Slashdot Mirror
Developers Looking to Set Up Alternatives To Apple's App Store
TechDirt is reporting that in response to the frustrations with Apple's app store dictatorship, a few developers are looking to set up their own alternative app stores. Alternate app stores would only work on jailbroken phones, making their adoption scope limited, so the question is whether Apple will go after these start ups on the legal battlefield. "Apple, which collects a 30% commission from sellers on its store, doesn't break out the site's revenue. Brokerage firm Piper Jaffray estimates the site generated about $150 million in sales last year and projects total sales will grow to $800 million this year. Apple did not respond to requests for comment. But it has said in the past that with the iPhone it was trying to strike a balance between a closed device like the iPod and an open device like the PC."
Well, of course Apple will go after them. They don't have a history of laying down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Surely a case could be made against Apple's anti-competitive behaviour?
In Australia, what Apple is doing is against the law, under our anti-third-line forcing legislation.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"the iPhone ... was trying to strike a balance between a closed device like the iPod and an open device like the PC"
The correct "balance" between open and closed is *open*.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
How does creating a device tied to your store not meet the definition of an unfair monopoly?
Why jail-break an iPhone and use software that isn't signed by Apple on the AT&T network in violation of your contract when you can just buy a competitive device?
What part of "I'm carrying a unique serial number that's pinging its current GPS location to AT&T and Apple every few seconds" do you not understand? You break their contract, maybe they start going through your photos, call logs and other private information...
..."trying to strike a balance between a closed device like the iPod and an open device like the PC."
That is outright LAUGHABLE. I can DO things to my PC. And guess what? The manufacturer doesn't want to take me to court, sue me, or accuse me of violating my EULA. They're probably not planning to complain to the FCC or the FTC, either...
Apple has a good product with a popular app store, and attempts to over control both. This is only going to inhibit the growth of the app store. If Apple allowed jail broken phones to use the app store, apple would make more money, the developers would be happier, and most importantly the users would be happier.
What part of "I'm carrying a unique serial number that's pinging its current GPS location to AT&T and Apple every few seconds" do you not understand? You break their contract, maybe they start going through your photos, call logs and other private information...
How do you know that won't happen either way?
I can't find a real moderation for this, so I'll settle for a virtual moderation of "-1 Huh?"
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/iphone_app_usage_drops_off
Yeah, I stopped using the 'Dial Phone Numbers and Talk' application like two days after getting it.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Aaaaand you have just discovered why they call developing for a closed platform "being locked in the trunk."
Read my blog.
Of course Apple will go after them.... it's Apple, in case you missed that.
This is a real fatal flaw of the iPhone. It's not open, no matter what they say -- 30% of the sale goes to them, and if Apple decides they don't like your app (for whatever reason they come up with), then you're totally out of luck since you can't distribute apps on your own.
GOOOOOOOO Android!
"If Apple allowed jail broken phones to use the app store..." They do - I frequent the Apple App Store and Cydia on my jailbroken iPhone 3G. The issue is about developers being able to sell apps that aren't permitted on the Apple App Store because they use undocumented APIs, compete with Apple apps, etc...
I'm working on a GWT framework for the iphone that will allow you to write a web application that looks and behaves just look a native application. A web app can get surprisingly close to being indistinguishable for native thanks to a few features in MobileSafari like:
1) Offline application support
2) Hardware-accelerated animations
3) Chrome-less UI
4) Custom application icon
Since it is a web app you avoid the stranglehold of the app store and the LONG processing time of applications (I know, I have applied and been accepted). You also get the freedom to update your app immediately at any time without needing apple's approval.
You break their contract, maybe they start going through your photos, call logs and other private information...
Well, this is AT&T we are talking about who illegally assisted the NSA with warrant-less wiretaps... So I imagine that they don't care how your contract status is, they might be doing it right now, all in the name of fighting "terrorists".
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If they are really complaining about the 30% that apple is charging they they are just being greedy.
You would pay a lot more than that if you sold it through a brick and mortar store. And setting up a good secure website with an online store isn't that cheap and easy.
Between the marketing value and infrastructure the app store is worth what they charge.
If you don't want to go through the apple approval process then just sell apps for people that have jailbroken phones.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How the FUCK is this offtopic!
I'm working on a GWT framework for the iphone that will allow you to write a web application
Perhaps something like SproutCore or Cappuccino or PhoneGap?
