Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Tom Yager takes a closer look at Apple's iPhone SDK confidentiality agreement, which restricts developers from discussing the SDK or exchanging ideas with others, thereby leaving no room for forums, newsgroups, open source projects, tutorials, magazine articles, users' groups, or books. But because anyone is free to obtain the iPhone SDK by signing up for it, Apple is essentially branding publicly available information as confidential. This 'puzzling contradiction' is the 'antithesis of the developer-friendly Apple Developer Connection' on which the iPhone SDK program is based, Yager contends. 'You'll see arguments from armchair legal analysts that the iPhone developer Agreements won't stand up in court — but those analysts certainly won't stand up in court on your behalf.' Anyone planning to launch an iPhone forum or open source project should have 'a lawyer draft your request for exemption, and make sure that the Apple staffer granting it personally commits to status as authorized to approve exceptions to the iPhone Registered Developer and iPhone SDK Agreements,' Yager warns."

Comments

no sale, here, then

[TheGratefulNet]

I had no idea about this. I don't follow apple things (...) but given how sue-happy they are, they can certainly live without MY buying any of their gear.

simply because of this, alone; I vow not to buy an iphone. I was not really in the market but now I know for sure that apple is on my blacklist (at least the evil phones).

apple: are you trying to dislodge MS as the most hated computer company around? keep it up, mate....

Re:no sale, here, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Do Without.

I really don't understand why everyone is willing to buy Apple products at inflated prices with draconian contracts of adhesion.

A phone is a phone is a phone. Don't fall for it.
Buy generic phones, or better yet, just take the free one provided with your wireless providers contract of adhesion.

If more people thought this way, there would be less of this insanity in the marketplace, and manufactures would have to compete by price alone.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Grey Ninja]

apple: are you trying to dislodge MS as the most hated computer company around? keep it up, mate....

They're already there, as far as I'm concerned. Apple's business practices just reeks of some mad power trip in general. They absolutely despise people using their products (be it hardware or software) in ways that they had not intended. Microsoft is FAR their superior in that regard. The main evil with Microsoft is seen by the IT professional, not the consumer. With Apple, it's generally the other way around.

The only explanation I can see for Apple's recent surge in popularity is their marketing, which is absolutely top notch.

Re:no sale, here, then

[houstonbofh]

What, you thought Apple was nice, warm and fuzzy? Where have you been? They are just as cut-throat as Microsoft. They just have cooler stuff at higher prices.

Re:no sale, here, then

[loganrapp]

Well, that's one more reason to wait and see how the HTC Dream and other Android-using devices work out.

Re:no sale, here, then

[theantipop]

The only explanation I can see for Apple's recent surge in popularity is their marketing, which is absolutely top notch.

Really? That's the only explanation?

Re:no sale, here, then

[Goldberg's Pants]

I own an iPod Touch and it is HANDS DOWN the greatest tech device I've ever bought. There is nothing else like it on the market right now.

Of course it's worth is increased exponentially when hacked and jailbroken. Apple charged iPod owners $10 for the 2.0 software update. There is some claim that business law requires them to do this, which is nonsense as Sony routinely give the PSP new features for free. MS released their 2.0 Zune update for free for older Zune's etc... So I'm not sure why Apple is defended in this practice when Sony and MS are possibly two of the most evil companies out there.

As it was, I scored the 2.0 update for free thanks to an Apple fuckup. HAHA!:)

Re:no sale, here, then

[HumanEmulator]

The only explanation I can see for Apple's recent surge in popularity is their marketing, which is absolutely top notch.

So in the past 10 years, the switch to a unix based operating system with modern object oriented apis, the switch to intel hardware that made an easier transition for windows developers, the acquisition and development of technologies like multi-touch, the negotiating with record labels to break out of the subscription model, the adoption of open source for many parts of the operating system (from Darwin to WebKit) and so on had nothing to do with it?

Yeah, it's silly that they haven't lifted the NDA yet, but it's not like developers have gotten excited about their platform because of brightly colored commercials.

Re:no sale, here, then

[BhaKi]

Every anti-competitive trick used by M$ is also used by Apple. However, M$ has a monopoly and Apple doesn't. For some people, this is reason enough to abstain from hating Apple. Unfortunately, such people don't realize that they are just becoming silent promoters of such tricks.

Re:no sale, here, then

[ontheroll]

As an owner of an iPhone 3G who previously owned dozens of different phones from all possible manufacturers (SE, Nokia, Siemens, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, just to name a few), I have to say that iPhone is superior for two simple facts:

1) It is, BY FAR, the most intuitive and easy-to-use-out-of-the-box phone I have ever used.

2) It is fun to use. Sure, all new phones are fun in the beginning, but after 2 weeks with this phone I still enjoy every time I surf the web or write an eMail with it. Something that never happend to me with any other phone (and not with any of the same generation competitors of the iPhone).

So yes, it has many downsides, Apple are bastards when it comes to their control freakiness but their products are better.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Bones3D_mac]

Apple charged iPod owners $10 for the 2.0 software update. There is some claim that business law requires them to do this, which is nonsense as Sony routinely give the PSP new features for free. MS released their 2.0 Zune update for free for older Zune's etc... So I'm not sure why Apple is defended in this practice when Sony and MS are possibly two of the most evil companies out there.

Yeah, this is the same crap they pulled on their customer base who purchased 802.11n-ready hardware, then charged them to turn it on. Their reasoning, a bunch of meaningless jargon that somehow seems to lack any basis in reality outside of Apple:

Apple said it is required under generally accepted accounting principles to charge customers for the software upgrade. "The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,"

Needless to say, this ploy has been affectionately dubbed the "Apple Tax" by those who were duped by it.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Candid88]

In fact, I'd go so far as to say sometimes Apple's anti-competitive practices make Microsoft look like angels by comparison.

I'm no M$ fan in anyway but I do find it remarkable how much stuff Apple get away.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Orlando]

I own an iPod Touch and it is HANDS DOWN the greatest tech device I've ever bought.

I wholeheartedly agree. I have owned my fair share of tech, but the iPod Touch is the best designed, most pleasurable piece of equipment I've used to date. I still have a smile on my face each time I use it, and I've had it for a couple of months now.

The difference Apple brings to the market is that extra yard. Yes their stuff is expensive compared to the competition, yes there are problems with it, yes they are no better than others in terms of things like the non-disclosure agreement. But still the extra polish, the attention to detail makes it worth it for me.

Re:no sale, here, then

[GaryPatterson]

No, the parent post is not insightful. Rules change when you hit monopoly status, and the reason is purely so that companies can have a chance to compete against entrenched monopolies in a sector.

You want to allow product tying for non-monopoly players, but disallow it for the monopolies. That's good governance, and talk of "silent promotion" merely attempts to weaken systems like this.

The things that Apple does may be the same as what Microsoft did in the bad old days (although I have yet to hear good examples beyond vague anti-corporate claptrap) but there is nothing wrong with that because Apple has no monopoly in any market.

Even with the iPod, Apple is not a monopoly player in the music space because that's something ruled in a court, and personal opinions count for nothing. I'd say that's the best point to move against Apple, but it's way off-topic (we're talking phones here) and so irrelevant.

