Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iPhone Developer License Agreement Revealed
nigham writes "The EFF is publicly disclosing a version of Apple's iPhone developer program license agreement. The highlights: you can't disclose the agreement itself (the EFF managed to get it via the Freedom of Information Act thanks to NASA's recent app), Apple reserves the right to kill your app at any time with no reason, and Apple's liability in any circumstance is limited to 50 bucks. There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.' The entire agreement (PDF) is up at the EFF's site."
I'm not sure what the uproar is about...if you agree to develop apps for Apple's devices, this is the agreement you sign. If you don't like it, don't make apps for Apple products.
Am I missing something? This has nothing at all to do with "My Rights Online"...IMNSHO.
Sent from your iPad.
At least the part quoted in the summary sounds like I assumed it would. They've got the high ground and there's no good reason not to have this sort of agreement. Interesting, but not even a tiny bit surprising.
... to change Apple's icon to be borg like the way Microsoft's is ?
That 1984 commercial gets more ironic by the moment.
Yeah, and Apple really cares about you too...
Chump$
I don't like the way this reads. Apple does need to exert some control over their device in order to preserve their branding, but IMHO some of the draconian shit in here goes way to far.
"As a person who loves Mac OS X, iPhone and will absolutely buy the upcoming iPad and hump it in bed when I'm sad"
First post not first scare, come to think of it you are not allowed to grip anything.
Steve, I like your style !!
I will not drink the Kool-Aid.
The only actual reference to Google in the PDF is where it says that you have to abide by Google's rules when using their Mobile Maps thing.
sopssa isn't trolling. He's just trying to be funny and sarcastic. But he's not funny, so I see why so many of you, including at least one moderator, misinterpreted his pathetic attempt at humor.
There's also this gem: 'You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise create any Application or other program that would disable, hack, or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system software, iPod Touch operating system software, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so.'
Ok, could you please explain to me how that's a "gem". I'd have thought that it would be obvious that Apple would not approve an app that circumvents DRM. Yes, I know, it's your device and you should be able to do what you want with it. Yes, I know that DRM is evil and should be circumvented (and destroyed). Yes, I know all of that but how would anyone in their right mind think that Apple would actually support circumventing DRM, especially their own?
Sorry, I know it's now all cool and whatnot to hate on Apple for everything and anything but I totally do not see anything worth getting riled up about here. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you don't like their developer's agreement, don't develop for them. On the list of "Big Bad Evil Companies", Apple is pretty damn far down the list and, really, if you're going to view this "gem" as a reason to view them as evil then you're just trying to find any and every excuse to hate on them.
Non-issue. Boring.
Okay, I get the whole "you will blow Steve Jobs whenever he feels like it" mentality (this IS Apple after all), but I don't get the notion that they have legal authority to restrict the actual agreement. Why hide it, other than the terms itself might not be palatable, in which case maybe the agreement sucks to begin with. That, on top of all the other crap, should be a firm indicator that doing business with Apple is just asking for potential trouble.
If you were to take the Apple agreement and compare it to many a confidentiality agreement or similar agreements when two companies are working together you'd find the language etc etc etc are pretty much the same.
But alas that kind of reality check doesn't make good inflammatory "news" nor get the slashdot crowd up in arms to advance someone else's agenda.
They are in violation of the agreement after all for disclosing it.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
No, Apple is more like... like a giant solid gold wang! Oh sure it's shiny and all golden but in the end it's still a wang. And, like any wang, it has serious growth potential!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Gee if this is the work of the evil empire the world is safe.
I think this is part of Apple's corporate culture - they never signed on to the OS as an "open(ish) platform" thing that PC users (and unix geeks to an even greater extent) came to expect. I don't know what we can do but not buy their products - it's a pity because I'd generally like to suggest that non-tech people go with OSX (and tech folk should go with Linux or OpenBSD), but I don't like supporting companies that do this kind of thing.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
As a government entity, NASA's transactions are subject to FOIA requests, which is how the EFF obtained it.
I don't care what Apple does because I don't develop for them. I can ignore IPhones and IPads and ITunes and other Apple products. But slowly and surely Apple is gaining ground by rapidly out running development in some (I have to admit) cool applications.
We have to free up the infrastructure. Nothing about the IPhone required Apple to invent it other than the fact that it took Apple/Jobs to stand up to the wireless operators and deliver a platform outside *their* control. It took Apple/Jobs to stand up to the RIAA and deliver legitimate digital music over the Internet.
So what is Apple good at? They are good at forcing their way through various Corporate and Social barriers because they have the ego to do so. But many customers do not recognize that Apple does this while at the same time erecting barriers for others to prevent them from following their path. Apple erects barriers to prevent others from leveraging their products.
