

EFF on Apple's iPhone Developer Program Agreement - dpifke
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all

======
JunkDNA
I'm not trying to be snarky, but has the EFF given the same treatment to the
PS3 and Nintendo Wii agreements? Xbox 360?

Also, there is a bit of showmanship on the EFF's part here by going the FOIA
route. You have to be able to read the contract before agreeing to it. Anyone
(legally) can walk down the path of signing up for the developer account, and
then bail when they get to the developer agreement. The reason that "public
copies are scarce" is that anyone can go to Apple's website and go through the
signup process and decide for themselves if the agreement is to their liking
or not.

~~~
ajross
I'm only trying to be a little snarky, but if Apple had limited themselves to
producing a hand-held gaming console, I suspect folks would be a little less
upset. There's a moral difference between locking down a purely entertainment
gadget and one that's intended to store and manage most or all of my personal
information.

And yes, to the extent that consoles are moving out of the "purely
entertainment" category, their SDK restrictions are becoming equally
troublesome. I think a good argument can be made that this is one of the
reasons they're having trouble getting beyond the gaming market, in fact.

------
scootklein
developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything.
nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch.

what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch.
charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem
completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are
wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't
care.

time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on
and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor

~~~
yason
_developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything.
nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch._

Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still
have it.

I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc
— a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980.
Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and
more stuff.

I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone
applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as
is the case with 80's and 90's games.

It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic
minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul
Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on
the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or
a tsunami. (Or something like that.)

~~~
tedunangst
People were writing free software long before the FSF existed.

~~~
yason
I've understood that basically before FSF was founded, there was no need for
"free software" as software was generally considered a side-product by
computer manufacturers. IIRC it wasn't until early 80's when companies started
routinely charging for and licensing software, thus propelling the founding of
a counter-movement such as FSF.

RMS and folks just wanted the old way back. Please correct me if I'm wrong on
details, I'd very much like to know better.

~~~
eplanit
Not exactly.

Prior to the 1980s, most computing was on highly proprietary mainframes. The
industry was dominated by IBM. Consumers (companies, not individuals) could
not _own_ their software. It was all licensed product by IBM and the big
vendors. Many vendors did not sell, but instead licensed, their machines, as
well. It was very closed, and innovation cost the inventor dearly, and made
the vendor a fortune.

The 1980s saw the maturation of the mid-size market, the revolution of the new
PC world, an opening up of the hardware and software world, and a hugely
exploding new user base. The entire paradigm for the computer market changed.
Note, though, the tendency of vendors (ahem, Apple) to return to this world.

Anyone who wants the old days has not been studying history.

~~~
yason
Thanks for contributing. One more question:

I've understood that those who bought the early mainframes still did get the
sources and were allowed to modify and recompile stuff — possibly at their own
risk but anyway. That I believe is what FSF wanted back when software started
coming up in closed form. Was it like that?

------
jasongullickson
Dear EFF, "If you've got a better way to make ice..."

If you have a way to design, produce and maintain a device and platform that
is as interesting and compelling to both developers and customers as what
Apple has done, and you can do it without any restrictions on what third-party
developers do with it, by all means, go for it.

The "smartphone" and similar devices have been around for at least a decade.
Apple didn't come up with some magic chip or something to suddenly make them
viable, it is their system that is the difference.

Is there a cost to developers? Certainly, but nothing stops you from writing
code for more than one platform and if you think you have a killer app but
need more freedom than Apple allows, release it somewhere else.

I think what most people miss is that there is a relationship between the
control Apple exhibits and the quality of their results; if you don't believe
this is true then there are other options for you out there.

I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared
global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory
about using or coding for the iPhone.

~~~
jrockway
The EFF is about electronic freedom. The iPhone takes away the freedom of
users and developers. They are merely enumerating how that happens, so that
developers who are unaware of the strict contract they signed understand what
freedom they gave away just to put an app in the app store.

 _I'm tired of hearing about how Apple is "abusing" developers, unlike shared
global resources like the Internet and clean air, there's nothing compulsory
about using or coding for the iPhone._

Because people really care what you're tired of hearing. (I'm tired of hearing
about what you're tired of hearing about. And you're probably tired of hearing
that I'm tired of hearing what you're tired of hearing about. Do you see where
this leads?)

Anyway, that's not what this article is about; it's just a list of strange
conditions that you agreed to when you signed up for the iPhone SDK. You can
only sue Apple for $50, you can't talk about the SDK, you can never exercise
your legal right to reverse-engineer any Apple product ever again, etc. Pretty
strange, and not something a reasonable person would expect to find in this
sort of agreement. That is all the article is saying.

