

The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness - mqt
http://al3x.net/2010/04/05/ipad-openness-moderates.html

======
jkincaid
_"Finally, there’s the issue of the App Store. I’m on the fence about it. My
hunch is that Apple should follow Palm’s lead and allow users to install
applications from the web, albeit after prompting for the user’s consent and
warning against whatever security issues might arise despite the platform’s
sandboxing... However, I don’t feel strongly enough about these positions to
make them part of my “platform” above."_

I don't get how one would feel less strongly about this point than the others.
To me, the notion that smart kids would stop tinkering with things never
seemed like a real threat. It's more fun to tinker with things when it's
against the rules, anyway. My concern has always been the long term
implications of embracing this closed app distribution platform.

I've read plenty of arguments for and against it. Inevitably, I am left with a
sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Yes, I understand that this
gatekeeper system could help keep users from hurting themselves. But Apple has
also shown that it is not just looking out for its users — it's also being
anti-competitive, namely with its decision to block new Google apps.

I've seen people try to argue that Apple is in fact very open because it
includes Safari, which is HTML5 compliant. But I've yet to experience many
HTML5 apps that are as snappy or easy to use as their native counterparts, and
it seems like 'native' will continue to evolve faster than 'web' for quite a
while.

I bought an iPad. I really like it, and was thrilled by how quickly my parents
learned to use it. But I can't shake this feeling that the App Store's
entirely closed ecosystem is a bad thing.

------
akeefer
In general a well-reasoned article, but I don't really agree with the
contention that private APIs should be removed: when you're shipping releases
of something infrequently and you want to avoid breaking client code, APIs
have to be something you can commit to supporting long-term without
significant changes. Keeping APIs private allows you to provide functionality
that you want to have without risking a bunch of stuff breaking client-side on
upgrade, since you can update your applications to work with your API as
needed. Getting APIs right enough that they can be supported indefinitely is
really, _really_ hard, and it's not reasonable to expect that every bit of
required functionality will be implemented and designed to such a high level
of completeness the first time around.

~~~
Zev
Personally, I'm with al3x on what he says about private APIs in this post.
Here's a few of my favorite moments that I've personally encountered with
Apple and private APIs:

* There are APIs that date back to 2.2.1 (at the very least) that haven't changed but won't be made public. And these are APIs that - nearest I can tell (and this is with a rather large amount of testing) - work perfectly fine. Or, better yet, APIs that have existed on Mac OS X since 10.0 (and likely taken from NextStep) still being considered private! (Well, until very recently in at least one case; NSAttributedString was made public without any UIKit additions)

* The docs suggesting the use of private APIs located in PrivateFrameworks. (They still suggest this, by the way.)

* This one is probably my all time favorite: All but calling the task the API performs does trivial and pasting a few lines of code (using APIs that have existed publicly since 2.0) that can reimplement the function in the report, rather then make the API public.

If the API is that trivial to do and the engineer behind the radar is so sure
that the code won't cause any problems that they can tell people to use said
code, then, why wasn't it simply public in the first place? Someone obviously
felt it was useful enough for _Apple_ to have..

* Reimplementing something that the system can already do. In what is, in all likelihood, the exact same way the system implemented it; in a lot of my cases, I end up (unknowingly) creating methods and vars with the _same names Apple used_ for their methods and ivars.

Yes, there are legit reasons to keep APIs private. Big Hacks™ to get a release
out the door do happen. But, in my experience with the iPhone/iPad (which is,
admittedly, one sided towards what I've experienced), Big Hacks™ and things
disappearing between releases isn't the case and keeping many of the APIs
private is more of a hinderance than anything else.

And FWIW, relevant radars have been filed for many of these issues as the
situation arose, mostly to what feels like an unvarying degree of futility;
Radar doesn't get called a black hole for no reason.

------
nnutter
The AppStore is a huge deal and was barely even mentioned. Censoring what they
sell in the AppStore is fine with me. Maintaining a monopoly on the sales of
software for use with their devices by exploiting contract law and the DCMA is
not. Yet we are supposed to forgive them because they are doing cool things
with hardware/software? Enjoy.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
I'd actually be O.K. with the restrictions in the App store if there was any
non-jailbreak method of loading apps _outside_ the app store. That would allow
you to install things like Google Voice, Opera, or whatever if _you_ the user
want to, while still providing a squeaky clean simplified view to the average
user.

For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from
the Android Market. However, by checking one checkbox in the phone's
preferences, you can install non-market apps. Those might be apps you upload
using the Android developer tools (if you're a dev), or you can download and
install apps from a website, or you can use a third party market (like
SlideMe).