Hell, even the whole sue-the-blogger fiasco was grounded in law and perfectly legal for any company, even Microsoft. It may have been odious, but it's perfectly legal to go after people inducing the breaking of NDAs in California. (To the lawyers: I'm going from memory here, please correct me if I've got this wrong).

Lastly, hating a company means that you're defining your reactions by them. It's precisely as valid as loving a company. Neither are logical or even sensible.

Re:no sale, here, then

[GaryPatterson]

Too true!

A Mac can set you back a few thousand, but Microsoft's PC only... uh... okay, Microsoft don't sell PCs.

So OS X costs $129, which is just ridiculous compared to Microsoft's Vista, which is only... oh. $239 is the recommended price for Home Premium, and goes up to $399 for Ultimate.

Well, at least Microsoft beat Apple on mouse prices! Woo! Good mice too (I always use them).

Yup, except for computers and operating systems, Microsoft beat Apple's pricing every time.

To be fair, they don't make computers.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Candid88]

"but there is nothing wrong with that because Apple has no monopoly in any market."

Nothing wrong to you maybe, personally I think no matter what the game, the players should all be playing by the same rules.

"the whole sue-the-blogger fiasco was grounded in law"

Yea, grounded in bad law, which doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg trials after the Holocaust established that.

Let's be clear, given the evidence at hand, if history was different and Apple were in Microsoft's position there would be, if anything, far less openness and freedom for innovation in the software industry.

Re:no sale, here, then

[GaryPatterson]

Nothing wrong to you maybe, personally I think no matter what the game, the players should all be playing by the same rules.

The effect of which will be to ensure that an entrenched monopoly can never be taken down, even by a better competitor.

As an example, imagine any competitor selling a product when the monopoly can temporarily drop their price to near zero.

Playing by the same rules is nice on paper, but when you get into reality you have to see that the big players have more clout than the little ones, so unless their hands are tied in some manner, they'll kill the little players stone dead. It is in their interest to kill competition off as quickly as possible.

Anti-trust laws (and their equivalents around the world) are an attempt to even the playing field, not distort it.

Yea, grounded in bad law, which doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg trials after the Holocaust established that.

You are kidding here, I assume. No sane person could put those two together.

Moving swiftly on...

Let's be clear, given the evidence at hand, if history was different and Apple were in Microsoft's position there would be, if anything, far less openness and freedom for innovation in the software industry.

No, you think this is so. I think it's not. History went another way and we can only speculate. Don't pretend that your opinion is any more valid than mine on this. We're both guessing.

Re:no sale, here, then

[nEoN nOoDlE]

The main evil with Microsoft is seen by the IT professional, not the consumer. With Apple, it's generally the other way around.

It's the IT professionals and developers that are on Microsoft's and Apple's case. The consumer just doesn't care either way. The regular consumer doesn't care that the iPhone SDK is under a strict NDA because the regular consumer doesn't write iPhone apps. The regular consumer judges the product by what it is capable of doing right now, and not what it can do if hackers got a hold of it. This is why Microsoft is losing market share to Apple; not because Microsoft is evil and Apple is less evil, but because Microsoft Vista makes using the computer a more difficult experience than Apple does. There's a lot of whining going on among developers, and the main difference is that developers and power users want the hardware to be free and open to them to do as they please because functionality is king. Apple, though, wants it closed so they could keep the user experience consistent for the regular consumer because to them form is king*. This is the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object and the argument has been going on with Apple for over a decade.

* Of course, there will be people responding that Apple thinks money, and not form, is king, and that's the ultimate truth. To Apple, though, making a product with a consistent and pleasing user interface is what's making them money hand over fist.

Re:no sale, here, then

[jcupitt65]

Every anti-competitive trick used by M$ is also used by Apple.

I don't want to defend Apple too much, I don't like a lot of their business practices, but are they really as bad as MS?

For example, MS threatened OEMs and stopped them from pre-installing Netscape Navigator (this was way back when it sucked less than IE) on the machines they shipped. Have Apple ever done anything as bad as that?

Re:no sale, here, then

[mabhatter654]

Apple will never be in Microsoft's position because of their behavior... it automatically limits them to a low percent. Microsoft got where they are because they allowed (encouraged) rampant piracy of everybody else's stuff, Hardware, BIOS, etc. and they let any developer play for cheap with almost no strings. Of course that's why we have the huge mess of poor security, out-of-date browsers, and masses of old code that won't go away... being so big cost them the first-mover position... Forget how many copies of Vista are sold... how many REPLACED XP? Apple is pushing 30%-50% upgrade rate on Tiger boxes... Microsoft couldn't touch that if they gave the new OS away for free.. the joys of being a monopoly is that you have to cater to EVERYONE... Microsoft table scraps would create another Apple-size company overnight.

Re:no sale, here, then

[darkmeridian]

Most non-disclosure agreements make an exception for information obtained through legal means from those with the right to disseminate it, publicly known, or that is already known to the recipient. Is there confirmation that these exceptions are not in the Apple NDA in question?

Re:no sale, here, then

[hummassa]

I will have to concur with GaryPatterson here: equality is treating equals equally and treating differents differently. The trick is to know who is equal (white people == black people == homosexual people) and who is different (enterprise with competition != monopolist or semi-monopolist), etc...

Re:no sale, here, then

[hummassa]

Like blocking anyone that wanted to ever sell a system with MacOS(X)? installed? Via lawsuit?

Re:no sale, here, then

[IamTheRealMike]

You want to allow product tying for non-monopoly players, but disallow it for the monopolies. That's good governance

Er, what? How is that good governance. I'm trying really hard to think of why we should allow artificial product tying ... and failing.

How is society served by requiring iTunes to activate an iPhone? How does the free market benefit when Apple abuse their iTunes install base to install Safari for Windows?

I can swallow "natural" tying .... like the iPhone SDK to a Mac .... because implementing the SDK in a cross platform fashion is hard and that shouldn't be an aspect of law. But Apple actually had to go out of their way to make the iPhone depend on iTunes and I'm just having a really hard time seeing why that kind of crap should only be illegal when you're a monopoly. Because to me it seems inherently bad.

Lastly, hating a company means that you're defining your reactions by them. It's precisely as valid as loving a company. Neither are logical or even sensible.

Another non-sequitur. A company is just a group of people. It's not illogical to dislike a company, anymore than it's illogical to dislike a group of bullies at high school, or a band, or a political party. Companies don't get a special "get out of emotions free" card through virtue of being incorporated.

Re:no sale, here, then

[squiggleslash]

Kind of hard for Apple to do this given they don't have any OEMs.

It's like two countries. One has a whole set of unjust laws: jailtime for non-churchgoers, jailtime for criticizing the government, jailtime for having an Internet connection, and another country that just keeps everyone in jail, all the time.

The people in the second country wouldn't be able to claim moral superiority over the first by arguing that, yes, everyone is in prison at the moment, but at least they don't jail people for not going to Church.

At this point Apple's lack of serious control over the market, and the fact the iPhone is more hype than substance, means that Apple trying to control their customers isn't anything like as important as when Microsoft does it, or did it. One hopes we'll be at a point soon, with Ubuntu being what it is, where enough people switch to either Mac OS X or GNU/Linux to mean it no longer matters much when Microsoft does it either.

Re:no sale, here, then

[nano2nd]

I'll try to respond easily to your comment of:

"If more people thought this way, there would be less of this insanity in the marketplace, and manufactures would have to compete by price alone."

