642)

      They are in violation of the agreement after all for disclosing it.

      Too many people like NASA, that would be bad PR.

      However, I expect thats the last app from the government that will ever be approved. Now those apps can still be developed and operated by 3rd parties upon contract by the govt, but we'll probably never see an "official census dept historical genealogy app", which is too bad.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BitZtream (692029)

      No, the retards at the EFF didn't happen to stop and think for 5 minutes that while once you agree with the document that you are in breach of contract for showing it to others, you are not in fact in breach of contract BEFORE you agree to the document, yet you can still see it before you agree to it.

      Anyone can see the document without being bound by it. It was already on Apples website for fucks sake.

      The 'if you share this agreement you violate it thing' would only be used to go after people really pissin

  • That's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AgingYoungRebel (805563) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:06AM (#31413788) Journal
    Gee if this is the work of the evil empire the world is safe.
  • Same old Apple (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:11AM (#31413848) Homepage Journal

    I think this is part of Apple's corporate culture - they never signed on to the OS as an "open(ish) platform" thing that PC users (and unix geeks to an even greater extent) came to expect. I don't know what we can do but not buy their products - it's a pity because I'd generally like to suggest that non-tech people go with OSX (and tech folk should go with Linux or OpenBSD), but I don't like supporting companies that do this kind of thing.

  • I don't care what Apple does because I don't develop for them. I can ignore IPhones and IPads and ITunes and other Apple products. But slowly and surely Apple is gaining ground by rapidly out running development in some (I have to admit) cool applications.

    We have to free up the infrastructure. Nothing about the IPhone required Apple to invent it other than the fact that it took Apple/Jobs to stand up to the wireless operators and deliver a platform outside *their* control. It took Apple/Jobs to stand up

  • by isolationism (782170) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:21AM (#31414006) Homepage

    I know most users won't give up their iPhone/iTouch over their dead bodies -- and I've already invested in an iTouch, and I don't want to throw it away either while it still works.

    But I'm done giving money to Apple for their mobile devices. I just got screwed buying an unlicenced cable because I didn't think charging CAD $55 was a reasonable price for a $3 output cable; turns out you either pay the piper or live without, because Apple (and their licencees) all chip their accessories now and the iPhone won't work without detecting one. The only exception seems to be charging, which I only discovered after spending another $50 or so to buy an AC-USB plug and another cable.

    I am equally sick of forking out money every time I sneeze. Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but I somehow feel like I shouldn't be paying $10 for an ssh client, and that I shouldn't have to essentially "break the law" to use the underlying operating system features. I totally understand that to even develop for this thing costs you >$100/year; maybe I've been using Linux for too long.

    I very much hate trying to interoperate with the device using Linux (it doesn't; not even a little bit; yes I've tried Wine and all the other native apps; it's not supported). Total waste of time. It's a good thing I have a token mac mini as an HTPC or it would be a total wash.

    I recently needed to piggyback files from one windows computer to another and didn't have a USB key handy. But here was my iTouch. Done deal, right? This should be easy. Wrong. I couldn't put a zip file on it when mounted via USB, and I couldn't download the file directly from the web using Safari either. I ended up doing the job with a portable audio recorder, because yes -- even though this device has no reason to support anything but audio and audio metadata files, it didn't actively gun down any attempts to do otherwise.

    Mobile devices seem to boil down to the same dilemma as on the desktop; you can either use Linux and have the freedom and choice -- which, for now, typically means either a lot less choice or a lot more effort to get things up and running like the state of affairs a decade or more ago; or you can grab your ankles, hand over your credit card and enjoy an overall smoother experience so long as you keep feeding proverbial quarters into the machine.

    I've been holding out hope that the Nokia N900 comes to Canada in an 850MHz flavour but it looks like I'll be waiting in vain; time to decide whether to suck it up and deal with only EDGE connectivity or consider going to a different flavour of evil/greed from Apple.

