

Apple, Your Developer Agreement Tramples on Free Speech and Innovation - CapitalistCartr
https://act.eff.org/action/apple-your-developer-agreement-tramples-on-free-speech-and-innovation

======
anon1385
The politics of Apple really is quite fascinating.

Is there any other company that people feel so passionately about that they
are prepared to totally reverse their normal political positions? Mention
Apple and you can get a bunch of free market libertarians to come out and
demand strong consumer rights regulation, purely because they hate Apple so
much. Conversely you can get a bunch of socialists sticking up for the right
of a multibillion dollar mega-corp to use DRM, censor all competitors from
their platform and sell products containing materials extracted through slave
and child labour, purely because they like Apple products more than the
alternatives.

~~~
coldcode
"sell products containing materials extracted through slave and child labour"
has no basis in fact; besides every phone manufacturer builds their devices in
the same factories. At least Apple and a few others make attempts to verify
conditions publically. Not everyone even tries.

~~~
anon1385
Heh, you are kind of making my point for me here. Buying the rare elements
needed to build a modern phone is just about impossible to do without sourcing
things from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or other places where child
and slave labour is likely to be involved.[1][2]

The fact that all the other phone manufacturers are just as bad is a
convenient line to use in 'winning' an online platform war argument, but it's
not a good moral argument.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/search-...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/search-
smartphone-soaked-blood)

[2]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/smartph...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/smartphone-
samsung-tin-bangka-island)

~~~
bilbo0s
Just a nit pick... they are sourcing from Rwandans... which is the first sign
that they are dealing with bad guys. The materials they get from the Rwandans
have come from the Congo... where the Rwandans ethnically cleanse areas so
that they can mine the minerals.

So technically... the materials they source from the Rwandans are conflict
materials procured from genocidal Rwandans... not really materials procured
through child labor.

Of course... that just means it's much WORSE than child labor... I just
thought people should have the facts straight more as a matter of principle.

~~~
EGreg
Can you post some links for proof?

~~~
bilbo0s
You can start by googling Laurent Nkunda. To get a feel for what the Rwandan
backed militias who loot these mines are like. Fair warning... that reading is
really not for the timid though.

You can read background on the actual technical and logistical aspects of the
mineral trade from Nest. The book is titled "Coltan".

[http://www.amazon.com/Coltan-Michael-
Nest/dp/0745649327](http://www.amazon.com/Coltan-Michael-Nest/dp/0745649327)

If you want the actual dry but raw data of the UN reports there are several
which touch on the DRC mineral situation, and they are all at the UN's site.
(They only go back to 2004... to go further you'd actually have to get it out
of google cache. But obviously the UN has compiled reports going back much
further for the purposes of future Crimes Against Humanity prosecutions.) In
any case, you can find them here:

[http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1533/egroup.shtml](http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1533/egroup.shtml)

Also, several lawsuits against American suppliers of conflict minerals related
to the DRC morass. For example, here:

[http://oecdwatch.org/files/raid-foe_vs-_us-
companies_press-r...](http://oecdwatch.org/files/raid-foe_vs-_us-
companies_press-release)

And finally, if you want to get involved you can read information at Friends
of the Congo here:

[http://friendsofthecongo.org/resource-
center/coltan.html](http://friendsofthecongo.org/resource-center/coltan.html)

------
martingordon
Is this actually from the EFF or is the EFF Action Center a change.org-style
site where anyone can submit petitions?

I ask only because the text of the letter isn't particularly well written and
contains some glaring mistakes: "Wrap every app in the _Apple store_ with
unnecessary DRM" (emphasis mine).

Apple isn't the government, and no one is compelled to enter into a contract
with them. The EFF's reason for removing their Action Center app from the App
Store are outlined in this petition, which is ironic considering the app
itself is a web app made native with the Ionic framework[2]. Nothing in
Apple's terms prevents the EFF from releasing the app on the web (nor do they
have to agree to any of Apple's terms to release a web app).

[1]: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/sorry-iphone-users-
app...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/sorry-iphone-users-apples-dev-
agreement-means-no-eff-mobile-app-iphone)

[2]: [https://github.com/EFForg/actioncenter-
mobile](https://github.com/EFForg/actioncenter-mobile)

~~~
izacus
Just because they're not the goverment, it doesn't mean their business values
and practices are above reproach, criticism and complaints. Remember,
corporations ARE ALLOWED to be criticized for their business practice choices
and that's OK. Really.

~~~
mcphage
> Remember, corporations ARE ALLOWED to be criticized for their business
> practice choices and that's OK. Really.

Sure they're allowed to be criticized. But that doesn't make every criticism
good or well-founded, and this one is neither.

