Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FAKE tiny-code/kellytm post about being "on iTunes" and deving for 1.1.4 SDK: FAKE
- Thread starter iPhelim
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The guy ( Tinycode or whatever ) is probably just young and inexperienced in business operation. Anyone who has experience with NDA knows when in doubt, keep your mouth shut...especially with Apple.
I feel bad for him/her, because he probably had a lot of good technical expertise to offer, but hopefully he learned something from it.
I just wonder - maybe it's been stated before - but is the SDK going to be a free download? Or something we have to pay for and register? I was under the impression you just had to register apps to distribute on iTunes, but possibly develop your own without registration?
I feel bad for him/her, because he probably had a lot of good technical expertise to offer, but hopefully he learned something from it.
I just wonder - maybe it's been stated before - but is the SDK going to be a free download? Or something we have to pay for and register? I was under the impression you just had to register apps to distribute on iTunes, but possibly develop your own without registration?
I would imagine the SDK could be free for paid members of Apple Development
I agree, he was was a bit stupid to risk it, but I also think Apple should stop being so hostile, they are still small enough that they shouldn't go round being nasty to the development community
Why do you keep making these intellectually dishonest arguments? This is a zero-sum game. You will never win the argument that all software should be free or that all software should not be free. The fact is that much "free" software is given away with the intention of making a tremendous amount of money in charging for training and support for that software. A huge portion of the open source movement is based on exactly this fact. Or did you think that everyone at Red Hat and Google worked for free?
If ALL software is based on freely given away software of the past then how do you justify charging for the software that you write? I especially love how you justify this by saying you don't care what they do with it after you write it. It didn't start with them, it started with you and if you really believe what you have stated then it is YOU that should have given it to them for free.
Finally, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. You do NOT have to buy their products. If you don't like the way they are implementing their software model then buy something else. But don't act like having this closed environment has NOTHING to do with how nice the interface is, etc. They are NOT mutually exclusive. Just try one of the great linux phones out there. Oh that's right, there aren't any. There is a reason why user satisfaction is at 70+% for the iPhone.
Yes, it's worth it. An NDA is a big deal, no matter where you go. You screw up once and it's over. People who willfully break that agreement aren't trustworthy, and early access to confidential products and information is totally based on trust.
Violations like this cause a tightening of procedures and make it more difficult for small and/or start-up developers to gain early access, which can be a tremendous boon for a developer hoping to get noticed.
This doesn't have anything to do with "small developers". It has to do with a person who intentionally and knowingly broke his NDA, and from there has evidently decided to keep posting in defiance of that. If he had no intention of maintaining his half of the obligation, he should not have entered into the agreement in the first place. His actions hurt other small developers hoping for a spot in the program.
He's not banned from developing. He's banned from future prerelease software. He's more than welcome to use the SDK and release his software after it's out.
Here are some additional thoughts. My bet is that Apple is paying those developers some money. And that is a very good idea. The reason is that phones with the android platform are announced and both platforms need applications to succeed. Google is giving out a total amount of 10 mio USD to make sure that there are 50 great apps ready with the launch of the first android based mobile phone.
Apple would be ignorant to not give out money. I am developing for Android because there is a chance to win a 25k. Or later von 275k/100k.
I also bet that developers can choose their mode of distribution and that there will be free software. Because many small tools are very helpful, but too small to pay for them.
Apple would be ignorant to not give out money. I am developing for Android because there is a chance to win a 25k. Or later von 275k/100k.
I also bet that developers can choose their mode of distribution and that there will be free software. Because many small tools are very helpful, but too small to pay for them.
I have not had any experience with apple programing languages. Do you think that the iphone/ ipod touch would be easy to use (like a visual platform), or is it going to be a lot of raw code (if so what language).
-Thanks
Objective C is Apple's language of choice and it is almost a given that any code written natively for the iPhone/Touch will be written in this. I'm not sure what the SDK actually consists of- but I am guessing that it will be something that plugs into Xcode instead of an entirely new app like Dashcode.
If you've never used Xcode, you'll have to check it out and formulate your own opinion. Personally, I've gotten used to using Eclipse over the last several years and it is a bit of a let down for me when I have to use something else. It is all a matter of preference- some of my coworkers perfer Netbeans or IntelliJ IDEA, and still others insist on using vi to write code. Unfortunately, (or some may say fortunately), you really only have once choice of IDEs on a Mac.
If this was anybody else other than Apple or any other device than the iPhone, I'd say maybe. But, we had lines of people camping out last year to buy iPhones and now iPhones account for 50% of the mobile phone WWW traffic. People would probably jump through hoops to develop software officially for the iPhone.
