iPhone App In App Store Limbo Open Sourced

recoiledsnake writes "The author of iPhone prototyping tool Briefs has decided to open source it after the App store submission has been in limbo for over three months. The app had got into trouble for what Apple believes is being able to run interpreted code, though the author denies it, saying all the compiling happens on the Mac. While Rob stays civil, his co-worker blasts Apple for not even rejecting the app. Three months is nothing compared to Google Voice for the iPhone though, which is still being studied further by Apple after more than a year."

Comments

Why really does Apple behave this way?

[bogaboga]

Can someone explain to me why Apple behaves this way? I fail to understand. What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

I for one, will not touch an iPhone even with a 10 foot pole for my HTC Incredible does all that want it to and even more. The trouble is Oracle that is threatening to cut off Android's air supply with patent suits against Google.

 

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Haedrian]

When you've got a market locked down, people think buying your products will make them cool, and you've closed everything off so the only way out is to avoid apple - then you can afford to (mis)treat people anyway you want.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[phantomfive]

Oracle doesn't want to cut off Android's air supply. They want to milk it for everything they can. Larry Ellison is certainly greedy, but even he knows not to kill the golden goose. Patent lawsuits like this rarely result in a product being destroyed.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[beakerMeep]

look at windows... the root cause of most problems is the requirement to keep legacy software supported...

What does that have to do with interpreted code?

Isnt it equally likely a ton of app developers could be slow to re-factor out deprecated APIs as it is for a platform of interpreted code?

And latency? Really? It's simply about protecting profits. Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

This whole thing is about profit. The really isn't anything complicated about it. The mental gymnastics some people go through to justify it really amaze me sometimes though.

There are some fantastic things about iPhone and Apple's tech and even advantages to the draconian locked down system. But 'saving' users from interpreted code isn't one of them.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Sycraft-fu]

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks. They want absolute control over their platform. Their ultimate vision is that they'll be the source of all your media, all your apps, etc. They'll dictate how you consume stuff. Such a setup would be, needless to say, very profitable.

As for why they can get away with it, well I'd say there are two reasons:

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

2) For many of the Apple buyers these days, Apple is not a technology company but a fashion company. They largely won't admit it, but they buy them as fashion accessories. They are the "cool" product to own. As such they are purchased based on that alone. Whatever restrictions/costs accompany that are ok because they want to be cool. I see the same thing these days with fixed gear bikes. They are in with college kids (I work on campus and bike to work). They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Michael D Kristopeit]

slashdot user: "I fail to understand."
slashdot mod: "Insightful."

*sigh*

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[beh]

Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.

And it's not even limited to the iPhone - most people still use MS Office, despite how many competitors again? Despite the free OpenOffice?

You might like Android - and you're perfectly in your right to be. Be happy with it. But please accept, that if I had to buy a new phone for my parents/grandparents, it'd be an iPhone - I think it would be more geared to what she'd need and what she'd be capable of using, simply because it is more streamlined.
The closed Appstore may be something you hate - on the other hand, as far as non-geeks are concerned, I'd rather have the AppStore than seeing a proliferation of new phone threats (like - wouldn't you hate being spammed by a mobile botnet?). As a developer myself, I also see the stores limitations, but as a normal person, I see the advantages of the store as well in that it gives some more peace of mind to the less tech-savvy user.

Don't get me wrong - the iPhone has its own set of quirks I don't like. On the other hand - for me (and most people), it was APPLE that made smart phones a lot easier to use - everyone, including Android, is trying to copy that ease of use (with varying amounts of success).

What annoys me about the whole discussion of the iPhone is this: Noone attacks MS for being a commercial enterprise. MS is commonly attacked for 'innovating' things that have been out there for ages. With Apple it's the other way around - they're being attacked for trying to make money - while it's the 'open source' crowd 'innovating' all the things Apple has done on the phone.

The same with the iPad - the iPad came out to much ridicule from the tech-savvy crowd - but see how many projects there are out to 'innovate' a tablet computer now that the iPad is out? Some of those may even offer some more eye-candy - but eye-candy alone isn't going to make me buy one of them. It's the usability - the general usability for the majority of people out there (inclusive of all the non-geeks) - that needs looking at, not flashy graphics.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Michael Kristopeit]

Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

milliseconds of latency on every single executed flash bytecode instruction... billions and billions and billions of them, all of which also require electricity that will be drained from the battery.

show me a flash application that can't be written natively and function better and use less resources.

show me a flash application that without it, your phone is useless.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[beakerMeep]

milliseconds of latency on every single executed flash bytecode instruction... billions and billions and billions of them, all of which also require electricity that will be drained from the battery.

show me a flash application that can't be written natively and function better and use less resources.

show me a flash application that without it, your phone is useless.

Seems the mods are taking the axe to your posts (from two accounts?) but I wanted to reply to this one.

Interpreted code doesn't need to function as fast as native code in order to be good or useful. Look at JavaScript/Java/Python/Lisp/PHP/C#. And the software: Open Office, Eclipse, etc, etc. There are endless examples. Google Docs, Desktop Tower Defense.

The beauty of interpreted code is that it opens up a platform to developers who think differently about how they write code. And who prefer different tools. It enables rapid prototyping. And, if the end result is good, it doesn't matter if a native app is a tiny bit faster or uses a tiny bit less resources. (You really have no idea how fast Flash is on an N1 or how much battery is uses either though, do you?)