So why do I say "ego" to do this? Because they don't respect any other corporate entity's efforts to protect their turf (a good thing, I think), but haven't any problem doing a far better and more comprehensive job of protecting their own (good in the short term for customers, bad in the long term).
Hurray to Apple for breaking barriers. Boo to Apple for building replacements that might be far more difficult to break down.
All is great as long as Apple is innovating. But all innovative companies become stagnate over time. And I fear at some point Apple will no longer be the rising star of technology, but just another corporate boat anchor.
Here, have a cookie.
I know most users won't give up their iPhone/iTouch over their dead bodies -- and I've already invested in an iTouch, and I don't want to throw it away either while it still works.
But I'm done giving money to Apple for their mobile devices. I just got screwed buying an unlicenced cable because I didn't think charging CAD $55 was a reasonable price for a $3 output cable; turns out you either pay the piper or live without, because Apple (and their licencees) all chip their accessories now and the iPhone won't work without detecting one. The only exception seems to be charging, which I only discovered after spending another $50 or so to buy an AC-USB plug and another cable.
I am equally sick of forking out money every time I sneeze. Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but I somehow feel like I shouldn't be paying $10 for an ssh client, and that I shouldn't have to essentially "break the law" to use the underlying operating system features. I totally understand that to even develop for this thing costs you >$100/year; maybe I've been using Linux for too long.
I very much hate trying to interoperate with the device using Linux (it doesn't; not even a little bit; yes I've tried Wine and all the other native apps; it's not supported). Total waste of time. It's a good thing I have a token mac mini as an HTPC or it would be a total wash.
I recently needed to piggyback files from one windows computer to another and didn't have a USB key handy. But here was my iTouch. Done deal, right? This should be easy. Wrong. I couldn't put a zip file on it when mounted via USB, and I couldn't download the file directly from the web using Safari either. I ended up doing the job with a portable audio recorder, because yes -- even though this device has no reason to support anything but audio and audio metadata files, it didn't actively gun down any attempts to do otherwise.
Mobile devices seem to boil down to the same dilemma as on the desktop; you can either use Linux and have the freedom and choice -- which, for now, typically means either a lot less choice or a lot more effort to get things up and running like the state of affairs a decade or more ago; or you can grab your ankles, hand over your credit card and enjoy an overall smoother experience so long as you keep feeding proverbial quarters into the machine.
I've been holding out hope that the Nokia N900 comes to Canada in an 850MHz flavour but it looks like I'll be waiting in vain; time to decide whether to suck it up and deal with only EDGE connectivity or consider going to a different flavour of evil/greed from Apple.
It's Apple's phone. They don't have to allow anyone to develop for it. They could keep it a completely closed platform with no 3rd party apps at all if they wanted to. That's their choice to make, not yours
Sorry, no. You're making a fundamental flaw in your reasonning:
IT. IS. NOT. APPLE'S. PHONE.
It is a phone which happens to be designed by Apple. But it belongs to the person who bought it.
Also, in addition of that, clauses in a software's license which forcibly restrict what you're allowed to do with it. In several jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to order "don't do that with out SDK".
The only thing which is theirs and remain under their possession and control is their service.
In short: They have to refuse presence of some Apps on their on-line distribution channel (like suddenly refusing and banning any adult-oriented App - it's a crappy decision but not a fundamentally wrong one).
But they have no rights over what end users does with Phones and SDKs, once in their possession, except the limitation imposed by laws such as copyright (the users cannot distribute copies of the SDK, unless their receive proper license. They can create whatever they want)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"They've got the high ground "
To a certain extent, this is control for control's sake. Reminds me of how apple could have taken over the PC business in the 80's, but decided on higher short-term profits.
I'm sure this serves their purposes well for now, but it seems ill considered to grow the profits and expand the market for the future. It's ironic that the company known for cutting edge stuff seems to not consider the strategy of what they're doing.
I don't have an issue with it, mainly laughing at the people who will argue "...but this is for our own good...".
Apple is now Microsoft.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
After all, you can also just go over and click through the signup to become a developer, and.. big shock here, you're presented with the agreement.
And as others have said, if you don't like it, then you just don't agree to it. You can -still- develop for jailbroken phones without agreeing to this contract. What you can't do is get into the App Store. Which Apple, like any business is welcome to decide what products they would, or would not like to carry.