Actually, I can't. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If manufacturers compete on price alone, all we are left with as consumers, is crappy generic products.

Competition based on design, functionality, features, quality, service etc is a Good Thing. Competition based purely on price is a race to the bottom. It hurts us, the consumers. It hurts the employees of the manufacturers as they fight to keep costs as low as possible.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Jellybob]

But Apple actually had to go out of their way to make the iPhone depend on iTunes and I'm just having a really hard time seeing why that kind of crap should only be illegal when you're a monopoly.

They tie it to iTunes, because that's the software they use for synchronising it with a computer. It also happens to be the software that someone owning an Apple device with music capabilities is likely to be using.

Would you also be complaining if they released some standalone sync software, which did exactly the same thing as iTunes currently does?

Re:no sale, here, then

[Stradivarius]

Rules do change when you hit monopoly status. But just because some shady business practice is legal doesn't make it right, something that should escape criticism, or something that we want to support by purchasing Apple's products.

Some of us don't want to give our money to any company that tries to force you into a contractual relationship just to develop your own software, thus stifling open source development. Much like we don't want to give our money to companies that try to shackle their customers - why should a customer have to "jailbreak" their iPhone?

A company is supposed to be about providing value to its customers, not luring them with a little value, then turning around and denying the customer fair use of their own property just to extract their pound of flesh from a largely captive audience. Some phone carriers do this kind of nonsense by crippling the Bluetooth profiles on phones its customers use. Heaven forbid you add your own ringtones, even though the phone is capable of it, rather than pay the carrier for the exact same data you've already bought elsewhere. Apple does it by limiting your ability to put files on the phone, limiting what software can be developed for the phone, and generally trying to prevent you from using your own device in any way Apple doesn't like. It's like GM selling cars that won't drive near a Midas shop.

These sorts of things are all very legal but also anti-consumer. The GP is right that these tactics aren't going to go away as long as people continue to tolerate and encourage them by patronizing such companies.

I am currently shopping for a phone. The iPhone would have been one of my leading candidates if it wasn't for this kind of nonsense. I'll probably end up getting an HTC model instead. If more people took that approach, maybe Apple would get the message that what it's doing isn't acceptable.

Re:no sale, here, then

[ps236]

It's different from a monopoly's position in that you can just go out and buy a different phone. One that does essentially the same thing. (Or a different MP3 player or a different computer). You can't just go out and buy a non-Microsoft version of Windows.

So, if you don't like the product tying, do what I do, and stay clear of Apple. You don't lose out (except from iTunes trashing your computer, and a more rapidly decreasing bank balance). I wouldn't say that product tying is 'bad', but I do think it's stupid (Apple obviously disagree, and they may be in a strong enough position for it to work for them). I'd be more willing to consider Apple products if there wasn't the tying, but I don't think they'll be losing sleep because of a few people who choose what to buy based on that rather than visual appeal or keeping in with the crowd.

(You could say that Windows isn't a monopoly, there's Linux and MacOS in competition - but the courts don't see it that way)

Re:no sale, here, then

[Weedlekin]

"It's pretty clear that Google NDAs are temporary."

Is it?

"Google officials pledged (several times) that they are going to open most of the SDK"

"Most" is not all.

"Personally, I believe them."

I base my opinions on past behaviour, which indicates that Google are, like Apple and MS, only open when it benefits them financially:

http://picasa.google.com/linux/faq.html#26

"Picasa for Linux isn't open source"

Google Toolbar EULA, Intellectual Property clause:

"You acknowledge that Google or third parties own all rights, title and interest in and to the Google Toolbar"

Google Maps API, terms of service:

"In order to obtain the API, You must have a Google Account. After supplying Google with Your account information, the URL of your service, and agreeing to the Terms of Service, You will be issued an alphanumeric key assigned to You by Google that is uniquely associated with your Google Account and the URL of your service. Your service must import the Google Maps API using an HTML tag that contains this key, as described in the Maps API documentation, and Google will block requests with an invalid key or invalid URL. Google shall have sole and complete control over the map data and format. You may not obtain more than one key for use in the Service."

Read the last one with care to see that Google are every bit as much control freaks as Apple and MS. So while I find your faith in them touching, they have a long way to go before I believe anything they say about Android and openness.

Re:no sale, here, then

[tsa]

I sometimes get the idea that Apple is stuck in the early 1980s when every company made stuff that was only ocmpatible with their stuff. I know it's not that bad, but sometimes I wonder why I bought an iMac and a MacBook Pro. If only they would use open standards, or their software had the option to save the files you are working with in more or less open (or much used) standards, our lives would be so much better.

Re:no sale, here, then

[stewbacca]

Owning an iPhone and signing up for the SDK are two separate issues. Just because the SDK agreement sucks doesn't mean the phone sucks too. MOST people will never, ever do anything with the SDK other than use the by-products, which already are getting rave reviews. Ends-justify-means.

Re:no sale, here, then

[stewbacca]

"Yea, grounded in bad law, which doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg trials after the Holocaust established that.

Wow, that was the most subtle introduction of Godwin's Law I've ever seen!

Re:no sale, here, then

[demallien2]

What a load of nonsense you've written there. You complain about Apple tying the iPhone to iTunes. Well, sure, but here's the thing: iTunes is free, and if iTunes didn't exist, you'd still have to install some Apple-written piece of software on your system to synch it with the iPhone, so I really don't see what your point is - you're complaining because the piece of Apple software that you have to install does more than the bare minimum? Good grief, Evil Apple!

Re:no sale, here, then

[mmurphy000]

Those wanting the latest versions of the Android SDK instead of a buggy load of old crap have to sign an NDA that prohibits talking about it, publishing screen shots, or sharing code fragments.

More accurately, those wanting the latest versions of the Android SDK had to be among the 50 winners of the first round of the ADC, for which they earned $25K and get a chance at another $100-275K, with the aforementioned NDA being one of the qualifications for proceeding.

Re:no sale, here, then

[batkiwi]

It is not nonsense just because you are not willing to do any research.

MS accounts for the sale of an item (XP/Zune/360/etc) over (typically) 6 quarters. That means that they can argue that work they do in the meantime is compensated for (under sabarnes oaxley (sic)).

Apple, apart from the iphone and appletv, has typically accounted for profits immediately. S-O laws state that any future features must be accounted for, or else they have to re-file their SEC reports to modify the sales record such that x% of the original sale was in the quarter the new functionality was delivered.

It's a well meaning law which has stupid consequences. From the outside, you would argue that MS is scamming the SEC by accounting for a single xbox sale over 6 quarters, and that apple is doing the RIGHT thing by doing all profits immediately. This is not the case, though, thanks to the law.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Firehed]

I agree, but you have to remember that their overbearing protection schemes are also the reason that their products are popular. Say what you want about it from a Freedom perspective, but when one person/group/company controls the entire ecosystem, they're able to weed out the junk that plagues the other ecosystems out there. A year and a half on I still can't get decent drivers for Vista for my very-current-at-the-time system, but I've absolutely never had issues of hardware or driver compatibility on my MBP.

Re:no sale, here, then

[encoderer]

For what it's worth, there is no "right" way to do corporate accounting. Every company is complex and nuanced. Apple included.