Just look at how many apps popped up even with having to jailbreak a phone and without a real SDK.
I just hope this doesn't rule out the shade tree guys. There are many a great apps that have been written by a single person or tiny software shop. Those of us that do this like having the freedom of how we distribute software. We can make it free, in which case we can host it on our web site, host it on sourceforge so the community can participate, etc. Or we can sell it, using fufillment engines like regsoft, shareit!, regnow, etc. These fufillment engines compete with one another to be more attractive to the software author, so that the authors get to keep more of the proceeds of the sale. (In most cases an author will only lose 3-4 bucks from a $25 software title.)
Android is definitely everything that I like about software development and everything that I think it should be. HOWEVER, the iPhone is everything I think a device should be- the thing syncs flawlessly with my Mac and in my case, this is everything! If an Android-based phone will have the same level of integration with iTunes, Address Book, iCal, etc., then I'll be the first in line. But otherwise, it does me personally little good. It may be great for others though- do doubt it will be, actually.
You seem to be missing a HUGE point, marketing and market share. Sure, it's great if you can have the choice of where you want to sell your application and only lose 3-4 bucks. However, don't you think that with 4 MILLION iPhones already sold and EVERY iPhone user using iTunes that you will have to potential to sell a ton more copies of your application if it is sold through iTunes? Let's just say for the sake of argument that Apple takes 25% of your sale price instead of the 12-16% you list above for the third party places. If you were able to sell twice as many copies via iTunes would you really care about the extra couple of dollars going to Apple?
People need to be realistic about what we are talking about here. Google hasn't sold one fricking Android phone yet and yet the comparisons never stop. Who cares if you prefer the method of development and sales on the Android side if your market is tiny. Also, the iPhone customer has already demonstrated that they are willing to pay for something that they like. Don't you think that the average Android customer will come to expect free software?
Frank
Sorry, I don't buy this argument. Before I begin though, let me state that this is a rebuttal to the underlying principals surrounding NDA's, and not Apple's actions. A company has every right to enforce a contractual agreement with 3rd parties, and obviously this includes pursuing (sometimes) a legal remedy. With that being said...
I find it highly unfortunate that Apple has chosen to remain so secretive in software development processes, a stance in which I feel only hurts the end user. To be fair, a potential rebuttal to this might be that Apple only wishes to keep some of its software developments under wraps for fear of proprietary knowledge falling into its competitor's hands. Please. You don't think that Apple's competitors don't have have a shell developer that has access to pre-release material? Come on. If Apple was just a little bit more transparent, I believe we would have quality releases that don't require an extra build or two to patch up (which in actuality, finally represent would should have been the end product). I'm not calling for Apple to bust down the doors here, but just to take it down a notch or two.
I never argued that all software should be free. Please point out for me where I said 'all software should be free.' Originally I was just pointing out that most of the software we have today was built from software that was once given away. This was in response to people suggesting that Apple step in and not let people give away iPhone apps they may build, the people who came out and said any software you don't pay for is crap, and the people who said they don't use 'free' software.
There is no 'if' here. Pretty much all of the software we have today started with software that was given away. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. I also don't understand how that has any bearing on my payment when I do work for hire. I never said all software should be free, just that anyone should be able to write and distribute it for free if they want to.
Am I the only suspicious one?
I know this is a rumour site, and I know people are interested in the iPhone and the SDK. But am I the only one who thinks that everyone is getting a little over excited about this one?
We've basically got a guy who has referred to a new firmware on his webpage, then redirected to the Apple site, and then posted on here hinting at an announcement on 26 February (something that had already been rumoured). There is absolutely nothing new in it - and it just seems to have been done more to stimulate attention than out of incompetence.
I think I need to put up my website about firmware 2.0 for the 3G phone due later this year. I'll redirect to the Apple site when someone spots it.
I know this is a rumour site, and I know people are interested in the iPhone and the SDK. But am I the only one who thinks that everyone is getting a little over excited about this one?
We've basically got a guy who has referred to a new firmware on his webpage, then redirected to the Apple site, and then posted on here hinting at an announcement on 26 February (something that had already been rumoured). There is absolutely nothing new in it - and it just seems to have been done more to stimulate attention than out of incompetence.
I think I need to put up my website about firmware 2.0 for the 3G phone due later this year. I'll redirect to the Apple site when someone spots it.
A very valid point, but only for one instance of time. Apple might be a monopoly when it comes to the distribution and sale of the apps. So over time it could be 50% of the sales price or more. The authors choice is either to stop selling the app that they invested a lot of time in developing, or settle Apple taking whatever cut they decide they want.
