Apple Drops iPhone Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

[James-RSX]

Not the case in software - rejected iPhone Apps didn't get a chance to see the light of day. If Apple reject your app, you can't go to the next publisher ( or website ) to offer your goods as you can any other smartphone O/S or operating system. So, its not the same.

I'm sorry, but any developer that entered into iPhone development without knowing that there is a chance Apple may deny your application, which was stated during the announcement for the initial SDK beta, is a fool. Knowing this fact, a developer would have to decide if they wanted to spend the time creating an application on the chance that it may NEVER see the iPhone home screen. If they chose to go ahead, and the app got rejected, tough noogies.

Now please don't get me wrong, I think Apple could do a MUCH better job in stating what they will and will not reject, but ultimately, it's not like no one knew that their app might not pass the test.

I would like to see Apple start a pre-approval system for apps. That way, you send them an outline of what your app will do, possibly even some screen shots or general screen layout drawings, and they reply with a "continue" or "don't bother" stamp.

Under this system, there would still have to be the final approval stage since I'm SURE some of the developers would take advantage and try to add some of the things that have gotten apps rejected to date to their programs after the pre-approval. At least in a system like this, a developer would not have to spend the 1000s of hours (a number I don't agree with but alot are thowing it around as the general app development time) only to find out they've been rejected.

 

[Radam]

Now can someone please at least attempt to make a MMS app? Its getting a bit ridiculous that there isn't one yet.

 

[James-RSX]

That's the price to play the game. It works the same in almost any business model.

Not really.
For instance, as a service company in the IT industry, we compete with each others based on *proposals*. No sane client would require us to develop a full solution before it would decide to pick it or not. Such a client would never find any contractor.
What you describe might be acceptable for students or hobbyist looking for some quick cash with an investment of a few weeks of their free time. It's not acceptable for business seeking to make money by developing real applications that measures in man-months or even man-years.
That's why the current stance of Apple is artificially limiting the AppStore market to toy applications. The business model can't support real complex applications, because they take too much ressources and money to build and then the risk is too high. Best to focus on yet another torchlight or todo application...

I don't disagree with you, any highly technical app will require many man-hours to develop and most companies would not create the app without a contract.

On that same line of thinking, do you think the fart app was done by a professional company or a freelancer? How about podcaster? The other main one, NetShare??, would be closer to a pro app. Ok, lets look one by one shall we:

Pull My Finger:

1. A totally useless app, crude to some, but not unlike the many useless apps already in the store
2. Most likely done by a "freelancer" since no professional shop would release something like this
3. I highly doubt it took 1000s of hours to develop

PodCaster:

1. Useful to some
2. Allowed over the air syncing of podcasts, which violated the SDK guidleines
3. Most likely done by a freelancer, since a professional shop would either seek better clarification before proceeding
4. The response from the developer after rejection was not "professional"

NetShare???:

1. Useful to most likely many
2. Allowed tethering the iPhone to your laptop to provide an internet connection
3. Probably took a considerable amount of time to develop, although I believe this came from the jailbreak community, so some code may have already been completed and just ported over
4. This one is more likely to come from not quite a freelancer but not quite a professional shop either
5. Did not violate any Apple policies, but did violate the policies of AT&T and some other service providers

In all these cases, they took the chance that the app would be allowed, some knowing (or they SHOULD have known) that it would be rejected because of blatant violations. They decided to gamble that it would get through and they could make their money.

Best case, your app gets accepted, the public want it and you make oodles of money, as we've already seen with some apps.

Again, that's thinking at best as a freelancer. "Oodles" of money looks just like regular money for a normal sized company.

From the responses of some of the rejected developers, I cannot class them as "a normal size company". I have a hard time classing them as "freelancers", as even a freelancer would have a certain level of professionalism. If I had to give a definition, it would be more like a spoiled child. "I brought my own toys but you're not letting me play in your toy box. I'm gonna tell mom"

Also, iPhone developers are free to develop ANY app that they care to.

