Slashdot Mirror

They've a right to ensure that people enjoy using their site, and their site would be less enjoyable if I had to wade through a bunch of content that is otherwise very easy to find on the rest of the web.

Good lord, have you seen some of the crap in the Kindle store? Lots of poorly written stuff that badly needs an editor. And there are titles carefully chosen to make people buy them by mistake.

This is not about content quality. They just don't want people selling content that they can get for free elsewhere — bad customer relations.

(Or is it? Back in 2006, I co-wrote a book for Sun Microsystems. I was well-paid for this work, and I wasn't expecting royalties, but for some strange reason I got them, showing that the book sold reasonably well, despite being available online before the book came out.)

Now, Amazon has every right to do this. But that's just the problem: the Kindle platform is another walled garden. Just as I don't like Steve Jobs telling me I can't have lame iPhone apps, I don't like Jeff Bezos telling me I can't buy lame books. The fact that the app or book is lame is besides the point. The central control is the problem.

If I ever become a sufficiently popular author so that people want to by ebooks written by me (unlikely, alas) I will make sure they're available in portable formats, such as EPub/Adobe. I won't try to prevent them from being available in Kindle format, but I won't stand for an exclusive release,.

Unless, of course, the Kindle starts supporting open formats.

There's no reason apple couldn't write an iOS IDE for the iPad

Except that it would violate their own terms of service, and that it would be a complete 180 for them in terms of their recent behavior. There is also no reason that Apple couldn't remove the restrictions on iOS and allow anyone to write software for it -- but no sane person can think that is going to happen.

You seem to think Apple has some kind of nonsensical vendetta agains developers

No, they just want developers to pay them for the privilege of writing software for Apple products. See, for example, the $99/year fee for permission to write iOS applications.

they only charge $100 per year to be a part of their developer program

If you do not pay, nobody can run your iOS software. You make it seem like developers are paying Apple because they like the service; in reality, they are paying Apple because the only other way to distribute iOS software is in a legal grey area.

which allows you to submit apps for approval

Or to have your application rejected because it might offend some people:

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

You seem to be taking that and extrapolating it to a world where Apple actively works to prevent software development on their platform

No, I said that Apple would require people to buy a high-end laptop or workstation, and that they would charge a yearly fee to develop software using that system. Which is only one or two steps away from the situation we have today: the development tools are only available for Mac OS X, you have to pay Apple to sign your software or nobody can run it, and Apple is creating more laptops that are not user serviceable. It makes sense for them, because this model for iOS has basically turned them into the most valuable company in the entire world. Why would they even stop doing something so profitable?

the apps are such a large part of their product's appeal.

Apps created by professional developers who use expensive workstations and have little problem paying Apple are part of the appeal. It is rare for an individual developer to make a popular iOS app; we are not talking about the Ubuntu repositories, we are talking about a store designed by and for corporate developers.

At no point did I say people would be forbidden from writing software for Apple devices, all I said is that users will not have such freedom; you will need to pay for the privilege.

Apple provides PC desktops/laptops too, which allow you to do anything you like. They will continue to do so.

...and if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, your life will improve.

What will probably happen is that by 2015, Apple will have locked down all of their systems. User-programmable computers will be available from Apple at astoundingly high cost (because they will only be high end workstations) and should the user distribute a program Apple disapproves of, their license to use Apple's OS will be revoked and the OS will be remotely deactivated. Apple's product strategy is about control; what makes you think they will continue to make user-controlled computers once they have phased in a system to retain such control?

In fact even on mobile platforms Apple does not eliminate choice, they could shut down jailbreaking if they really wanted (or make it way harder than it is) - they choose not to.

They chose not to because of the outcry:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=apple+bricks+jailbroken+iphones&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

If they were uninterested in that option, why did they make jailbreaking harder than plugging the phone into a computer and entering some commands in a terminal? Companies do not typically patent techniques of doing things they consider to be out of the question.

Before Apple introduced the "App Stores" to the world at large (and I know there were plenty around before, just not as widely known) the users only had a choice of what was basically a wide-open system where apps just came from anywhere.

No, before Apple introduced the "App Store," you had these:

1. Timesharing computation utilities, that allowed users to rent time on a computer to run whatever software the utility did not ban.
2. Video game systems that would only run programs that had been digitally signed by the manufacturer.
3. Cable and satellite TV receivers that were designed to only run manufacturer-approved firmware.
4. Word processor computers that could perform a few pre-installed tasks.
5. Thousands of other computers that people have come to depend on, but which are designed to thwart any sort of hacking, modification, programming, etc.