~~~
rimantas

      The EFF is about electronic freedom
    

Maybe they should do something about GPL then. I find it limiting my freedom.

~~~
jrockway
The ability to take away other people's freedom is not freedom.

~~~
ynniv
The GPL takes away other people's freedom.

~~~
jrockway
If you consider taking away other people's freedom to be a freedom, which we
already decided we don't.

------
sublemonic
_In short, no competition among app stores means no competition for the
license terms that apply to iPhone developers._

What is impacting developers is the lack of competition between the iPhone and
other mobile devices. Apple's app store is winning because iPhone is winning.
This will not always be the case.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Why do you assume that a phone should have no more than one app store?

~~~
loup-vaillant
OK, someone here apparently thinks that having 2 or more app stores for a
smart-phone is obviously silly.

A smart-phone is a computer. A damn _computer_. Would you want to have only
one app store for your desktop? Like, you have to get Microsoft's seal of
approval before you can publish any program at all? Would you like to be
unable to run Open Office? GNU/Linux?

The "only one app store" thing is good old "Trusted Computing" (I should say
"treacherous", by the way). Now, anyone, please prove me that the _size_ of a
computer is significant enough to warrant lock-down in some cases, and not in
others.

------
praptak
If I were to agree to such draconian terms there would have to be a _huge_
incentive. This is not the case: [http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-
incredible-app-store...](http://www.stromcode.com/2009/05/24/the-incredible-
app-store-hype/)

Entering such an unfavorable contract for mere hope of raking 20 bucks a day?
Count me out.

~~~
ynniv
1) Don't underprice your app.

2) It's a plate, not an IV - you still have to make something people want to
eat, and then convince them to eat it.

This guy has 20 apps floating around the store... how much analysis and
marketing can he really be doing? Then he justifies this by saying it might
only take him from "$20 to $30" a day. If you are a company, it is your job to
experiment with acquiring customers and determining the ROI on marketing.

The AppStore just attracts a lot of armchair entrepreneurs. Some of them hit
gold, some didn't. I'm tired of hearing about all of them.

------
jrockway
Yeah, but the lists spring back when you hit the end! And there is no ugly
battery door!

~~~
bmalicoat
I know you're being sarcastic but the springiness of the iPhone controls is
one thing I miss when using any Android device. If nothing else it let's you
know all your input is being recognized, which is very important. But yes, I'd
much rather have an open device without a restrictive dev contract than
springy scrolling.

~~~
alexandros
I am sure the android devs would love to implement that, but there were a few
patents in the way...

~~~
ynniv
I understand that everyone is on a tirade against software patents right now,
and a patent on a springy list control would seem pretty silly.

Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its
awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the
table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a
solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem
fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.

~~~
alexandros
Tell that to Wil Shipley. Oh I forgot, he can't afford to patent and have
lawyers to protect the patent, so it's all right.
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-
familiar...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar-
youre-not-the-only-one/)

~~~
GHFigs
You can't patent a look. Or copyright it. Or trademark it.

~~~
alexandros
I believe the original Apple vs. Microsoft patent spat was for 'Look & Feel'
as is part of the current 'Apple vs. Nokia' and 'Apple vs. HTC' patent duels.
However my point was that Apple definitely builds on the ideas of others,
oftentimes pretty blatantly. So no moral high ground there. What the legal
system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.

~~~
GHFigs
"Look & Feel" suit was a copyright suit. At least in theory. It established
that you can't copyright "Look & Feel", like I said.

 _What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things._

You were wrongly conflating the two.

------
stanleydrew
_Section 14 states that, no matter what, Apple will never be liable to any
developer for more than $50 in damages._

I dislike what Apple is doing with the app store as much as the next guy, but
to be fair don't most contracts try to include some clause limiting liability
like this, that in reality is almost never enforceable? Is this really so
strange? (Honest question, so would love some real answers.)

~~~
protomyth
Deal with PayPal or read the agreements from Microsoft and no - you will not
find it unique to Apple.

------
eplanit
What's funny is how anyone is surprised. This isn't some new manifestation of
Apple -- it's the Apple Computer I grew up resenting through the first 10
years of my career. Prior to OS X, Apple was always about being closed,
proprietary, and all-controlling. That they ever ventured away from that must
have been viewed by their leadership as a 'necessary evil', to be done for
only a limited period.

This agreement, which I rejected and thus did not become an iPhony developer,
is not at all a surprise. It's as warm and familiar as Apple pie. I'll have
cake, instead.

