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

The EFF may think this is something unique to Apple or Apple going overboard, but that is far from the truth. Well more than half the NDAs I have say basically the same thing.
No, I didn't just break any NDAs, but even stating that could be considered a grey area.
 
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:

Did you read what I wrote or you're just gonna troll around with political babbling?
 
non-news

these are all pretty standard fare for SDK agreements.

No reverse engineering is in every SDK.

You can not use this SDK to create something that competes with us is also in every SDK.
 
The EFf is just another special interest group among other special interest groups. There are some real crazy ones out there.

It's a non-profit and only interested in a healthy and free digital world. There's no special interest other than the public good and their history proves it. It's like the ACLU for digital matters.

Apple's whims are not commandments and you shouldn't simply submit yourself to all of their decisions like a sheep. Sometimes you should THINK DIFFERENTLY and see the world for what it really is. Criticism isn't Satan whispering in your ear, it's the beginning of progress. Free and creative thought is the way forward. It's ironic how Apple depends on it and comes up with brilliant products as a result but simultaneously stifles it when convenient.

BTW: Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's right.
 
"You can not use this SDK to create something that competes with us" is also in every SDK.

Hopefully it's not formulated like that...it should be something like the following instead: "This SDK may be used solely for the purposes of developing software to the iPhone platform." :rolleyes: Don't agree? Don't use it.
 
Once you buy it or try to develop for it, you have no rights and no alternatives. They control absolutely everything. This shouldn't be acceptable to anyone with some self-respect and desire for freedom.

You really got on a soapbox there without thinking.

A developer with any desire for freedom can do whatever they want: (1) not develop for Apple. (2) Develop for Apple while developing for other smart phones. (3) Develop exclusively for Apple.

Apple has made the bar very low for anyone to try their hand at creating apps, and that alone is freeing. In addition, Apple has a well-defined set of conditions. There's very little that is hazy.

It is comforting to me to know that the Apple approval process and iTunes store can (1) prevent Trojan applications from being written that may steal information from me, (2) provide a lower limit of quality apps, (3) prevent spying applications from being placed on my phone as is the the case of "open" phone platforms, (4) provide a one-stop shopping experience.

While I don't echo the "competition is good" idea, because there are other choices, it is very apparent that developers and users are preferring the "Apple Way," over any others.
 
Sly move by EFF. What's their beef with Apple anyway? If you don't like the terms, develop for another platform. If enough developers do this, Apple will lax up the terms. If developers keep developing for Apple products, then they are OK with the terms. It's not any more complex than this.
 
"Overall, the Agreement is a very one-sided contract, favoring Apple at every turn. That's not unusual where end-user license agreements are concerned (and not all the terms may ultimately be enforceable),"


Not unusual, but we dislike Apple so we want to be sure and call them on it.
 
Sly move by EFF. What's their beef with Apple anyway? If you don't like the terms, develop for another platform. If enough developers do this, Apple will lax up the terms. It's not any more complex than this.

Why do you think they have "beef" with Apple? They simply pointed out an end user agreement that is draconian and one-sided. If you say someone has fake red hair it doesn't mean you have a "beef" with people who have fake red hair, you're just pointing out a fact.
 
clipped for brevity

I understand Apple's stance that a controlled environment produces a richer and safer end-user experience. However, it is becoming apparent that this excuse may not be the only excuse, as a controlled environment also produces huge monetary results as evidenced by the billions of iPhone application downloads. In short, I agree with Apple's principle of controlling products in order to produce superior user experiences. However, that excuse falls flat when examining the "big picture", a company bent on reaping the monetary benefits of their hardware through using developer to "pimp" their products. In the end, it's all favorable to Apple. Certainly buyers have the right to purchase and vote with their dollars, however when iTunes is the sole vehicle for using said product, especially when music was not DRM free, it allowed Apple to become a big player and thus dictator in the entertainment industry. This eventually has lead to the current system that strongly favors Apple, a slow but miraculous victory over the consumer based market, making it virtually impossible for other players to succeed. Apple has won by thinking very long term in their products road maps, strong arming the industry without the industry even realizing. Bravo to Apple, very well played.
 
The EFF can stick it. Who cares? As was posted, Apple can come up with any agreement they want with developers. Nobody is being forced into the developer program. Hilarious that this is even a news item.

The app store has been amazing for developers. My brother, has nearly 30 apps in the store and is making GOOD money that he has never seen before. He was not a developer prior to developing for the iPhone.


Can anyone walk off the street without developer/programming knowledge sign up and make an app with the SDK?
 
To get down to brass tacks... I suspect EFF has noticed what a boon Greenpeace has seen after "going after" Apple all these years. It's a way to get your name in the press. Troll for money from donors. It all comes back to money. Who's making it; who's banking it. Even nonprofit social causes have to find ways to raise money. This reads like that to me.

(And great thanks to those who've shown appreciation for my "benevolent pimp" remark. :))
 
Nicely done EFF :)
I will donate some money I saved for the MBP update once I got tired of waiting and bought another decent laptop much cheaper.

I like Apple, but there are many things which make me hate the company. I wonder if this agreement is legal in the EU... I don't think so...
 
I must hand it to the EFF. Finding an app developed by a government agency and then leveraging the Freedon of Information Act to curcumvent the NDI is damn clever, like them or not.

Eh. True, I suppose. But it also strikes me as an abuse of FOIA. The EFF didn't say word one about NASA; they just used a technicality in the law to gain access to a document they wanted to badmouth publicly. I can't say anything anybody's done here is wrong, per se, but it certainly strikes me as foul-smelling.