    • by Stumbles (602007)
      Welcome to the world of proprietary hardware and software. There is much to be said for the phrase: broken by design.
    • by jedidiah (1196)

      > I am equally sick of forking out money every time I sneeze. Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but
      > I somehow feel like I shouldn't be paying $10 for an ssh client, and that I shouldn't have

      Yes. I too find the whole "nickel and dime you to death" approach with Mac software to be terribly annoying.

      > to essentially "break the law" to use the underlying operating system features. I totally understand
      > that to even develop for this thing costs you >$100/year; maybe I've been using Linux for too lon

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by phorm (591458)

      "I just got screwed buying an unlicenced cable because I didn't think charging CAD $55 was a reasonable price for a $3 output cable; turns out you either pay the piper or live without, because Apple (and their licencees) all chip their accessories now and the iPhone won't work without detecting one"

      Exactly what kind of cable is this, and which device? I have an iphone 3G, and it works fine with my bought-from-Hong-Kong-Ebay-Seller cables, as did my friend's 3Gs. It charges fine, and allows USB connections f

    • by BitZtream (692029) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @12:36PM (#31415226)

      But I'm done giving money to Apple for their mobile devices. I just got screwed buying an unlicenced cable because I didn't think charging CAD $55 was a reasonable price for a $3 output cable; turns out you either pay the piper or live without, because Apple (and their licencees) all chip their accessories now and the iPhone won't work without detecting one. The only exception seems to be charging, which I only discovered after spending another $50 or so to buy an AC-USB plug and another cable.

      No, they don't. There is a resistor between a couple pins so the device can tell the cable is fully plugged in, but that hasn't changed since the cable was updated to support more than just charging and syncing. (3rd gen ipod I think).

      Switching to Serial control mode requires that certain commands be sent to the iPhone so it knows to keep operating all radios as a measure of protection against putting it in a crappy doc and soundly like shit. This will only happen in docks that have ways to cntrol the phone though.

      I very much hate trying to interoperate with the device using Linux (it doesn't; not even a little bit; yes I've tried Wine and all the other native apps; it's not supported). Total waste of time. It's a good thing I have a token mac mini as an HTPC or it would be a total wash.

      You didn't look very hard. GtkPod and Amarok are the first results on google for my first 3 word search.

      I recently needed to piggyback files from one windows computer to another and didn't have a USB key handy. But here was my iTouch. Done deal, right? This should be easy. Wrong. I couldn't put a zip file on it when mounted via USB, and I couldn't download the file directly from the web using Safari either. I ended up doing the job with a portable audio recorder, because yes -- even though this device has no reason to support anything but audio and audio metadata files, it didn't actively gun down any attempts to do otherwise.

      The iPhone's file system is mounted and in use by the iPhone OS. In order for Linux or Windows to see it as a drive the USB device has to turn the space over as a raw block device. This means it can't be mounted by the OS at the same time so your phone would have to umount its file system so it could turn it over to you.

      There where at least 5 different WebDAV type apps that allowed the iPhone to be used as a file store over the network over a year ago, there are probably 20 of them by now, probably some acceptable free ones. I use AirSharing. Its not that great now, but it was the best when I was looking, it cost me $5, worth every penny.

      Did you even look?

      Mobile devices seem to boil down to the same dilemma as on the desktop; you can either use Linux and have the freedom and choice -- which, for now, typically means either a lot less choice or a lot more effort to get things up and running like the state of affairs a decade or more ago; or you can grab your ankles, hand over your credit card and enjoy an overall smoother experience so long as you keep feeding proverbial quarters into the machine.

      Now you're just acting retarded. Your definition of freedom is retarded. Your freedom restricts you far more than the other options when you are saying aren't free enough for you.

      When you start making arguments like this is becomes clear to every person around you that it has nothing to do with freedom or how well the device works for you, and its all about you being a fanboy and not being satisfied that your Golden Boy OS doesn't actually fit every situation perfectly. Get a clue, learn that you don't always want to shove a square peg in a round hole, but that doesn't make the round hole OR the square peg any less valuable in the proper situation.

