Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone Developer Agreement Revealed by Electronic Frontier Foundation

SPUY767 said:
Apple can control its devices however it wants. If the people have a problem with the way Apple does business, they would speak with their wallets. Apparently, they do not have a problem.
Click to expand...

You're right, but why is it that when people criticize Apple's generally closed policies people come running from the hills to declare that Apple can do whatever they want with their products and their stores, yet when Microsoft bundles a browser with their operating system, they get sued for eleventy bilion dollars over and over again?

I have no problem with Apple dictating their terms of services, but I don't believe it's fair to treat different companies different. I also don't think they should be able to sue for patents that should have never been granted in the first place, but that's a whole other topic. Apple stiffles innovation just as much as they foster it.
 
saturniphone said:
You're right, but why is it that when people criticize Apple's generally closed policies people come running from the hills to declare that Apple can do whatever they want with their products and their stores, yet when Microsoft bundles a browser with their operating system, they get sued for eleventy bilion dollars over and over again?
Click to expand...

If the iPhone had 90% of computer market share and Apple tried to dominate the market in the same way as they are now then they would rightfully be sued. They don't, so they haven't been. Microsoft did and were.
 
saturniphone said:
You're right, but why is it that when people criticize Apple's generally closed policies people come running from the hills to declare that Apple can do whatever they want with their products and their stores, yet when Microsoft bundles a browser with their operating system, they get sued for eleventy bilion dollars over and over again?
Click to expand...

Apple didn't do what Microsoft did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]


Abuse of monopoly, lying/presenting false evidence in court, etc.

Microsoft is in a league of its own here.
 
How is this news?

How is any of this different than the agreements made between developers and console manufacturers? Similar agreements exist with PS3, Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii developers.
 
russellb said:
You have plenty of freedom. Go use or develop for, a Windowzzz device, a palm device, an android device.

Oh wait people dont want to they love the Iphone , they FREELY choose the platform.

It always makes me laugh .. there are plenty of other MP3 devices out there, there will be plenty of other Tablets out there etc etc BUT just because people choose Apple then we get the idiots that seem to think that they have a right to then tell Apple how they should run their business or their platform. Gee I think Apple has it worked out how they can create and run a successful ecosystem.

Is it perfect hell no, does Apple sometimes do things we wish they would not hell yes BUT at the end of the day if you dont like it then vote with your feet and wallets ...

BUT dont cry that you want to use Apples devices
Click to expand...

+1
This is an agreement for the SDK and works created by it, not for the use of the device. Do what you want with the device. Jailbreak it, drop it in a blender.

Apple just created a tool (the SDK) to drive the app store business and add value to the device. If you want to use the tool, you have to do it on their terms. Essentially, they didn't create a tool to circumvent the app store model, or dilute the value of the device (buggy, poorly designed apps).
 
"- Developers are prohibited from making any "public statements" about the terms of the developer agreement, which is obviously the driving factor that has kept the complete details out of publication for so long."

I don't see why Apple has a problem with this? Don't they like criticism? So what if developers speak out - positively, or negatively?
 
*LTD* said:
The EFF is barking up the wrong tree on this one.

The "open" alternatives to the iPhone aren't panning out, so Apple's closed model is vilified. Too funny.

Yet virtually every developer and their dog seems to be choosing Apple's "closed" and "controlled" model. Interesting.

Besides, each and every one of those "over 100,000 developers," agreed to Apple's terms. Most of them gladly, in fact. Any developer who doesn't like the terms of Apple's agreement can certainly choose to disagree and not make apps for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
Click to expand...

EFF's claims are ABSOLUTE BS. As a lawyer that has studied and worked with antitrust issues, Apple's case for keeping tight reins on ITS store is totally legitimate. Even as a dominant player in the mobile phone market, Apple's continued growth derives from vertical integration as a key to security and superior user experience, and NOT from engaging in anticompetitive behavior...even if it's FAR from achieving monopolistic status, it's more than settled that any monopoly achieved through organic growth, competence and innovation is not and cannot be sanctioned.

In fact, Apple is in a rarely bright spot now, treading carefully through growth scenarios without raising the flags of any antitrust agency in the world. Why? Because it's NOT doing anything wrong.

It's also funny to see EFF barking against Apple when they themselves admit that end-user license agreements with favorable terms to the licensor ARE the norm (as with any other adhesion contract)...Apple is in principle absolutely entitled to control how access to and use of its store are regulated...by the way, where are EFF's complaints against Nintendo, Sony, MS and others for virtually the same types of development and licensing agreements?

In other words, pure nonsense from the defenders of ThinkSecret.

EFF IS DEAD.
 
It's alright. Without the FOSSnicks and freetards at the EFF it might have been a rather slow news day. At least they made it interesting, if not downright amusing.
 
Developers using the iPhone SDK may only distribute their applications via Apple's App Store.
Click to expand...
Does that include distributing source code, and letting others compile & install?
 
