EFF on Apple's iPhone Developer Program Agreement(eff.org)
eff.org
EFF on Apple's iPhone Developer Program Agreement
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all
9 comments
I'm only trying to be a little snarky, but if Apple had limited themselves to producing a hand-held gaming console, I suspect folks would be a little less upset. There's a moral difference between locking down a purely entertainment gadget and one that's intended to store and manage most or all of my personal information.
And yes, to the extent that consoles are moving out of the "purely entertainment" category, their SDK restrictions are becoming equally troublesome. I think a good argument can be made that this is one of the reasons they're having trouble getting beyond the gaming market, in fact.
And yes, to the extent that consoles are moving out of the "purely entertainment" category, their SDK restrictions are becoming equally troublesome. I think a good argument can be made that this is one of the reasons they're having trouble getting beyond the gaming market, in fact.
Yes, consoles are bad for freedom. But they aren't trying to replace general purpose computers, as Apple is trying to do with the iPhone and iPad.
[deleted]
developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch.
what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch. charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't care.
time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor
what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch. charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't care.
time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor
developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch.
Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still have it.
I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc — a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980. Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and more stuff.
I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as is the case with 80's and 90's games.
It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or a tsunami. (Or something like that.)
Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still have it.
I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc — a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980. Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and more stuff.
I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as is the case with 80's and 90's games.
It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or a tsunami. (Or something like that.)
People were writing free software long before the FSF existed.
I've understood that basically before FSF was founded, there was no need for "free software" as software was generally considered a side-product by computer manufacturers. IIRC it wasn't until early 80's when companies started routinely charging for and licensing software, thus propelling the founding of a counter-movement such as FSF.
RMS and folks just wanted the old way back. Please correct me if I'm wrong on details, I'd very much like to know better.
RMS and folks just wanted the old way back. Please correct me if I'm wrong on details, I'd very much like to know better.
Not exactly.
Prior to the 1980s, most computing was on highly proprietary mainframes. The industry was dominated by IBM. Consumers (companies, not individuals) could not _own_ their software. It was all licensed product by IBM and the big vendors. Many vendors did not sell, but instead licensed, their machines, as well. It was very closed, and innovation cost the inventor dearly, and made the vendor a fortune.
The 1980s saw the maturation of the mid-size market, the revolution of the new PC world, an opening up of the hardware and software world, and a hugely exploding new user base. The entire paradigm for the computer market changed. Note, though, the tendency of vendors (ahem, Apple) to return to this world.
Anyone who wants the old days has not been studying history.
Prior to the 1980s, most computing was on highly proprietary mainframes. The industry was dominated by IBM. Consumers (companies, not individuals) could not _own_ their software. It was all licensed product by IBM and the big vendors. Many vendors did not sell, but instead licensed, their machines, as well. It was very closed, and innovation cost the inventor dearly, and made the vendor a fortune.
The 1980s saw the maturation of the mid-size market, the revolution of the new PC world, an opening up of the hardware and software world, and a hugely exploding new user base. The entire paradigm for the computer market changed. Note, though, the tendency of vendors (ahem, Apple) to return to this world.
Anyone who wants the old days has not been studying history.
Thanks for contributing. One more question:
I've understood that those who bought the early mainframes still did get the sources and were allowed to modify and recompile stuff — possibly at their own risk but anyway. That I believe is what FSF wanted back when software started coming up in closed form. Was it like that?
I've understood that those who bought the early mainframes still did get the sources and were allowed to modify and recompile stuff — possibly at their own risk but anyway. That I believe is what FSF wanted back when software started coming up in closed form. Was it like that?
That's about half of it. You bought a computer and generally got the source to the software, such as it was, that ran on it. But the main reason you had the source to the software you were running was because you wrote the software you were running. The market for 3rd party software came later, but also at the same time as people were already mailing tapes around and posting stuff on usenet. There's no reason to believe people would have suddenly stopped mailing tapes around if the FSF didn't show up.
Absolutely, and thanks to the efforts of the FSF they will continue to do so hopefully long into the future.
This Apple agreement is absolutely insane. I wonder to what extent Apple's arguably great software has been enabled by free software. I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.
