
Apple's Crystal Prison and the Future of Open Platforms - Garbage
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/apples-crystal-prison-and-future-open-platforms
======
mellis
Doesn't Gatekeeper allow you to sign apps that aren't distributed through the
Mac app store and avoid the warning mentioned in the article? That makes it a
feature that's explicitly intended to improve the security of the Mac
_without_ requiring that all apps be bought through the Mac app store (i.e.
the opposite of the EFF's argument).

Also, there's more to the iOS story than the small amount of money that Apple
makes from the app store. Apple has over $20 _billion_ in revenue per quarter
from the iPhone [1], making Cydia's $10 million / year about a hundredth of a
percent of Apple's revenue. Tim Bray has an interesting estimate [2] of how a
small a fraction of iPhone revenue goes to software developers - $12 vs. $350
for the hardware - making Apple's cut an even smaller ~$5. I would argue that
user experience and control are a much larger part of the motivation for
locking down iOS than the additional revenue.

There's a good argument to made about the problems with closed platforms but,
by being misleading about Apple's technology and motivation, the EFF does a
poor job of making it here.

[1] <http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy12datasum.pdf> [2]
[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2012/03/04/Mobile-
Mon...](http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2012/03/04/Mobile-Money)

~~~
saurik
As the guy who runs Cydia, your analysis of the money involved (or really,
money _not_ involved ;P) is spot on, but can be made even stronger: it isn't
as if these things distributed by Cydia are things Apple would distribute in
the first place, so even if that "lost" revenue were a meaningful amount,
Apple has no mechanism to get it anyway.

(Honestly, if you could distribute something in the App Store, and are coming
to Cydia instead, you are going to get some funny looks on my end. Cydia is
not about accepting the App Store's rejects, _nor is it about competing with
the App Store_. It is a way to distribute things fundamentally unlike the
things in the App Store: extensions, not apps.)

Frankly, every time anyone--the EFF included--makes the argument that this
somehow comes down to sales numbers and revenue competition, it just
undermines the cause. :( That really sucks, as I think this is a serious issue
and there really are good arguments to be made, but instead everyone just
latches on to this simple-but-wrong direct revenue idea.

(For those who then ask "ok, what are some of those arguments?", I will direct
you to the comments I sent to the copyright office for this year's round of
exemption requests. I focus on things like cross-market control and the
stifling of non-app innovation. You can also, however, make arguments about
consumer control, purchase longevity, and security.)

<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf>

~~~
zatara
Hi saurik, I just would like to thank you for the wonderful job you did (and
do) with Cydia. Jailbreaking and Cydia access is my first priority on any iOS
device I buy, and I could never imagine myself buying another iPad/iPhone if
Cydia stopped existing. IMHO you are not competing with Apple, but rather
augmenting their ecosystem and keeping users like myself from drifting towards
Android.

------
JackC
I'm glad the EFF is working on this -- their bill of rights at the end is a
great proposal. It is so deeply frustrating for Apple to promote a vision of
the next generation of computers (i.e., iPhones) where the hardware maker gets
to decide what kind of software you're allowed to run.

The other day Gruber posted two consecutive stories that really brought this
into focus:

(1) Apple has stayed true to Woz's vision from 1977 for personal computers.
[1] (2) It's not surprising that Apple decided to unpublish software that used
a "non-public streaming audio format," because it violated the spirit of
section X.Y.Z of their rules of what kind of software you're allowed to run on
your iPhone. [2]

Thinking about Woz's actual vision for personal computers, the second story is
really a punch in the gut. _No one_ should have that kind of arbitrary control
over our computers.

[1] <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/05/24/woz-apple-ii> [2]
[http://daringfireball.net/2012/05/more_on_airfoil_speakers_t...](http://daringfireball.net/2012/05/more_on_airfoil_speakers_touch)

------
mxey
The post claims that Mountain Lion will by default only allow apps from the
Mac App Store, where Apple takes a 30% cut. That is not true — Mountain Lion
also allows signed apps by default, and getting a certificate for signing is
free.

~~~
drone
It does not say that at all, in fact it says:

"The upcoming version of Mac OS X, Mountain Lion, will reportedly include
warning messages that strongly discourage users from installing apps from
sources other than the Mac App Store. Fortunately, it will be possible to turn
this off in Mountain Lion and install apps from anywhere you want, but Apple
is continuing down the dangerous road of making their products less open."

"Strongly Discourage" != "Disallow"

~~~
glassx
Yes, but the statement is still wrong. By default, apps signed with the free-
certificates aren't discouraged, they're as first-class as AppStore apps
(however, there's a setting to disallow them). Not that Apple is making any
effort to clear those misconceptions...

------
pnathan
I categorically agree that this idea of restricting what software should be
run based upon someone else's whim is _wrong_ , as a moral wrong.

