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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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.

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. "

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

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