Cromulent said:
So what are you doing on an Apple forum then? I would have thought you had moved to Microsoft by now? Oh wait, what's that? Microsoft do exactly the same thing? Well I'll be damned I would never have guessed. Maybe you should try Linux? Oh wait, what's that? A critical application you need doesn't work on Linux? Maybe you should try AIX or HP-UX instead? Oh wait...

Need I say more?
Click to expand...

Someone on an Apple forum must worship and blindly support everything Apple? Forums are for discussions and that implies differences in opinion. You're claiming that I have no good choice and thus should simply accept a terrible situation. That's not how progress works. With enough public pressure, Apple wouldn't continue to abuse its position. The iPhone model isn't necessarily broken, it's just too restrictive. That can be changed. The existence of the App Store is proof of that.

BTW: I like Apple in general and use a Macbook.
 
Nermal said:
Indeed. But Apple also tries to control my own device that I've paid for. I don't agree with that. I bought my Touch after Apple announced that there would be an SDK, but before the announcement that everything would be locked down. I have no intention of buying another such device until I can run what I want on it.
Click to expand...

Actually if you not an Apple developer using the iPhone SDK, you can do whatever you want with your device. These restrictions only apply to what you can do using the SDK.
Many of these clauses, are fairly common in development suites (indemnification and reverse engineering). The outlier is the App Store being the only means for mass distribution, and the details on that have been know for a long time.
 
Developers are prohibited from making any "public statements" about the terms of the developer agreement
Click to expand...

This is the one I have issues with. IF you make a deal with the devil under the allure of iPhone riches, then want to discuss the controlling nature of the agreement after realizing there is no gold, you are prohibited from doing so.

This seems very wrong. Fundamentally wrong.

I like my iPhone but I like it less today than I did yesterday.

As a developer, I would never agree to those rules and now that there are alternatives, I would look toward those platforms (Android and Windows Mobile).

As a user, I will likely wait and see how these other more open platforms pan out for mobile devices before upgrading my iPhone or purchasing an iPad.
 
Would the EFF have a way to get the terms of the Enterprise Program, to see how they differ than the Standard Program terms?
 
Returning to those !BM days

IBM of course did not have as great a hold as Apple does now, but I hate to see in the future more companies basically doing this, I see no reason not to force people to do it the dictatorship way, it is after all the best way to control everything and anything. I don't like how your doing it, I just cancel your agreement and you can't write code any more for the product. :D Truly it is ambrosia from the gods.

What company does not want to be in their shoes, hate to see if more companies come out with good products and install something like this. Bad times in program heaven.
 
GeekLawyer said:
Apple is a benevolent pimp. And the devs are working their corners. The johns are happy. The money keeps rolling in.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...

This is to be the most beautiful and poignant statement/comparison I've read. It's the "candy everybody wants", and refuses to live without.

"Living in Eden has its advantages. As a marginalized member of a spectator democracy, you choose your own dependencies. Lust. Hate. Blood. Love. Don’t think of it as manufactured consent. Think of it as the candy everybody wants."
 
Cromulent said:
You can't install your apps on an iPhone unless you are a member of the iPhone developer program so that point is moot.

Unless you are referring to Ad Hoc distribution which is somewhat limited.
Click to expand...

Even with AdHoc distribution, you still have to pay Apple $99.. so you can't install to your own device for free.
 
err404 said:
Actually if you not an Apple developer using the iPhone SDK, you can do whatever you want with your device. These restrictions only apply to what you can do using the SDK.
Click to expand...

But developer or not, Apple is actively trying to prevent users from controlling their own devices. Each OS is harder to jailbreak than the previous one, and I believe that there's even a restriction that prevents you from installing an alternative OS (such as Linux/Android) onto your device.

But as you mention (although I hadn't made the connection at first), this is getting off-topic since it's not related to the SDK, so I'll leave it at that.
 
BRLawyer said:
EFF's claims are ABSOLUTE BS. As a lawyer that has studied and worked with antitrust issues, Apple's case for keeping tight reins on ITS store is totally legitimate. Even as a dominant player in the mobile phone market, Apple's continued growth derives from vertical integration as a key...
EFF IS DEAD.
Click to expand...

Your a lawyer, haha, you wish. As for your comment your right a company can do for the most part anything it wants as long as the market allows it, and there is no Antitrust laws broken. That said why hide so much the contract, is it because American like fair play and not dictatorship like companies, things that make you go :rolleyes:
 
ctdonath said:
Does that include distributing source code, and letting others compile & install?
Click to expand...

You can distribute source code so long as the source code doesn't reveal anything that is under Apple's NDA (there are restrictions beyond the developer agreement that apply to things like OS 3.2).
 
*LTD* said:
I'm noticing it's only happening on Apple tech sites, as usual. They're a haven for bellyachers.
Click to expand...

Dear MacRumours members and indeed, the population of planet Earth,

LTD has deemed: If you disagree with Apple or, indeed, *LTD* himself, you are "bellyaching"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back