~~~
olefoo
Given their market power and prominence; you could make a strong case that
unduly restrictive covenants in the contract language are in fact against the
interests of a society that values freedom and equity.

Many of the arguments on this page in defense of Apple could equally well be
applied to a defense of debt slavery or indentured servitude.

Apple taking a third share of every creators work may have been reasonable
when they were a small part of the market; but is less so when they are able
to turn their dominance in the smart phone market into outsized profits and
onerous terms in the media distribution market.

------
DennisP
I'm a bit surprised by all the people here who think that the best way to
object to a corporation's contract offer is to just avoid working with that
corporation. If that's all we do, how is the corporation supposed to know what
it's doing wrong?

Make a public complaint, and (a) you provide better feedback, and (b) you
maybe convince other people to join your boycott, which improves your chance
of modifying the corporation's behavior and making the world a little bit
nicer.

~~~
dsugarman
not buying their products or working with them is the most effective way to
let them know they are doing wrong

------
putzdown
This is illogical and amateurish. The title of the petition claims that Apple
(1) tramples free speech and (2) innovation. Yet the detailed verbiage of the
complaint gives no evidence that they trample free speech, and if their
contract terms trample innovation it is a matter of interpretation. Apple's
developer agreement bans developers from talking about the developer
agreement. A bit draconian, perhaps, but hardly a trampling of "free speech",
and actually quite common within contracts generally. The other complaints are
simply silly. What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak
their devices? What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates?
And we can debate about the morality of DRM, but if you want to see the
difference between a DRM-protected environment and an unprotected environment,
look at the difference between the App Store and Google Play. Profitability
for developers, quality of software, absence of viruses... DRM does accomplish
some positive results. And whether it does or doesn't, in no sense are
anyone's "rights" quashed here.

It's a contract, people. It can say whatever the parties to the contract agree
it should say. If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and
shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.

~~~
Flimm
> actually quite common within contracts generally

Really?

> What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their
> devices?

It's my device and I have the freedom to do with it as I wish. EFF goes into a
lot more detail if you want to read it.

> What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates?

It's not their own security updates, it's security updates to other people's
apps.

> we can debate about the morality of DRM

This is about the fact that developers are forced into shipping it even if
they don't want it.

> If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself
> hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.

I won't sign it, and and I will sign a petition, and I will warn other
developers about it. It's my right to point out bad behaviour and to complain.
You presumably accept this since you just posted a comment complaining about
something.

~~~
fortytw2
Developers aren't forced to develop for Apple products. They aren't forced to
do anything

~~~
thomasahle
It always surprises me when people say this. If somebody forced all fishermen
to only sail in circles, catch fish with their tongues and drink a liter of
sulfuric acid every morning - they would be up in arms. Sure they're not
forced to be fishermen, but you can't blame them for caring.

~~~
putzdown
Well but the key word there is "somebody." If there was a single, all-
encompassing, global world government that forced all fishermen to do this,
then yes, we'd have a problem. If the United States (for example) caused its
fishermen to do this, then the people of the United States would be well-
advised to change this law, else they'll soon be out of fish. But even if they
didn't, it's still not a question of "forcing" or "rights." Fishermen would
simply fish elsewhere; at great cost, perhaps, with a loss of opportunity, no
doubt, but it's still a question of choice.

~~~
thomasahle
Well you can't go anywhere else and be an ios developer. Maybe you could learn
something else and bring some of your customers with you, but it certainly is
harder than just going somewhere else to fish.

------
WhitneyLand
Ok I up voted, but couldn't some of these points be made stronger? For example
the security updates, what exactly is being proposed, that patches should be
able to go into the App Store without review and Apple's static analysis
checks? Or are they just saying there should be a checkbox during submission
for "Security related, please expedite"?

~~~
josephlord
There is an email address where you can request an expedited review. I'm sure
they would accept for security issues (assuming you only make occasional
requests).