It ought not to be that Apple can tell you what you can do with your iP\ _, or
MS with your W8 phone. Or, for that matter, present chilling effects on
actually using your computer to its fullest extent. E.g., "Don't use this open
source app, it didn't Get Trusted". That's a racket!

An iP\_ _is_ a computer, and it ought to be considered to have all the
freedoms that PCs have had for thirty years.

------
mbq
Great post -- I hope this will eventually trigger some serious discussion
about hardware openness. People should realize it is (at least!) a serious
freedom of competition issue, not only an odd fetish of weird bearded men.

~~~
Udo
While I share your hope that posts like these will one day trigger serious
discussions about hardware and software openness, my rational side is far less
optimistic about the future. So far the normal everyday user doesn't seem to
care for openness, in fact I believe a huge portion of that demographic would
assert that computers are too powerful right now ("confusing", "difficult",
"full of nerd jargon", "I don't want to learn how to do these things") and
they'd welcome any development that made their MacBooks work _exactly_ like a
smartphone - including heavy-handed censorship and everything. I am convinced
that the computers of the future will be severely limited devices and people
will love it.

~~~
ttt_
There's no reason both ways cannot coexist. Just put a gateway out of the
walled garden so people can come and go as they please.

~~~
taligent
If only it was that simple.

Those "people" who come and go as they please include those "people" who are
trying to run bots, steal information, spam etc.

~~~
mbq
What about a law-enforced, sealed jumper under the battery? You break it with
a screwdriver and a gadget permanently enters "open" mode in which original,
proprietary OS performs suicide and decodes the bootloader. Hostile jailbreak
is hard and won't get unnoticed, producer software is safe and advanced users
can't be ignored.

------
jsz0
If people want to buy a managed platform that is their choice. No organization
with the word 'freedom' in their name should be actively trying to take
choices away from consumers. That's just bizarre. It's like arguing StarBucks
shouldn't sell me a coffee because it takes away my freedom to make my own
coffee at home. Of course it does not. Just because you like to make coffee at
home doesn't mean you should be able to force me to do it.

~~~
saurik
If people want to buy an unmanaged platform, that should also be their choice,
but sadly there are almost no options for that, and they all put the user at a
severe disadvantage for having made that decision (of course, and to be clear,
along axes that have nothing to do with it being unmanaged).

The reason government exists is that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few (or the one). Laws take away people's choices because we
consider some choices to be dangerous, whether in the short term (direct
damage to others) or in the long term (the relevancy in this context would be
our laws against monopolies and trusts).

------
chj
Begging is not going to make things better. The best weapon is to actually
leave the platform (not threatening to). I believe eventually someone can
build an equally good device. At the same time, developers should publish
their apps on other platforms as soon as iOS versions come out. Otherwise
Apple will always have your balls -- the customers -- in their hands.

~~~
gawker
I think it's easier said than done. Sure, with more users on Android and the
potential of making money getting higher by the day, there's hope. But as
we've seen, Android's really fragmented and as a developer, providing support
to all your users on so many different devices is absolutely brutal.

~~~
ajross
Have we actually seen that? I've seen a lot of meta-argumentation here about
"fragmentation", but almost no use cases of "providing support on android is
absolutely brutal".

~~~
anextio
I've experienced it first hand at my previous company.

It's not unmanageable, but it's certainly a lot harder than supporting iOS.

------
greggman
I understand the positive arguments for keeping so many things about iOS
closed. Examples: It provides a more consistant user experience. It lets Apple
control more of the over all quality. Etc.. I also understand some of the
negative arguments for keeping it closed. Apple makes money on the app store
and media sales so why would they let a different bookstore, music store or
app store in.

But I think there's a bigger picture argument. It goes something like this

Imagine it's say 1982. Imagine all the popular computers at that time were as
ridged and closed as iOS is now. Imagine it stayed closed for 30 years. You're
allowed to make apps but nothing that Apple says no to. How many innovations
would we be living without?

Would mp3s and music services even exist? If I remember correctly the first
mp3 player I ever used was Winamp in 1996-97. It came out long long before
iTunes. If the lead computer companies never allowed anything other than the
music apps that existed in 1982 would we have downloadable music now?

How about web browsers and the internet? Back in 1982 there were things like
Compuserve. If the lead computer companies didn't allow any generic net
browsing would the internet have ever even happened? Would we still be using
terminal emulators as the only way to access the internet?

Would we even have internet at all? iOS doesn't allow external gadgets to
connect directly to it that are usable by any apps. In 1982 personal computers
didn't have networking. Networking was added over the course of the next 10-15
years mostly by 3rd party hardware. If computers has been as closed as iOS
would networking on computers ever have happened?