Errrr, no, they can't. The SDK doesn't expose everything. There are some parts of the iPhone that are still off-limit, including critical parts such as the music library or the agenda. Likewise, you can't build background applications, you can't build applications that react to external network events unless they're active...
Likewise, the current Apple policy doesn't allow for some kind of applications, such as plugins (Flash), launchers (Java) or GPS (TomTom).
So, the freedom is very relative... It's like saying a prisonner is perfectly free to walk around his 3x3 cell however he fancies to. Sure, he is, but I wouldn't call that "freedom"...

Ok, I should have clarified that statement a bit more by saying "Also, iPhone developers are free to develop ANY app that they care to so long as it follows the SDK guidlines".

Any parts that are off limits, such as the music library or the agenda, are just that...off limits. Everyone was told background applications wouldn't be allowed when the SDK was released, if you didn't pay attention, that's your problem. (***Please read you and your as referring to ANY developer, not specifically you***) Also, we were told Apple will be releasing a push service that could be accessed by some apps to alert a user to activity, much like leaving the app running in the background but easier on the battery.

This hasn't been released yet, but it is coming. If you want it, wait.

Finally, plugins (Flash), launchers (Java) and GPS (TomTom) as you state were all specifically mentioned in the SDK as not allowed. I don't see the problem. If you don't like the rules, develop for the jailbreak community. They have access to all (or at least most) of what you mention above.

 

[MacOldTimer!]

I don't disagree with you, any highly technical app will require many man-hours to develop and most companies would not create the app without a contract.

On that same line of thinking, do you think the fart app was done by a professional company or a freelancer? How about podcaster? The other main one, NetShare??, would be closer to a pro app. Ok, lets look one by one shall we:

Pull My Finger:

1. A totally useless app, crude to some, but not unlike the many useless apps already in the store
2. Most likely done by a "freelancer" since no professional shop would release something like this
3. I highly doubt it took 1000s of hours to develop

That's part of the point to this debate. Just because you don't find "pull my finger" useful you find it OK for Apple to arbitrarily remove it.

Many people have found the joke funny for years.

Koi Pond in my opinion is totally useless but it has been one of the top applications from the day it was posted.

Pull my finger doesn't break any of Apple's rules for iPhone development.

When Apple can be judge and jury as you have been in your reply it doesn't give developers any reason to try and get Apples approval when they can openly develop for a number of other mobile platforms now.

This is the main reason the App Store is full of Tip Calculators and Flashlights.
Why would a developer (unless your a gamer, which I'm not) develop for the iPhone.

My 2G & 3G iPhones are going to quickly fall behind other phones coming to the market because Apple gives no reason for developers to take the chance on possibly being accepted.

 

[firewood]

any highly technical app will require many man-hours to develop and most companies would not create the app without a contract.

How quickly you forget the PC and dotcom era's, when billions of dollars were spent developing highly technical hardware and software without any contracts or customers signed-up. Or the biotech industry, where a company can invest 100's of millions and end up with a profitable cure for something, or just another vat of toxic substance (depending on the FDA's rulings). Some of the companies that took these risks are still around and doing quite well.


.

 

[James-RSX]

When Apple can be judge and jury as you have been in your reply it doesn't give developers any reason to try and get Apples approval when they can openly develop for a number of other mobile platforms now.

This is the main reason the App Store is full of Tip Calculators and Flashlights.
Why would a developer (unless your a gamer, which I'm not) develop for the iPhone.

My 2G & 3G iPhones are going to quickly fall behind other phones coming to the market because Apple gives no reason for developers to take the chance on possibly being accepted.

Wouldn't the fact that an app made $250,000 in about 2 months give any developer enough reason to try and get Apple's approval? It would for me. But I guess, if someone were independantly wealthy, it might not be enough incentive.

This very well could be the reason for so many Tip Calculators and Flashlights as you say. But couldn't another reason be that they are VERY EASY to develop and quickly get into the store, thereby making money for the developer? Wouldn't a more complicated application take months to write, troubleshoot, and test before it showed up in the store? Hmmmm, how long has the store been open???? Oh yeah, not quite 3 months.