What the EFF needs to spend their time doing instead of this stupid waste of time, is be getting whoever needs to (FCC I guess, probably Congress themselves) to pass a rule or law requiring "smartphones" to be considered what they are, small computers connected to the celular data network, and that because they are -our- property we -must- be allowed to install whatever we desire on them. The idea that any company can decide how their product is used -after- it's been sold is the issue.
Instead they're wasting taxpayer dollars with FOIA requests to get license agreements that are posted on Apple's bloody website.
Everyone always asks what's the point what's the point. Here's the point in a nut shell:
Don't develop applications for apple unless you want to sell out to a company that will fuck you over if they even get a whiff of competition, see a potential revenue stream in the same space, or simply don't like you. There will be no recourse if they fuck you. So if you want to make money with complete disregard for software freedom and the future of the industry as a whole then so be it. But don't pretend for a second there are no repercussions to such choices.
Apple will lose to others eventually unless they change their ways. Do you know why? Steve Ballmer knows. He did a 2 minute rant on it once. Something about developers..
Of course... the Apple cult member's first retort: accuse you of being a pirate or a freeloader.
The fact that I want to do whatever I choose with MY PROPERTY does not make me a "freetard". It makes me a free man.
So now freetard will be redefined (newspeak) to include anyone that wants to install random non-blessed 3rd party apps on their Mac.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm seeing nothing that any other company wouldn't do to protect their intellectual rights.
Apple is not an open source company.
Has the ipod 32GB/64GB version (not the nano or whatever other versions exist) been cracked so that it can run Linux (and possibly use android apps)? I received the 32GB version as a gift and it's sitting in a drawer because I don't use apple products, run Linux, and couldn't get the ipod working when I attempted to "register" it by using the ipod software running on Windows 7 RC as a client in virtualbox. I'd much prefer to use it with Linux especially if I could use the android apps that are available. I received it about six months ago, and when I checked then, it really didn't seem possible to run Linux on it at that time, except for an ubuntu solution, who's steps weren't complete so it looked like the ubuntu solution wasn't complete at that time and therefore didn't work.
Is there interest in cracking an ipod to run Linux and/or Android, especially if the android apps can possibly be used now, or has the Linux community thrown in the towel on ipods and moved on to Android/Google phones? Thanks.
Why all the Apple hate, but not Nintendo? Nintendo's policies are far more restrictive, from what I've read, and the developer kit is expensive and difficult to impossible to get for newbies.
I'm not an Apple fan and have never owned an Apple product, I prefer my Kool-Aid in different flavors.
But honestly this seems to be a pretty standard agreement, there is nothing horribly sneaky or underhanded going on. The only thing I have an issue with is that Apple has tried to keep it from being public knowledge, which is their ultra-controlling usual self but nothing to get riled up over.
Perspective people...
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Microsoft are the Borg because they bought a lot of companies because they couldn't develop products themselves. "Your technology will be assimilated." Who did Apple buy the iPhone from?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
really isn't this how it is for any closed platform? I mean I'd expect the agreement for any Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, or Sony platform is pretty similar. I'd honestly be surprised if restrictions on say the XBox or PS3 were significantly different.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
What if a company that used their monopoly to force all hardware manufacturers to ship their hardware with that company's software? There is an interesting suspension of legal reckoning in the arguments that go "If you don't like it, don't develop for the iphone" -- the suspension of logic is pretty basic if you understand history and the law: THESE AREN'T FEUDAL TIMES, WE LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
If you don't know what the rule of law is, you should.
The scenario above did happen -- and Microsoft was prosecuted for monopolistic practices.
You might be tempted to think that Apple can just make up ANY rules it wants and apply them unilaterally. The truth is -- they can try -- but Apple is not above the law. "A contract that does not obey the will of the people cannot be recognized by a court of law."
What if this contract said that Apple has the right to take your first born child if you submit an app that violates any rules? What if the contract said Apple could take your first born child just for submitting an app at all? Well, slavery is illegal -- as is kidnapping -- and this contract would be invalid because it violates the will of the people.
Obviously my extreme example is to prove a point: No, we don't just have to "accept" whatever Apple decrees -- we can make laws to regulate and define the industry.
Once a upon a time in America you could produce milk without a license. Diseases spread. Then came laws that formed the Food & Drug Administration, and said you can't make milk unless you pasteurize it.
Call me a big-government lefty (go ahead), but if left unregulated green will always try to screw over the little guy. Read some history.
I don't fault Apple for a single provision in the contract -- I'm a member of the developer program myself and I've read the whole thing. In fact, by writing this response right here I'm breaking the rules aren't I? Because I'm not supposed to make public statements about the contract. But I don't believe that provision (ban on public statements) is legal -- it violates the concept of freedom of speech -- therefore I'm going to choose to hold the law of the land in higher esteem than Apple itself.