~~~
mnem
Expedited requests generally get serviced pretty quickly, from experience.
Within 8 hours both times I've had to request one.

~~~
ctdonath
I've had an expedited fix go thru in 2 hours flat.

------
Mikeb85
If people don't like Apple's terms, don't develop for them.

Personally, I vote with my feet (ie. I currently own nothing Apple, the way
they're going, probably never will again).

~~~
dublinben
>If people don't like Apple's terms, don't develop for them.

This has been the EFF's exact response, and this community has lambasted them
for it. We are told that organizations like the EFF and developers of
security/privacy software should compromise on their ideals and not forsake
deserving users on iOS. This is a classic Catch-22, because providing
beneficial software (Chatsecure, Firefox, etc.) to these users just
perpetuates their abusive relationship with Apple.

~~~
tedunangst
Are people lambasting them for not developing for Apple? Or are people
lambasting them for all the accompanying crocodile tears?

~~~
fpgeek
The tears may have been predictable (and maybe even planned), but they most
certainly _aren 't_ crocodile tears.

These are issues the EFF and its membership deeply and sincerely care about.
The whole point of the organization is to call attention to these issues and
push for change. Complaining that they're working on their mission is pretty
silly.

------
Tloewald
I don't see how this first item -- "Ban iOS developers from ever speaking
about the developer agreement" \-- is true. First, I don't see any such
clause; second, you're allowed to discuss anything that's publicly available,
and you can read the agreement without signing it as part of the developer
program application process, so the agreement is publicly available and thus
can be discussed. You're welcome.

"Require Apple to approve every security update, which means that unaddressed
security bugs could linger and leave users at risk."

Yes, the App Store approval process _could_ cause lingering security problems.
In practice, Android -- which has no such requirements -- is festooned with
malware and iOS is not. So let's protest a _hypothetical_ problem caused by a
solution to a _real_ problem.

Apple also requires that your code with signed and checksummed before
installation. How evil!

"Wrap every app in the Apple store with unnecessary DRM, which limits what
users can do with their apps even if the code is published as free software."

How is it "unnecessary"? It's how the App Store works. It's what allows Apple
to remotely disable an app that turns out to be malicious (and which has
slipped through the approval process). It's part of the iOS value proposition
-- pay us extra to give you a device that won't screw you.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> I don't see how this first item -- "Ban iOS developers from ever speaking
> about the developer agreement" \-- is true.

Section 10.4. It's plain English. "You may not issue any press releases or
make any other public statements regarding this Agreement, its terms and
conditions, or the relationship of the parties without Apple's express prior
written approval, which may be withheld at Apple's discretion."

Then you create a cartoonishly bad alternative and use that to justify Apple's
policies. The Google Play Store isn't "festooned with malware," and nothing in
Apple's review process catches malware. Similarly, every application that runs
on Android must be signed, but it doesn't have to be signed by a certificate
signed by Apple after paying a yearly developer fee and agreeing to an
overbearing contract. The DRM is unnecessary because free software doesn't
require it, and malware in the Play Store can be yanked off phones without
wrapping apps in DRM, so your claim that it's for malware doesn't hold either.
(The agreement doesn't restrict Apple from disabling apps for any other
reason, unlike the Play Store agreement, which does. Applications installed by
the user outside the Play Store are left alone.)