If you're so fearful of your 2G and 3G iPhones falling behind, sell them and move to one of the hot moving, better than sliced bread phone platforms you keep referring to. While you're moving, let me know the address of that awesome Android app store will you? I hear they have millions of great, useful applications.

While your at it, you might want to send an update on the great, closed source, open system Windows Mobile platform that has caused such a stir in the mobile phone industry making EVERYONE wanted a smartphone.

 

[Thomas2006]

This has nothing to do with how apps get distributed. Apps will still need to be cryptographically "signed" by Apple to run, so no, this will not lead to non-App Store distribution. It does mean that developers can "open source" their code, but the actual app will still need to go through the App Store (or the other official channels) to run on iPhones.

I do not own an iPhone/iPod touch, so I am recalling this from memory, but I thought developers could install their applications onto their iPhone without going through the App Store. If true, then shouldn't developers be able to put their source code, if not the actual project, on the web where users could download it, create a project, import the files, compile the application, and install it on their phone. This is basically how the Linux world works, right?

Even if Apple were to put some kind of code into the project to prevent or minimize this type of sharing, developers could at least make their code available since they are plain text files. The only other thing developers would need to do is provide directions for creating the user interface so the code will work.

 

[MacOldTimer!]

Wouldn't the fact that an app made $250,000 in about 2 months give any developer enough reason to try and get Apple's approval? It would for me. But I guess, if someone were independantly wealthy, it might not be enough incentive.

This very well could be the reason for so many Tip Calculators and Flashlights as you say. But couldn't another reason be that they are VERY EASY to develop and quickly get into the store, thereby making money for the developer? Wouldn't a more complicated application take months to write, troubleshoot, and test before it showed up in the store? Hmmmm, how long has the store been open???? Oh yeah, not quite 3 months.

If you're so fearful of your 2G and 3G iPhones falling behind, sell them and move to one of the hot moving, better than sliced bread phone platforms you keep referring to. While you're moving, let me know the address of that awesome Android app store will you? I hear they have millions of great, useful applications.

While your at it, you might want to send an update on the great, closed source, open system Windows Mobile platform that has caused such a stir in the mobile phone industry making EVERYONE wanted a smartphone.

Unlike most kids that are getting the money for the new toys from their parents I can't afford to just "move on" to a new platform when the latest and greatest comes out.

I am being so outspoken to make people aware that Apple is doing exactly what they did with the Mac and that is why it is at 5-8% market share when windows has the lead.

They are making the same mistakes and can fade as quickly as Motorola's Razor did.

If it means moving to a new platform I would have my choice in 6 months of many phones that will be as good if not better than the iPhone.

Many are starting to get the elegant easy to use feel of the iPhone and it's only a matter of time until someone surpasses it while Apple is busy seeding the world with yesterdays technology.

 

[Tulse]

I thought developers could install their applications onto their iPhone without going through the App Store.

Yes, that is exactly right, developers can do so, because they have paid the $99 for the iPhone Developer Program.

If true, then shouldn't developers be able to put their source code, if not the actual project, on the web where users could download it, create a project, import the files, compile the application, and install it on their phone.

Only if those "users" have also paid $99 and been accepted into the iPhone Developer Program. "Regular" users are out of luck.

 

[firewood]

I do not own an iPhone/iPod touch, so I am recalling this from memory, but I thought developers could install their applications onto their iPhone without going through the App Store.

Only after provisioning their devices and digitally signing each app, which still requires going though Apple's developer site for several certificates (which seem to have expiration dates).

.

 

[NathanA]

Is there anybody out there who has gotten/seen this new agreement? I thougtt it was supposed to be a week out from the posting of this announcement, but it's now been 10 days and I just went to try to sign up to be a developer so that I could apply for the "tech tour" thing, and it's asking me to agree to legalese dated from last March.

I've resolved not to sign up as a developer until Apple actually delivered the new terms as I refuse to agree to the current ones. Anybody know how close they actually are to officially changing it?

-- Nathan