Apple can and should protect its interests. But the contract should also be public -- and thankfully we have FOIA and a NASA app that has made it so. Apple is not above the law nor is it above public scrutiny. When they come for my first born child, I ain't turning him over -- no matter what the contract says.
You CAN do whatever you want with your iPhone. You are being warned you cant put anything you want on the app store, and you agree you will not hack their phone with the SDK they didnt sell you, instead licensed to you under those terms.
If you were actually concerned about this you would know by now this, but truth is you just superficially care and, as most, just use the excuse to bash The Evil Big Company.
No I can not.
If I want to put any old thing on my phone, then I have to "jailbreak" it.
Hopefully this sort of nonsense won't become the norm. THAT is not a "superficial" concern.
The Apple cult seems bound and determined to jettison the Mac and replace it with something that will do nothing that Big Brother doesn't approve of.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You're right in the most pedantic sense, but I think where this kind of thing becomes a larger rights issue is the fact that we have a shrinking public space and more and more of our lives are spent tied to corporations and "private" spaces where the kind of "if you don't like it, don't do it" thinking stops being rational unless your name is Ted Kaczynski.
Participation in most of modern life requires going along with all manner of rights-sacrificing agreements -- credit cards, banks,
Now the Apple agreement may possibly be an extreme example of this (since you don't need to be an Apple developer), but the point remains valid.
No, it's actually more like how when you buy a car, you can only use the manufacturers parts as replacements or additions, only use their fuel and oil, brake pads and shock absorbers, and only buy these things from their approved $Manufacturer branded retail channels.
No, ACTUALLY it's more like how if you get a car fixed at a dealer they will use manufacturers parts (Apple), but if that doesn't suit someone they go to another mechanic who might use cheaper parts but they still work fine (Cydia).
The dealer provides a smoother experience, but you are free to go outside the system if for some reason you don't like that experience.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The first rule of iPhone Development is you don't talk about iPhone Development.
Wasn't there a lot of discussion recently when Nokia accused Apple of using patented technology without paying a fair price?
Yes, it's called the GSM standard. Which Nokia handed over the patents to the standards body, with the intent that users of the standard would pay them a reasonable fee.
So then Apple went to pay Nokia the reasonable fee. And Nokia said, whoa buddy! Just because all other cell phone makers pay us the fee, doesn't mean you can! You must ALSO agree to let us use whatever patents of yours we want, for no fee on our part.
And you think Apple is the problem here? This is the ultimate patent troll, to get your patent in a standard and then shake down select individuals when they try to use it. But that also violates the RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis that patents are granted to standards bodies under, so eventually Nokia will be slapped down for this and Apple will be able to simply pay the fee as they should have been allowed to from the start.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The Apple cult seems bound and determined to jettison the Mac and replace it with something that will do nothing that Big Brother doesn't approve of." [Citation Needed]
There's a difference between an appliance and a general purpose computer. The iPhone, iPod, and iPad are appliances. iMacs, MBPs, Mac Pros are general purpose computers. Each has their own special use cases, requirements and capabilities. Trying to do things that require a (general purpose) computer on an appliance generally doesn't result in a satisfactory user experience.
You can download the pdf from apple
But if you speak about this i will have to kill you. (Because if you speak about htis you are a lawyer.... kill them all.)
-anonymous.
then it can be sued by Apple, no ?
They entered into an agreement they could not keep.
" ... if You are entering into this Agreement on behalf of Your company, organization or educational institution, that You have the right and authority to legally bind Your company, organization or educational institution to the terms and obligations of this Agreement ... "
I agreed to this when we did our app. It is their show, and they make their rules. I expected nothing less from a company that has always tried to control their products to the greatest extent. Sometimes it works (e.g., iPhone), and other times it doesn't (e.g., Lisa, A/UX, Pippin, AppleTV). Regarding their treatment of developers, I must say that this is one area where Microsoft has always been better. They had better tools in the 1980s, and they have better tools now. I believe this is mostly due to the competition that Apple lacked. Remember Borland? Even IBM in the late 1980s and early 1990s competed with Microsoft for developers with very good tools. Apple's tools are better than they were, and they are free (a smart move). Microsoft's tools are simple more evolved. For example Apple's Interface Builder, a GUI tool, still requires a lot of code around every drag-'n-drop, and it is hard to see where the controls are coded because they hide some. Visual Studio automatically creates event handler shells and leads you to them. You can view everything as code, and they warn you about the code they generated with their tools. Microsoft also has a variety of languages, and the dichotomy between managed and unmanaged code is much better documented.
