Apple's iPhone Developer License Agreement Revealed 483
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."
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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$."
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.]
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
(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)
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)
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)
"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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My roommate knows next to nothing about computers (she doesn't even know what a server is) but she knows her iPhone is a powerful handheld computer.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 $100 to join the developer program which allows them to do so.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does Apple telling developers that to use their App Store, they can't write applications that bypass security of their App Store limit creative types? This is a limitation of the App Store. You can still develop on your own iPhone as long as you have the tools. Apple will not accept the app until you agree to bide by their rules.
So when you go to a ball game, are you also enraged that you can't bring weapons?
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
to rephrase the mantra: if microsoft had these requirements on developing software for Windows operating systems, you'd be typing up a furious reply condemning "M$."
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different from the requirements for developing for the XBox, Sony Playstation/PSP, or the Wii/Gameboy?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You just posted terms of use for the XNA web site. Do I have to explain the difference between a web site and a programming framework?..
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
One that caught my eye was no VoIP over the cellular network.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AT&T is already allowing VOIP over 3G.
http://share.skype.com/sites/en/2009/10/good_move_att.html [skype.com]
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, nothing prevents you from jailbreaking your phone and installing anything the hell you like on it. It's only when you try to get apple to approve of it that it becomes a problem.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because then Apple would have sued them, probably under the theory that the EULA is a copyrighted document, and the EFF infringed said copyright by publishing it against the terms under which it was disclosed to them.
This way, everything is legal and above-board, and the EFF is free and clear of liability. If Apple goes after anyone, it will have to be NASA. And if they choose to do so, for one thing, most judges would simply throw the case out, as there is no legal obligation for the government to allow itself to be sued, and for another, even if the case were allowed, the U.S. government is likely much better prepared in terms of deep pockets to defend itself against Apple's corporate lawyers than the EFF is.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, they might get the other .6% of the mobile app market....
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.
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.
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
... 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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, if you as a little guy always want to get fucked over by the big guys.
Nobody is forcing you to develop anything for any platform. If you want to develop for the iPhone, you can, but you have to agree to Apple's terms. You don't like their terms? You don't get to develop for the iPhone. Well, at least not through the official channels.
It's Apple's phone. They don't have to allow anyone to develop for it. They could keep it a completely closed platform with no 3rd party apps at all if they wanted to. That's their choice to make, not yours (barring jailbreaks/cracks/whate
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other."
Having dealt with Microsoft and used Windows since version 1.0, I have to say that your version of history does not agree with mine.
A.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can write software for Windows Mobile without any sort of developer agreement, and I can distribute .cab packages to my customers through my own store or any other store that wants my business.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
Actually, it's not that simple. From the point of view of the tinkerer, you're correct, it's *not* the right thing to do. From the point of view of the consumer who will *never* tinker with it, it's actually very much the right thing to do.
This is because that lock down is what keeps the quality of the entire iPhone experience so high. Yes, there are fart apps and other mindless stupidities, but compared with other, more open, platforms, the overall quality of the software is higher. Yes, it means some specific apps or app types are disallowed, but the result is still a net gain, for the average consumer.
People often think "for idiot users, the iPhone is best, for intelligent geeks, Android is best", but even then it's not so clear. First off, being a normal person isn't being an idiot (I know you didn't say this, so I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's just a common sentiment). Second, even a lot of geeks prefer things to work more smoothly, which the iPhone does on the whole.
As for developers, it's a mixed bag. The barrier to entry is a little bit higher ($99, and some rules which are pretty easy to follow in most cases), but the potential rewards are significantly greater, and even if you're not in it for the money, just for the accomplishment of putting out an app that gets used, or your app is simply a way of helping people with some other thing for which you are more interested in, or whatever, having a pre-built store with such high quality as the iTunes App Store (yes, it has problems, but from sheer quality of the store and end-to-end interface for browsing, buying and installing, there's nothing better than iTunes) is invaluable, and the payment system extremely simple.