Nothing needs to be essential to a phone in order for a user to have the opportunity to try it out. How many fart apps are essential to the phone? Are you really arguing Apple should be protecting it's users from everything it deems non-essential?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds exactly like cigarettes!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Frag-A-Muffin]

And latency? Really? It's simply about protecting profits. Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

Ummm, I have (and obviously you haven't), and it's quite horrible. Perhaps *you're* ok with a program that runs that slow on any device, but if THAT is what they want to release, then please, keep it off whatever device I'm using (in this case, the iPhone). I have nothing against Android (I have a milestone as well), in fact, I love it! However, to say flash runs smoothly on the Nexus One means you're either a) delusional b) a fanboi/hater or c) both.

I guess being subjective is not cool these days. :\

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[rjch]

Can someone explain to me why Apple behaves this way? I fail to understand. What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

Not here it doesn't. Less than six months after getting an iPhone (after being unable to find an Android phone at the time that didn't have decent enough hardware that also supported the weird 850Mhz 3G frequency required by my carrier for calls outside the city) my opinion of Apple has completely reversed.

Yes, the UI is fairly well thought out and it's relatively easy to use. However the outright refusal to give people what they want grates on my nerves significantly. The promises of iOS4 just didn't deliver. Multitasking is a huge pooch-screw...

Nope. Next time work gives me the option of what phone I want, I'll be picking something Android based - assuming Oracle (a company that is rapidly developing an even worse reputation than Apple) doesn't manage to squash it first.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[noidentity]

When you've got a market locked down, people think buying your products will make them cool, and you've closed everything off so the only way out is to avoid apple

They've got the market locked down because people choose to buy their products? Kind of like how Google has the search market locked down because most people choose it for searching? I envision a day when we don't get to choose what we use, and instead are treated to a random selection of all the available alternatives. No more locked down markets, for one!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Haedrian]

I didn't mean that, I meant -

1. You need to use their hardware (smaller SIM Card, propriatry charger/connector)

2. You need to use their store to get applications

2a. You need to obey their rules to get your application there

2aI. [I'm not going into these, seriously]

-
That sort of thing is what I meant. Once you 'buy' apple what you can do with it is pretty much dictated.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Ihmhi]

I don't know about that. One is a filthy, disgusting habit that costs thousands of dollars every year and is only really done by wannabe hipsters, and the other is smoking.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[rtb61]

I'm a dreamer I envision a day when the truth is the only acceptable and legal form of advertising. Any time a company falls short of that they pay triple the profits they generated as damages and that goes into a public fund so that victims can make claims against it. In this current day and age I'd expect that fund to be worth a trillion dollars within a couple of years.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[indiechild]

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Why would having Flash running on iPhone be a threat to Apple's profits? It's not like those Flash apps/games can replace App Store apps -- Flash apps would always be less than a native app. If Flash worked properly and efficiently, I can tell you that it would've been on the iPhone already and we would not be having this debate. Steve Jobs doesn't tolerate failure or incompetence, and Flash on mobile devices has been less than spectacular so far.

Apple has draconian App Store restrictions and unwritten rules etc not because they want to protect their profits, but because that is how Steve Jobs operates. He's a control freak -- he will do anything to protect his vision of how things are supposed to be. If he's purely in it for profit, there's dozens of things he could've done differently in order to milk the cash cow to the max. But nope, that's not how Apple rolls -- Apple is the embodiment of a technology company that intersects with the Liberal Arts. Steve Jobs is the brooding, demanding and often cranky artist holding the paintbrush. The App Store is effectively a dictatorship largely run at the (sometimes changing) whims and desires of one man.

"Saving the users" or "protecting the users" is exactly the kind of thing that Steve Jobs does.

Geeks tend to claim Apple's decisions are always in the name of protecting their profits, but that's usually not the case. It's about protecting Steve's vision of how things should work. Profits come second. That's why Apple has been so successful after Steve's return. Apple was in trouble during Steve's absence precisely because they were only concerned with milking for cash, and they didn't care about quality or the user experience. Steve turned that all around. Geeks keep on screaming how Apple is the ultimate evil and how its downfall is imminent, but it won't happen as long as Steve Jobs is the CEO. He's got too strong a vision. He won't sell out.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[indiechild]

Well said. Apple products tend to be understated and a bit minimalist -- sometimes even conservative in design. It's the competitors' products that tend to be flashy and overdone.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[beh]

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks.

What is it with all the hate-mongering nowadays?

Have you also thought, that the same control also keeps the phone fairly free of malware?
You might be able to diagnose that - but most of the people outside the geek community can't.
I have a tough enough time telling people that they need to secure their PCs - you don't believe how many are out there that simply shrug and say "Why bother? I have nothing important on my computer."... The fact that their system could in turn be abused into participating in cyber-crime? "Nah... Why would anyone want to use my computer for that?"

They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

Not sure on the fixed-gear bike thing - don't have one of those. But sometimes restrictions can also be positive... Say, forcing you to rethink perspectives when using a prime lens on a camera as opposed to a zoom.

Also, sometimes the extra gears themselves can cause problems. One of the things Linux on the desktop still isn't happening, is that Linux may have all those fancy extra gears - but usability wasn't high up on the scale of important things, so the gears are in an awkward order, making them unnecessarily hard to use... (And - before you just apply your fanboi hatred on me - I have been using linux for a LONG time - since before linux 1.0 came out... I still use linux, but my desktop machine for the past 3 years has been a Mac - they're more expensive, but to ME, the extra convenience they offer on the desktop is worth it. Your mileage obviously varies...)