      You use the word freedom like the name of a sports team. I have a distinct notion that you don't actually know what the word means and are more likely jus

  • Apple is now Microsoft.
  • by Roogna (9643) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:32AM (#31414148)

    After all, you can also just go over and click through the signup to become a developer, and.. big shock here, you're presented with the agreement.

    And as others have said, if you don't like it, then you just don't agree to it. You can -still- develop for jailbroken phones without agreeing to this contract. What you can't do is get into the App Store. Which Apple, like any business is welcome to decide what products they would, or would not like to carry.

    What the EFF needs to spend their time doing instead of this stupid waste of time, is be getting whoever needs to (FCC I guess, probably Congress themselves) to pass a rule or law requiring "smartphones" to be considered what they are, small computers connected to the celular data network, and that because they are -our- property we -must- be allowed to install whatever we desire on them. The idea that any company can decide how their product is used -after- it's been sold is the issue.
    Instead they're wasting taxpayer dollars with FOIA requests to get license agreements that are posted on Apple's bloody website.

  • Everyone always asks what's the point what's the point. Here's the point in a nut shell:

    Don't develop applications for apple unless you want to sell out to a company that will fuck you over if they even get a whiff of competition, see a potential revenue stream in the same space, or simply don't like you. There will be no recourse if they fuck you. So if you want to make money with complete disregard for software freedom and the future of the industry as a whole then so be it. But don't pretend for a second

  • I'm seeing nothing that any other company wouldn't do to protect their intellectual rights.

    Apple is not an open source company.

  • Nintendo? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Akido37 (1473009) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @11:41AM (#31414306)
    Why all the Apple hate, but not Nintendo? Nintendo's policies are far more restrictive, from what I've read, and the developer kit is expensive and difficult to impossible to get for newbies.
  • I'm not an Apple fan and have never owned an Apple product, I prefer my Kool-Aid in different flavors.

    But honestly this seems to be a pretty standard agreement, there is nothing horribly sneaky or underhanded going on. The only thing I have an issue with is that Apple has tried to keep it from being public knowledge, which is their ultra-controlling usual self but nothing to get riled up over.

    Perspective people...

  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @01:16PM (#31415864) Homepage Journal
    Apple has always been about tightly controlling the user experience and the overall brand for their products. Developers are not their customers. Developers are useful to Apple only if they advance Apple's goals. Those developers who have been successful in the iPhone OS and Mac markets understand this and have adapted accordingly. One could make the case that developers were Microsoft's primary market for years. Look where that led Microsoft. Their products gave developers and users all kinds of options, but the end result was bloat and annoyance. Customers are voting with their wallets and embracing products that just work. The tightly controlled Apple brand and user experience gives developers less freedom, and that annoys the hell out of developers. But until someone else can find a way to give developers the independence they desire while still delivering a tightly focused, elegant user experience, the choices seem to be: Take the constrained Apple route with its flaws, or take the more flexible Microsoft/Nokia/et. al. route with its flaws.
  • by cowtamer (311087) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @03:13PM (#31417496) Journal

    While Apple, as a corporation, has a legal right to impose whatever terms it wants on its developers, I think this is a "Bad Thing". As someone else observed, these terms are very similar to game console development terms, and is leading us towards trusted computing as the dominant paradigm.

    If we're not careful, we are on the path to "state of the art" devices always being draconian game-console-like things where a corporation or government always has the kill switch. Do not be fooled into thinking that your open source software will always run on these things, or that there will be acceptable hardware alternatives.

    Five to ten years from now, you might be tinkering with getting a Linux kernel to boot on the latest 32 Mhz Arduino board while everyone runs around with $50 14 Ghz multi-core handhelds that run either SecureWindows or MacOS 13, whose development keys are off-limits to you on account of your having failed the Patriot Act 3.0 mandated trusted developer polygraph test ...

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...