The downside for Microsoft is that they carry an enormous legacy which has now come to haunt them. Apple has been consistent about leaving the past behind and some of their customers and developers with it. Two different business models with one thing in common -- they have beaten the crap out of everyone else. It is very hard to argue their successes as measured in billions of dollars in profits.
The Apple cult seems bound and determined to jettison the Mac and replace it with something that will do nothing that Big Brother doesn't approve of.
Funny how people keep calling Apple Big Brother just for wanting to control one device. It was not apple tracking my entire internet life last time I checked, it was Google. And pepole willingly buy Android devices and carry them with Latitude turned on... I just get baffled by some people's logic... Anyways, submit to Big Brother, get an android, let them follow your every move. I'll keep putting whatever I want in my iPhone.
Great, you revealed something thats already publically available on their website.
You can see the agreement before you agree to it, thats kind of a requirement of contract law.
Anyone can get to it on Apples website, when 'signing up' for the developers program. Just view it and don't agree to it.
Its not as if its actually been 'secret' or anything.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
How is this any different from a Windows 7 Phone? Or a Palm phone? Or even an Android phone? Sure, Android and Palm have looser restrictions on what you can sideload, but a huge chunk of Android apps require you to root your phone to achieve their functionality. This is the same as jailbreaking.
In order to guarantee a certain quality standard and, yes, to make money, manufacturers put restrictive licenses in place. In order to achieve a superset of features, power users circumvent those licenses and do whatever the hell they want, perhaps at the expense of their warranty. This is true with phones, cars, game consoles, and probably the overwhelming majority of nontrivial consumer goods. It's just a market economy trying to self-regulate, and there's nothing "unjust" about a seller offering a product on their own terms.
Apple is trying to create a system where everything you do revolves around Apples products and they get a piece of the pie. Building a system like this to maintain the perpetual buying of Apple products and services and Apple getting the recurring monthly and up front fees REQUIRES a delicate balance of control and features. Every new product they release, every patch the release, every feature they DO NOT INCLUDE, the blocking and rejecting of things that could could potentially vector out of the Apple realm, and everything they license is related to this concept of maintaining "it" within Apples revenue stream. Ask your self this question with every new product or version or dission they make, "How is this tied to Apples grand plan of keeping my in the Apple family?" It could be a firmware update that blocks Palm or blocks jailborken phones, it could be lack of tehtering, lack of Flash, usb id's, DMCA warnings with plugs and jacks, ability to export or use a device on a non Apple system, applications being controlled form one store etc.. You may think this is for you the users benefit but the benefit to you is secondary thought because you the user would benefit from a more open platform whether you believe that or not. It is to keep total control and build on the Apple system. Once you have a few product invested in the chain, you WILL buy more. As the "system" grows and more devices are under the Apple revenue umbrella, the "system" will grow faster and faster because the more people that use it, the more effect new things will have but the down side is the more control and power Apple will have and the more they will be able to control even more. At first you can be flexible to bring people in, as time goes on and you have people captured, you can get away with a lot more. Like i said, it is a delicate balance of control and freedom. The more power you have, the more control they have and the less freedom you have. Oddly, MS did this exact build up years ago but no one seems to remember that. Apple is doing it differently. They are doing it with monthly, weekly, per download, per application etc fees and less actually physical products SKUs and release cycles. This way, they can still make profits between new product cycles and manage the growth of the Apple "system". I bet Steve has a graph and a timeline showing describing this exact concept and measures the progress of each new product and each new feature. If they start losing grip or are not gaining like they think they should, they loosen up on some restrictions to bring more people in, once we get the people in, tighten it back up again.
Again. think of this concept with every single product or serivce they introduce comparing the features it has and does not have and 90% of the time, it will fit this model of thinking. The other 10% is probably a temporary attempt to jump start more people into the system.
I did not proof read this and I am in a conference call right now so sorry for the run ons and speling errors.
Apple has always been about tightly controlling the user experience and the overall brand for their products. Developers are not their customers. Developers are useful to Apple only if they advance Apple's goals. Those developers who have been successful in the iPhone OS and Mac markets understand this and have adapted accordingly. One could make the case that developers were Microsoft's primary market for years. Look where that led Microsoft. Their products gave developers and users all kinds of options, but the end result was bloat and annoyance. Customers are voting with their wallets and embracing products that just work. The tightly controlled Apple brand and user experience gives developers less freedom, and that annoys the hell out of developers. But until someone else can find a way to give developers the independence they desire while still delivering a tightly focused, elegant user experience, the choices seem to be: Take the constrained Apple route with its flaws, or take the more flexible Microsoft/Nokia/et. al. route with its flaws.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
actually the whole thing is a lot like "we can cancel your app at any time we want".
