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."
... to change Apple's icon to be borg like the way Microsoft's is ?
That 1984 commercial gets more ironic by the moment.
Actually that agreement has some pretty decent customer protection clauses. ie.: not to use Push Notifications to spam, phish or advertise, not to use unnecessary traffic on the cellular network.
One that caught my eye was no VoIP over the cellular network.
Trolling is a art,
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.
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.
If MS had this policy, they wouldn't control 90% of the market. Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They are in violation of the agreement after all for disclosing it.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Gee if this is the work of the evil empire the world is safe.
The only thing I don't like about the agreement (as summarized here) is that the agreement itself cannot be disclosed. That level of secrecy is not necessary. I'm just surprised that nobody else has gotten a copy of this legal document, decided not to sign it, and gave it to WikiLeaks already. Why does it take a Freedom of Information Act just to learn what kinds of terms you're going to face if you think about entering the development program?
[
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
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.
Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.
Apple has always made a big thing of pointing its marketing at "creative types" who supposedly think outside the box. This just goes to confirm that what this really means is "You'll think outside the box in the way that WE tell you to, dammit".
Is it just me, or has Apple become more and more oppressive to users and developers over the last couple of years? Barely a day seems to go by when they haven't fucked someone over.
[Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft shill - this is typed on a 2nd-hand 2.16GHz MacBook, and my desktop machine runs Arch Linux.]
It's a bid deal because the contract is monstrously one-sided, and you'd think nobody would agree to it, yet somehow it manages to fly in a big chunk of the mobile phone market.
It seems like you'd have to be nuts to invest in developing for the App Store, other than maybe for short-term, tactical purposes. Why, then, do so many people do it? Isn't that an interesting question?
Apple has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an unreliable, capricious business partner. Apple is slow and inconsistent about approving apps. It changes the rules and yanks apps all the time... just as this agreement permits it to do. It makes errors that cost you money and doesn't compensate you. Apple has shown, repeatedly over the whole life of the App Store, that those overreaching clauses aren't just in that contract for CYA purposes. Apple fully intends to use those clauses to hose your business if it feels like it for any reason whatsoever, and the reason may have little or nothing to do with you.
Personally. I won't even buy Apple's phone because of the way they handle software. Nonetheless, many people seem to be willing to bet their livelihoods on Apple. That includes people who aren't big players, and lack the leverage to make it to Apple's advantage to forget about certain contract terms.
What's the reason for that? Even if the answer just turns out to be that they're stupid, it's valuable to look at the question. Heck, you might even get some of them to smarten up.
If the answer is not that they're stupid, but, say, that they don't have any better options, then one might want to think about why we have a market that doesn't provide any better options. Maybe there should be some changes. Maybe somebody reading this will figure out how to make them. I think there are better options, but obviously those developing for the iPhone think otherwise. Maybe they can explain why?
And, yeah, it's about rights. First of all, the whole point of any contract is that you give up some rights. Second, the law, and the underlying moral philosophy, sometimes have some nasty things to say about one-sided contracts, interference with competition, artificial limitations of liability, and the like. Not everybody agrees, but there's a perfectly respectable and intellectually consistent body of thought that says a contract like that shouldn't be legal.
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
This developer agreement is for developers who choose to develop apps for Apple iPhone App Store. You do not need to buy apps from this app store to use your iPhone. You do not need to distribute apps you develop through the apple app store.
People are free to do what they want if they buy a full price iPhone, and many have jailbroken theirs to work with other carriers as is their right, and written and/or downloaded apps that were written by developers who did not have to and did not agree to the license agreement linked to in TFA.
However, if you do choose to develop apps for apples own online iphone app store, then yes, you do need to follow apple's rules, because, yes, IT IS APPLE'S APP STORE, not yours.
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.
How is this any different from the requirements for developing for the XBox, Sony Playstation/PSP, or the Wii/Gameboy?
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton
When Apple was the underdog, they weren't in a position to bend developers to their will. Now that they are in the driver's seat wrt mp3 players and smart phones, they can. Most of the time you'll find that when people can do something that is in their interest but screws other people over, they will choose to do that thing, because most people are quite selfish. Apple as a group of self-interested people (a.k.a., a corporation) is no exception. Moreover, the law in the US actually requires that corporations always act in the best financial interests of their shareholders, which has always been interpreted by courts to mean that the corporation has a positive duty to maximize profit in any legal way.