~~~
netcan
I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness.

The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something
she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get
it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click
OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation
instructions... The iphone just got a bit more difficult. People outside of
the top 5% users will be exposed to this stuff, on their phones or on other
people if it is available and semi-sanctioned.

Precisely because Apple is heavily censoring and annoying developers in the
app store, average users are likely to want non-app-store-apps. Maybe even
more on the iPad.

This power user who is a programmer vs average user who log in to facebook via
readwriteweb is not really a useful description of the world. Most iPhones are
in in between hands.

~~~
tjogin
> The iphone just got a bit more difficult.

And a bit more dangerous. Malware lies not far down this path.

I think Apple is even more concerned with malware than they are with the
difficulty part.

~~~
pyre
The AppStore approval process does not guarantee that something is not
malware. At best it's just a superficial filter. It's like creating a mail
filter that puts any email that contains the word 'viagra' into your spam
folder and calling it a 'spam filter.'

~~~
tjogin
Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval
process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out.

Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers.
Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from
every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least
going to make a _cursory_ review of the app before giving it the 'OK'.

One of these, or all three in combination is keeping malware out of the
AppStore. Whichever, the end result is that the AppStore review process is
stopping malware _extremely_ well.

~~~
pyre
> _Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval
> process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out._

Those non-functioning spam-filters also kept spam out when all you had to
filter on were the words 'real estate,' 'viagra,' and 'cialis.' Lo and behold
though, the world does not stagnate and those same filters are woefully
inadequate today.

> _Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from
> every app to its publisher_

There are marketplaces out there where a person's entire identity (not just
their credit card number) are bargained and traded. How closely does Apple
monitor the information that is given to them? Does Apple continually pull
credit reports on people to make sure that their information does not turn up
stolen?

> _a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory
> review of the app before giving it the 'OK'._

That cursory review means nothing. There are many apps which are nothing more
than wrappers around websites. How long does it take to to build an app that
is such, but waits for a trigger (at some point _after_ the app is approved
and has an installed base) to enabled its malicious features?

None of this even addresses possible zero-day exploits in apps that access
external content (email worms, browser exploits, etc). If jail-breakers can
run unsigned code on the iPhone, so can someone that exploits an app.

~~~
tjogin
Fact remains: no malware on AppStore.

~~~
pyre
Absence of malware does not prove that the AppStore model is superior. It just
proves that there is currently no _known_ malware. It is much easier to
disprove something (i.e. find malware on the AppStore; therefore the model is
flawed) than it is to prove something (i.e. there is no malware on the
AppStore; therefore the model is perfect).

~~~
tjogin
It also certainly doesn't prove that AppStore's malware filtering is broken.
It _suggests_ that it does work, very well.

------
grumpycanuck
It's the rare person who changes their mind when they've taken a very strong
position. Kudos to Alex for being willing to take a real look at the iPad and
figure out what his real concerns with the device were.

~~~
symesc
Agree. I did not expect to read this.

Great article, Alex.

------
doron
Apple has demonstrated ingenuity in a segment that showed little of it for
years. I had and still have reservation about this device, and as it stands,
after playing with it a good amount, I will hold on till version 2 (soon i am
sure) or when a real credible competitor surfaces (soon perhaps).

This is not to distract from the fact that the Ipad is pretty amazing, and i
think anybody who engages with technology, and is able to look beyond his own
personal passions and biases will concede this is a ground breaking elegant
device.