Apple just saw this sort of thing and said, "Well if it works for mainframes, video game consoles, and printer catridges, we can make it work for tablet computers (and maybe even laptops)!" The user's choices are now "curated" by Apple, just like their choices were previous "curated" by Nintendo, IBM, or Xerox.

Lots of freedom, but too much freedom for a non-technical user to handle easily - hence a world of viruses and malware that arose as a result.

Yet despite that problem, it was also a world that had governments terrified of their citizens, a world which exposed scientology, a world that made Wikileaks possible, a world that allows Chinese and Iranian citizens to read banned material, a world that resulted in one new innovation after another. Once you start telling people that they cannot run unapproved software, you wind up here:

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

This is not about choice or about security, it is about freedom -- freedom is inconvenient, which IBM knew in the 70s when Apple was actually giving people freedom. If Apple had any interest in respecting its users' freedom, they would have made a standardized, not-hard-for-technical-users method of removing the restrictions. Apple has become the new IBM: they want to make money on computation, and they have lost whatever respect they might have had for the users of their systems.

In the general population, depressing as it is, you are probably correct. Purchasers of trendy, high-end electronics, however, tend to skew towards the younger, richer, urban dwelling segment - even from a straightforward business perspective, this could quite easily go badly for Apple.

The real kicker is this -- Apple regularly rejects politically-sensitive apps, including a bunch of anti-Bush apps that people made during the last years of his presidency. One of the authors emailed The Steve about it. Jobs responded:

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
        Steve

There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve

Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state? .

That's not that big of an exaggeration. See here: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

FreedomTime was a app that displayed a countdown till the next president was elected. It was banned by Apple for being too political.
The developers email:

Dear Steve,

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.

For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/
Sincerely,

Alec Vance
juggleware llc

His Steveness' reply:

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?

Steve

That's only of many examples, which include political caricatures etc. etc.

So while you play with your shiny phone, freedom is being trampled.. and even the tech savvy Apple Slashdotters are not even aware of it..or maybe they're busy brushing them under the carpet while making and modding up posts that rationalize Apple. Just think of the mom and pop types that get an iPhone because everyone else has it, no one will care, while developer freedom is lost. This is Microsoft's wet dream.. and Apple is realizing it.

Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state? .

That's not that big of an exaggeration. See here: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

FreedomTime was a app that displayed a countdown till the next president was elected. It was banned by Apple for being too political.
The developers email:

Dear Steve,

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.

For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/
Sincerely,

Alec Vance
juggleware llc

His Steveness' reply:

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?

Steve

That's only of many examples, which include political caricatures etc. etc.

So while you play with your shiny phone, freedom is being trampled.. and even the tech savvy Apple Slashdotters are not even aware of it..or maybe they're busy brushing them under the carpet while making and modding up posts that rationalize Apple. Just think of the mom and pop types that get an iPhone because everyone else has it, no one will care, while developer freedom is lost. This is Microsoft's wet dream.. and Apple is realizing it.

Apple is advertising the strength of their App store, showing off the apps available, and then contrasting that to the usefulness of a netbook.

I think Apple's wrong here, a netbook is way more useful, but, they're certainly doing nothing that's immoral or worse than what TI's doing.

http://www.itworld.com/hardware/56567/jobs-iphone-apples-netbook

The reason it's worse than TI is that Apple has positioned the iPhone as a small computer for the general public, and is selling millions. But how many of the millions know that political apps are banned?

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/freedomtime-rejected-by-apple-for-app-store/

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

Wow, although I’m not happy with Apple right now, I have to give Apple’s CEO some serious credit for answering the email I wrote yesterday:
Dear Steve,

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.

For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/

Sincerely,
Alec Vance
juggleware llc

Mr. Jobs replied :

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve

So we have an entire computing platform that is politically censored by Jobs' diktat because it could be offensive to some people, forget about all the apps that are arbitrarily rejected for duplicating functionality and other BS and people don't care. Podcaster had good features but was rejected for duplicating functionality.

Apple is advertising the strength of their App store, showing off the apps available, and then contrasting that to the usefulness of a netbook.

I think Apple's wrong here, a netbook is way more useful, but, they're certainly doing nothing that's immoral or worse than what TI's doing.

http://www.itworld.com/hardware/56567/jobs-iphone-apples-netbook

The reason it's worse than TI is that Apple has positioned the iPhone as a small computer for the general public, and is selling millions. But how many of the millions know that political apps are banned?

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/freedomtime-rejected-by-apple-for-app-store/

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

Wow, although I’m not happy with Apple right now, I have to give Apple’s CEO some serious credit for answering the email I wrote yesterday:
Dear Steve,

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.