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[mgblst]

You are right, but your two points are just stupid.

The reason is that most people are not affected by these problems affecting developers. A casual user isn't out screaming for this app. There are already 250,000 apps in the app store, I think most people are happy with that.

Apple products are purchased because they are great devices, designed well, fantastic support, easy to use. They cost a bit more, but most people do not mind paying a bit more for a better device. Not everyone, plenty of people love shopping at Walmart getting the cheapest stuff they can.

Why you people can not understand this just makes you sound and look stupid.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[paiute]

I'm a dreamer I envision a day when the truth is the only acceptable and legal form of advertising. Any time a company falls short of that they pay triple the profits they generated as damages and that goes into a public fund so that victims can make claims against it. In this current day and age I'd expect that fund to be worth a trillion dollars within a couple of years.

And who gets to define the truth?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Sycraft-fu]

In the case of a bike variable gears are well established and nearly universally used. The reason to own a fixed gear bike is cost. It is simpler and cheaper to build. You sometimes find people who own old ones for that reason, the can be purchased cheaply and maintenance is potentially less as there is no derailleur or internal gear hub to break. However the cost advantage is not present when you buy a brand new, trendy one complete with the "bull horn" handle bars. Many of the trendy fixed gear bikes cost more than my commuter, which features a gear hub.

Sorry if you don't like the control freak assessment but it is accurate. You can argue that there are benevolent reasons behind it, however that doesn't make it any less true. Apple has always had serious control issues and as of late they've been able to expand that a lot. They dictate to you how the platform goes.

Something to consider, with relation to that, is would you be ok if Microsoft did the same thing? Suppose Microsoft allowed Windows to only run on Microsoft hardware. Suppose Microsoft wanted to be the sole apps provider for some of their devices. Would you be ok with that? If not then ask yourself why you are ok with Apple doing it. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple has any process in place to prevent them from abusing their power, and several examples of them already abusing it in one manner or another.

If you are ok with Apple doing something but not MS, that implies that your emotions, like or dislike for the companies, are influencing the decision, not logic.

Personally, I don't like a system where one person controls everything. I like it when things are more divided, where no one company has the sole deciding power over everything.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Lupu]

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks. They want absolute control over their platform. Their ultimate vision is that they'll be the source of all your media, all your apps, etc. They'll dictate how you consume stuff. Such a setup would be, needless to say, very profitable.

As for why they can get away with it, well I'd say there are two reasons:

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

2) For many of the Apple buyers these days, Apple is not a technology company but a fashion company. They largely won't admit it, but they buy them as fashion accessories. They are the "cool" product to own. As such they are purchased based on that alone. Whatever restrictions/costs accompany that are ok because they want to be cool. I see the same thing these days with fixed gear bikes. They are in with college kids (I work on campus and bike to work). They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

or 3) Their market share is sufficiently low to face antitrust investigations for monopolistic behavior.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Bert64]

That is exactly what MS does, although in a more devious manner...

The xbox already functions much like the iphone, you need to sign up (and pay) to be a developer, you must use their sdk which runs only on their os and any code you release must first be approved and signed by ms and they take a cut of any sales you make.

They do the same thing in other areas too, not by directly dictating, but through market inertia and various forms of lock-in... This is arguably worse because when people start sending proprietary formatted files around the lock-in extends to people who would prefer not to be customers of ms.
Apple on the other hand, can be totally ignored should you wish. You may have an iphone and i may not, but i will still be able to access the emails, photos, video, sms and voice calls generated by your iphone either on another type of phone or a computer.

That's not to excuse apple's behaviour, just pointing out that apple are a minor offender compared to ms here.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[WrongSizeGlass]

imagine you are a company that could benefit by making a high profile apple product look slow and buggy and prone to crashing... you release an innocent enough looking "prototyping" tool... it doesn't make applications as optimized as one's with "expensive development", or using the free native development environment, but it's dumbed down and simpler, and hey, it's just a prototype and it works... the translation isn't optimized at all, but all the buttons will do what you tell them to do... now these prototypes are going to be seen by people and the hardware will be judged by the responsiveness of the software.

The apps developed using this tool would still need to make it to the general public to tarnish the teflon reputation of an iDevice. If they are as craptastic as can be then they won't make it past the steely eyes of the apostle manning the pearly gates to the App Store.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Wooky_linuxer]

It wasn't, but AFAIK Apple was the first and is still the only one to use it. So it is a way of using a non proprietary standard that still achieves the same goal as a market lock-in tool. Apple has done this many times - mini display port, mini DVI, recessed jack on original iPhone, etc.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Mathness]

What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

This is due to the built-in smugness generator that all Apple products (and even some employees) have, one of its effect is that it reduces negative perceptions of itself and Apple within its working radius. The effect is easy to prove, simply lick the Apple logo on a device while in a public place, if people around you start to find the device creepy you have managed to find a device with a non working generator (caution: this will alert the fashion police and you might have to flee to another country just to be safe).

Rumours will have it that Jobs is currently using a beta of the smugness 2 generator which is capable of repelling gravity, and hence offer the user the ability to levitate and even fly*!

*Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) was onto this development early on when he wanted a propeller hat.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Stratoukos]

No, actually, this particular issue is one standing in the way of corporate adoption, not geek adoption. Corporate types don't want to have to hire Objective C developers - who are rare and expensive - to develop their iPhone apps. Apple, however, won't allow any other language to be implemented (other than Safari's javascript interpreter).