Apple can and will turn your car engine off remotely.
What is the twisted mindset that it is a "gem" to be prohibited from interfering with security systems etc.?
So now freetard will be redefined (newspeak) to include anyone that wants to install random non-blessed 3rd party apps on their Mac.
terrist!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Because then Apple would have sued them, probably under the theory that the EULA is a copyrighted document, and the EFF infringed said copyright by publishing it against the terms under which it was disclosed to them.
This way, everything is legal and above-board, and the EFF is free and clear of liability. If Apple goes after anyone, it will have to be NASA. And if they choose to do so, for one thing, most judges would simply throw the case out, as there is no legal obligation for the government to allow itself to be sued, and for another, even if the case were allowed, the U.S. government is likely much better prepared in terms of deep pockets to defend itself against Apple's corporate lawyers than the EFF is.
The line between general purpose computer and specialized gadget is blurring. With the processor speed being on par with the computers of only a couple of years ago, i'd say that phones are getting to be more and more like general purpose computers. Also with your argument, shouldn't the ipad which is being marketed against the netbook be more general purpose?
I think the FIA thing was a clever move...I wonder if any Goverment Agencies have Microsoft Shared Source agreements, maybe we can finally get Window's Source Code.
I for one can't wait until quantum computers destroy all current forms of public-key cryptography and end all these signing systems.
They could go with Lamport signatures, but those are terribly inconvenient to work with.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I often joke that Apple is the Combine, the Universal Union from Half-Life 2 instead of the Borg. Why? Well, they look cooler. Better design. There's the weird belonging thing. And there's whole transhuman aspect of owning an iPhone; You Become More Than You Were. Plus the people on the tech support phone line carry the title of "Advisor". Full disclosure: I am an iPhoner. There are many like it, but this one is mine. I nicknamed it Stormbringer, for its power and soul-snatching capabilities (my own and many friends who covet the damn thing.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
...for wanting to absolutely control the apps that are sold through their store, and their developer license simply reflects that reality.
If you were running a grocery store, wouldn't YOU want to have the final say on what products YOU stock in the store? Wouldn't you want to be able to decide not to stock a product if they do something you don't like? (genetically altered produce is a no-no here, etc). They set the entry bar high so they don't have to wade through a ton of crap when deciding what to sell.
Apple's claim to fame is that they sell products that are easy to use, stylish, aren't prone to infectuous diseases, and have nice snob appeal. Grandma can feel nice and safe buying one. She doesn't need to worry about hard drives, drivers, which graphics board she needs and how to install it - she pays her money and shit just works like its suppose to, and THAT experience is precisely why Apple is enjoying such success in the consumer electronics marketplace. The idea that Grandma would ever buy ANYTHING from some 19-year old DRM-busting, open source Linux jockey is completely ludicrous.
I agree that it's tons of fun to poke sticks at market leaders, but that doesn't mean it's a productive activity.
And you'll see why 2010 won't be like 1984
Yes, you have to jailbreak it. Its not that hard, just that Apple is under no obligation to make it easy to do, or to support you if you should bork your phone trying to mod it. Afterward, you can put whatever you want on the phone. They just control what apps they decide to sell through their service, the App Store. If you want to stand up for your rights to do whatever you want with your property, then you can't really turn around and decry them for deciding what to include with their service.
Steve Jobs is an fascist authoritarian and you love him despite it. You people bow at the alter of Apple and agree to all of these insane contractual obligations and BS. While you would balk at similar (sometimes lesser) offenses from Microsoft. Things Apple has done and continues to do in many cases are worse then MS offenses (not excuse MS), yet, Steve Jobs is revered and excused. Personally, I use an Android phone so that I can run background apps, use it as a wireless tether for my laptop(s), and use carriers that have better networks then AT&T. Apple survives because people are lemmings and all Jobs has lead the way and point them to the iCliff.
Respect the Constitution
They would be white, maybe even just brushed aluminum.
While Apple, as a corporation, has a legal right to impose whatever terms it wants on its developers, I think this is a "Bad Thing". As someone else observed, these terms are very similar to game console development terms, and is leading us towards trusted computing as the dominant paradigm.
If we're not careful, we are on the path to "state of the art" devices always being draconian game-console-like things where a corporation or government always has the kill switch. Do not be fooled into thinking that your open source software will always run on these things, or that there will be acceptable hardware alternatives.