How about browsers? Browsers didn't exist in 1982. Let's assume Apple decided
to implement a single browser. Would it be anywhere near as powerful as
today's browsers? Looking at the history of browsers it was the competition of
IE, Netscape and then Firefox, Safari and Chrome that have brought us modern
browsers. But arguably that would never have happened if, like iOS, all those
computers banned making a browser.

How about all these languages. Perl, Python, C++, Java, Lua, Ruby. None of
those languages existed in 1982. Yes, iOS allows you to use any language you
want to make an app BUT....iOS does not allow you to make a programming
environment. Imagine the computers for the last 30 years didn't allow you to
make a programming environment. How would any of these languages even have
come into being if they were outright banned as iOS bans them?

That's the problem with iOS's closed eco-system. It stifles innovation and
prevents competition. We've seen how well that's worked in the past. Hint, it
hasn't worked well.

Now, I certainly don't want an OS that's buggy with a crappy user interface
and a poor experience. But I don't think that's a trade off Apple needs to
make. I believe they can be open AND have the best user experience.

Let's hope they step up and embrace creativity. Even their co-founder thinks
Apple needs to do this.

~~~
jsz0
_It stifles innovation and prevents competition_

I disagree. iOS is not the only mobile platform. It's not even the most
popular one. Apple keeps an eye on other platforms and when something works
they implement a similar feature. Their customers get to skip the whole ugly
process of trial & error that often fosters that innovation. That's exactly
what Apple is good at. Some of us pay Apple to curate and manage the platform
for us.

~~~
littledreamer
I agree.

Windows (and MAC OS) has been a closed platform for more than 20 years, iOS
for 5 years and so far we are all still alive, no doomsday apocalypse scenario
with zombies and aliens!

~~~
cdcox
Windows is a closed platform? It's obviously less open than Linux but it's
hardly closed compared to iOS.

I can install anything I want on my Windows computer without approval from
Microsoft. I can stop updates, limit updates, change the way my computer
boots, and use (almost) any OS resources for anything I feel like. I can wipe
my computer and install another OS if I feel like it. When I buy software, the
company that makes it can keep updating it however they feel without any
chance of the software being 'pulled' by Windows. I don't have to worry about
a program I'm buying breaking Windows 'rules'. Windows doesn't control any
purchases I make in any app and doesn't limit sexual content of my installs.

What iOS is doing is something entirely different from what Windows has ever
done, and meaning of 'closed' is entirely different when discussing these
platforms.

~~~
glogla
Not that I disagree with you about current Windows versions, but from what I
heard about Windows 8, Microsoft is trying to be more like Apple with iOS
here, with the locked UEFIs, not allowing rival browsers or making them
unusable on purpose (exactly like Apple did on iOS), and the "oh and noone
want's to use our new GUI so we make devtools that can be used with anything
else cost extra" thing.

Looks like both MS and Apple have chosen different side in war on general
purpose computing than (I would imagine and hope) any "hacker" would.

------
api
A lot of Apple's power here comes from the fact that they have a near-
monopoly: not on any protocol, technology, or format, but on good industrial
and UI design.

The situation with good design and usability today is similar to the situation
with formats and OSes with Microsoft in the 90s.

------
TwistedWeasel
When did a small quote from an interview...

"I think that Apple could be just as strong and good and be open, but how can
you challenge it when a company is making that much money?" he [Wozniak] said.

turn into "made a public call" for Apple to open up it's platforms?

------
nicholassmith
Other people have picked up on factual inaccuracies so I'll pick on the
commodore 64 one. It was blocked for the BASIC interpreter, then Apple review
it's rules and guidance again, and allow people to include interpreters.

So yeah, Apple blocked it, carefully reviewed it's policies, admitted they
made a mistake and rectified it.

I'm not saying I disagree with the crux of the argument, if people want it to
be open then I think Apple should at least allow some mechanism, but lets look
at it objectively. Can I currently install non-App Store apps on my
phone/access at a root level? Yeah, sure, I jailbreak it and open it up. Can I
install a non-iOS release on there? Sure, if I have an iPhone 3G I can. Should
Apple honour a warranty for hardware failure if my phone is jailbroken? They
should, but I wouldn't expect they would if they can't guarantee it wasn't
something in the software. That's unlikely, but if Apple can save the repair
costs well, they're a business and that doesn't stun me.

It's open to the people who want it open, by exploring the boundaries and
pushing people forward. Imagine if Apple opened the platform up, they'd give
the Dev Team nothing to do. They'd be sad, all the joy of exploring the edges
and adding another point on the score board gone.

~~~
saurik
This argument makes about as much sense as claiming that in practice a
minority of slaves already have reasonable lives if (a _big_ if) they are
tending to a benevolent family (remember that most people simply don't have an
iPhone 3G: the iPhone 4S is a vastly different story with respect to the
exploits we have; even most of the 3GS's in the wild don't have permanent
untethers), those that don't can always escape (as if it were a simple process
to do so, or there aren't other tradeoffs and risks), and that giving people
general civil liberties would be a sad day as it would deny freedom fighters
something to do while playing what is trivialized to a board game (ignoring
that there are either other front-lines they could then moving the battle to,
and forgetting that there are things more valuable to do in life than spend
all of your time and energy fighting for something that should already be
true).