------
dsugarman
Honest question, if you are interested in freedoms why not develop for
Android? You know what you are getting yourself into when you devote your time
developing for a closed system and culture like Apple's.

~~~
lvillani
I'd argue that Firefox OS is an even better proposition if you care about
freedom. Android is slowly becoming the shadow of its former self with more
and more core functionality (from the point of view of a developer) slowly
moving to Google Play Services (which is proprietary).

------
bpatrianakos
> Developers shouldn't have to sacrifice their rights to speak and innovate
> freely just to bring their applications to millions of Apple users.

Ummm... Is this really why they develop for iOS or are they just having fun
mostly, enjoying their craft and (sometimes) making a small profit on the
side. The App Store is but one way to get apps. Sounds like developers with
the beliefs the EFF attributes to them would be better suited to developing
for Jailbroken phones.

------
ekianjo
Don't develop on/for Apple devices. That's an easy fix.

------
coldcode
Having developed for 5 years on iOS I've never found it a burden. Sure you
might wait a few days for approval, but at least generally it keeps the App
Store content dependable and trustworthy from a customer standpoint. Like
people always say, you don't like the rules, don't play in the sandbox. While
the EFF has a lot of good things to say, complaining that Apple should do
things against its own rules is not constructive. Android is far more open
which makes some people happier but makes their store far less trustworthy
(and even less so if you get apps outside their Store). You as a developer
always have a choice. I don't think this is a useful point of argument for the
EFF.

------
matthewmacleod
Honestly, the DRM and security update aspects are probably acceptable
restrictions – in that we know what Apple's policies are, and these are
unreasonable in that context.

If course, not being permitted to talk about the product or agreement is
stupid.

------
_Simon
What, they think that 3000 signatures will make Apple change their terms? 3000
devs that in all likelihood will find another reason to whine? 3000 people
that do not under what free speech is?

Hey EFF! I want my fucking money back.

------
NietTim
Wat. How does a stores guidelines and agreements "trample" _free speech_?!
It's their store, their rules. Don't like it? Start writing apps for another
platform. A muslim supermarket can chose to not carry non-halal food. Does
that Trample on My Free Speech if I were a meat producer?! No.

I love this line:

> Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement.

Yeah. That's called NDA and is very common in contracts. Welcome to the real
world, kid.

~~~
ctdonath
Yes, like it or not.

Burger King says "Have it your way", it's your burger, but that doesn't mean
you can jump the counter, cook the burger to your own exacting specifications,
and pay for it in 1-peso coins.

------
spiralpolitik
It's this kind of grandstanding that annoys the heck out of me and makes me
want to reconsider donating to the EFF in the future.

There are far more important and immediate fish that the EFF should be
focusing their limited resources on frying. Once said fish are fried then
start taking potshots at Apple's Dev Agreement.

------
stretchwithme
Your not giving up your rights when you agree not to do one thing in order to
do another. You're actually exercising your right to enter into contracts.

You have the right to sleep all day. And perhaps you've agreed to not do that
while you are collecting an hourly wage. Nobody's violating your right to
sleep.

~~~
hobs
There are limits to what you can do in a contract for a reason.

A hyperbolic example: "I agree to allow you to kill and eat me so you can pay
my family thousands of dollars. "

However I think that the rights signed away are not beyond the bound of
normalcy. This is more of a campaign to change the expectations of the
industry as they are all doing this in some form or another.

The focus on them is just because they are high profile enough to maybe push
the rest of the industry.

------
rockshassa
I was able to get around this issue by not actually reading the agreement.

------
ctdonath
Those barriers are erected precisely because the lack thereof was abused
enough to warrant them. Take them down, and something worse than those limits
will occur.

The developer agreement is between the developer and Apple. It's nobody else's
business.

Jailbreaking tears down walls critical for user-convenient security. Walls,
fences, and locking doors are normal in business.

Security flaws can be serviced by expedited review, screening for anything
else going wrong as well in as little as 2 hours. Normal review is required to
ensure nothing traumatic happens.

DRM ensures that what users get is what they expected from the developer.
Repackaged-with-malware is avoided.

I'm disappointed EFF would make such a lame list of complaints, while having
locks on their doors.

~~~
hahainternet
> I'm disappointed EFF would make such a lame list of complaints, while having
> locks on their doors.

What are you talking about. Seriously nothing in your post makes sense.

~~~
ceejayoz
I was able to make sense of the post.

I'd say Apple prioritizes their customers' rights to have a secure, safe,
functional device that's reasonably free from concerns over things like
malware and other malicious app behaviors. This has some developer downsides,
but as both a customer and a developer on Apple products, I'd prefer they
prioritize the user experience over development.

~~~
Flimm
Apple is contractually forcing developers to not discuss the contract, in what
way is that good for users?

Apple can still have a walled garden without contractually requiring
developers to forgo their right to jailbreak their own device.

DRM does not benefit users at all. It is not necessary to have DRM to have a
walled garden.

~~~
ctdonath
"Good for users"? it's not the users' business to know details of contracts
between developers & Apple.

Jailbreak away - but Apple rightfully disavows any predicted or unforeseen
consequences, and won't work with anyone who won't work with what Apple
considers sensible rules facilitating development & usage. If you're going to
bring bags of weed seeds (or anything else which predictably cause problems)
into my walled garden, get out of my garden.

DRM assures you can use your purchased products on the devices you want ...
and that nobody else can, and that nobody is going to repackage apps to
include malware.