But more to the point: Apple sees a material tax benefit by requiring consideration (read: compensation) for certain types of upgrades.

But there is no legal benefit to charging $10. $1 or $0.10 would be adequate.

Re:no sale, here, then

[MightyYar]

Their software is pretty decent about "open standards". iTunes saves MP3, iMovie works in DV, iPhoto works in JPG, PNG, and the like. Even their Office Suite exports to PDF, Word, RTF, HTML, and plain text - and the very unconventional native format (actually a folder) is nothing but an XML file and a big collection of files that are embedded into the document - not a binary blob. Quicktime itself is open, and it exports to darned near anything. iCal is an open format.

What is your specific complaint?

Re:no sale, here, then

[Bill_the_Engineer]

In fact, I'd go so far as to say sometimes Apple's anti-competitive practices make Microsoft look like angels by comparison.

The difference being that Microsoft uses it to be anti-competitive and disallow any real competition, while Apple appears to doing it as means for consistency and "look and feel". In reality, Apple may just be use boilerplate legalese to protect its IP, from competitors that are all too willing to make iPhone and iTouch knock offs.

The main reason I forgive Apple more is that, Apple hasn't gone out of its way to drive me or any of my colleagues out of business. While Microsoft on the other hand....

Re:no sale, here, then

[demallien2]

I'm relatively sure that Apple doesn't care if a few geeks want to use something other than iTunes to synch with their iPods. Most people wouldn't want to use anything other than iTunes - having to manually keep your iPod's firmware up to date, no synching of contacts/agenda, not having easy access to the iTunes Store, and for what? So that you can use another piece of software with only half the functionality.

Anyhow, this is a really dumb argument. If you have to go after Apple, why not try shooting at a real problem - like the NDA on the iPhone SDK for example. After all, at least that would be on topic...

Re:no sale, here, then

[e4g4]

When the iPod syncs media - the files themselves aren't the only data being written to the device. iTunes also updates a database that contains the ID3 information for all the tracks, and, in the case of newer ipods, album art. If the iPod simply synced like a mass storage device, it would have to use it's own resources (e.g. battery, processor) to do exactly the same indexing, which would mean more disk reads, and more RAM usage (and subsequently a shorter battery life). With iTunes doing the syncing, all of that work is offloaded to the computer, and the iPod has to do *none* of this work - which yields better battery life, a more responsive interface for browsing, and shorter loading times for music files. While many of these issues are mitigated by the faster processors and flash memory in newer iPods, the whole iPod/iTunes ecosystem started when iPods (and pretty much every other PMP on the market) were slow, low on RAM and contained HDDs only.

Sure, this also gives apple some lock-in, but given the many other syncing options out there (at least for media files on the ipod) for all the major operating systems, it's obviously not that bad.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Lars T.]

So they bought a hardware that wasn't even hinted as being 802.11n-ready and could have just used it as before for free, but instead were duped into updating it for far less it would have cost them to buy new hardware.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Phroggy]

In case anyone missed this detail, Apple charges TWO DOLLARS to enable a feature that was not previously offered (these machines were not sold as "802.11n ready" or "802.11n support coming real soon now" or anything like that). Anyone who bought one, and opted not to pay the additional $1.99, got exactly what they paid for, a machine with IEEE802.11b/g support.

Apple believes that if they didn't do this, they could be in huge trouble with the SEC. Apple may be wrong about that, but they're not selling a $2 upgrade because they want your money.

Re:no sale, here, then

[Crazyswedishguy]

Well, I don't like the idea of tying software to hardware either, and I don't like that they don't let people unlock their iPhones or install whatever apps they want... but Apple does have reasons not to let people do anything they want with their iPhone:

1. Apple does not want to have to fix anything bad that might happen if you install software that they don't have control over.
Example: You decide to jailbreak your phone in order install what you think looks like a cool game. It turns out that the game is actually a harmful piece of malware that destroys your phone - freezes, can't place calls, spams the network, or causes your hardware to fail. Instead Apple makes it clear that if you play around outside of the limits set by them, you do so at your own risk. And the relatively recent release of the SDK, the even more recent unveiling of the App Store is going to make a lot of very cool apps available to every iPhone user.

2. They have a contract with AT&T. I'm pretty sure certain things are imposed by AT&T, such as not allowing VoIP over 3G. You could say AT&T is evil, but they have their own reasons to not allow that. You could say that Apple should have gone with another provider, but I would tell you they tried. In the end, Apple was a risky bet for any provider, so I'm sure they had to compromise if they wanted their phone to be supported by anyone.

I'm not saying that Apple is a model company, but there are so many people vehemently opposing Apple for doing what lots of companies do: making a profit and protecting their interests. And honestly, in the end the iPhone really has changed the wireless industry, and it truly is an impressive gadget with very advanced technology and great software architecture. Have fun using Windows Mobile.

PS: I'm a Blackberry user for business reasons and I love my Curve, but I'm seriously considering switching now that the iPhone supports Exchange.

Re:no sale, here, then

[centuren]

Which part of dependency you do not get? I have music on my computer, I want to transfer it to another device. I own the computer, the other device and the songs. Why do I need to get a software from Apple to transfer songs? Why can't I just drag and drop folders/files - like I can do with my iriver?

Because it's an iPod/iPhone, and not an iRiver. The consumer chooses the product, and it's certainly not the only product around. If you want to drag and drop folders, well, as you say, you can buy something else.

Claiming there's anything legally wrong with it, is like saying it's legally wrong for iTunes to sell music in their protected AAC format. If I buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, the file won't play on all of my computers and the media players I have on them. I see no legal responsibility for Apple to change that, it's their business model, and as a result they don't get any of my business.

The iPhone is tied into iTunes, and that's their product. As a consumer, you can purchase it or not.

What bugs me

[CODiNE]

Is the way the iPhone dev Center refuses to use a cookie and remember your login info. Every stinking time you want to download the new SDK or check for new sample code, you have to log in. Again. Then you close your browser and and hour later, oop, sign in again. I've downloaded the SDKs now a total of 9 times, so I've definitely typed in my login name and password at least 20 times now. Considering there's no software update for XCode I'd imagine most other devs have too.

Typical Apple

[BoldAC]

I am a big Apple supporter and member of the apple rumors community... however...

Apple can get away with this because they can outspend almost any web/forum site. If they are in the right or wrong, who cares? They can keep throwing lawyers at you until you give.

They attack Apple rumors site on a routine basis for BS claims of copyright or trade secrets. If I take a picture of somebody else holding a pre-release iPhone, how is that copyright? They are in the public!

Look at the EULA and Apple attacking the company making mac clones. Most lawyers do not think that the EULA would stand; however, no company (other than microsoft or google) could tolerate the time/money that fighting would cost.

Re:Typical Apple

[paroneayea]

So... I guess this kind of mentality puzzles me. There are a lot of apple users out there, who, like you, acknowldge that they're being dicked around mostly even because you take interest.

To me it almost seems like an abusive relationship. You care about them, they beat you up, and you keep coming back. Why?

Note, I don't mean you, per se. But it seems pretty common in the Apple fanboy communities.

Re:Typical Apple

[ktappe]

So... I guess this kind of mentality puzzles me. There are a lot of apple users out there, who, like you, acknowldge that they're being dicked around mostly even because you take interest.