This Apple agreement is absolutely insane. I wonder to what extent Apple's arguably great software has been enabled by free software. I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.
I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.
Why would they?
Why would they?
Apparently without the eternal vigilance of the FSF, BigEvil Inc. is going to break into my house and take away the source of all the programs I've written because I forgot to GPL them.
Also they have been pushing LLVM, OpenCL; released Grand Central Dispatch libs; still are the one of the main contributors for WebKit and push HTML5 forward.
Also they make XCode and their SDKs available for free and even include XCode with every single distribution of the OS.
But I guess that should not stop some parroting about Apple locking down. How do those Google apps for Android sources look like?
All those are non-differentiators. Sharing them means sharing cost while losing no revenue. Differentiators like the iPhone and iPad, on the other hand are locked and patented. Patents are even enforced.
Apple aren't friends of free software, they just use Open Source according to their needs. The parroting you speak of does not contradict what you just say.
Apple aren't friends of free software, they just use Open Source according to their needs. The parroting you speak of does not contradict what you just say.
Yep, patents ara bad. Now tell me, what obligation does Apple have to ditch them, if competitors don't?
They don't have to. They just shouldn't use them offensively, as they do right now with HTC android phones.
the consumers keep voting with their wallet, and the developers still need to feed their kids and keep the lights on. maslow was right - food and lights will continue to trump philanthropic change as long as things are "good enough". more than developers complaining is apple LOSING those developers and apple losing sales to Android. enough of either will warrant a reaction.
There's much better ways to make money as a developer than making $0.99 iphone apps. Compared to the app store, the global software market is a GIANT with its head in the clouds, where as the app store is a molecule of dung encrusted on a pad.
Just wanted to point out that Symbian phones allow installation of application downloaded from any source with only some platform security restrictions. I guess those 47% Symbian phones in the smartphone market [1] are not a better majority?
That said, I hope you're right and people force Apple to loosen the app store licensing agreement.
[1]: 2009 numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
That said, I hope you're right and people force Apple to loosen the app store licensing agreement.
[1]: 2009 numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
iPhone is where the money is at, so developers develop for the platform that can feed them. Sure it sucks that you give 30% to Apple, but 70% of a significant chunk is better than even 100% of a small sliver.
Developers will follow the users, at least initially. Apple delivers the best overall experience for people who don't think of their phone as a computer.
When I get an Android phone next upgrade I'll still keep my iPhone for development.
Developers will follow the users, at least initially. Apple delivers the best overall experience for people who don't think of their phone as a computer.
When I get an Android phone next upgrade I'll still keep my iPhone for development.
[deleted]
Dear EFF, "If you've got a better way to make ice..."
If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it.
The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference.
Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else.
I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it.
The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference.
Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else.
I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers. They are merely enumerating how that happens, so that developers who are unaware of the strict contract they signed understand what freedom they gave away just to put an app in the app store.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where this leads?)
Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where this leads?)
Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers.
From my perspective, users and developers have MORE freedom now with the advent of the iPhone than they had before it was introduced.
Before it was introduced, you had NO FREEDOM at all to develop, sell or use iPhone apps. Now, you have freedom to develop them under certain conditions that are not as free as possible in an EFF-idealized world, but to say that the introduction of the iPhone strictly takes away freedom I think is wrong.
From my perspective, users and developers have MORE freedom now with the advent of the iPhone than they had before it was introduced.
Before it was introduced, you had NO FREEDOM at all to develop, sell or use iPhone apps. Now, you have freedom to develop them under certain conditions that are not as free as possible in an EFF-idealized world, but to say that the introduction of the iPhone strictly takes away freedom I think is wrong.
If you had an Open cell phone before, and now have an iPhone, you have lost the freedom to tinker with your cell phone.
The EFF is about electronic freedom
Maybe you shouldn't think so much about your freedom as about maximizing the total freedom. If that means you can't do everything you want, too bad.
When people in the US talk about freedom, they seem to only focus on the freedom of them to do what they want and disregard the possibility that their actions might have side effects.
When people in the US talk about freedom, they seem to only focus on the freedom of them to do what they want and disregard the possibility that their actions might have side effects.