(Not that there's anything wrong with a new project. :) Just wanted to make sure you knew. )
A web app can get surprisingly close to being indistinguishable for native thanks to a few features in MobileSafari like:
This is true, and it's one of the reasons Apple tried to get people to swallow the "The Web is your Dev Kit" line.
It's also funny how people overlook this when they start griping about how venal and/or controlling Apple is.
Tweet, tweet.
Is it anti-AppStore-ranting day? Must've missed that in the calender, but this is the second story of this kind that takes a non-story, blows it out of proportion, and doesn't even mention the really interesting parts (like the fact that such a store already exists, oops).
Did a /. editor break his iPhone and feels like he must vent or what's going on? :-)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It would be interesting to see what contract language (if any) and/or legal regime would apply if the developer of an app that HAD made it to Apple's store cloned the signature and sold it through other outlets. (And if something changed besides the signature between the release and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.)
It might be hard to bring even the DMCA's "circumvention" provision into play if the app was identical except for the signature and was sold by the author or other rights-holder.
(It would be a one-shot, though. Anybody who tried this would almost certainly have any future products or releases, at a minimum, "mysteriously delayed forever".)
= = = =
Adding the signature alone would not qualify as "creative work" to allow copyright itself to apply to the signing. If something changed other than the signature between the release to the apple store and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
eBay was not the only online auction system on the Internet
While this is true, there's a much stronger argument that eBay has monopoly-like market power when it comes to online auctions than exists for the iPhone.
If you want a phone or PDA or convergence device, there's nothing about the *market* that would compel you to buy an iPhone. If you need to auction something online, there are definitely pretty powerful market reasons to go for eBay. It doesn't really matter much if Apple suddenly forbids all third-party apps of any kind and changes all their phones so you have to shake them in order to dial or something equally silly. There's enough competition that the market will route away from their products soon enough. eBay... not so much.
There's really only one place Apple's had anything close to monopoly power, and that's if you wanted to buy or sell music online, which is why you heard labels complaining a few years ago when they realized the DRM they'd insisted on was accidentally giving Apple tremendous power as a retailer. Given that the barrier to entry into the online music marketplace is actually pretty low (dealing with the labels over ownership issues is probably the most difficult part) that's not even a particularly strong complaint.
Apple's desire for control is sometimes a major pain, but it's not a monopoly.
Tweet, tweet.
This is old news -- Cydia and associated apps have been available on jailbroken iPhones for at least a couple of years now! The most awesome apps I downloaded through Cydia and its Installer App were the BSD Subsystem, OpenSSH Server (0_o!), and Terminal! With those three in hand, the iPhone became just another node on my network, capable of scripted rsync backups and other automated shell customizations! I think that the realization that the iPhone is a fully functional handheld machine is the primary knowledge that Apple seeks to keep out of the hands/heads of the general public. Perhaps the goal is to sell more Macs... or maybe the goal is to soon "open up" the platform to all developers/apps and topple the monopolistic/racketeering practices of phone cos and rival closed-platform phone/handheld manufacturers, similar to what they did with iTunes and DRM? One can only hope...
;-)
but in the meantime, one can just jailbreak the iPhone
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
I honestly don't want unapproved code going on my phone. I don't want code written by some unaccountable company or worse--individual developer. If my phone crashes because of an app I put on there, I want it to be someone's fault from a consumer standpoint. If it makes me lose data, I want it to be someone's fault. Having an approval process makes perfect sense from a consumer standpoint, and even better sense from a business standpoint. I don't get what all the whining is about. You can always jailbreak your phone if that's what you really prefer. Just don't expect Apple to support any problems you encounter while using unapproved applications.
The problem with windows mobile for the longest time isn't that they restricted what you could put on the phone, but rather that there was no good way of telling which applications were worth downloading, finding a central place that hosted and sold them, and a review system to let you know that the apps didn't just crash your phone.
Why not make an app to allow you to go to a different store? Is there something in Apple's TOS for developers that prohibits this?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
A jailbroken iPhone with Cydia installed is 1 app away from being a fully functional Unix box.
And if you don't already know which app it is, I'm not going to tell you (because you wouldn't want advice from queers and poseurs anyway).
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
In US law, for any company to be a monopoly, it has to be the only player in the market, or have a dominant market share in the US market. Microsoft owns 90% of the desktop operating system market. That's a monopoly. Apple isn't even the #1 phone manufacturer in the US yet. It's getting there, but not yet. It's far from dominant in the cell phone industry.