To me it almost seems like an abusive relationship. You care about them, they beat you up, and you keep coming back. Why?

You have a point and the answer is probably similar to why it happens in real life: Apple users are pretty sure that what little love they get from Apple is better than anything they can get somewhere else. Where else will they go? So for now, iPhone fanbois (and I'm one) take the abuse. Also, like in real life, we're willing to put up with a lot more abuse from someone/thing with a pretty face. And in this case the iPhone is a really nice piece of arm candy.

So basically, no learning help?

[TellarHK]

So with this NDA issue, I can't buy a book, read a forum, get any assistance at all with writing my iPhone application... So what the hell good is an SDK you can't talk about? Is this cellular fight club or something?

Apple, fix this shit. Really. Fix it now. There's no excuse for not letting the NDA go, no way that it protects you. The phone's been jailbroken, it _will_ be unlocked, so why stifle development?

Re:So basically, no learning help?

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

Is this cellular fight club or something?

Not quite. I expect the iPhone SDK NDA bullshit will end with the end of the Android SDK NDA bullshit. Neither wants to show their cards first.

Re:So basically, no learning help?

[wellingj]

The first rule of Apple SDK is that you don't talk about Apple SDK.
The second rule of Apple SDK is that you don't talk about Apple SDK.

Or one could look at it from the stand point that a population that isn't
allowed to talk to one another is easily controlled, ala 1984...
which would make this all the more ironic.

I had assumed this would be lifted Real Soon Now.

[w3woody]

After all, the iPhone SDK cannot remain a "beta" forever, and once it's no longer a beta, I presume the SDK will show up side-by-side with the MacOS X Cocoa SDK from which it was derived.

Most of Apple's beta stuff has the same confidentiality agreement, so I presumed this was just a bug.

How things work

[iminplaya]

The market will bear it, and that's that.

This will have to change...

[Karpe]

Stanford has announced that it will be offering an iPhone development course. I would also expect that many books on iPhone development are being edited to be published soon. For these to occur, iPhone development information cannot be under NDA. So it's just a matter of time. Apple is not stupid.

Re:This will have to change...

[yabos]

Me thinks you are not an Apple developer. Go to one WWDC and see how helpful the engineers are with your code and you will quickly change your mind.

If this is the computing model of the future

[paroneayea]

...then the future for computer users and developers is heading toward some pretty shitty seas.

Re:If this is the computing model of the future

[TheNucleon]

It is, no doubt.

I mean, look at the programmable hardware platforms out there that "the powers that be" won't let you program. Game consoles, smartphones, even APIs for stinking video cards. This is all hardware that WE BUY, yet, we can't find out how to write our own stuff unless we are a big dev house and pay tons of $$. Ridiculous.

Developers, developers, developers, developers.

Re:If this is the computing model of the future

[trawg]

I like Nokia's new advertising platform:

http://www.opentoanything.com/

At a glance it looks like they've identified Apple's closed stance is a big gripe for developers and hardcore tech-types, and they're going after that market.

Obviously they've also got Google on the other side, but I hope they do well out of this. If they stop spamming out a billion different mobile models a year and focus on getting some nice, neat hardware backed by some good open source, get enough developer support, and they could have something going on.

Re:If this is the computing model of the future

[Meneth]

It's a big, fat lie, of course.

Not only is Symbian closed-source, bug-ridden and otherwise horribly hard to write for.

All programs must also be digitally signed by Symbian Inc. to be installable on consumer phones. And if you use certain "protected" APIs, you'll have to shell out some 20 USD per signing.

Yes, documentation is freely available, but it's so lacking in important details that it might as well not be.

Furthermore, I think that the comment edit box should be enlarged.

Sorry I can't talk about this.

[blanchae]

This forum is in contempt of the NDA.

Re:Sorry I can't talk about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is slashdot however, I'm sure nobody has actually bothered reading or even agreed to the EULA, therefore we can all talk about the SDK as much as we want with little or no basis for facts...

Message Received.

[mkcmkc]

Apple doesn't want me to program their hardware. I hear and will obey...

Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[reversible physicist]

If you do a Google search for "apple developer forums" the top hit is the developer discussion at "discussions.apple.com". Most of the discussion there at the moment is about iPhone development. This discussion is in no way private.

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[Coolhand2120]

And therefore violates the terms of the iPhone SDK EULA! Which is what makes it so entirely silly.

The EULA for Safari for windows also forbids the installing of safari on windows. Again silly. Apple needs to become about 638% less litigious. Yes, I quantified it, wana fight about it?

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[zsau]

Apple needs to become about 638% less litigious. Yes, I quantified it, wana fight about it?

Yes. Fatness is a scale which starts from a midpoint and extends out. Someone who ceases to be fat can continue to lose weight; becoming 638% less fat could refer to someone who goes from being overweight to being skin and bone.

Litigiousness, on the other hand, is naturally a scale starting from zero and extending out from there. Once you are no longer litigious at all, you cannot lose any litigiousness. If, perhaps, you cease suing everyone and begin instead to be sued by everyone, you aren't less litigious than someone not suing anyone at all; in fact, you could easily say that if someone's doing that, they're more litigious because they're still involved in the adveserial culture of common law courts.

Seeing as you haven't specified who Apple needs to become "about 638%" less litigious than, it's implied you mean than they currently are. One hundred percent refers to the entirety of something, so 638 percent refers to over six times the entire amount of Apple's litigiousness. This would imply some sort of negative value of litigiousness, but as I've argued above, no such concept is conceivable.

This is without even mentioning the strangeness of saying "about" followed by a very specific number.

Apple certainly could do with being less litigious, but I don't think "about 638%" is the amount they need to become less litigious by.

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[Coolhand2120]

My calculations are my own intellectual property. By backwards engineering them you are in violation my EULA which you accepted when you replied to what was clearly a satirical part in an otherwise serious message.

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[zsau]

Being litigious is not so bad that you can't do it? even though my sense of humor gave me no choice but to reply to clearly a joke with an apparently serious and detailed post? If that is the sort of fight you want you may talk to my lawyer, but it is much less fun than the one I was after.

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[Coolhand2120]

So I must concede, my secret formula is as follow:

754617600 is the unix time stamp for the year that Carl Sagn sued Apple. It all begins from this key epoch. Now take the epoch in binary 101100111110101000110100000000 if you remove all of the zeros from this binary number, becuase there are no 0's at Apple! Apple is #1, you get the decimal number 8191. Take tangent of (8191*Pi) because all things at Apple are circular from a certain point of view you now get: -0.12658781837828924382846055790048. Now take this number and multiply it by E getting -0.3441013664019776161079362032018 rounded up, now if you carefully pick out the numbers "6(11)" "3(30)" "8(33)" and add a % sign (which everyone knows is JS for MOD and not percent as you so callously imply) you get the calculation 638 MOD less and of course LESS is base 36 for 998956. So what you assumed was 638 Percent was actually the formula 638 MOD 998956 which everyone knows is 638. Therefore the calculated formula is really just 638, and everyone knows about IEEE 638 "Standard for Qualification of. Class 1E Transformers for Nuclear Power Generating Stations." which if you would have spent the time to read clearly states:

To calculate life expectancy, use the equations in A2.2 and A3.4.1

Upon completing the calculations in the specification the result is the base 36 number: " and reverse course as to not be so ".