For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/

Sincerely,
Alec Vance
juggleware llc

Mr. Jobs replied :

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve

So we have an entire computing platform that is politically censored by Jobs' diktat because it could be offensive to some people, forget about all the apps that are arbitrarily rejected for duplicating functionality and other BS and people don't care. Podcaster had good features but was rejected for duplicating functionality.

Apple is advertising the strength of their App store, showing off the apps available, and then contrasting that to the usefulness of a netbook.

I think Apple's wrong here, a netbook is way more useful, but, they're certainly doing nothing that's immoral or worse than what TI's doing.

http://www.itworld.com/hardware/56567/jobs-iphone-apples-netbook

The reason it's worse than TI is that Apple has positioned the iPhone as a small computer for the general public, and is selling millions. But how many of the millions know that political apps are banned?

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/freedomtime-rejected-by-apple-for-app-store/

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

Wow, although I’m not happy with Apple right now, I have to give Apple’s CEO some serious credit for answering the email I wrote yesterday:
Dear Steve,

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement.

For a quick screen shot:
http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/

Sincerely,
Alec Vance
juggleware llc

Mr. Jobs replied :

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve

So we have an entire computing platform that is politically censored by Jobs' diktat because it could be offensive to some people, forget about all the apps that are arbitrarily rejected for duplicating functionality and other BS and people don't care. Podcaster had good features but was rejected for duplicating functionality.

f any old person could come along and write another browser, you'd wind up with all sorts of problems (I develop iPhone apps for a living - there ARE reasons for stopping people from doing this). Right now, for example, the user experience is simple: tap a link and it opens in the browser. What happens when another browser is installed that usurps the browser's URL app handler, but also doesn't properly implement their own? You'd suddenly have droves of people whining about how "the" browser doesn't work. That's a big problem. Granted, even with different rules something like that would never make it to the App Store, but it's possible. Or what if someone dveloped a Flash-capale browser? Apple has barred Flash (and similar tech) because of the cost to system resources of running the stuff. Battery life would go to crap, and it's entirely possible the device would overheat (if you think that sounds ridiculous, take a look at what Flash does to your *desktop* machine - the number one way I extend my MacBook's battery time is by closing all browser instances that are hosting Flash). One of the major reasons the iPhone is such a great platform is that Apple *did* lock it down, ultimately making it easier to use and less problematic for your average user who's never going to think it was Flash that drained the battery.

MS can use similar reasoning that alternate applications confuse users, so only their browser and media player, office suite etc. should be used. How ridiculous does that sound? I can't imagine people on this site making this argument. Also, did this app http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ run down the battery? Or this http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 ? Or hundreds of others? And I am sure that out of the 64k applications, some must be draining the battery, like AT&T's own navigation application. You must be quite entrenched to justify the App stores shortcomings in this manner.

Seriously. The people who say that it's Apple's property or that consoles are similarly locked down are missing the point. Consoles etc. were never projected to be a computing platform. We already have people hailing the iPhone as the mobile computing platform and the iTouch as Apple's version of the netbook. It is just Apple trying to get greedy by triple dipping into the jar by charging first for the phone, then taking a nice chunk of the users' monthly phone/data plan fee through AT&T, and then skimming 30% off the cost of a application in the App Store from the user/developer.

And applications cannot use 'undocumented APIs'(determined inconsistently by arbitrary lackeys), contain political undertones, or any hint of non PG 13 content or compete in anyway with Apple's builtin programs. http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/ This would be okay if there was alternate means to get applications, but the only way to get widespread distribution is through the App Store. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/122225 MS bundled a browser with it's OS, but Apple gets away with banning any browser from being developed at all, not allowing any VM(like Java) and gets a free pass because it's not a monopoly(yet)?

For example, there was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve

So, before you develop the application, you might want to brush up on what Jobs MIGHT think about any political overtones in your application. There are no clear guidelines or rules. Some Apps are allowed, and other Apps with similar type of content or using similar development tools rejected.

There's another case of Apple rejecting an application for duplicate functionality and then filing a patent for a similar app. Details are here http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 and here http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/02/app-store-rejections-apple-rejects-ikaraoke-app-then-files-a-p/

They say that when restrictions come, they come wrapped in a sweet looking package. That may well be the iPhone to condition people to the world of restrictive applications on machines billed as general computing devices.

I would rather hope that the computer of the future wouldn't have the "feature" of requiring apps to go through a approval process and not be rejected by a overlord --> http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

I would rather have a 486 than that.