If you are a monopoly, you can't "bundle" basically, because that means you are using your leverage in one market to take advantage of another. If you aren't a monopoly, then it's up to the market to decide if the bundle you created is a buoy for greater sales, or an anchor that sinks you to the bottom. Microsoft has tied IE to it's OS. It used it's OS dominance to edge out Netscape and not allow anyone to preinstall it on PCs, and edge AOL off PC desktops in preinstalls and forced them to put MSN installs on them instead. That's anticompetitive, because AOL and netscape (no matter how they sucked at the time) could not compete by going to a PC manufacture and offering a better deal. That's not the sole reason for their collapse, but by denying consumers choice, you damaged both these company's businesses.
There are no US laws that explicitly state that bundling is across the board illegal. There are no US laws that state bundling itself is a monopoly practice. There are laws that state bundling is illegal for true monopolies. Once you lesser Slashdot peons who don't understand antitrust law get that thru your thick heads, the sooner the elite of this site will allow you to join our ranks, and be allowed to use the abbreviation /.er and be cool like us ;)
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If they are really complaining about the 30% that apple is charging they they are just being greedy.
As I read TFA they're not complaining about Apple's cut. They're complaining about the process of becoming a developer and releasing products being slowed to a crawl and/or stonewalled entirely by Apple's bureaucracy.
Apple's cut has been mentioned mainly as the likely downside for itself of Apple's intransigence and a motivation for Apple to go after the alternative distributor(s) in the courts and otherwise.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Amazon has an awesome MP3 store that is DRM-free with a large selection and often good prices. Competing with iTune is one thing, but anyone wanting to get into this space need to think about Amazon.
On the note about Amazon, I recently came across an interesting table that details the discounts on Amazon.
It is at http://www.uberi.com
Maybe someone will find it useful too.
I bet it will work on the plethora of chinese clones too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Years ago Nintendo tried to enforce strict control over the creation and distribution of games for the original Nintendo Entertainment System. Tengen (aka Atari) found a way to develop cartridges for the NES (probably by reverse engineering) then successfully sued Nintendo when they tried to uphold their "exclusive distribution rights".
To me that sounds exactly the same as the AppStore situation. So why can't someone do the same to Apple?
What's new is that there are now true "stores" for apps... it's no longer just installer programs that let you download and install apps. CydiaStore launched just two days ago, and has a grand total of one app for sale (Cyntact, selling at $1.00, modifies the contacts app to display the contact's profile picture next to their name, when you're in the view where you scroll through contacts). The point is that there are private enterprises now hoping to make money off of this. At the moment Cydia is fairly limited -- only working with Amazon Payments -- but promises PayPal support soon, and you can bet there will be a number of new paid apps on the way.
One has to ask what the market sector is here since it is inconvenient for both developers and users. And it seems to me it is, perhaps obviously, only going to be people who have to have contracts with companies that don't use iphones.
That is to say, as a user there is the problem that I can't update my iphone easily. Each time I try there's a high likelihood my jailbreak will bust. And it's also possible my non-apple approved applications will also break. So there's no assured path forward when there is a pressing need to update the phone comes along. even trivial issues could become strong motivations to update: for example perhaps I need a new verison of quiktime to view some new content I want to see.
And for developers. Well why bother when there is the android market beckoning. Surely that market is going to swamp the jailbroken iphone market shortly.
So my feeling is that this ecosystem is going to shrink not grow with time as android takes over and apple issues enough annoying needful updates.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If my memory serves me correctly. If you work in sales and you want to sell something(Apple Approved Apps)other then what the company(Apple), whose customers(Iphone Owners) you are targeting)wants you to sell. You are free to go off on your own and start a company and sell whatever you want, but any company(Apple) worth it's salt has some sort of no-compete agreement(SDK Agreement) to ensure you aren't going to offer their customers a product you create because you do not want to do business there way. These developers are saying, "I want to sell my app to your customers, that I built with your SDK, that I am able to use because I agreed that I would do things your way. But now I don't want to do things your way anymore." I mean welcome to business. You agree to Apple's terms to become developers and now you want to break the agreement but still benefit from the access the agreement gave you. If Apple sucks so bad then develop for another platform. Cell phone apps have been around before the Iphone was released. But I bet it's more appealing to develop for a device with an install base of 12M and a standard interface across every single one of them. I'm not a huge Apple fan, but either you take the good(customer base, SDK) with the bad(App Store, maniacal control) or you do business elsewhere, it's that simple.