When we put the whole calculation together we get: Apple needs to become about and reverse course as to not be so litigious.

Which, when I read it, really doesn't make a lot of since, but I have Top Men working on it already.

I really hope this fits better with your expectations, thanks! I'll be here all week.

Re:Apple hosts public iPhone discussions

[zsau]

I really hope this fits better with your expectations, thanks! I'll be here all week.

Hm, not really. There's not much you can say to "I didn't mean what you thought at mean at all; here's what I meant". No real scope for a decent fight. I suppose you can't offer me what I want.

Take it to court, then

[caitsith01]

You'll see arguments from armchair legal analysts that the iPhone developer Agreements won't stand up in court â" but those analysts certainly won't stand up in court on your behalf.

Well, maybe that's because, like most other professions, lawyers need to be paid money in exchange for work done.

Giving legal advice and running proceedings costs money and exposes the lawyer to risk (i.e. suits from the person receiving the advice if they rely on it and it turns out to be wrong).

Typical Steve Jobs...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

With a mad dictator like steve jobs at the helm, what more would you expect?

He'll demand that people conform to his world view, and demand that the people working for him force their customers to conform to his world view.

Now, he's demanding that his workers force his customers to force THEIR customers to conform...

*phew*... I'm so glad I don't work for / with / against / near Apple. I get winded just thinking about them!

Re:Try not to choke.

[zapakh]

A secret survey conducted by the Rand Corporation in the 1970s confirmed that any person attracted to white, plastic machines completely without sharp edges is an utter homosexual, subconsciously wishing to insert them into his rectum.

Wow. I gotta watch Wall-E again...

Common Fanboy Behaviour, in general...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Can you think of a single fanboy that doesn't defend his obsession to death? ... then again, I guess that *is* the definition of fanboy.

Re:Common Fanboy Behaviour, in general...

[Concerned Onlooker]

Indeed. Remarkable insightful for someone who has "Fanboy" in his username. :-)

No, it'll end when...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

It won't end until the piratebay.org steps in and provides a safe, secure, overseas forum to discuss apple products.

OH wait, this isn't even piracy. It isn't even 'stealing' ... its just talking to another human being who has the same program you have... like, Idea sharing.

I guess they really mean it when they say "Think Different". As in, don't you DARE think what he's thinking. Don't even think about thinking about it...

The first rule of Apple SDK Developers club is....

[Anonymous Coward]

...you don't talk about Apple SDK Developers club.

Wait... apple doesn't support consumers.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

apple doesn't support end user consumers either. It only supports people who conform to their idea of an end user consumer...

That's amazingly stupid!

[zullnero]

When I first got into Palm development 10 years ago, there was a vibrant and amazing community...I used to participate heavily in the mailing list and forums back then. If you wanted to do something that wasn't explained in the manual, you could post a question...and there was a good chance the person giving you a reply was one of their top OS design engineers. Microsoft started doing some of that later on when they had so many employees with free time on their hands...but you couldn't put a price on that kind of interaction. It seriously helped me pick up the platform so quickly, and that helped me build a pretty good career for myself. Even now I'm still a Palm OS hobbyist for mainly that reason.

I can't see that happening with iPhone. What a stupid, stupid way to go about things. Palm didn't even have a robust platform, and they kept a huge market dominance way longer than they should have by making it easy to develop for their platform by keeping things out in the open. You had to sign agreements, but it wasn't this fascist Apple crap for sure. I'll take on any Apple fanboy on that point.

Re:That's amazingly stupid!

[mmeister]

Relax. This is a temporary situation. I think they had to rush things a bit for the iPhone 3G date and are prepping for the final release of the SDK (probably linked to a 2.0.1 update).

Yes, it would have been nice for them to release it from the NDA when it shipped, less than 2 weeks ago. But they're probably addressing some internal process issues before opening the flood gates, lest they have you bitching about how the process to sign up is too slow, etc, etc.

Because we all know...

[lazycam]

nothing good has never come out of sharing development ideas: http://sourceforge.net/

Par for the course

[Anonymous Coward]

This is par for the course for Apple. They make a habit of suing or gagging (by gag order) enthusiast sites... Apple fans almost joke that they know when a leak is dead-on when the lawsuits start. They mismanufactured (and maybe still do -- who knows?) the Intel Macs, specifying a full tube of thermal paste per CPU instead of a dab... and when someone published an excerpt of the service manual which ALSO said to use a full tube.. instead of Apple saying "oops", they Cease and Desisted them into pulling this info down. There's the wireless card driver hole from last year* -- Apple pushed the people who found this hole into using a 3rd-party card to demonstrate it -- and THEN had the nerve to play it up as "ohh.. that didn't even involve Apple wireless hardware", and making sure Apple fanbois filled in the blank (inccorectly) as "Apple wireless hardware drivers were not succeptible" instead of the truth that Apple just strongarmed them into not demonstrating it. That's just from the last year. In general, Apple suppresses info about hardware flaws both on their forums and to a lesser extent elsewhere. Between this and PR, people seem to think Apples are flawless, and they are far from it. I would NEVER buy a Macintosh because of a) general dick-like behavior of the company and b) I'd NEVER, EVER get a straight answer on if a model has any production problems, bugs, flaws or "issues".. as I can about Dells or just about any normal model.

*Which also was present in drivers for quite a few cards -- buffer overflows, allowing possible exploitation without even being associated to a wifi network by sending out corrupted wireless packets.

No browsers, no API, players or background apps

[Coolhand2120]

The SDK EULA also says a lot of other bullshit:

3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

Kaspersky dosen't like that idea

Slashdotters apparently don't like that you can never write browsers, music/video players or background applications.

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.

I can't think of any other company that has ever done anything like this. I'm really just curious, has any company ever publicised a SDK that has been so very private and restrictive? No other browsers?!?

This story reminds me of the time I tried to hook my Apple cinema display up to my Cable box's DVI port, it's just not worth it, even if you get it to work, you have 5 more lbs of monitor you've got to hide somewhere, just because Apple wanted to squeeze a little dough out of people with more proprietary cable connectors.

Apple has always been about "Show me the money", every action they take reemphasized that they are only interested in more money, not innovation. Here though, they really go out of their way to stifle innovation with literals like "...calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise...". It really says it all, don't bother trying to write this for our hardware, you may compete with us in such a way that we can't fuck you properly.

Re:No browsers, no API, players or background apps

[scottgfx]

Apple hasn't made an ADC monitor in several years. ADC was basically a DVI port with extra connectors for USB and power for the monitor. Apple's adapter had to provide power for a monitor that lacked a power supply. I managed to use Apple's computers without running into an ADC monitor. Getting a simple ADC to VGA or DVI block wasn't that expensive or hard either. And most video cards had ADC and a VGA port, so I used the adapters to run dual displays.

It's Apple's playground so you and I don't have to play in it, but I guess you can bitch about it, if that makes you feel better (superior).

So what's to stop an irc chat room?

[mark-t]

Who will they sue, exactly?

Not quite accurate

[StarKruzr]

There is nothing else like it on the market right now.

http://www.consumerdepot.com/products.asp?id=N810RB&referer=google

It is not only "like" the iPod touch, it is far and away more capable.