The language restriction applies only for App Store distribution. Software distributed internally doesn't need to go through Apple's approval process and can be written in any language.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Giometrix]

I'm in the same boat... I bought an iPad because finally someone made a portable computer in the form factor I wanted. The hardware is beautiful, but the lack of multitasking (yes, I know I'll get it soon... But it will probably still suck), lack of flash (I guess I can forgive that on a phone, but not on a laptop replacement) and subpar browser (even slashdot doesn't work 100% right), with lack of alternatives has really turned me off to apple. Also, after experiencing how android beautifully reflows text, it really makes safari seem archaic. This is not the feeling I want less than 6 months after plopping down $600 for a device...

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[BasilBrush]

So, you're saying that a company that only offers a fixed gear bike is a control freak company. Even though people can choose to buy a bike from many other companies.

And that anyone that chooses a fixed gear bicycle must be deluded/a fanboy/a hipster, because you happen to prefer a bike with gears.

Does that about cover it? Or do you have some more hatred to vent?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[dunezone]

Couldn't you say this for any developer working on any console?

I believe Nintendo and Playstation require any software coded to be certified by them, and of course they also have licensing and developer fees.

The only real difference is that Microsoft owns Windows which happens to be a preferred developer environment for all these consoles.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[MogNuts]

And above is the perfect fanboy. Rationalizing Apple's decisions.

For every one of those device's, PC did it first. And they all eventually came to every PC. The only ones that *didn't* were the ones that people said, "that's retarded and I'm not buying a new connector just for Apple." (mini-DVI, etc).

And no, Apple just wants another barrier so you only buy the IPhone through the approved way and they get a cut. Every other manufacturer has done fine with the normal SIM and don't have this problem. It's simply a case of more lock-in.

But you're the typical blind-eyed fanboy so you wouldn't realize the difference.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Moryath]

If it wasn't for Apple, PCs would probably still have RS232 and floppy drives. Again, Apple let the way there, replacing/removing obsolete technology whilst the rest of the industry were too scared to be different.

Oh please, pull the other one.

Unused ports die when their time is up. Seen a gameport off an audio board lately? Nope. Why? USB.
Seen a firewire port lately, despite all that Apple did to try to hype it up over USB? Nope. GUESS WHY.
No computer uses floppies any more because they don't have enough capacity. Heck, most computers have a DVD burner rather than CD-only for the same reason. If you really need to use a floppy, you can get a USB floppy drive for $5.

Apple doesn't "lead" the market. They produce a proprietary, closed-scale system that has a small enough market share that virus writers don't give a crap about infecting it and then claim it's "secure." And they sell it to people who have too much money and not enough common sense to compare prices on similar hardware.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[MogNuts]

Ok people we have to ignore this poster. They're just spouting drivel.

Say it with me again, "The IPhone HAS MALWARE/VIRUSES/TROJANS/IS INSECURE."

As to your other points:

1) If your parents have a problem with an Android phone, then maybe they shouldn't even be using a smartphone. How about a plain old regular cell phone?

2) MS Office is used because it actually IS superior. No knocks to OO--I use OO as my main office suite. But even I know that MS Office is superior.

3) No tablet was made because they found no one wanted a tablet. They didn't have a fanbase of stupid, gullible, brain-washed customers like Apple did. So they didn't have an audience who would buy crap just because they said so. It actually had to fill a need.

And the main kicker...

4) You spout that the ITunes/Iphone combo is easy. Have you ever used ITunes? It is the buggiest, slowest, cryptic, un-user friendly P.O.S. out there. I think the only worse piece of software made other than ITunes is--you guessed it--Quicktime. Again from Apple.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[the_womble]

So if tight vendor control equals security, my Linux laptop must be incredibly insecure?

I have a tough enough time telling people that they need to secure their PCs - you don't believe how many are out there that simply shrug and say "Why bother? The fact that their system could in turn be abused into participating in cyber-crime?

The only solution would be to allow victims to sue people who are negligent with security.

Also, if people do not care about security, why would they buy Macs because they are secure?

The reason for the hatred is that people find it very annoying to be told what they can and cannot do with their own property.

As for Mac vs Linux, you are quite right that YMMV: I never really saw what the convenience advantage of MacOS is.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[MogNuts]

Wrong. 100%. Remember when the first IPhone came out and *everything* in his vision was HTML apps?

If he truly felt he is protecting the users, then he should fix the malware problem on the IPhone.

If he truly felt he is protecting the users, he should fix all the insecure ways of protecting your computer on MacOS X. Imagine that. Win7 has better security mechanisms than MacOS now.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[pnewhook]

i never said the issue was with interpreted code. apple never said anything... let alone this being about interpreted code.... the REAL question is why are YOU talking about interpreted code?

From headline

The app had got into trouble for what Apple believes is being able to run interpreted code

From article

No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[BasilBrush]

I agree with most of your post. However a couple of points struck me...

No, actually, this particular issue is one standing in the way of corporate adoption, not geek adoption. Corporate types don't want to have to hire Objective C developers - who are rare and expensive - to develop their iPhone apps. Apple, however, won't allow any other language to be implemented (other than Safari's javascript interpreter).

The answer to your problem is the brackets. Most corporate mobile app needs would be satisfied with a web app tailored to the appropriate screen size for an iPhone or iPad.

I'm not sure in what way a mobile botnet is any worse than a static one.

SMS/MMS spam?