First, I am not in US.
Second, I don't see how limiting everyone's freedom maximizes it. Nor do I think that imposing some particular understanding of freedom does that.
Consider me releasing my code under GPL in one case and MIT in another. Which leads to maximization of freedom for those who may be interested in reusing it?
My comment was just an observation of common rhetoric here, not a direct response to you.
But re: limiting freedom: Do you think that giving everyone the freedom to kill people would be a net improvement of the freedoms of people when you take into account that people who are killed don't have any freedom at all.
It's so easy to say that freedom means that "I should be able to do what I want without regard for others". But thinking of freedom only in the active sense is an extremely naive idea of freedom. What about my freedom to remain free of the consequences of your actions?
Concrete example 1: SUVs disproportionately transfer risk to the occupants of smaller vehicles in the event of a collision. Is someone's freedom to choose to drive an SUV more important than my freedom to drive a Miata without undue risk of being killed by your SUV? Why do you think your lifestyle choice should be more important than mine?
Concrete example 2: In the US, some people think it's an essential freedom to be allowed to own firearms. This has lead to a proliferation of firearms which means that the US has the highest rate of gunshot deaths of any modern country. Why should people's freedom to own a firearm be more important than my freedom to go about my business without worrying about getting shot?
My point is: there's always a tradeoff. Not acknowledging that tradeoff is either disingenuous or naive.
But re: limiting freedom: Do you think that giving everyone the freedom to kill people would be a net improvement of the freedoms of people when you take into account that people who are killed don't have any freedom at all.
It's so easy to say that freedom means that "I should be able to do what I want without regard for others". But thinking of freedom only in the active sense is an extremely naive idea of freedom. What about my freedom to remain free of the consequences of your actions?
Concrete example 1: SUVs disproportionately transfer risk to the occupants of smaller vehicles in the event of a collision. Is someone's freedom to choose to drive an SUV more important than my freedom to drive a Miata without undue risk of being killed by your SUV? Why do you think your lifestyle choice should be more important than mine?
Concrete example 2: In the US, some people think it's an essential freedom to be allowed to own firearms. This has lead to a proliferation of firearms which means that the US has the highest rate of gunshot deaths of any modern country. Why should people's freedom to own a firearm be more important than my freedom to go about my business without worrying about getting shot?
My point is: there's always a tradeoff. Not acknowledging that tradeoff is either disingenuous or naive.
It's so easy to say that freedom means that "I should be
able to do what I want without regard for others".
They're not telling you that. License your own code under whatever license you want.
When you use my code I want you to be restricted. I want you to make all your changes publicly available to everyone, and if you make a hardware device that runs my code, I want you to make it possible for users to modify my code and be able to run it on that device.
If you don't want to agree to my conditions, don't run my code.
But this isn't about taking away freedom; I want there to be more freedom. Because of the conditions I impose, anyone can build off your work in addition to my work. More code, more freedom.
When you use my code I want you to be restricted. I want you to make all your changes publicly available to everyone, and if you make a hardware device that runs my code, I want you to make it possible for users to modify my code and be able to run it on that device.
If you don't want to agree to my conditions, don't run my code.
But this isn't about taking away freedom; I want there to be more freedom. Because of the conditions I impose, anyone can build off your work in addition to my work. More code, more freedom.
> I want you to make all your changes publicly available to everyone […]
This phrasing was careless: it sounds like you want to prevent private modifications (freedom 1).
You're not the only one to make this mistake. Because of it, many people think the GPL forbids private modifications. Many don't like it because of this misconception, so we should mind our words.
Of course, I agree with the gist of your post.
This phrasing was careless: it sounds like you want to prevent private modifications (freedom 1).
You're not the only one to make this mistake. Because of it, many people think the GPL forbids private modifications. Many don't like it because of this misconception, so we should mind our words.
Of course, I agree with the gist of your post.
Your question is biased. I'd say only this: if the GPL gets in your way, that's because you want to distribute proprietary software, right? But if you care about freedom, why on Earth would you take it away from your users?
I'd say only this: if the GPL gets in your way, that's
because you want to distribute proprietary software, right?