Re:Not quite accurate

[dredwerker]

The N810 has a much better res screen, it runs linux, it runs lots of opensource apps. It will connect up to your 3g phone to give you 3g access. It has a keyboard. It will also run Google Android. The Apple kit is shiney but try typing an email on a touch screen hmmm nice. O and while I am at it where is that GPS in the touch ? I want a new Iphone 3g for some inexplicable reason, it is shiney and its kinda fun. I wont buy one though. I hate locked down kit.

Re:Not quite accurate

[xSauronx]

I was at a crossroads recently, and needed some kind of upgrade, on $800 budget, to my thinkpad/aging tower combo, and was seriously considering getting a cheapo desktop and a nokia n810.

] ended up getting a steal on a Thinkpad T60, which I will love, but the 810 practically makes me salivate. /geek

It's rather obvious why the NDA exists

[cybereal]

If you read the documentation that is available after agreeing to the discolsure agreement, you'll see that it is all marked as unfinished. They have a reasonably strong argument in their favor of preventing the widespread publishing of stupid wrong information based on incomplete and potentially incorrect documentation while they finish it up.

The NDA will surely be lifted when the documentation is finished.

Re:It's rather obvious why the NDA exists

[GaryPatterson]

Others' right to prevent me is called censorship.

Only if it's the government. No-one else can stop you unless you're using their forum or products you've licensed from them.

Slashdot can ban all posts about pandas if they like. It's their forum and while it may irritate, it's not censorship.

Your right of free speech ends when you need someone else to publish what you say.

It does not have less memory

[StarKruzr]

It has the same CPU at a slightly slower clock rate and the same amount of memory. It takes SDHC cards, so saying it has "less storage" would be dishonest.

You could start with the physical keyboard, Bluetooth, lack of application restrictions, and the fact that it plays more formats of media as for it being more capable.

I currently own an iPhone. If there existed a device like the N810 with a GSM radio, I would buy it immediately and sell the iPhone. Unfortunately, I fear such a device will not exist for quite some time -- more than likely, years -- due to pressure from cellular carriers on handset makers to get them not to produce such a device.

Carriers do not like devices that empower their customers.

Re:It does not have less memory

[cloakable]

Actually, the N8*0 fully supports the SDHC standard. Those 32GB cards out now? If I REALLY wanted (and had the money they're charging for them), I could pop two of them into my N800, for 64GB of storage. I'm currently using two 4GB sticks at the moment, but when I start running low, I can always (and cheaply) upgrade just the storage.

Re:It does not have less memory

[azemute]

As previously mentioned, the n8*0 series has full SDHC support, meaning support of up to 32GB cards [technically more]. The n810 however only has a single miniSDHC slot, meaning that [at the moment] only 8GB cards can be used in it [since that's the biggest that exists].

The CPU is indeed slower, and what is worse, the PowerVR graphics subsystem is totally unused at the moment. This is being worked on... and thus is the advantage and saving grace of the Nokia devices: they are extensible. The Apple devices are not.

The article is more or less refering to how Apple is attempting to curb development of their device, and that is the fundamental difference of philosophy. Neither is right nor wrong, just different.

Also, the n810 is not a phone, and never will be. [Save SIP capabilities, of course.]

Oh, finally, and just as a matter of form: the iPhone's support for bluetooth is fairly rudimentary: it lacks support for A2DP / DUN & SPP and OBEX.

Boycott is nice and all...

[crhylove]

....but it's not a real solution, unless there is a real alternative. Unfortunately, openmoko is just plain poorly designed, too expensive, and did I mention that it sucks?

What we need is an openmoko that not only beats the iphone all the way on price and freedom, but on design as well. Hell, just clone the iPhone exactly for now.

With the inherently poor design decisions that seem to consistently go into FOSS projects, such as Ubuntu and OpenMoko, I have to wonder if they don't have some voracious and vocal corporate plants somewhere in the project actively sabotaging the overall movement. Or maybe I need a tin foil hat.

Apple, Microsoft - what's the difference?

[pandrijeczko]

I'm mainly a Linux/Open Source user but I really don't have a problem with people paying for software if that's what they want to do.

But I really get annoyed with the people on /. who view Apple as a company that does them some kind of favour.

There's no doubt that Microsoft wants nothing more than to lock users into Windows & developers into DotNet but because they're so vocal about it, Apple themselves uses it as marketing tool in order to position themselves into the market also, as being "better than Microsoft".

But the fact is, both companies make use of closed source operating systems and deploy DRM heavily in their products. They are also both owned by shareholders and therefore have a duty to make as much money as possible - any director in either company would be kicked out, and might even find him/herself in a courtroom if he/she didn't make that the first priority.

So let's stop with the pretence that Apple is any different to Microsoft - they're not. And whilst you may think it's "cool" & "geeky" to own a Mac or Macbook, in reality you've just been suckered in by Apple to pay more for a computer purely because it's a fashion accessory - but if you're happy with that then good luck to you.

Re:Apple, Microsoft - what's the difference?

[packman]

The major difference between apple and microsoft to me is that apple actually uses accepted standards where they can and don't invent their own and push them down your throath. Interoperability with other systems is a lot better than with any MS product.

That said, these sections to me smell like smth for a closed beta program which were blindly copied from somewhere, the lawyers didn't see any problems and the ppl who would know what this meant never got to see this, or weren't interested in it (I wouldn't be in their place). I never believe Apple would actually sue someone over this, they would hurt developers for their platforms, which is exactly one of the cornerstones of the success of the iPhone and their platform in general. Do you really believe they would suddenly refuse all opensource code to ever run on their iPhone? That would be a huge mistake from their side, and I'm pretty sure they're well aware of this. They count a lot on 'free' (as in non-paying - whatever kind) software for their phone if you look at their policy for $0 software on the apps store.

Apple knows very well that developers and applications are key to their success and acceptance, just look at what Microsoft did. Yes they also used a lot of questionable tactics, but they also took good care of their developer programs. Only thing Apple does differently is that it tries to keep their developers in check and on the same line. Microsoft let them do whatever they liked, and always kept backwards compatability. This resulted in a huge mess in windows, where they have some functions 2 or 3 times there, once a 'correct'-one, and the others with bugs which are exploited by some 3rd party or own software. This is a problem of 'closed source' software, and shouting that this is evil won't help a thing. Closed source software will always exist next to opensource, if you want it or not. Therefor, Apple tries to enforce much stricter rules to their developers, and apply an 'adapt or vanish' policy, which for the end-user is a good thing. If only they would apply this on their own software too (think Final Cut Pro). Sometimes - like here - they go a bit over the top, and get reactions like this.

Answering my own question...

[N Monkey]

Seems it has a TI OMAP 2420, 400Mhz, which has roughly the same graphics system as the iPhone.

Re:A EULA bug like...

[Tim Browse]

Well, yes.

You think Apple deliberately specified that Safari for Windows could only be installed on Apple branded computers?

And that they're going to enforce it and bring cases against anyone who installed it?

I'd say this is quite possibly just like that kind of bug.

no sale here either

[speedtux]

I own an iPod Touch and it is HANDS DOWN the greatest tech device I've ever bought. There is nothing else like it on the market right now.