Apple now has the market power to impose draconian license agreements on their developers. Apple takes this option because having the abilities that this license agreement gives them (e.g., ability to arbitrarily remove any app at any time) increases profit - for example, no lengthy court proceedings over app removal, no defending lawsuits from flyover bible thumpers who think app X is too explicit for their 7 year old children (and your 7 year old is using your iPhone why exactly?)
When we enshrine selfishness as the highest legal good it should come as no surprise that corporations act selfishly.
Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.
My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.
This is the biggest issue with Apple. Even so, it has affected a few percent of all the apps available for the platform, and most of those were "cookie cutter" apps that took virtually no resources to develop. I'm only aware of a tiny fraction of a percent of apps that truly took an investment but later was undermined by Apple. Of course those developers made a lot of noise (and justifiably so), but in the end it's very, very rare.
Money. The vast majority of all money changing hands in the mobile app market happens through the App Store. In fact for a small development house the App Store is likely to be significantly more lucrative than desktop development. Combine that with Apple's rather well-done SDK and a myriad of third-party tools to make iPhone/iPod Touch development easier, and you have a pretty good opportunity for a decent return on investment. The better businesses do things to mitigate the risk of running afoul of some Apple policy, such has having a more diverse portfolio than they might otherwise have, but you're right that it is a risk to such a business.
It's hard to argue that this contract is too one-sided when so many people are making so much money in such an effective win-win agreement.
E pluribus unum
Why not kill all humans and install robot overlords?
I suggested that, as well, obviously.
False. The hardware belongs to you. You can do whatever you want with it (so long as it doesn't violate other laws), but don't expect Apple to honor warranties or continue to provide service if you do.
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.
Is it just me, or has Apple become more and more oppressive to users and developers over the last couple of years?
Depends on the market. OS X is still very open to developers. A lot of the source code (outside of the high-level frameworks) is open and they've openned some things like libdispatch and their blocks runtime to encourage their support on other platforms, as well as funding most of the development of a BSD-licensed Objective-C/C++ compiler and opening the WebKit repository to encourage outside contributions (previously they were just providing KHTML with a big code dump every release). On the desktop side, they've become more open over the last few years
The iPhone and iPod, however, have always been very locked-down devices. They didn't allow any third-party code on the iPod until the fifth generation, and then only from a few companies. The iPhone allows third-party code, but with a lot of restrictions.
The problem seems to be that Apple makes a strong distinction between computers and consumer electronics devices, while to the rest of us they are just computers and less-powerful computers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, it's *exactly* like "if you develop aftermarket parts for our cars, we will not certify any aftermarket parts which attempt to circumvent safety features or maintenance controls." Which is true. For instance, if you tweak your car's computer, exhaust, etc. to get better performance, or add a supercharger, or bore out the cylinders, you WILL void your warranty. Hell, if you DRIVE IT TOO HARD you will void your warranty.
I'm actually pretty happy you are bringing up car metaphors. It's a good parallel. You're welcome to use third-party services on your car, but if you do so in a way that actively circumvents the manufacturer's design, you will void your warranty and your rights to expect certain functionality or service.
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
Not everybody who thinks outside the box wants to write software that doesn't fit the iPhone developer agreement. Don't confuse the real end user, who might be an architect or a doctor, with the exceedingly small group of people who want to run Sendmail on their iPhone but not pay the $100 to join the developer program which allows them to do so.
And some apps (like Google Voice) are permenantly "pending". I think that's exactly what Hizonner meant - Apple is inconsistent. Some apps are approved quickly and others aren't. You can't know ahead of time which yours will be.
The problem is you don't know that. You're assuming it. Remember that not only can a developer not talk about the agreement they signed, but they can't talk about rejection either. For every developer who chose to violate that agreement by speaking out when their app was rejected for some stupid reason, there are probably a lot more who didn't because they fear Apples lawyer army (and hey, they did sign the agreement). For all you know, 90% of all apps are rejected permanently.