So, the formula that makes the iPhone a success is the exact same formula that you are decrying as being "dickheaded" and "assholish". If Apple had kept things completely open, or even just as open as Windows Mobile, Android, and Pre (don't kid yourself, none of those systems are fully open, they are just more open than iPhone by varying degrees), the iPhone would not be *nearly* as successful nor *nearly* as high a quality of an experience as it is now. Sure, a small percentage more geeks would buy one. Maybe, as some percentage of geeks would also *not* have bought one, but at least on the geek side it would be hard to say which way the balance would move. On the consumer side, however, it's pretty clear that fewer people would buy an iPhone, or at the very least, fewer people would buy their *second* iPhone, after being so frustrated with the first.
Finally, Apple's control helps prevent things like the recent story of the HTC Android phone that ships with the Mariposa bot net client. It also allows Apple to immediately pull apps that are harmful to the users or to the quality of the store itself (Apple has done this already) or in a worst case scenario, remove the app from people's phones altogether (this has never happened, but is reserved for cases of outright spyware, such as the Mariposa client). It's also interesting to note that all of the known exploits in the wild for iPhones have been for jailbroken iPhones, and not those with Apple's built-in security system intact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And all of these reasons of what makes an iPhone so amazing are why so many people jailbreak their iPhone?
And even *more* people *don't*. But yes, these reasons *are* why those that jailbreak their iPhone do so.
I hear more complaints about iPhone's and their programs going crazy (the twitter ones seem to be a issue lately) and the simple problems like not being able to read and reply to a text message without having to quit the game/app they are using then any other phone.
Apps can't both go crazy, and also not be able to run in the background. That's a huge reason why background apps disallowed.
Having to quit a game or app to reply to a text message is kind of a stupid argument, as you have to pause them anyway on other phones. Apps are supposed to pick up right where you left off when you restart them, and the iPhone 3GS starts apps really quickly, so it's not really tha
Fundamental flaw: it is not *APPLE*'s phone (Score:3, Insightful)
It's Apple's phone. They don't have to allow anyone to develop for it. They could keep it a completely closed platform with no 3rd party apps at all if they wanted to. That's their choice to make, not yours
Sorry, no. You're making a fundamental flaw in your reasonning:
IT. IS. NOT. APPLE'S. PHONE.
It is a phone which happens to be designed by Apple. But it belongs to the person who bought it.
Also, in addition of that, clauses in a software's license which forcibly restrict what you're allowed to do with it. In several jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to order "don't do that with out SDK".
The only thing which is theirs and remain under their possession and control is their service.
In short: They have to refu
Re:Fundamental flaw: it is not *APPLE*'s phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
This developer agreement is for developers who choose to develop apps for Apple iPhone App Store. You do not need to buy apps from this app store to use your iPhone. You do not need to distribute apps you develop through the apple app store.
People are free to do what they want if they buy a full price iPhone, and many have jailbroken theirs to work with other carriers as is their right, and written and/or downloaded apps that were written by developers who did not have to and did not agree to the license agreement linked to in TFA.
However, if you do choose to develop apps for apples own online iphone app store, then yes, you do need to follow apple's rules, because, yes, IT IS APPLE'S APP STORE, not yours.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
Actually they have been trying to do just that. It is Apple's stance that jail-breaking a phone is a violation of the DMCA (which it almost certainly is). According to Apple's view you would be committing a Federal crime by jail-breaking a phone you owned. The scarry part about the DMCA is that you most likely ARE committing a Federal crime when you jail-break your phone.
When the EFF tried to add in an exemption to the DMCA, Apple opposed the motion. You can read more in PC Worlds article. Or simply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you are saying that we should pass a law to tell someone what to carry in their store. You are essentially asking for a law which would force McDonald's to sell tacos.
You don't have to use their App Store if you don't want to. Jailbreak your phone and use a jailbroken app store. They are providing a service with their App Store, and if you don't like the terms of that service, then you can go choose another phone, or jailbreak and choose a different store. They can't legally say you can't jailbreak yo
Re:Fundamental flaw: it is not *APPLE*'s phone (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not kill all humans and install robot overlords?
I suggested that, as well, obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. Xcode without a provisioning profile cannot upload to, or debug an app on, a physical iPhone or iPod Touch at all. It will only work with the simulator. The provisioning profile is also only obtainable via the Program Portal, which is only accessible with a subscription.