Getting back to the topic …*what's there really to say about this? For a couple decades now, there's been a lot of noise about "freedom." And nobody really argues the point. Sure, freedom is great. You know what else is great? Having a phone that doesn't crash.

Somebody up yonder said he wouldn't buy another iPod touch (or something) until he could do whatever he wanted with it (or something). That's great. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.

Thing is, everybody else is equally free to make that choice for themselves. The EFF is really good at getting their press releases linked on technology blogs, and getting their gripes-of-the-day talked about in comments and on forums, but they're kind of terrible at actually making a compelling argument about stuff like this. What do I care if Apple's developer agreement limits the company's liability, or comes with a non-disclosure clause? Those are totally standard in every similar agreement I've ever seen. And on the other side of the coin, I do very much care that somebody has a kill switch that can shut down and delete malicious or catastrophically misbehaving software. That's just good sense.

This is another tempest in a teapot. I get what the EFF is trying to do; they feel like they need to vociferously attack everything they don't like as if it's the impending end of the world. Which from a political perspective makes sense. But they sure do have a boy-who-cries-wolf vibe about them when they pull stuff like this.
 
Can anyone walk off the street without developer/programming knowledge sign up and make an app with the SDK?

No. You'll have to invest some time to learn how to program. And that's only the beginning.

There is "cookie-cutter" software though that lets you point-n-click something together. But I wouldn't call the end result an app, and the user of these things a developer.
 
I understand Apple's stance that a controlled environment produces a richer and safer end-user experience. However, it is becoming apparent that this excuse may not be the only excuse, as a controlled environment also produces huge monetary results as evidenced by the billions of iPhone application downloads. In short, I agree with Apple's principle of controlling products in order to produce superior user experiences. However, that excuse falls flat when examining the "big picture", a company bent on reaping the monetary benefits of their hardware through using developer to "pimp" their products. In the end, it's all favorable to Apple. Certainly buyers have the right to purchase and vote with their dollars, however when iTunes is the sole vehicle for using said product, especially when music was not DRM free, it allowed Apple to become a big player and thus dictator in the entertainment industry. This eventually has lead to the current system that strongly favors Apple, a slow but miraculous victory over the consumer based market, making it virtually impossible for other players to succeed. Apple has won by thinking very long term in their products road maps, strong arming the industry without the industry even realizing. Bravo to Apple, very well played.

Other players aren't succeeding because developers and users seem to be choosing Apple in greater numbers. Other players can either make their products as attractive and compelling as Apple's, or they can stuff it.
 
Android isn't "panning out"?

This discussion isn't about platforms. It's about app development.

Apps for the Android group of phones don't see the flood of developers and app buyers that the Apple model of app development and distribution has.
 
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.

Your wallet, unfortunately, cannot say WHY it's voting against something. People need to complain, because Apple can't read minds.
 
True, but ...

Most of the "people" buying (or not buying) the product are end-users, NOT developers. It's pretty tough to get them to care about the plight of a developer under "too strict a contract", as long as the device still does lots of "cool stuff" and meets the user's needs.

I applaud the EFF for finding a way to make this information public, just for the sake of educating people, if nothing else.

At the end of the day, Apple can run this "show" any way they like, but it's much like holding a pile of sand in one's hands. The tighter they squeeze, the more sand just leaks out between their fingers. The sand that spilled would be the jailbreaking community.

As someone who has done a little programming (a LONG time ago), and is currently much more interested in just being a typical end-user -- I honestly have little problem with the situation as it stands today (at least from a legal perspective). Most customers will just use the product the way Apple intended. Others will be interested in doing as much as the hardware physically allows, so will always find work-arounds for artificial restrictions placed in it. Go Apple! Go Jailbreakers! Users win with choices.



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.
 
To get down to brass tacks... I suspect EFF has noticed what a boon Greenpeace has seen after "going after" Apple all these years. It's a way to get your name in the press. Troll for money from donors. It all comes back to money. Who's making it; who's banking it. Even nonprofit social causes have to find ways to raise money. This reads like that to me.

Like all conspiracy theories, this one is non-falsifiable. What conceivable action or declaration could a non-profit make that would convince you that it was not all about getting their names in the press, or making money?

I assume that the fact that the EFF and ACLU and Greenpeace have hundreds of lawyers who could be making 10 times as much money doing corporate law proves nothing. And it proves nothing that working for these companies regularly gets you vilified by the press far more than you get lauded. And that these people regularly speak passionately about the issues they spend every day advocating, and have a network of highly consistent beliefs that they have worked out in great detail.

No, it's just about highly educated people making bizarrely round-about decisions to make a few scraps of dollars and advance inexplicably anti-Apple agendas.
 
Other players aren't succeeding because developers and users seem to be choosing Apple in greater numbers. Other players can either make their products as attractive and compelling as Apple's, or they can stuff it.

Ooooor, Apple forced owners to only run purchased content from their iTunes store. Sure, ripping your CD's is legal, but DRM content forced individuals to use iTunes as the only software platform to utilize, which eventually lead to movies, television shows and applications being negotiated for sale through iTunes. In the beginning, their wasn't much "choice", and still isn't. Can the iPod/iPhone/iPad be used through anything other than iTunes? When a consumer purchases an iPod, is their an end-user agreement dictating that iTunes is the only vehicle through which owners may organize their multi-media content for their Apple devices?

Oh, and the idea of "choice" is interesting. Apple has succeeded in making people feel as though they have a choice, which they do, however the veil of choice is quickly lost when only one avenue of usage is allowed. Apple followed Microsoft's example, in this instance selling the hardware and making it seemingly easy (and the only way) for users to buy [cheaper] content through iTunes has resulted in Apple dominated the multi-media market and becoming a huge player in how the entertainment industry operates. Brilliant.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.