Dear EFF, "If you've got a better way to make ice..."
If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it.
The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference.
Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else.
I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers. They are merely enumerating how that happens, so that developers who are unaware of the strict contract they signed understand what freedom they gave away just to put an app in the app store.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.
Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where this leads?)
Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of users and developers.
From my perspective, users and developers have MORE freedom now with the advent of the iPhone than they had before it was introduced.
Before it was introduced, you had NO FREEDOM at all to develop, sell or use iPhone apps. Now, you have freedom to develop them under certain conditions that are not as free as possible in an EFF-idealized world, but to say that the introduction of the iPhone strictly takes away freedom I think is wrong.
Maybe you shouldn't think so much about your freedom as about maximizing the total freedom. If that means you can't do everything you want, too bad.
When people in the US talk about freedom, they seem to only focus on the freedom of them to do what they want and disregard the possibility that their actions might have side effects.
First, I am not in US.
Second, I don't see how limiting everyone's freedom maximizes it. Nor do I think that imposing some particular understanding of freedom does that.
Consider me releasing my code under GPL in one case and MIT in another. Which leads to maximization of freedom for those who may be interested in reusing it?
My comment was just an observation of common rhetoric here, not a direct response to you.
But re: limiting freedom: Do you think that giving everyone the freedom to kill people would be a net improvement of the freedoms of people when you take into account that people who are killed don't have any freedom at all.
It's so easy to say that freedom means that "I should be able to do what I want without regard for others". But thinking of freedom only in the active sense is an extremely naive idea of freedom. What about my freedom to remain free of the consequences of your actions?
Concrete example 1: SUVs disproportionately transfer risk to the occupants of smaller vehicles in the event of a collision. Is someone's freedom to choose to drive an SUV more important than my freedom to drive a Miata without undue risk of being killed by your SUV? Why do you think your lifestyle choice should be more important than mine?
Concrete example 2: In the US, some people think it's an essential freedom to be allowed to own firearms. This has lead to a proliferation of firearms which means that the US has the highest rate of gunshot deaths of any modern country. Why should people's freedom to own a firearm be more important than my freedom to go about my business without worrying about getting shot?
My point is: there's always a tradeoff. Not acknowledging that tradeoff is either disingenuous or naive.
It's so easy to say that freedom means that "I should be
able to do what I want without regard for others".
I never said anything like that. I am talking code, not SUVs and firearms there.
I don't want some RMS or EFF or FSF telling others what they can and cannot do with my code just because they have some weird image of freedom.
They're not telling you that. License your own code under whatever license you want.
When you use my code I want you to be restricted. I want you to make all your changes publicly available to everyone, and if you make a hardware device that runs my code, I want you to make it possible for users to modify my code and be able to run it on that device.
If you don't want to agree to my conditions, don't run my code.
But this isn't about taking away freedom; I want there to be more freedom. Because of the conditions I impose, anyone can build off your work in addition to my work. More code, more freedom.
> I want you to make all your changes publicly available to everyone […]
This phrasing was careless: it sounds like you want to prevent private modifications (freedom 1).
You're not the only one to make this mistake. Because of it, many people think the GPL forbids private modifications. Many don't like it because of this misconception, so we should mind our words.
Your question is biased. I'd say only this: if the GPL gets in your way, that's because you want to distribute proprietary software, right? But if you care about freedom, why on Earth would you take it away from your users?
I still don't understand. Please be explicit: what would you want to do that the GPL prevents you to do? Don't say "I want to distribute under another licence". If that's your reason, I would like to know why you would want to distribute under another licence (and beware circular reasoning). If you have another reason, please tell me because really, I have no idea.
Hard to define, I know. But I'm sure you agree that giving you the freedom to imprison people at will does not result in a net increase of freedom when you take into account the people affected by that.
Since the dawn of smartphones (or J2ME feature phones before that), the Symbian and Windows Mobile development was free for all game. No NDAs, no contract, just download the SDK, develop and distribute whatever you want.
That changed with RIM and Apple. After these, Symbian also began to act stupidly with their Symbian Signed initiative.
I'm pretty sure that the Symbian Signed initiative was launched a number of years before the iPhone was announced and both RIM and Qualcomm have had paid app signing for the Blackberry and BREW platforms respectively for even longer.
While there's much to criticise about Apple's approach with the App Store, I don't think it was unreasonable to require app signing and a developer fee in return for getting your apps hosted and easily available on the App Store. I would prefer it if there was also an alternative distribution mechanism available, but that aside I don't have any problem with the App Store as a concept.
You are right, Symbian Signed was launched in 2005, it was new feature in Symbian 9/Series60 v3.
The difference was, that Symbian Signed aimed for accountability - they wanted to trace back, who made which binary. They didn't really cared what the binary did, just in case of malware, there was accountability. You got your certificate upfront and in 99% cases, they didn't care what you are going to write and how you intend to distribute it. The rest 1% (still hugely inflated number) was, when you requested root-like capabilities (i.e. you would have a way to mess with hardware or DRM directly), then they wanted to hear your business case.
BREW platform was, to put it bluntly, non-player on non-market (US was at the time considered backward contry mobile-wise and the rest of the world ignored BREW). RIM was never popular among third-party developers, and among users everyone was buying BB for the messaging, nobody cared for third-party apps.
I do have problem with Apple's approach with the App Store. I think it is unreasonable to be bridge-watching troll between me and my device. IF there was a way to sideload unsigned or self-signed binaries, that would be not a problem, but App Store is the only way to put app on the device, and this way is gated. If the App Store was optional (althrough still preferred or popular) way, I would not have problem with paying for hosting and cataloging apps.
"I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is 'abusing' developers".
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA (who signed it to be able to upload their NASA app). So, in one sense, you only get to "hear" about this contract if people like EFF actually do some pretty clever workarounds to obtain the document. Secondly, the very fact that public bodies are agreeing to this document make it something that I'd like to know more about. After all, they're signing it on our behalf.
Well, it's worth pointing out that the only way that EFF could get hold (and publicise) this document was by freaking FOIA'ing NASA
Why should it be any different? It's reasonable that the contract should be available that way for the reasons you state but you seem to be implying it was unreasonable for it to not be public even when it didn't concern a public entity. Do you feel that all contracts between two private parties should be public information?
Implementing what? It would be a copy of the current store, just with a much higher crap volume. Hell, they could even take 50% of the price of the apps for the crapstore.
They'd have to add a second data source in iTunes (a config file most likely) and probably unhardcode some URL's in the backend to the appstore where they hardlink to things.
Additionally, they'd have to make a copy of their appstore app and point it at the crapstore.
There are so many things wrong..... So, let me got back to the most important numbers in computing 0,1, and many. Transitioning any software from one of those numbers to another is generally a pain in the rear and requires a lot of testing, programming, and resources.
If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party developers do with it, by all means, go for it.
The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade. Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them viable, it is their system that is the difference.
Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else.
I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe this is true then there are other options for you out there.
I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory about using or coding for the iPhone.