Re:Fundamental flaw: it is not *APPLE*'s phone (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing which is theirs and remain under their possession and control is their service.
Wrong. The software on the phone is licensed, not owned, by the "buyer." Things like the DMCA give those licenses sharper teeth as it is entirely possible for Apple to claim that jailbreaking is circumvention of an access control (whether or not copyright infringement actually occurs) and have criminal charges filed against you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
This being apple, the copters won't be black (Score:5, Funny)
They would be white, maybe even just brushed aluminum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong. The phone is sold. The software, service, and SDK are licensed.
I'm sorry if it makes me a fanboi to point that out, but you should probably note that the same is true about your Windows or Linux computer (yes, the GPL is a revocable license as well),
Bullshit. No one needs a license to _run_ GPL code. The license is there for the case of distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying don't develop your games for Windows and allowing Microsoft to set a lot of restrictions and control over it. There's little next to nothing more options. It still doesn't mean that big corporations should be allowed to fuck over the small guys and put them into some asshole contract.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course... the Apple cult member's first retort: accuse you of being a pirate or a freeloader.
The fact that I want to do whatever I choose with MY PROPERTY does not make me a "freetard". It makes me a free man.
So now freetard will be redefined (newspeak) to include anyone that wants to install random non-blessed 3rd party apps on their Mac.
Sounds about right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe its time ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
That 1984 commercial gets more ironic by the moment.
Think different [eviloverlord.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Maybe its time ... (Score:4, Informative)
But has Apple stooped to assimilating other people's technology?
Wasn't there a lot of discussion recently when Nokia accused Apple of using patented technology without paying a fair price?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good point. I have heard that Apple's been stepping on peoples patents lately.
So do we go with an Apple logo with a borg-like worm running through it, or a Steve Jobs mug like we have of Bill Gates? I would go with the former myself.
Um, No (Score:3, Funny)
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)
If Apple was the Borg the cube ship would be white and shiny, but lack USB ports.
No, it's not time for that (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does google doing anything have to do with Apple running a commercial in 1984?
A commercial which had nothing to say about privacy (it isn't the damn novel, it's a short ad) I might add.
Apple ran a commercial about non-conformity to the corporate machine, and now is being that conformity requiring corporate machine itself. Of course they always have been, with their interface guidelines and so on...
Can you point me to where google ran a superbowl ad about how the rest of the world was all about a lack o
Re:Maybe its time ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody was talking about google until you decided to derail the conversation. What exactly are you trying to argue? That if google is big brother, then apple cannot possibly be (there can be only one!)? That anything apple does is excusable because google does worse? I don't get it.
I Love my iPhone But (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Gem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't even need to be there... It's the law!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Will NASA's app get killed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:No offense, but RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
FOIA requests for proprietary third-party information can be denied under exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 552 b 4) . For example, just because Microsoft chooses to allow some government agencies to inspect their code, does not mean that the public is entitled to it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but govt contracts must be public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... that essentially means neither NASA nor any governmental institution is in position to develop ANY iPhone apps. They are in a lose-lose situation.
OTOH, I wonder, if I could apply for Apple Developer license, then decline its terms, and since I'm not bound by its terms, publish it. They might still try to sue me for copyright violation but I can imagine several "fair use" scenarios where I would be legal to reveal it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are completely missing the point; NASA was compelled to surrender the information by the rule of law, it did not do so willingly. They cannot be held liable for the disclosure.
That's it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Same old Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
So now we are all going to get iKeys? (Score:2)
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
Another nail in their coffin (for me). (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
"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
Re:Another nail in their coffin (for me). (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You didn't look very hard. GtkPod and Amarok are the first results on google for my first 3 word search.
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?
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
Well, I suppose that settles it... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm surprised they found it so difficult to get... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Point (Score:2)
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
Yawn (Score:2)
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)
Anti-Fanboi's Attack! (Score:2)
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...
Developer-friendly v. customer-friendly (Score:5, Interesting)
One Step Closer to Trusted Computing (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here, have a cookie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I consider it a feature the IB doesn't do code generation - the NIB files that are generated remain part of the app bundle and can even be changed at runtime. I think that's a far more elegant solution.