Sure, I see your point, but when it comes down to it you can make the same argument for your desktop computer... why run the risk of installing malware by mistake? Let's get a PC which will only install software that's been approved by Microsoft.

By that comparison, Apple's restrictions seem unreasonable. However you could also do a comparison with games consoles and Apple's policy seems very reasonable. Games consoles software is far more restricted than iOS software is. Yet consoles have regained their position as premier games platforms from the PC. Why is that? Because for developers, the advantages of developing for the consoles far outweigh the disadvantages, so they put most of their development budgets towards console games, and so consoles end up with most of the best games. Consoles offer them stable hardware configurations, a good route to market provided they stick to the rules, and a far higher chance that they will get paid vs PC games. All these advantages apply to iPhone developers too.

You seem to be missing something, which is the large number of people who were already working on tablet computers before Apple even announced the iPad. Several manufacturers released devices in a similar factor before the iPad was released (e.g. Asus's T91). Microsoft have been working with numerous manufacturers on similar devices since the late 90s. It's hardly a new idea.

Tablet PCs are indeed an old idea, and they have never sold. The Asus you mention is very much in that vein of non-selling tablet PCs. The iPad isn't a tablet PC. Apple innovated in finding a form for tablets that IS desirable: A purpose made mobile/touch UI, building up from a mobile phone rather than modifying from a desktop. Decent battery life. Constantly connected via the cellular network. It's the iPad form that manufacturers are now racing to copy. Building up from Android phones rather than down from Windows/Linux laptops. Tablet PCs are going to become even more niche than they already are. Virtually no one is going to built them. It's now become clear that the market wasn't resistant to tablets. It was just resistant to PCs and or desktop OSs in tablet form.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[jedidiah]

> If it wasn't for Apple, PCs would probably still have RS232 and floppy drives.
> Again, Apple let the way there, replacing/removing obsolete technology whilst
> the rest of the industry were too scared to be different. ...the "Apple invented USB" fallacy again.

Infact, Intel bundled USB ports on all of their motherboards before Windows even
bothered supporting it. All Apple did was to FORCE THE ISSUE by making it impossible
to use legacy ports (including their own) and to leave everyone in the lurch (including
their own fanboys) scrambling to deal with artificially obsoleted hardware.

Each revision of the Mini seems to have yet a different video port. You need a different
dongle for each one to hook them up to normal monitors. It's bloody annoying and in no
way "innovative" or "progressive".

It's just stupid and bad engineering. ...and some PCs still have RS-232C ports. For some things, there's really no substitute.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[terwey]

You seem to be missing something, which is the large number of people who were already working on tablet computers before Apple even announced the iPad. Several manufacturers released devices in a similar factor before the iPad was released (e.g. Asus's T91). Microsoft have been working with numerous manufacturers on similar devices since the late 90s. It's hardly a new idea.

Great there were TV's before Philips made them watchable. The point is not WHO STARTED it, it's WHO MADE IT USABLE. I've owned 4 different brands of MP3 players (not counting the MP3 portable CD player that had to be imported directly from the factory) which all pissed me the fuck off EVERY time I had to either: look for a song, change the volume or do something else which is BASIC shit. Then I bought an iPod and back then I was very wary of Apple. But hey, everyone loved it so... gotta have a reason right? Well guess what, it fuckin worked and kept working after I sold it to someone (current status unknown, it got stolen) so I could buy the latest-gen (more space! hooray!).

Same goes with OSX, you can bitch and moan all you want but the fact simply is: I replaced the Ubuntu (and before Windows) machine with an iMac at my mother's and now suddenly she's sending me emails with links of friggin websites she made with photos on it that she edited herself! How much I explained? Well NOTHING. Before every week something came up that either didn't work as expected or... she couldn't figure out how to do something....

The iPhone made my life so much fuckin better, sure it has it flaws but do they weigh more then the pro's? Hell no. It's the first fuckin (smart)phone ever I had that didn't require me going through 5 fuckin menu's to set an alarm clock. I've owned S60 and WM in the past and holy shit what a retarted messed up fuckin things can some developers come up with. No I don't first want to go to "Menu" -> "Extra" -> "Clock" -> "Alarms" -> "Set alarms" -> "Activate alarm". Hello?! It's a fuckin alarm clock, the goddamn thing on my nightstand HAS ONE SWITCH! Email on the S60 was horrible, even more so on WM.

I jumped the iPhone bandwagon when the 3GS was released since it was a moment I could afford one. One year later... well how many times has it pissed me off? Quite a lot. But considering that's maybe once every month/two months as opposed to every frigging time I want to do something on EVERY OTHER PHONE I EVER OWNED?! Amazing.
Ok so, Apple took a phone and made it an iPhone. zomgwtfhax it can't be good and everyone claims they invented touchscreen and phones and crap! No, they just made it usable.

Cue the iPad: same fuckin story. Tablets were out there but have you actually ever USED one?! Virtual keyboard popped out, time to bust out the pen and start tapping... handwriting recognition: orly? So basically you had a retarded laptop cause the CPU's were always shit in the tablets (no idea why) fun tho show to people but usability: zero. Sure some people liked it but some people also think Britney Spears was actually a good singer.
Everyone makes the jokes of the iPad just being a larger version of the iPhone: guess what? it is! BRILLIANT! All iPhone users have immediate recognition to the device and just start working on it right away. Great thing is though, since the iPhone was something you could give to a total idiot and he was able to figure out how to use it: SAME GOES FOR THE IPAD!
OSX on a tablet? Sure sounds sweet, usable? I think not. This is the perfect middleground for me between the smartphone and laptop. I bring my Macbook when I go on business trips cause somethings I have to get crackin and do some typing. But chillin in the lounge and want to read the latest news? iPad.

