

Apple is terrified of iphone web-apps being as good as native apps - ryankshaw

Last week we all had a very interesting investigation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997508 ) of how apple seems to have come up with a css/js/html5 framework called pastryKit to make really good "native-looking" web-apps on the iphone before they ever started with the whole app store idea. Some of us, like myself went and looked at it ( http://help.apple.com/iphone/3/mobile/ ) and then pulled it down and put it up on github so we can take a look at what they are doing and learn how we too could do some of the same  css transforms, transitions and "flick" scrolling like they do in their code.<p>Well, it looks like Apple is scared to death of that idea.  They want to make sure that the web-app experience on the iphone (except for their own help system) remains crippled and seemingly second class when you compare it to one of their native apps (even though their own help system shows the it <i>is</i> possible for it to be just as good).  It looks like they went straight to gitHub and forced them to take it down.  Here's the email I got from them.  Bummer!!<p>I'm writing to inform you that we have received a takedown notice from Apple regarding your repo, PastryKit.  We have made the repo and all forks private so that they are no longer publicly accessible.  If we do not receive a counter-notice from you within 10-14 days the repo will be deleted.<p>I would like to encourage you to read up on the DMCA takedown procedure and your rights here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act<p><pre><code>    Tekkub
    GitHub Tech Support
    http://support.github.com/
    Join us on IRC: #github on freenode.net
    Discussion group: github@googlegroups.com</code></pre>
======
cscotta
Thanks for posting the detailed write-up, but I don't believe that the facts
warrant this conclusion.

The fact remains that PastryKit is open source, but close-licensed - by which
I mean the frontend source code is transmitted when you access the website by
necessity, but owned entirely by Apple.

Honestly, Apple is behaving much like Plurk just a few days ago. Their
frontend source code was lifted, unpacked, analyzed, and repackaged for
another product. Frustrated by having their intellectual property repurposed
without permission or license, a takedown order was appropriate.

While I'm all for analyzing techniques like those found in PastryKit and am
sort of a "rah! rah! open source!" guy in general, Apple was well within their
rights to request a takedown. It sucks that they did, because I'd love to read
up on this sometime and learn from it, but that's how these things tend to go.

That said, whether you agree with me or not, I don't think that this takedown
notice is any reason to suggest that "Apple is terrified of iPhone web apps
being as good as native apps."

~~~
ryankshaw
Yea, you're totally right, apple was well within their rights to tell me to
take the code down, I know that. But I would definitely say that the
comparison with plurk is inaccurate because in their case Microsoft grabbed
their code and re- _used_ it in their own website not only for their own gain,
but even to compete against plurk.

I would say that what I, and others, did was more like someone going to a
website, hitting view-source, and saying "hmm this is interesting, there is
something to be learned here" and then putting the interesting code snippets
up on their blog. especially when the first line of my readme said "this is
just for learning's sake, dont use this on your real website."

At any rate, I for sure agree that apple is not being a bully, unjust, or
outside of their rights to tell me to take it down. But it does kind of
suggest that apple is going out of their way to _impede_ the quality of web-
apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along.

Apple if your listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

~~~
padmanabhan01
//But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to impede
the quality of web-apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along

I guess Apple has an incentive in doing so. Improving web apps improves it for
all phones. They lose their comparative advantage in doing so.

~~~
ynniv
<Sarcasm> Its not like they contribute to the development of open web
standards or browser libraries. </Sarcasm>

When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

~~~
jbellis
> When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

And WebObjects.

Oh, wait...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects#2009:_No_longer_supp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects#2009:_No_longer_supported)

------
boucher
There was a license file in the uncompressed files, and it was, if I remember
correctly, the Apple Open Source License. This may have not been intentional,
but if you archived that license file along with the rest of the repo (or if
its still up) you have a clear claim.

~~~
seiji
It's still there: <http://help.apple.com/iphone/2/Parts/license.txt>

~~~
cmelbye
Whoa, "Dashcode"? I have a feeling I have an idea of what the next Dashcode
release has in store for us.

------
jsz0
I think you're jumping to conclusions. It's much more likely in my opinion
that Apple simply isn't ready to unleash PastryKit yet. They want to ride
their native application advantage while it lasts but they are realistic about
where things are heading. The mobile application market is already big and
it's going to become gigantic over the next few years. When the inevitable
move towards cross platform, standards based, web apps happens Apple will be
ready. They are not quite ready today. The big piece that's missing is
integration of web apps into the App Store. When that happens I think you'll
see PastryKit's future iterations being well supported by Apple. Right now
it's just not a public project.

------
simonw
Apple telling people not to build a project around unreleased code doesn't
mean that they are "scared to death" of better quality iPhone native apps. It
means they don't mean for that particular piece of code to be treated as open
source.

------
frankus
I disagree for two reasons: one, Apple is not raking in huge profits on the
app store. After credit card fees, bandwidth, developer/support time, etc.,
they're probably barely breaking even on their 30% take (although they _do_
sit on your money for a while before disbursing). I still think they're
primarily a hardware company that realizes that their sales are driven by
software.

Secondly, a web app highly optimized to the point where it acts just like a
native iPhone app is not _that_ much more cross-platform than a native app.

~~~
brandon
I don't have any solid numbers on Apple's margins, but I'm not sure I agree
with your break-even assessment.

taptaptap recently announced that they clear $1M/month via AppStore sales (and
they don't currently have any apps on the 100 Top Grossing list). From a per-
customer perspective, I don't think Apple spends their $450,000 take
supporting taptaptap. This will pan out differently with less profitable
customers, but I imagine that the lower-end customers are effectively
subsidized by the giants like EA (13/TG100), Gameloft (5/TG100), et al.

I'd absolutely love to see Apple's fixed and variable costs for developers at
different sales levels, but I'm not holding my breath.

------
tolmasky
You are reading too much into this. This is the way Apple handles everything.
They keep everything secret, so of course they are going to kill a leak like
this. Now, you _may_ be right separately from this (I still would say your are
not), but the logic that lead you to this conclusion is certainly incorrect.

------
sstrudeau
I think it's a bit of a leap from "Apple sent a DMCA takedown notice to github
asking them to remove code for which Apple holds the copyright" to "Apple is
terrified of iphone web-apps being as good as native apps."

It is suspicious that Apple has created a library to make web apps "feel"
native but haven't shared this library with the developer community, but I can
think of many possible reasons why this might be the case.

------
nir
iUI might be an interesting alternative (if I understand PastryKit correctly),
a CSS/JS/HTML/images framework for native-looking iPhone web pages:

<http://code.google.com/p/iui/>

<http://iui-js.appspot.com/>

~~~
wallflower
Also, see jQTouch

<http://www.jqtouch.com/>

------
sebastian
Is there any place where pastryKit can still be downloaded?

~~~
sebastian
I already grabbed a copy:

<http://nxfx.com/demo/pastryKit.zip>

Now looking for some documentation...

~~~
sebastian
Too bad I was only able to find the minified version.

~~~
Jerry4
Hey thanks for the zip download. You can easily un-minify this source using
<http://jsbeautifier.org/>.

~~~
sebastian
Sure, np. Thanks for the jsbeautifier tip.