Way to stay on topic, Mr. "Stop changing the discussions"!
Apps via third party sources, such as Cydia and Installer.app must go through repositories (they're basically just front-ends for Apt). Most (and I do stress *most*) repositories are overseen by administrators who need to approve apps before they're added. In this case the review isn't anywhere near as draconian as Apple's process, just there to weed out the obvious crap and malware. In that sense, through peer review the third party 'app stores' are typically as safe as the Apple App Store.
Now, that isn't to say that if you add a random repository that you won't get a metric ton of malware on your phone. Hell, it's possible to get malware from one of the trusted ones as well. Jailbreaking isn't for the feint of heart, and there will always be risk associated with it - just like there's risk when you download applications to your computer, be it a Windows, Mac, or *nix box from third party sources.
"Apple will destroy them financially by tying everything up in court."
Now imagine if they took those resources and used them to get in front of the developer requests for iPhone/iPod. They would build a better system for developers and users and would easily win competing on the merits of what they sell rather than an attempt to stifle what I think is legitimate competition.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I know Android doesn't have near the market penetration that iPhone does, but I still have to wonder if it wouldn't be better to just create these applications for the Android rather then deal with the inevitable legal hassle apple will impose over this strategy. Furthermore by creating these apps on the Android you will increase the value of the Android to the customer which will eventually lead to better Android market penetration.
most original goatse
When Apple makes you pay for your apps at the Ap store with Apple dollars issued by the Apple bank, you might have a case.
Apple doesn't make you use iTunes Store gift cards. Yet. On the other hand, Microsoft and Nintendo do make users pay for their apps with the company's "points".
No.
The question is whether you have a viable business plan.
If the numbers aren't there than you are in trouble. If jail-breaking is strictly a geek thing you are in trouble.
The app that appeals to the geek is - by definition - niche - and he is thinking free-as-in-beer.
The iPhone makes a damn expensive paperweight.
There is a level of comfort in buying from Apple and its corporate partners that you are not going to be able to deliver.
Gas is gas, its a regulated chemical component so of course requiring one brand of gas is anticompetitive. The iPhone has functionality created by Apple which Apple did not need to create, and they only created it because they could control the functionality after release. Hey look, I have a new device that implants memories in your brain as a learning tool, but you have to buy the memories from my MemStore...oh you say that's against the antitrust rules...oh well f*ck it I won't be able to make money so I won't bother producing the device.
Get a clue haters, Apple kicks ass and has no real antitrust problems, period. Don't like it get a f*cking Zune and shut the f*ck up!
Apple is not a government, they provide a product and software that they alone have the right to decide on. Go whine someplace else, or deisgn a better phone (Google's half-hearted response is going nowhere fast LOL).
Who said that my signature relates to the content of discussions?
(It doesn't by the way, it refers to Slashdots insistence on changing the discussion interface weekly)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This might be a stupid question but what about using the iphone mobile web app support in Aptana? Has anyone used that? Is it any good? No, it's not an app running natively on the iphone but do your users really care?
TechDirt stole the story from the Wall Street Journal, which provided a much lengthier discussion and analysis.
This crap reminds me of a 12 year old that sued his parents because they wouldn't let him eat as much of his Halloween candy as he wanted. He lost. Get over it folks, Apple has made rules, they are for their own good and have little to do with what you want or think you may be entitled to. Just because someone made it, that doesn't automatically give you the right to sell what ever you want to go with it. If you want to make money, follow the rules, if you want to have fun, give it away to the people that jailbreak their phone, or even sell it but don't scream when Apple tries to defend their own ecosystem that they spent a lot of money developing and advertising.
Why bother
Are you trying to say that if I write an iPhone app that gets rejected from the iPhone's App Store and then I sell it, I can be sued for contributory copyright infringement because my app can only run on a jailbroken phone?
Your application is linked to the system libraries of the iPhone, making it (at least in Richard Stallman's analysis) a derivative work of the iPhone system software. Only Apple has the right under U.S. and foreign copyright law to authorize derivative works of the iPhone system software. In fact, the GNU General Public License needs an explicit exception to keep the copyleft in a GPL application from spreading to non-free system libraries.