[/rant] Sorry I just can't take fuckin nerd-zealots who claim that just because a device with the same "general concept" existed before so the newer one can't add anything to the concept. Well throw away your fuckin CD's, DVD's, BluRays etc. Let's all start rockin the cr

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Moryath]

You're joking.

USB was introduced in 1995. It was present - STANDARD - on every machine and motherboard a year later when I was comparing prices. The iMac G3 wasn't released until 1998.

Yes, there were other ports on those machines. There were other ports on the iMac G3 as well, a pair of firewire ports that went to... uhm... a few crappy, barely-even-apple-compatible cameras, and maybe a few specially designed keyboards that worked better with a standard MIDI interface anyways.

To claim that a shitty little closed-box unit with a hockey-puck mouse, crappy OS (System 8... gah that makes me want to puke just thinking about it) and that barely could hold 1% of the computer market somehow "created the market for USB peripherals" is just fucking stupid.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[beakerMeep]

I have an N1 so yes, I have seen the speed of it, and its far from abysmal. I also think it's 'cooler' to hate on flash these days for whatever that's worth so spare us the lone voice angle. But my point was.that it runs well enough for.people to want to use it. But if you really want something more objective, as of right now Flash player has a 4.5 out of 5 star rating on the android market. With over 13 k reviews. This is a higher rating than last.FM and Pandora. It may run poorly on a Milestone thoguh are you on froyo yet? How fast do you expec it to run. Btw saying someone is delusional or a fanboy means you are either a) lying about the performance or b) immature and judgemental about differing opinions reducing them into categories you understand.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[recoiledsnake]

Submitter here. I included that line in the summary because of the information from a previous blog entry at http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/659211315/almost-on-the-app-store

Last week, after initially submitting on May 7th, I received a phone call from Apple to update me on the status of my submission.

The gentleman on the phone was courteous and polite, but his message was blunt. While I had not been officially rejected (at least, not yet), he asked me some questions and hoped to manage my expectations. Based on the information available to him, the reviewers believed Briefs contained a non-Apple interpreter and the first team initially rejected it for non-compliance with section 3.3.2 of the iPhone Developer Agreement. I’m still waiting to hear their final decision.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[theRiallatar]

Ironically enough, we have a stack of USB to RS-232 connectors here at the office. You still need them to access the console on most SMB+ firewalls and managed switches from Cisco, 3COM and a variety of other vendors. They still do it because the technology's cheap and when you're doing console, you don't need a lot of bandwidth.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Unused ports die when their time is up. Seen a gameport off an audio board lately? Nope. Why? USB.

Why did USB become viable? Firewire/400. It wasn't until USB2 when peripherals beyond a mouse and keyboard became viable. USB2 was created as a competitive answer to Firewire/400.

Seen a firewire port lately, despite all that Apple did to try to hype it up over USB? Nope. GUESS WHY.

I guess because you haven't bothered to look. Firewire is used to transfer video from HD digital camcorders (called iLink by the Sony folks). Firewire was also built in to a couple of ASUS motherboards I purchased for work lately. Not to mention the Firewire ports that Apple still uses on their machines. Firewire actually has higher data throughput and less CPU load then USB2. USB3 and Firewire/800 may be replaced when Intel introduces LightPeak with Apple reportedly signing on as its earliest adopter.

No computer uses floppies any more because they don't have enough capacity. Heck, most computers have a DVD burner rather than CD-only for the same reason. If you really need to use a floppy, you can get a USB floppy drive for $5.

The PC always came with a floppy drive despite the size limitation. We needed them because a particular version of a Windows OS needed the floppy to boot for installation. Also, the corporate suits liked the concept of the floppy for legacy reasons.

The floppy removal was a cost saving move after Windows 2000 and the ability to boot from CD-ROM. Dell gradually removed the floppy from their computers by charging $15 extra instead of making it standard.

Just because your PC compatible doesn't have a floppy attached doesn't necessarily mean that the motherboard no longer has the floppy I/O connector or the BIOS settings.

Apple doesn't "lead" the market. They produce a proprietary, closed-scale system that has a small enough market share that virus writers don't give a crap about infecting it and then claim it's "secure." And they sell it to people who have too much money and not enough common sense to compare prices on similar hardware.

Why should you care who leads? I never quite understand the Apple haters and their insistence of spewing stereotypes and the myth of overpriced computers. Can you by a PC machine for less price? Yes. Will it have the same features? Maybe. Will have the quality and support of an Apple computer? No.

I find it especially funny when people who dump on Apple computers over the price, drive to work in a BMW, Lexus, Acura, etc. You can drive to work in a Hyundai Sonata for much less money.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[TheRaven64]

It's not about Flash specifically, it's about portable code. I used Windows from 3.0 to 2000, via 3.11 and NT4. I no longer have a Windows machine at all, and the thing that enabled me to switch was the fact that I'd been running cross-platform apps on Windows. I could run exactly the same apps on Windows and FreeBSD (the two platforms that I used at home). When I got a Mac, I could run the same programs there too.

Every time a discussion about people switching to Linux comes up, you always find that they have one Windows-only app that they can't live without. Apple wants to create the same experience on the iPhone. If you can run exactly the same applications on an Android phone and an iPhone, for example, that makes it much easier for your next phone not to be an iPhone.

