Slashdot Mirror
iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ...
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"
And don't buy it. It's that simple.
It's not like comcast which is a monopoly in certain areas. There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy. Whoever wrote the summary is an idiot.
How is this an issue for regulators? If Apple if determined to make their product not work, its not the regulators job to change their mind. If Apple decides they want no Opera and no Java and nothing else, its their decision. Let them make it and face the consequences.
It can be go tiem now plees?
It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course. :P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.
My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Could Apple face regulators for restricting third party development on THEIR SOFTWARE which is on THEIR HARDWARE which does not in any sense of the word have a monopoly.
Somehow.. I doubt it.
People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All.
Whilst I may disagree with their tactics, I'm certainly not going to tell them how to run their business. And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. Windows & Office locks people into a platform by being an established monopoly, it also uses this established monopoly to lock people into their other products. What this is, is simply Apple giving people a piece of cake and not letting them eat it. Sure it sucks, but you know what - don't like it; don't develop for it. Simple.
"Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device?"
It's "their" device right until I pay for it. Then it's "my" device.
Let me turn the question around. Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You've got it exactly right.
I've been planning on snagging an iPhone as soon as the next model is released.
Unless a) this situation plays out differently than currently seems likely or b) I come to decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints... I will not be buying an iPhone after all.
1) "Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked." Yeah they're going to be blocked over the cellular network, not over WiFi, this is NOT NEWS. 2) The article that the "are forbidden" link goes to talks about the possible lack of Photoshop (among other apps) on the iPhone. Photoshop, come on. There is no way I'm going to take an article seriously that talks about the lack of Photoshop ON A PHONE. If you wanna use Photoshop get your own lappy 486 or Desktop. 3) Sun Java VM - Where the heck is the back peddling? This whole thing was announced less than a week ago, the article even states "if our crack engineers are able to build it" let alone where they mention the licensing in less than one full sentence... Get real. This is a Doom n' Gloom / FUD post.
....available to all
(all who already have or can afford to buy an intel mac with leopard)
, and easy to program
(to anyone who knows objective C)
and port apps
(so long as they don't do anything apple doesn't like, since they control the sole distribution channel)
without using java which is all but a dead language
(that happens to run on the majority of cell phones sold today, as opposed to ObjC which is apple's baby just as much as java is Sun's)
There's a difference between not providing support and using legal means to restrict the usage. Apple isn't just not supporting the SDK (which would be fine), they're saying that you LEGALLY cannot do this with your phone and the SDK.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Game development is a hobby of mine. I was considering either doing some stuff in Microsoft's XNA Studio for the XBox or the IPhone SDK. It's funny that I'll be using a Microsoft product because it's more open.
The rules change when you have a monopoly position in a market - there are many things one business can do while another can't do. It doesn't mean the action itself is inherently right or wrong.
* "Native" look and "feel" is a joke. The GTK+ emulation looks awful, nothing looks quite right. Select/combo boxes are nowhere even close to native. Nothing behaves properly, and there's still zero integration with the desktop. That pisses me off even more than the ugly purple theme so I just disable the "native" look when I can.
** Every other SWT-based app I've used gets on my nerves. Eclipse I can tolerate since I love it's editor and am addicted to several plugins. Nothing else out there is even half as nice. It's configuration, however, is an abomination.
It's only "AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted" if you've been living in a cave.
Windows Mobile and Symbian have far more unrestrictive terms of use, in fact - simply being able to write an app in the relevant programming language is the only barrier to entry. There's no third-party enforcing distribution control, no ridiculous $99 sign-up fee - yet, ironically, some people justify the licence fee as "getting rid of the chaff". Unbelievable.
I try to credit people with intelligent reasoning for the most part but it's tough to argue in favour of people who advocate draconian control the likes of which Apple is putting into effect with its SDK, when if it was Microsoft or some other less-favoured darling at the helm there would - justifiably - be outcry.
Disclaimer: I own a Macbook Pro and an iPod.
Which phones are you referring to?