This is by far the biggest problem with the AppStore agreement. It's creating the exact opposite of Adam Smiths informed market. Nobody knows what the rules are, when they are enforced or how often because Apple tries hard to ensure developers work in an information vacuum.
Nobody would tolerate Microsoft doing this, because there's an understanding that computers matter and that just because Microsofts platform is for many devs the only way to make money shouldn't mean Microsoft have absolute control over everything that happens on it. And in fairness, Microsoft have never tried to pull this kind of stuff. Windows always supported multiple, competing SDKs. There was never any kind of "instant death" rules or absurd contracts.
Fortunately right now it's hard to argue smartphone apps really matter, especially the kind of dross found on the App Store. The only businesses that rely on the iPhone are Apple and app developers - once the majority of all businesses are using iPhone apps as part of their core competencies it might be time to demand the iPhone live up to the standards of openness set by Windows (and MacOS and Linux).
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
Actually, it's not that simple. From the point of view of the tinkerer, you're correct, it's *not* the right thing to do. From the point of view of the consumer who will *never* tinker with it, it's actually very much the right thing to do.
This is because that lock down is what keeps the quality of the entire iPhone experience so high. Yes, there are fart apps and other mindless stupidities, but compared with other, more open, platforms, the overall quality of the software is higher. Yes, it means some specific apps or app types are disallowed, but the result is still a net gain, for the average consumer.
People often think "for idiot users, the iPhone is best, for intelligent geeks, Android is best", but even then it's not so clear. First off, being a normal person isn't being an idiot (I know you didn't say this, so I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's just a common sentiment). Second, even a lot of geeks prefer things to work more smoothly, which the iPhone does on the whole.
As for developers, it's a mixed bag. The barrier to entry is a little bit higher ($99, and some rules which are pretty easy to follow in most cases), but the potential rewards are significantly greater, and even if you're not in it for the money, just for the accomplishment of putting out an app that gets used, or your app is simply a way of helping people with some other thing for which you are more interested in, or whatever, having a pre-built store with such high quality as the iTunes App Store (yes, it has problems, but from sheer quality of the store and end-to-end interface for browsing, buying and installing, there's nothing better than iTunes) is invaluable, and the payment system extremely simple.
So, the formula that makes the iPhone a success is the exact same formula that you are decrying as being "dickheaded" and "assholish". If Apple had kept things completely open, or even just as open as Windows Mobile, Android, and Pre (don't kid yourself, none of those systems are fully open, they are just more open than iPhone by varying degrees), the iPhone would not be *nearly* as successful nor *nearly* as high a quality of an experience as it is now. Sure, a small percentage more geeks would buy one. Maybe, as some percentage of geeks would also *not* have bought one, but at least on the geek side it would be hard to say which way the balance would move. On the consumer side, however, it's pretty clear that fewer people would buy an iPhone, or at the very least, fewer people would buy their *second* iPhone, after being so frustrated with the first.
Finally, Apple's control helps prevent things like the recent story of the HTC Android phone that ships with the Mariposa bot net client. It also allows Apple to immediately pull apps that are harmful to the users or to the quality of the store itself (Apple has done this already) or in a worst case scenario, remove the app from people's phones altogether (this has never happened, but is reserved for cases of outright spyware, such as the Mariposa client). It's also interesting to note that all of the known exploits in the wild for iPhones have been for jailbroken iPhones, and not those with Apple's built-in security system intact.
They would be white, maybe even just brushed aluminum.
How does Apple telling developers that to use their App Store, they can't write applications that bypass security of their App Store limit creative types? This is a limitation of the App Store. You can still develop on your own iPhone as long as you have the tools. Apple will not accept the app until you agree to bide by their rules.
So when you go to a ball game, are you also enraged that you can't bring weapons?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Perhaps because you don't *need* google's marketplace to load a program on your phone? If google yanks your app, you can still sell it to people. Unlike with apple, where if they yank your app, you can only sell it to people with jailbroken phones, which is a tiny tiny minority.
Apple should have every right to list or not list whatever they want in their store, because it's their store. The problem only comes about because their store is the "only" way to get programs onto the phone.