Even if the iPhone is better, there eventually comes a point when a one-generation-old Android phone is cheaper and there's no advantage in buying a new iPhone. Hopefully, by this point, you will have at least one app that doesn't run on any other platform and that you consider indispensable, so you'll buy a new iPhone instead of a competitor's phone.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[webheaded]

Actually he was implying most of those fell under "this is retarded and I'm not buying this just for Apple." Most useful technologies (like USB for example) were NOT done first by Apple. All the examples you listed were Apple taking some standard and just making it smaller before anyone else and then being the only people selling cables. I don't see the point of a micro-SIM card or any of these "same thing but smaller lol" versions unless it actually becomes a standard and everyone jumps on board.

I don't really see many areas where Apple started a standard. If it's a standard, then everyone implements it usually. Most of what Apple does is bullshit lock-in and cables that cost 10x as much as they should.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way?

[M. D. Kristopeit]

you partisanly or conveniently forgot to quote the next sentence in the story where it was quite obviously pointed out that THE ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERPRETED CODE. the issue is translation, where the maintainer of the translation layer is entrusted with ultimately controlling the end user experience. apple is not willing to allow developers to trade in user experience for a non-standard development process.

Read the license

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if this technically qualifies as open source, and it's not Free Software, because of this line in the license:

"The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
    sold without meaningful modification for a profit. "

Re:Read the license

[silentcoder]

>Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?

The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.

How can I put this ? If it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck - then the fact that it's waterbird isn't enough to make it a duck.

Even stranger...

[beakerMeep]

In his blog post about it he has this "aw shucks, time to go write some apps Apple will approve" attitude.

It strikes me as the psycho ex gf/bf who cant accept Apple broke up with them and refuses to mail order a new Android companion (or at least get a RIM job)

/yeah, this post went in a completely different direction from where it started

Three months is nothing.

[Professr3]

Three months is nothing compared to QA times for the T-Mobile Sidekick. Small teams can't afford to wait a year from submission to first profits, especially when you're writing software on spec (not sure if it'll even be allowed onto the platform). When you outsource your QA and pay them per bug they find, you're going to get a lot of non-bugs and a lot of repeats, and the developer is going to get pissed. I know my team and I did.

Welcome to the mobile software industry, where your target platform doesn't care about you because there are 600,000 other developers who'll bend over and take it if you won't.

Re:his product

[Anonymous Coward]

As you say, the app allows one to create wireframe prototypes, but those prototypes are not usable in any sense. So it isn't the same situation as Adobe allowing Flash to be compiled into apps.

The reason the app was rejected initially was for allowing the "execution" of code that could be loaded from outside the app. However, the "code" was nothing but an XML document that was read into the app and used to construct interfaces. In fact, the XML document even used Apple's "property list" format, and was simply loaded directly into an NSDictionary.

The insane part of this whole thing is that had the developer not given his "code" files a unique extension (he used .briefslist I believe), and had changed the wording in his instructions just slightly, the app probably would have gotten through fine. Others have noted that there are live apps that do essential the same thing that Briefs wanted to do.

What is so hard to understand? MS does the SAME

[SmallFurryCreature]

And so does Sony AND Nintendo. I am of course talking about game consoles. Closed platforms where the owner of the platform (not you dear consumer sheep) decides what gets to run on it.

Apple has made the decision to follow the console model rather then the PC model. That is their choice. Your choice as a consumer is whether you choose to buy it or not. Your choice is NOT to force Apple to go another way other then through voting with your dollars.

Why has Apple made this decision? One of the many stupid mistakes MS has made in its lifetime is to allow Emails to contains executable code. For the email reader, the application to run external code. Abobe is regularly blamed for doing the same with PDF's. Lots of people here claim that data should not contain code. So when Apple decides that it does not want the option on ITS platform for 3rd party apps to run totally unknown 4th party code, of course they are COMPLETLY wrong in doing so...

Apple has made a reputation for itself by having a better, more solid, hassle free user experience. But how has it gotten this? Partially by its users being UNABLE to install the crap they do under windows. IF the mac platform got the same kind of malware and cripple ware attention as the PC, it would be just as bad an experience, with DRM overwriting sectors on the HD it has no business overwriting.

Is Apple right in believing that a controlled environment makes for a better user experience? Who knows, what I do know is that they sell millions of iPhones. People are voting with their dollars. Apparently they like SOMETHING about the iPhone more then they don't like.

Don't buy/develop for a closed platform and then complain it is closed. That is like breaking into a prison and then complaining they won't let you go.

To be clear: The code is visible, but not FOSS

[Qubit]

The Briefs code is now up on GitHub, and yes, you can go look at it, however it's not "Open Source" (per OSI), it's not "Free Software" (per the FSF), and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

If you look at the commit history for the license, he even explicitly changed the license two days ago to make it less free:

2010-08-28
Modified license terms to disallow someone from reselling Briefs without making major modifications. Also protect the Briefs trademark. Still, free source code, huh? Not too shabby.

Prior to two days ago, the code was under the... well, I'm not exactly sure what license!

Here's the license (the first paragraph is a dead ringer for the opening of the MIT License):

Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Rob Rhyne
Briefs is a trademark of Digital Arch Design Corp.
http://robrhyne.com/
http://digitalarch.net/
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction except as noted below, including without limitation
the rights to use,copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
and/or sublicense, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Here's the non-FOSS part:

The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
sold without meaningful modification for a profit.