Perhaps those authoring apps for the device should form some sort of union. I'm normally opposed to unions but they have their place when there is a monopoly situation. It may just be me but I'm not sure I'd want to open a retail shop in a particular place and have the landlord know that I was restricted from ever moving my shop to a competing location. Not exactly the best spot to negotiate from.
I'm also concerned that there won't be any opportunity for open source development on the iPhone. I've already developed some software where part of the suite is targeted at the iPhone (via a web app.) I've released the source code and anybody can build and run it. I'd like to convert the web app to a native app, and continue releasing the source code so anybody can build and install it on their iPhone. This may not be possible, we'll see. From what I gather the iPhone has BSD roots- it would be a shame to effectively shut out open source development- i.e. those like myself willing to give applications away for free for others to use or modify as they see fit.
I don't see what your post has to do with mine, other than that they both mention NDAs. Certainly, I understand that you don't like NDAs and closed, in house development, but a company has a right to use whatever development strategy it chooses. Apple has always been fairly secretive.
Well, that would pose its own set of problems, particularly concerning eligibility to participate in the developer program. It's also not an uncommon ground for termination of relationships. For every random, blogging, small developer thrown out, there's usually at least one other developer tossed out for being a mole. It's a fertile ground for lawsuits, as well, but they tend to stay out of the public eye, and the courtroom, for that matter.
Developers don't work on the products. They work on their own software, and their access to prerelease software is limited, granted so that their products can be compatible with software more quickly (or simultaneously) with release. They're not part of the iPhone development team.
I don't buy your argument at all. NDA's aren't stopping people from reporting bugs to Apple and working with them to iron out compatibility issues. NDA's stop people from leaking information to the public and other companies. For example, tinycode's violation of the NDA did nothing to help create a better product. What it did was get tinycode a lot of attention. One purpose of an NDA is to stop people from stealing your thunder. If everyone knows everything about a product and learned it bit by bit over the months or years it is developed then it is hard to dum up publicity once it is out.
Apple did what it had to do to protect itself. Anything less would be negligent on their part.
I'm fully aware of what the site was. And was aware when I posted originally.
Is that all there is over which to get so excited?
In the iPhone 1.1.4 firmware:
iTunes Wifi Music Store = Installer.app + movies, rentals, tvshows.
Nuff said.
iTunes Wifi Music Store = Installer.app + movies, rentals, tvshows.
Nuff said.
I'll say this and I'm serious. How to buy iPhone apps from iTunes? Just go to the Wifi Music store and tap the apps section. Pick the app you want. Developers have no choice BUT to make their apps free unless they are one of the chosen ones.
So your suggesting the SDK will specifically stop developers building nag screens and paypal links it to apps.
Now that's what I call a feature.
I can understand there will likely be a couple of channels
The AppCast Channel for free/share/nagware (RSS list hosted by apple, app hosted by dev. same as PodCasts)
The iTunes Apps. -Paid apps sold by Apple iTunes store, just like the other iTunes store products hosted by Apple, with billing and Distribution handled by Apple. Maybe even certified by Apple.
Hell following the iTunes model the third channel the ever present channel find it yourself drop it on itunes in finder.
I can't see how this prevents any developer offering product on the terms they are happy with.
You have mentioned this a few times. Can you provide the geneology of this development? For starters, we have to stipulate that the original UNIX code or the C Compiler source was not given away. The rest, I am willing to listen and learn.
Just because you have purchased a CD, or paid for a download of MP3 or other digital format doesn't mean you OWN anything other than the right to listen to that copy personally. There is some leeway in terms of fair use, but you don't own anything other than the rights you purchased, despite the possibility of having purchased some physical manifestation.
Many people frequently confuse the fact that they have purchased "content" rather than "rights". Same goes for DVD's. You don't believe that because you've purchased "The Matrix" on DVD that you "Own" it, and would be able to simply get a copy on Blueray for free because you already "Own" it.
You may not like this, and media companies rely on the fact that most people understand nothing about what they are purchasing. The fact is that you're much closer to having purchased a movie ticket with the ability to go see it a couple times.
Sorry, I've being reading this site for years, but when did it become a posting ground for "apologists" I like Apples products, but they need to be more free and saying this is not slagging them off or does every sight transaction need defending, we are all here cause we like apple, yes, the restrictions apple place are heavy and bad.
You say, just cause you have a cd of some music doesn't give you a write to make a ring tone of it, OK, then don't be suprised that music priacy exists cause this type or protectionast attitude by the record companies will help sustain it.