It's a music player. Maybe Cover Flow gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, and maybe you like to "touch", but there are plenty of other fine music players. In fact, just from the point of playing stuff, something with real buttons that you can feel when the thing is in your pocket is superior.

The reason I don't have an iPod is because I need to use iTunes in order to use it. iTunes has destroyed my music collection, not once but several times. The iTunes user interface also has serious problems, as the many third party attempts at fixing it show.

The iPod Touch hardware is nice, but until Apple opens it up so that it can officially synchronize with other music management software and until it can officially be programmed as an OS X system, I think it's foolish to buy one.

Re:no sale here either

[ProppaT]

I agree. You remember back in the 80's when all the new appliances had that really cool feature where you didn't have to press a button, just touch the metal button on the front? Yeah, it was slick back then, but it's fallen to the wayside. Why? People want tactile feedback. Our fingers are designed to rely on feedback. With touch interfaces we don't get that.

All this new touch screen mumbo jumbo is slick and all, but I have a feeling it's going to follow suit for exactly the same reasons. Touch screen is great when you're using a stylus; however, when you're using a device that has a small handful of simple functions (on/off, play, ff/rw, pause/stop, vol up/down), simple tactile feedback is critical.

Why do we have the nubby bumps on keyboards on the f and j keys? Heck, why do we have individual keys instead of a touch pad? It's the nature of the beast and it will all come full circle or, at very least, both technologies will come together.

Re:no sale here either

[mini me]

It's a music player.

The iPod Touch is a computer. It even runs UNIX. Yes, it has music player software, but so do all of my other computers.

Re:no sale here either

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It's a music player.

It also has a heck of a web browser. I've found it incredibly useful for specifically that reason. I can finally enjoy meetings again!

Re:no sale here either

[blahtree]

You are 100% missing the point here and have obviously never used one. I've had my iPod Touch for a week now and I haven't yet used it to play music.

It's not an iPod, it's a portable computer.

What uttter nonsense.

[jcr]

The iPhone SDK is still a beta release, and the restrictions on discussing it are precisely the same as we Apple developers have always had for developer seed releases of OS X. Jager's trolling for page hits.

-jcr

Don't need PirateBay, Apple lets you

[yabos]

Check out Apple's own forum where people are discussing the iPhone SDK and have been for months http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=727&start=0

Re:No it's not

[jcr]

The release status isn't determined by the filename. When ADC sends a message to developers that says the beta period is over, then it's over.

-jcr

Rockbox.

[mikelieman]

Someone handed me a Sansa e270 they couldn't get to do what they wanted.

I looked around, and found http://www.rockbox.org./

From their site:

Rockbox is an open source firmware for mp3 players, written from scratch. It runs on a wide range of players:

        * Apple: 1st through 5.5th generation iPod, iPod Mini and 1st generation iPod Nano
            (not the Shuffle, 2nd/3rd gen Nano, Classic or Touch)
        * Archos: Jukebox 5000, 6000, Studio, Recorder, FM Recorder, Recorder V2 and Ondio
        * Cowon: iAudio X5, X5V, X5L, M5, M5L, M3 and M3L
        * iriver: H100, H300 and H10 series
        * Olympus: M:Robe 100
        * SanDisk: Sansa c200, e200 and e200R series (not the v2 models)
        * Toshiba: Gigabeat X and F series (not the S series)

So, in theory, you can have that wicked cool Apple hardware, and the ability to play oggs, flacs, wavs, all sorts of games, video if you have the horsepower, and anything else you want to compile.

I love it.

The NDA is not the only problem...

[copperconductor]

A friend of mine (who loves to hate on the iPhone) sent me a great link that might be of interest:

Gizmodo article on devel limitations

Some of the points raised:

• Developers can't touch or enhance iTunes or iPod functionality in any way, shape or form -- they can't even access your music directory, meaning you better like the way the iPod button works just the way it is.
• No processes can run in the background -- apps have to completely quit when exited, completely contained in their little sandbox.
• Devs can't integrate apps or functions into the OS. Third-party apps will always be second-class citizens, and can't significantly alter iPhone functions, including accessing the calendar or SMS messaging or adding any content to the otherwise useless lock screen that appears when you wake up the phone.
• Pirated games, movies or whatever are a no-no in the App Store, obviously. (duh)
• A bit different than the piracy concern, apps using copyrights, trademarks or intellectual property of a major company are sticky, and the App Store will steer clear of them if they're not developed by the company itself.
• Devs don't have deep access to the hardware.
• Apple's app review process is a complete mystery to developers and takes forever, which can affect app quality and horribly delays app updates.
• Apple limits app testing to five devices, so there is basically is no beta testing.
• Apple's number one priority is Apple.

I defend the phone and Apple as much as I can, but I have to admit that these are some pretty good points.

iPhone (and Android): irrelevant to open systems

[argent]

I think the iPhone has great potential, but until the development kit is as open as Palm's (the Palm OS SDK was based on GCC and included an open source emulator) or even Microsoft's I'm not interested. I'm not interested in jailbreaking an iPhone, or otherwise sneaking around behind Apple's back either. It's not a "smartphone" in the usual sense, it's just a really nice high end cellphone.

I'm also not that much interested in Android, since its only official API is Java based. It seems like you can run Java apps in half the phones out there these days, so it's not really offering a lot more than Nokia or Samsung.

So this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. There's nothing that really matters for open systems developers, because these aren't particularly open systems even without this kind of restriction.

It's a trap!

[jmichaelg]

Everyone who is posting at the forum has violated the SDK and Apple is collecting names. Settlement terms will be very generous - just sign over the copyright to your App and Apple will agree not to sue you for violating the SDK.

Clever bastards! What will they think of next?

A case where free market may work...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Personally, I think it's a good thing that Apple has draconian policies regarding their faux-open device. Market pressure will force other phone and service providers to create truly open competition for the iPhone, devices that won't require iTunes or "secret" SDKs. It's only a matter of time.

In fact, if the iPhone was completely open, it would be much harder for the competition, including Google, as they wouldn't be able to compete with an even-more-open device-- face it, the iPhone isn't all that open, really-- until end-users can write their own toy apps for it, the term "open" doesn't really apply-- regardless of who actually wants to write for it. On the internet, anyone can provide content, and content includes custom and homebrew applications. Apple has left their flank wide open on this one and it's only a matter of time until an AT&T competitor or a Google or Microsoft will hammer them over it, at which point Mr. Jobs will get religion.

In fact, if Microsoft had a brain in Ballmer's head, they could use this opening to gain themselves some needed positives-- an "open" phone (even running proprietary MS software, but with the ability for anyone to freely produce apps for it), could give MS a few sorely needed brownie-points for openness, and MS has the clout to pressure the Verizons and Sprints of the world to allow themselves to be raw data providers and stop trying to micromanage, meter and profitize every last little mobilephone feature...

Re:Insightful? Where's the "Misguded" rating?

[argent]

I have been doing just that (installing software to the iPhone with the devkit) to test,

Not without paying Apple $99 for a key.

Re:BS

[Goldberg's Pants]

You have a point. When I used the jailbreak on my iPod, while I had more freedom, stability and quality went out the window. Many things went wrong after that. (Album cover art disappearing, iPod thinking it had no music on it etc...) Before I wiped it clean and upgraded, it had got so bad that keyframes from videos were being inserted as album cover art. It was a total mess.