There is much to like about this brilliant device. but for me, who relies (and
prefers) Linux, the reliance on Itunes is a complete no for me, and many other
aspects are giving me pause. The centralized approach Apple projects as a
philosophy is very troubling to me, on level that goes beyond just tech. it
gives me the creeps (while Google still at a level that merely annoys me and
keeps me suspicious)

Open source models largely failed (don't bite my head on this one) to gain a
real substantial piece of the desktop environment, however, on specialized
devices such as pads and phones the platform demonstrates stability and
capabilities that give it a real chance.this approach is by and large promoted
by Google, and it certainly has the potential for a very strong showing.

in terms of stability and capability of the engine we can argue on merits here
and there, but the end user experience is largely successful when there is a
tight coherence in the metaphors used, that is the winning ticket.

Apple understands this very well, Open source designers need to figure out a
better way to make the metaphors used coherent, it remains to be seen if its
possible in this environment. Style is not trivial

------
plinkplonk
"Here is my position, restated as clearly as I possibly can:

1\. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your
personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these
devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it
without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a
free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad developer
program, and make it free."

This is key to me. The day Apple allows me to program whatever I want and
deploy to _my_ device without giving them an _annual_ "developer fee", I'll
buy an IPad, ITouch and MBP.

I am no Open Source Zealot and am perfectly fine with the closed OS and
somewhat ok with the AppStore policies, but I find "developer fees" a very
patronizing idea, specifically when I have to pay it every year! wtf! if I
paid for the damn device. why should I _rent_ my right to develop on it with
20% of the device cost annually?!.

So hopefully someone in Apple will listen people like Payne and revoke the
developer fee (at least the "annual" bit).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I am an "Open Source Zealot". If Apple waved a magic wand and killed all the
open source software on my Macbook (not even counting the stuff they bake in
themselves) then it would be useless to me.

The App store process seem to break the open source model for no obvious gain.
I can't modify some app to suit myself, my company or my family. I can't find
a bunch of willing collaborators. Everyone has dollar signs in their eyes and
is forced to invest in a Mac, a yearly fee and dealing with bureaucracy to get
releases out. This is probably accidental but I want the same process that
creates all the code I appreciate on my other computers to be at least
tolerated, and preferably encouraged on my mobile ones.

I thought we'd left the shareware and freeware days behind, yet here we are
again.

~~~
pyre
The issue isn't so much Apple and the iPad/iPhone, but whether this will start
a trend. In 10 years time will all computer platforms be closed, unless you
shell out top-dollar for a laptop/desktop computer? I hope to hell not.

------
randomCSNobody
Personally, I'd prefer that Apple would release all their code on some sort of
open-source license that enables me to compile and study it at will, in
addition to the freedom of letting me re-distribute that software any way I
want to.

The main problem with any company that releases a piece of software and
demands that you pay for it is that the company is trying to create value that
isn't there. Information, be it code or anything else, is not valuable because
it isn't scarce; I can get the number of copies I have of any piece of data
arbitrarily close to infinity very easily. Apple, however, denies this simple
fact and decides to use copyright law to extract some artificial value that
would not exist under true free-market principles. Granted, Apple is not the
only company that does this, but they're not more moral than Microsoft or any
other corporation that uses these same tactics.

The main problem with this imaginary value is that it's very difficult for
companies to adopt open-source licenses when they don't want to lose their
steady stream of revenue. Of course, customers should be free to pay for code
if they want, but they shouldn't be coerced by government-granted monopolies
in the form of copyright law.

------
jstevens85
>the device launched with a PHP IDE in the App Store on day one, amongst other
code-related applications.

I can't seem to find any of these applications (I'm not sure how to browse for
iPad specific apps in iTunes). Does anyone know which apps he's talking about?

~~~
SwellJoe
Given the rule against scripting on the device, it can't be a particularly
useful IDE...I would guess maybe it's an app front-end to some online PHP
sandbox.

------
signa11
after thinking a bit about it for a while, ipad to me, seems to be more of a
media consumption device than either a computer or a phone. i can read books,
play video-games etc on it, and it seems to be of the just right form-factor
for such activities.

given that, i don't think i would be interested in running any arbitrary
program on it. i would prefer my computer for doing that. apple store thus
becomes more of a alternate clearing-house of published information. i am
probably more concerned about some fundamental erosion of fair-use-rights here
than anything else, as building strict copyright controls on such a device is
probably much simpler .

if content-providers/distributors find ipad to be a viable platform for
disseminating media, then copyright would be back with a vengeance. libraries
/ physical books might then be passe...