With the exception of Verizon, who does a similar lockdown deal with BREW, most phones have a J2ME VM on them and are quite capable of running just about anything.
I've got Gmail/Gmaps/Opera mini among others running on my plain old (non-smart) phone. They were all free and the only way my carrier impeded my installing them right over the air was with a single warning screen about installing 3rd party apps.
Incidentally, you can load whatever you want on it, through the jailbreak system. If the device is screwed up because of what you did, then the device maker has no obligation to help you.
You can choose not to buy it. A lot of devices are like that, consoles are a very popular example. If you don't like the limitations of the system, that's fine, don't buy it. The rules don't change just because someone buys it.
Your parent wasn't arguing that it wasn't a 'best-selling phone' (Which it isn't, the best selling in North America would be from RIM)
What GP was trying to get at was that if Apple wanted the iPhone to be a truly competitive and flexible smart phone, the best way to accomplish that would be to open the interface completely to third party apps with the SDK.
because on the surface the SDK and new software is awesome. It is when people started reading the legal fine print and found out if you develop apps for the iPhone apple owns your soul and IP.
Okay a slight stretch there but that is basically the point. I can make firefox for the iPhone but legally I can't install it. It isn't for technical(except for the skype over edge which is just a bad idea) reasons just legal.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Actually, that makes no sense. If it's the most important thing to have work well, why wouldn't they welcome competition? If iPhone Firefox ended up being better than iPhone Safari, why wouldn't Apple be happy about this situation? Their customers get better utility out of the device, and Apple doesn't have to lift a finger.
I guess this can be the first documented case of the GPLv3 actually working, and working well. I'm sorry, but a version of an app which you can't modify without paying $100 for a "developer key" is not free software.
And amazingly locked down, compared with Android.
In what way is this OK?
If Microsoft wanted to charge you $100 to run Firefox on Windows, you would burn them at the stake. The only thing that makes Apple different is that they aren't a monopoly... yet.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
> decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints...
Why the docile obedience? Just because it is Apple?
You buy it, you do whatever the hell you want with it! Isn't that the mantra here at Slashdot? Except when it is Apple.
I want to see someone port Iceweasel to the damned thing, post a torrent up on a server somewhere anonymously and watch Apple suffer the PR nightmare of trying to ban it. If we can't outright outlaw stupidity we can certainly make it painful.
Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue. Come on, they stared Microsoft down over their mistreatment of Java, why be scared of Apple when, again, this is a case they can't lose. Because it won't ever make it to a court of law, Apple would get their asses handed to them in the court of public opinion years before the wheels of justice could turn.
Democrat delenda est
symbian, "european". iphone, "american"...
i keep finding myself thinking that the iphone is a creation of the US mobile market.
in europe on the other hand its just another "smartphone".
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I'm not sure where in the history of apple would lead people to believe something would be different this time. Apple has "their way" of doing products, mac os x only on apple computers (despite it working out other hardware), just to give an example. They've never been about "completely open", and this is going to put off a portion of potential customers (the actual number is arguable), but the vast majority won't care, in fact, the vast majority might not even mind, or actually _like_ apple's tight control over things.
As an iPhone owner myself, I was really excited to see what was possible with the apps people were writing for jailbroken phones, and it was really cool.. some were quite buggy, but there was definitely potential, even in this unsanctioned way. Now there will be an official SDK and even better apps i am really excited. Now sure, these apps may already exist for winmobile or rim or palm even, but that is taking out the very most important factor, the interface and interaction with an iphone. some folks may not like it, or want one, but I've found it to be incredibly useful with myself using for more features on it then i did on any previous phone.
Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
Apple DOESN'T have to support Java on the iPhone. Sun didn't ask for Apple to maintain a Java Cocoa bridge on the iPhone, they wanted to port Java and maintain it. But they had to back off because of Apple's restrictive licensing. So with regards to developer preference, had Java been ported that would have been Sun's problem so why would Apple even care? I'm also a full time Java developer and I have an Intel Mac, and I don't give two shits about Objective-C, I just think it would be cool to take my Java cellphone app and run it on the iPhone.