I still don't understand. Please be explicit: what would you want to do that the GPL prevents you to do? Don't say "I want to distribute under another licence". If that's your reason, I would like to know why you would want to distribute under another licence (and beware circular reasoning). If you have another reason, please tell me because really, I have no idea.
The ability to take away other people's freedom is not freedom.
The ability to grant freedom is freedom? Freedom is "typeless?" Or is that a "meta-freedom?"
"not A implies not B" does not mean "A implies B".
I was thinking set theory, not just logic. And this is also a parody of trying to apply mathematical logic to ethics and politics.
The GPL depends on copyright.
not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement
What sort of agreement is that? From what I hear, none of this is unusual in mobile or consoles.
What sort of agreement is that? From what I hear, none of this is unusual in mobile or consoles.
It is pretty unusual in mobile.
Since the dawn of smartphones (or J2ME feature phones before that), the Symbian and Windows Mobile development was free for all game. No NDAs, no contract, just download the SDK, develop and distribute whatever you want.
That changed with RIM and Apple. After these, Symbian also began to act stupidly with their Symbian Signed initiative.
Since the dawn of smartphones (or J2ME feature phones before that), the Symbian and Windows Mobile development was free for all game. No NDAs, no contract, just download the SDK, develop and distribute whatever you want.
That changed with RIM and Apple. After these, Symbian also began to act stupidly with their Symbian Signed initiative.
I'm pretty sure that the Symbian Signed initiative was launched a number of years before the iPhone was announced and both RIM and Qualcomm have had paid app signing for the Blackberry and BREW platforms respectively for even longer.
While there's much to criticise about Apple's approach with the App Store, I don't think it was unreasonable to require app signing and a developer fee in return for getting your apps hosted and easily available on the App Store. I would prefer it if there was also an alternative distribution mechanism available, but that aside I don't have any problem with the App Store as a concept.
While there's much to criticise about Apple's approach with the App Store, I don't think it was unreasonable to require app signing and a developer fee in return for getting your apps hosted and easily available on the App Store. I would prefer it if there was also an alternative distribution mechanism available, but that aside I don't have any problem with the App Store as a concept.
You are right, Symbian Signed was launched in 2005, it was new feature in Symbian 9/Series60 v3.
The difference was, that Symbian Signed aimed for accountability - they wanted to trace back, who made which binary. They didn't really cared what the binary did, just in case of malware, there was accountability. You got your certificate upfront and in 99% cases, they didn't care what you are going to write and how you intend to distribute it. The rest 1% (still hugely inflated number) was, when you requested root-like capabilities (i.e. you would have a way to mess with hardware or DRM directly), then they wanted to hear your business case.
BREW platform was, to put it bluntly, non-player on non-market (US was at the time considered backward contry mobile-wise and the rest of the world ignored BREW). RIM was never popular among third-party developers, and among users everyone was buying BB for the messaging, nobody cared for third-party apps.
I do have problem with Apple's approach with the App Store. I think it is unreasonable to be bridge-watching troll between me and my device. IF there was a way to sideload unsigned or self-signed binaries, that would be not a problem, but App Store is the only way to put app on the device, and this way is gated. If the App Store was optional (althrough still preferred or popular) way, I would not have problem with paying for hosting and cataloging apps.
The difference was, that Symbian Signed aimed for accountability - they wanted to trace back, who made which binary. They didn't really cared what the binary did, just in case of malware, there was accountability. You got your certificate upfront and in 99% cases, they didn't care what you are going to write and how you intend to distribute it. The rest 1% (still hugely inflated number) was, when you requested root-like capabilities (i.e. you would have a way to mess with hardware or DRM directly), then they wanted to hear your business case.
BREW platform was, to put it bluntly, non-player on non-market (US was at the time considered backward contry mobile-wise and the rest of the world ignored BREW). RIM was never popular among third-party developers, and among users everyone was buying BB for the messaging, nobody cared for third-party apps.
I do have problem with Apple's approach with the App Store. I think it is unreasonable to be bridge-watching troll between me and my device. IF there was a way to sideload unsigned or self-signed binaries, that would be not a problem, but App Store is the only way to put app on the device, and this way is gated. If the App Store was optional (althrough still preferred or popular) way, I would not have problem with paying for hosting and cataloging apps.