This is more of the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This middle part looks like the BSD license:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.

Actually, there are only two clauses there, so that's essentially the 2-clause BSD, not the 3-clause one (just a minor point, really).

Then we get the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause. Lawyers seem to love these things, but they seem so uncouth to me. Anyhow, for 5 points, from which license was this paragraph chosen?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's right! It's the indemnification clause from the MIT license.

I googled around trying to figure out if other people used this same license, but the best I came up with was the NCSA license. It's unlikely that this license is based off that one, as the phrase to deal in the Software (MIT) is used in this new license instead of to deal with the Software (NCSA).

One more thing: let's point out exactly why the license doesn't pass any of the most popular FOSS metrics:

1) "Open Source" (per OSI)

Per

Re:To be clear: The code is visible, but not FOSS

[Shoe Puppet]

Here's the previous licence

Re:his product

[Penguinisto]

"...this allows you to make better apps faster."

To be honest, this seems pretty subjective. It also misses the definition of "better" - is it "better" as in the app has better performance than a native-built app? Is it "better" as in it can have more features than a native-built app?

"Apple has said they want to be completely in control of the development environment, and anything that threatens to take away that control will not be allowed. "

Can't blame 'em in this case, at least from an objective viewpoint. The phone's reputation relies a lot on the apps' reputation. Apps that hang, or run slow, or basically sucks the battery dry in short order affects the users' perception of the phone. If that perception is destroyed by a bug in this particular app causing a raft of apps that basically suck (not in content, but performance, efficiency, etc)? For Apple, that would suck - far better to have flaws in an API, runtime, or etc that they themselves can fix in short order, than to stumble across flaws that they'd have to beg a third party to fix. It also leaves open a trap that Microsoft is stumbling on with each new version of Windows: Compatibility/Legacy issues. Given that there isn't too much capacity on a smartphone for Moore's Law to cover bloat, you can't just code your way out of a legacy issue - especially those caused by some third party build/prototyping app.

Apple's stance is pretty simple, really: If you want to build an iPhone app, learn to write code and do it your own damned self. The tools are free. The store fees are dirt cheap.

Personally, vote with your wallet. Android phones (esp. thanks to Verizon's BOGO deals and a far larger pool of manufacturers) are selling like mad right now. iPhones are still selling like mad right now. May the market determine the best model...

Karma accumulating?

[steveha]

How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?

Apple has done a fabulous job of polishing the iPhone and iPad. If you really want the best available phone, and you aren't too choosy about your freedom, you buy Apple.

Sure, they won't get my money because I refuse to pay a company to tell me what software I may and may not install on my own device. That's okay, they don't care about me. But the more time goes by, the more stories like this one come to light. How much of this before people start to view Apple not so much as the hip, cool company but rather as the controlling, evil company?

And stories like this one are inevitable, because Apple is exerting such a high degree of control. The approval process isn't a simple rubber-stamp thing. The more innovative and unusual an app is, the harder it is for Apple to decide whether it gives the user too much freedom. In this case, I would guess that the problem is that an app for mocking up new apps is a little too much like an emulator, and Apple can't quite make up its collective mind whether this is a sort of emulator or not. (I can't even guess why Apple approved other app mockup apps while letting this one languish.)

So, the more time goes by, the more wronged people there will be. I guess as long as the majority of Apple customers are happy, and the majority of app developers aren't mistreated too much, the Apple brand will be undiminished.

But you know, if he had released his app for Android, it would be on the market now. He could even make an Android app for mocking up iPhone apps! I wish he would, just for the irony value.

steveha

Re:Karma accumulating?

[khchung]

How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?

Well, the funny thing is how many people in /. who actually believe that these news will hurt Apple at all.

Look, to 99.9% of iPhone's target market, these news means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If anything, these news will be taken as a sign that the App Store is working! "Wow, those guys at Apple are really taking the time to approve the apps and not just let everything pass to boost the number of apps!"

I do software development for a living, and I own an iPhone. Even I do not care about these news. There are already more apps available than I can ever use, I am all for anything that Apple do that might increase the quality of the apps available rather than quantity. Even if those actions may turn some developers away.

But you know, if he had released his app for Android, it would be on the market now. He could even make an Android app for mocking up iPhone apps! I wish he would, just for the irony value.

Yes he could do that, but good luck trying to earn much money from Android's app store, where lots of Android users can't even pay him even if they wanted to because payment from their country is not yet supported on the store!

As an iPhone owner, I am willing to PAY for high quality apps. More importantly, I am ABLE to pay for the apps, and very conveniently too. Money is what lures developers to the platform, and fewer higher quality apps will draw more money than a hundreds of sloppy apps.

I KNEW IT WAS A LIBERAL PLOT!!!

[BigMeanBear]

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

So we're in agreement here? This is yet moar evidence of the elite liberal media slant!

Re:Hey timothy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. It's okay. Read at -1 and skim. Still lots better than most everyplace else.

Quibble - you mean "dynamic" code

[alispguru]

I agree with the primary idea above, but wish people would stop conflating languages and implementation details.

JavaScript/Java/Python/Lisp/PHP/C# are languages. Interpreted code is a method commonly used for early implementation of languages, and it is usually replaced by better methods as implementations mature.

Saying that language X is inherently slow because "it's interpreted" is wrong, but sounds superficially convincing enough to allow pointy-haired people to reject languages without really understanding the issues.