Five to ten years from now, you might be tinkering with getting a Linux kernel to boot on the latest 32 Mhz Arduino board while everyone runs around with $50 14 Ghz multi-core handhelds that run either SecureWindows or MacOS 13, whose development keys are off-limits to you on account of your having failed the Patriot Act 3.0 mandated trusted developer polygraph test ...
As long as that content isn't flash...
Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
I'm sorry you got modded flambait for what is a perfectly valid observation. I'm a Mac system administrator, I'm typing this on my personal Mac Pro, and yet I have to say that while I agree that Apple's model probably IS better for the consumer, who simply do not care how an app is developed, and most certainly like the ease of use the AppStore provides, Apple is generally as bad if not worse than Microsoft in its business dealings.
In addition to that you have fallen foul of the dreaded Slashdot Mac crowd, and from my daily dealings with my Mac users, I have seen many, many Mac users who have no idea how their computer or OS works read or hear some piece of computer hearsay (the article on why Flash would not work on the iPad was one such totally uninformed piece which was picked up and repeated ad nauseam by the Apple faithful). In general the Apple user base is extremely defensive about any criticism of their platform (read company) and will fight any such criticism, be it valid or not.
More on topic: The iPhone developer agreements and more importantly the utter control that Apple exerts on what the developers may code or not is a two edged sword. On the one hand it prevents malware from getting onto the platform (such as that on the HTC Android handy being shipped with malware on it) and ensures a generally high standard of software quality, but on the other hand makes a lot of developers lives a living nightmare. A friend of mine who is a Mac developer got his app cancelled, a tool to aid colour-blind people judge colours in every day life by overlaying a circle on the camera feed and telling the user which colour was within the circle. Apple cancelled it because it used live camera data, which Apple does not allow.
If that isn't plain downright malicious, then I don't know what it.
If you're not happy with this then buy a less customer-hostile device.
That's why my brother has a Google Android phone.
And my phone is a Palm Pre, which has a developer mode out-of-the-box allowing me to b0rk it the way I want.
We *did* vote with our wallets. We *did* get better stuff (and cheaper in my brother's case).
I'm only pointing out why people should stop considering the iPhone as a jesusPhone, and why the "1984" Apple ad is getting more ironic in retrospective as time passes.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If I want to buy an iPhone and melt it down to slag or install Windows 7 Phone Series on it, no black helicopters will show up.
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
Copyright governs the creation of copies and their distribution. Not recieving the copy.
Copyright dictates that you can just copy anything from any one. To get your own copy of some piece of software, that software has to come with proper authorisaion, otherwise copyright says "no copy / can't distribute".
Once you have a piece of software in your possession, it's yours and you do whatever you want with it from the point of view of copyright law, except from making further copies (unless it's under "fair use" provisions [like citation for example] or unless you recieve authorisation to do so [like GPL and BSD license])
That's because the act of copying and distributing happened before.
Back to your example, regarding the OS X running on iPhones, copyright only intervene when the iPhone is assembled :
- The constructor to which the fabrication of iPhones was outsource, must make a copy from a Master and store it into each new fabricated.
- Then these copies will be sold to end-users.
- That means copying and distribution happenend.
- The constructor is NOT the author of OS X.
- But Apple gave them explicit permission to make these copies and distribute it to users.
When you buy your iPhone, no further copy nor distribution happens (except second hand sales).
Copyright can't restrict you what you do with it (as long as you don't upload it on the internet)
(except for parts covered by GPL which *DO* explicitely give you that authorisation, or if Apple gave you such an authorisation).
EULA *are not* copyright license (they do not give the authorisation to copy and distribute, that would otherwise be limited by copyright laws).
*EULA* are contracts (you make the promise to do certain things in certain manner - generally not to use the software to it's full potential - and the provider makes its own set of promises - generally that they won't be held responsible for anything and will throw away your privacy out through the window).
An EULA *could* give you restriction. The problem: EULAs are not be considered legal in lots of legislation.
If you use the SDK to develop things that Apple doesn't like : /KICKBAN you out of their on-line service. Its their service, it plays by their rules.
- they can
- they can sue you for *breach of contract* over the EULA (but as said above, not all jurisdictions will consider it valid. Specially now that with modern capacitive multi-touch-screens even a fly walking on the screen could click "I agree" on your iPhone. You don't even need your cat any more for that).
- if you signed an NDA or some other paper form, Apple will have a much better chance suing you over a breach of those
- they cannot sue you for *copyright violation* your copies of the OS X comming on the phone and the corresponding SDK were legit, not something bootleg you bought on a CD+R in a shaddy alley. And you didn't upload on The Pirate Bay either.
- the only remote thing that has something to do is the *DMCA* : did the user circumvent some protection scheme to achieve that ?