"I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is 'abusing' developers".
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA (who signed it to be able to upload their NASA app). So, in one sense, you only get to "hear" about this contract if people like EFF actually do some pretty clever workarounds to obtain the document. Secondly, the very fact that public bodies are agreeing to this document make it something that I'd like to know more about. After all, they're signing it on our behalf.
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA (who signed it to be able to upload their NASA app). So, in one sense, you only get to "hear" about this contract if people like EFF actually do some pretty clever workarounds to obtain the document. Secondly, the very fact that public bodies are agreeing to this document make it something that I'd like to know more about. After all, they're signing it on our behalf.
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA
Why should it be any different? It's reasonable that the contract should be available that way for the reasons you state but you seem to be implying it was unreasonable for it to not be public even when it didn't concern a public entity. Do you feel that all contracts between two private parties should be public information?
Why should it be any different? It's reasonable that the contract should be available that way for the reasons you state but you seem to be implying it was unreasonable for it to not be public even when it didn't concern a public entity. Do you feel that all contracts between two private parties should be public information?
Why couldn't they just sign up as a developer and then get the document conveniently displayed on their screen?
It's not like anyone forces you to accept it.
It's not like anyone forces you to accept it.
Apple could quite easily make a second appstore that anyone could post anything to, and only approved apps get in the "approved store".
Would cost apple 0.
Would cost apple 0.
Don't value you fellow programmers time implementing that?
Implementing what? It would be a copy of the current store, just with a much higher crap volume. Hell, they could even take 50% of the price of the apps for the crapstore.
They'd have to add a second data source in iTunes (a config file most likely) and probably unhardcode some URL's in the backend to the appstore where they hardlink to things.
Additionally, they'd have to make a copy of their appstore app and point it at the crapstore.
They'd have to add a second data source in iTunes (a config file most likely) and probably unhardcode some URL's in the backend to the appstore where they hardlink to things.
Additionally, they'd have to make a copy of their appstore app and point it at the crapstore.
There are so many things wrong..... So, let me got back to the most important numbers in computing 0,1, and many. Transitioning any software from one of those numbers to another is generally a pain in the rear and requires a lot of testing, programming, and resources.
In short, no competition among app stores means no competition for the license terms that apply to iPhone developers.
What is impacting developers is the lack of competition between the iPhone and other mobile devices. Apple's app store is winning because iPhone is winning. This will not always be the case.
What is impacting developers is the lack of competition between the iPhone and other mobile devices. Apple's app store is winning because iPhone is winning. This will not always be the case.
Why do you assume that a phone should have no more than one app store?
OK, someone here apparently thinks that having 2 or more app stores for a smart-phone is obviously silly.
A smart-phone is a computer. A damn computer. Would you want to have only one app store for your desktop? Like, you have to get Microsoft's seal of approval before you can publish any program at all? Would you like to be unable to run Open Office? GNU/Linux?
The "only one app store" thing is good old "Trusted Computing" (I should say "treacherous", by the way). Now, anyone, please prove me that the size of a computer is significant enough to warrant lock-down in some cases, and not in others.
A smart-phone is a computer. A damn computer. Would you want to have only one app store for your desktop? Like, you have to get Microsoft's seal of approval before you can publish any program at all? Would you like to be unable to run Open Office? GNU/Linux?
The "only one app store" thing is good old "Trusted Computing" (I should say "treacherous", by the way). Now, anyone, please prove me that the size of a computer is significant enough to warrant lock-down in some cases, and not in others.
If I were to agree to such draconian terms there would have to be a huge incentive. This is not the case: http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-app-store...
Entering such an unfavorable contract for mere hope of raking 20 bucks a day? Count me out.
Entering such an unfavorable contract for mere hope of raking 20 bucks a day? Count me out.
1) Don't underprice your app.
2) It's a plate, not an IV - you still have to make something people want to eat, and then convince them to eat it.