~~~
Retra
>"Good for users"? it's not the users' business to know details of contracts
between developers & Apple.

Who are you to say what a user's business is? If someone is engaging in
unethical conduct, it is their customers' right to know about it. How are
consumers supposed to make informed decisions if they do not even know what
they are funding?

~~~
sbuk
What is unethical? What are they funding? Why the emotive language? Who are
you or the EFF to say that it _is_ anybody's business to know about two other
third parties agreements? What difference will it make to consumers to know
what the contract stipulates?

~~~
Retra
>What is unethical? What are they funding?

That's exactly what the consumer wants to know. They are funding whatever is
stipulated in those contracts.

>Who are you or the EFF to say that it is anybody's business

I am me, and I say what is my business.

~~~
ctdonath
Then work out a contract with the other two. If they don't agree to your
terms, then it literally is not your business.

~~~
Retra
Attempting to establishing a legal obligation to share information is pretty
much that, I would think. Seems like that's the whole point of a democracy,
no? To allow the people to make things their business?

I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by
democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe
they should leave the country.

~~~
sbuk
"Attempting to establishing a legal obligation to share information is pretty
much that, I would think. Seems like that's the whole point of a democracy,
no? To allow the people to make things their business?" No! Absolutely not!!!
How is that _any_ different from the asinine mutterings of David Cameron over
data encryption? Freedom of speech does _not_ give you the right to no my, or
_anyone_ else's business. What about freedom of privacy?

"I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by
democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe
they should leave the country." So you agree that the NSA is right to snoop on
the citizens of the US? It's _exactly_ the same thing.

------
bitwize
EFF, Your Overweening Moralism Doesn't change The Fact That Developers Target
Us First. --Apple

------
happyscrappy
>Developers shouldn't have to give up their rights to make an iPhone app. App
makers should demand better terms, and the customers who love their iPhones
should back them.

If this is what EFF is spending my money on I will never donate to them again.
I was with them on the battle to keep jailbreaking legal.

------
poolpool
This is insulting to everyone who fights for actual free speech rights.

Another clickbait from eff.

------
blfr
Apparently, people are generally fine with it. You will routinely hear
nowadays that private agreements cannot trample on free speech because that
only applies to governments. This argument even made its way to xkcd.

[http://xkcd.com/1357/](http://xkcd.com/1357/)

The other issues are largely trade-offs. How much piracy are you willing to
accept? How does it affect sales and availability of software for the
platform?

How soon should we patch? Right away or on Patch Tuesday? How thoroughly
should we test? How much instability are we willing to tolerate? And so on.

~~~
Gracana
> You will routinely hear nowadays that private agreements cannot trample on
> free speech

That comic is a response to people complaining about "freedom of speech" after
their harassing comments have been removed from a forum or article comment
thread. I'm not sure the same line of thinking translates so directly to a
corporate software development license agreement.

~~~
delinka
"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you
say."

It doesn't mean anyone else has to tolerate what you say. It doesn't mean a
contract between private parties (i.e. not a contract with a gov't entity)
can't dictate the things you may or may not discuss about the parties or the
agreement itself.

In other words: "free speech" has nothing to do with anything except whether
the government can arrest you for running your yap. Which further means a
corporate software development license agreement can stipulate anything it
wants.

And you are free not to accept that agreement and not partake of the benefits
the agreement bestows.

------
kristiandupont
Forgive me, but what a stupid petition, presenting what is basically a
consumer preference as a political claim! In my humble opinion, this does
nothing but water down the potential significance of real petitions.

------
Fogh
Apple is a private company, so stop trying to decide what they should or
shouldn't do.

~~~
caio1982
Are you implying consumers should not have their voices somehow heard (no
matter how stupid their requests are) by private companies? I think your
comment underestimate the power of consumers and customers of products -- and
ultimately of boycotts. If this petition had been signed by 1.5 millions
instead of just 1.5 thousand I wonder if you would consider it more... valued?
Let them speak out if that is what they want.

~~~
maccard
Signing a petition is easy. If this is to make a difference those 1500
developers need to not support apples policies and boycott the apps tore, and
get users to do the same.

~~~
ctdonath
Petitions mean nothing, when those signing vote the opposite with their feet
and wallets.