(Warning: In several jurisdictions, specially in European countries, if the protection was broken in order to do something authorised by the "fair use" portion of copyright law, the local DMCA clone doesn't apply and the breaking is considered leggit)
---
As a side note: That's why installers used by some open-source software on windows are stupid. They display the GPL and require you to press "I agree" to install. GPL is not a EULA, it's copyright license.
By the time you get your copy, you're not covered by the copyright law anymore. GPL kicks in only if you decide to further distribute additional copies.
In short :
- I install and use GIMP-Win32 on my machine, I shouldn't need to accept the GPL.
- I make copies of that gimp-win32-setup.exe and give them to all my friends, I should abide the GPL (which will ask that I also make available any modification to the source available too) otherwise copyright law forbids me to do it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The iPhone is a walled garden. Specifically, Apple's walled garden. Want to enjoy Apple's garden and grow things in it? Want to pick fruit from the trees (make money off the user base) - again - agree to Apple's terms.
There may be gardens out there that look wall-free, but on closer inspection you'll find the walls are simply lower. Usually the walls are lower to entice people to enter the garden. Given enough consumers, the walls get higher and trap people inside. All of the vendors are playing the same game - trap the consumer, and take their money.
You folks do realize that the EULA for Office says you cant use Word to write anything bad about Microsoft and you bitching because Apple puts in the standard don't use this to hack our stuff clause.
With some 40 million or so iphones vs billions of phones capable of j2me midlets (not counting smybian etc...) that figure cant be true.
Also, that article states that apple counted the free apps as well and insists only 16 million apps were sold for all other phones combined.
Thats complete bullshit.
There are MANY portals that sell more than 16 millions phone apps per year.
Flash isn't content. Flash is resource-guzzling, proprietary, non-accessible presentation of content that will die a well-deserved death when people find out HTML 5 - or even XHTML + Javascript - is better.
"If you are providing a channel to sell content then you can only go so far in restricting it, and you better be consistent about it."
I agree. The inconsistency in Apple's approach has been annoying, to say the least. As the line between app and content becomes meaningless, Apple isn't doing enough to be clear and consistent. Sure, there will always be people who will try to weasel through gaps in any content policy, but making such a policy available so everyone knows the rules would be far better than what Apple is doing right now, which is opaque to those of us outside Apple.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
By law they can not void the warranty for oil changes that you do any where.
Being a well designed appliance is one of the iPad's advantages over netbooks (which I don't think it is directly competing with anyways, aside from the size being similar).
Some people prefer a well designed limited use tool over a "does everything but does them all equally poorly" swiss army knife. ./ers like the tools that can do everything even though it is a pain to use them. Normal people tend to like tools that get the job done well, easily, and reliably.
Your comment appears to imply that iPod Touch has no worthwhile single-player RPGs. The authors of this article and this article beg to differ. True, they aren't Pokemon or Zelda, but PSP doesn't have those titles either.
if only windows had such a license agreement !!!!
It's funny that you cherry picked the only 3 major examples there are of this sort of anti-competitive, vertical integration of hardware and software.
more of our lives are spent tied to corporations and "private" spaces where the kind of "if you don't like it, don't do it" thinking stops being rational unless your name is Ted Kaczynski.
The irony is, Ted Kaczynski would probably agree with you about the irrationality of living a corporate-controlled life and calling it 'freedom'.
Was he actually crazy, or just seeing things others couldn't, and too frustrated to handle his rage well?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
I think the bit of this that sticks in my memory is actually the EFF's ingenuity.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Kaczinski was right, but the cognitive dissonance of his realization drove him to a conclusion that would not solve the problem.
At some point you have to wonder how possible it is to even reject the corporate-influenced life, especially if you grow up in the city as I did. Before you're even aware of the trap of corporate control, you're so far into it that once you are aware extraction from it often requires complete rejection of your entire life, including economic support, friends, family, location and lifestyle.
A few hardy souls can make this work, but for a lot of people the end result is at best a kind of grinding rural poverty, and at worst misery and alienation.
i don't see how you can be for licensed development(like consoles, iphones, etc) and open development(like windows, linux, etc) at the same time.
one or the other people! or, what, i am just licensing the hardware now, too? then, maybe kill off all secondary markets? slippery slope! slippery slope!
...
The agreement bans making "public statements regarding" the agreement. It does not ban disclosing the agreement itself. In other words, you can't say "this agreement sucks" in public (or ""this agreement sucks in public", for that matter.
Anyone can get a copy of the agreement by going through the sign-up process until the agreement pops up, making a copy, and then clicking "Disagree".