This guy has 20 apps floating around the store... how much analysis and marketing can he really be doing? Then he justifies this by saying it might only take him from "$20 to $30" a day. If you are a company, it is your job to experiment with acquiring customers and determining the ROI on marketing.
The AppStore just attracts a lot of armchair entrepreneurs. Some of them hit gold, some didn't. I'm tired of hearing about all of them.
2) It's a plate, not an IV - you still have to make something people want to eat, and then convince them to eat it.
This guy has 20 apps floating around the store... how much analysis and marketing can he really be doing? Then he justifies this by saying it might only take him from "$20 to $30" a day. If you are a company, it is your job to experiment with acquiring customers and determining the ROI on marketing.
The AppStore just attracts a lot of armchair entrepreneurs. Some of them hit gold, some didn't. I'm tired of hearing about all of them.
Thanks for posting that, those numbers were really interesting.
Yeah, but the lists spring back when you hit the end! And there is no ugly battery door!
I know you're being sarcastic but the springiness of the iPhone controls is one thing I miss when using any Android device. If nothing else it let's you know all your input is being recognized, which is very important. But yes, I'd much rather have an open device without a restrictive dev contract than springy scrolling.
I am sure the android devs would love to implement that, but there were a few patents in the way...
I understand that everyone is on a tirade against software patents right now, and a patent on a springy list control would seem pretty silly.
Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.
Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.
The funny thing is mult-touch is the one thing everyone focuses on in the HTC patent suit, but look at what patents where actually used. You might notice something missing.
Well, Microsoft, for example, had been working on (and demoing) multi-touch for years before the iPhone existed, including the pinch, expand, flipping photos/pages, and everything else. I love what Apple has done with it, but I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that others shouldn't be able to implement some of their refinements.
Tell that to Wil Shipley. Oh I forgot, he can't afford to patent and have lawyers to protect the patent, so it's all right. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar...
You can't patent a look. Or copyright it. Or trademark it.
I believe the original Apple vs. Microsoft patent spat was for 'Look & Feel' as is part of the current 'Apple vs. Nokia' and 'Apple vs. HTC' patent duels. However my point was that Apple definitely builds on the ideas of others, oftentimes pretty blatantly. So no moral high ground there. What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.
"Look & Feel" suit was a copyright suit. At least in theory. It established that you can't copyright "Look & Feel", like I said.
What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.
You were wrongly conflating the two.
What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.
You were wrongly conflating the two.
Tell that to Wil Shipley
Section 14 states that, no matter what, Apple will never be liable to any developer for more than $50 in damages.
I dislike what Apple is doing with the app store as much as the next guy, but to be fair don't most contracts try to include some clause limiting liability like this, that in reality is almost never enforceable? Is this really so strange? (Honest question, so would love some real answers.)
I dislike what Apple is doing with the app store as much as the next guy, but to be fair don't most contracts try to include some clause limiting liability like this, that in reality is almost never enforceable? Is this really so strange? (Honest question, so would love some real answers.)
Deal with PayPal or read the agreements from Microsoft and no - you will not find it unique to Apple.
but hey come on, the developer program costs $99.. they really will only refund 1/2 of that cost should installing the SDK cause your iMac to blow up and kill your entire family?
What's funny is how anyone is surprised. This isn't some new manifestation of Apple -- it's the Apple Computer I grew up resenting through the first 10 years of my career. Prior to OS X, Apple was always about being closed, proprietary, and all-controlling. That they ever ventured away from that must have been viewed by their leadership as a 'necessary evil', to be done for only a limited period.
This agreement, which I rejected and thus did not become an iPhony developer, is not at all a surprise. It's as warm and familiar as Apple pie. I'll have cake, instead.
This agreement, which I rejected and thus did not become an iPhony developer, is not at all a surprise. It's as warm and familiar as Apple pie. I'll have cake, instead.
[deleted]
Also, there is a bit of showmanship on the EFF's part here by going the FOIA route. You have to be able to read the contract before agreeing to it. Anyone (legally) can walk down the path of signing up for the developer account, and then bail when they get to the developer agreement. The reason that "public copies are scarce" is that anyone can go to Apple's website and go through the signup process and decide for themselves if the agreement is to their liking or not.