There's no SDK for a microwave, not even a limited one.
No one's stopping people from running whatever the hell they want on their iPhone either. Apple has not sued, attacked, harassed, or taken any legal action whatsoever against the jailbreak folks. Even the "bricking" software updates were announced ahead of time and could be refused by the owner. They haven't helped them--true. But neither has my microwave manufacturer.
If you don't want the restrictions, don't use the official SDK. You will face no legal action whatsoever for doing whatever you want to the phone you own. But Apple is not legally obligated to help you do anything to the phone you own either. There is absolutely no legal duty for a company to make any electronics device a software platform. If you want to hack your phone, go right ahead, you have every right, but don't expect a helping hand. Can't have it both ways.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
...and Apple doesn't care one little bit about you because 99.99% of their market is people who are completely happy with iTunes and iPhone like they are.
Something slashdotters need to get a grip on is you are a tiny, extremely hard to please, demographic. Most companies recognize it will cost them a lot in one form or another to satisfy you, and the revenue they get off you wont make up for it. The only impact you have in this particular arena is Apple apparently wants geeks to develop apps for their phone. But there are probably going to be about a million geeks doing that even with the restrictions in their terms of service.
I like Linux and the myriad options it gives personally, but Apple wants to maintain a coherent and stable software ecosystem for their phone. They really don't need to have 5 different browsers, and a bazillion apps designed for geeks instead of polished standards conforming apps that fit in to their phone experience. The iPhone works pretty well the way it is now, if they can grow their software ecosystem some they will be happy. I'm pretty sure they don't want to turn it in to a confusing train wreck, kind of like the Linux desktop with 10 different window managers, a half dozen GUI toolkits, 20 different browsers, some awesome apps and a lot of brain dead broken ones, none of which adhere to the same set of UI guidelines.
@de_machina
It's a little amusing that you throw out "wasting time on MMS" when I would view MMS as one of the least important apps on my N95 (and yes, I've used an iPhone, too). If you've not seen the latest version of Nokia Maps on an N95, you would be impressed. I agree with your assertion that XMPP is on the "must have" list of a fraction of a percent of users. But to suggest that there's something "irrational" about not being all gooey inside about the iPhone when my phone is smaller, is 3.5G, has a 5MP camera, has 8GB of internal storage, Bluetooth 2, Exchange Push email, GPS, etc. But I'll stop there, lest I be branded as an irrational Apple hater.
If Apple starts suing people who hack their own iPhone, I'll be at the front of the line complaining. I doubt they will though, because that is very shaky legal ground. Your property rights have nothing to do with Apple being "anticompetitive." They are based on common law principles that go back hundreds of years. But as I noted, those rights do not extend to forcing Apple to provide the SDK you want.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Two logical errors there:
/. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though."
Microsoft's illegal abuse of its monopoly position is not from simply having a mere "advantage" in the browser market. A browser requires an OS - whoever controls the OS has strong control over the browser. The OS is itself the distribution mechanism for the new browser. Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.
Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up. It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating. It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.
"I'm sure
- The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
If and when
then, maybe you can start to compare Apple's role in the music player market with Microsoft's role in the operating systems market.
Meanwhile, I'll keep using my iPod Nano to play MP3s made from my own CDs (and, slowly, MP3s bought online as decent services such as Play.com start offering unencumbered legal downloads for sensible prices) with absolutely no compulsion to buy from iTunes and absolutely no compulsion to buy another iPod unless I happen to prefer Apple's design.
What's more - I can buy a Symbian/Windows Mobile/Brand X phone and it still accepts incoming calls and texts from an iPhone! - so I can choose not to buy an iPhone too!
So, please explain again how the Apple "monopoly" (which doesn't force anybody to buy an iPod and/or buy from iTunes unless they like the product) remotely resembles the MS operating system monopoly (which means that many Mac and Linux users are pretty much obliged to dual-boot or run emulation software - usually requiring us to buy a copy of windows & MS Office - in order to interoperate with the masses)?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.