~~~
nicholassmith
(I'll preface, I'm a big fan of your work and think you're a super clever
guy).

Equating it to slavery is pushing us towards a Godwin-esque territory. You, as
a person, as an individual, as a consumer have the right to pick and choose
what device you want. If you want an open platform it is your right to pick
it, it's not your right to expect it, yet anyway. You, as a slave, as private
property, as owned goods would not have a choice. You're defined by a lack of
choice.

I'm all for giving people civil liberties, and I think it'd be nice for Apple
to open their platform. But they don't need to, or have to, and as far as we
can tell don't want to. This isn't a strict case of it being a civil liberty
as Apple hasn't taken away your right to choose, they've simplified it. You
want low-level access, the ability to go outside our App Store, you can have
it by fighting against us or going elsewhere.

Like I say, I'm a big fan of the work both you and the Dev Team do, and I
think everyone would be sad if you all went 'we've had enough' and moved on
and the platform was shut down to it's initial state, but unless Apple has a
massive change of heart they'll always say 'we're not actively pursuing
jailbreaking as a crime, but we're not going to make it easy' and then we're
always going to have a situation where a dedicated group want access, and will
do anything to have it.

~~~
saurik
Your response ignored my arguments and went in a different direction. Your
original argument was that this set of devices, in specific, were already
effectively open: I demonstrated (I maintain clearly by my point-by-point
analogy) that that was a twisted way of looking at what it meant to be open.

This response seems to have dropped that line of thought and is now claiming
that the ecosystem as a whole is open because I can always choose another
device and that Apple has a right to decide to make a closed system. This is
an entirely unrelated argument, and one I will not respond to as harshly as
the other.

Responding to this different argument, I will point out that I don't really
have the ability to pick a different device, as of devices that are available
almost every single one of them is equally closed. The exceptions are the
irritatingly small handful of Android devices that support "fastboot oem
unlock" in their bootloader.

Your second point, that this currently is not my right to demand, is obvious:
that's why the EFF is lobbying for changes in laws. Claiming that the changes
in law we want to see are not currently laws and thereby we should not be
demanding them as we are not entitled to them is a non-sensical argument
structure.

(For more information on argument paths related to the overall lack of choice,
how it has come to happen, and what it means for related markets, I will
direct you to read the comments I provided the copyright office for this
years' round of DMCA exemptions.)

<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Jay_Freeman.pdf>

~~~
nicholassmith
I'm not going to delve too deeply into this as I think I've said my piece.

So slightly jumbled as it comes to me: \- It may have been a twisted way to
compare my original point but it was a ridiculous comparison to make to start
with. This stuff is important, but not as important as slavery. Maybe you
wanted to make it as ridiculous as possible to try show me up for being
ridiculous, I don't know. \- I certainly did not claim the ecosystem was open.
No where. I said that Apple had simplified the choice of if you want an open
platform, this isn't it. \- Actually you _do_ have the ability to pick another
device, as there's other devices available thats not the iPhone. I'm not
having you have a large, all encompassing choice, but you have a choice. \- I
also never said demand. You're well within your rights to demand. Demand away.
Scream at the top of your lungs for Apple to do it, and I'll cheer you on. I
said you had no right to expect Apple to do something that they don't need to
do. They exist to make products, they don't exist to make _your_ product. \-
We haven't had choice in what we can do with phones for nearly a decade. I
didn't hear of people furiously blogging about how Nokia wouldn't open the
3210. The companies are making devices for the masses, who genuinely _don't
care_ about low-level access.

Like I said, I'd love Apple to open it up a bit more, even if it was similar
to the WinMo 'official' jailbreak and it was enshrined, but I don't expect
anything from a company that exists to make products. If I don't like what
they're doing, I'll go elsewhere. If many people don't like what they're doing
and go elsewhere, someone will eventually cater for their needs.

And I have read your comments, most of it's fairly sensible, but Mobile Flash
didn't die because of iPhone, it died because it was crap on most devices.
Don't blame Apple for an Adobe business decision.

------
perlpimp
That is the trouble with allowing multitude of choices that they in the end
break the "experience" one would come to expect from the device. Apple is an
experience company and that is what they are selling. And people do like and
vote with their money.

Just because some a subset of mindful users think that they should do
otherwise, they should start a company and sell their own product - if they
think that what people would want in the end. Most people's lives are
complicated already and adding some geewhiz feature into their phone that
would make them pause and think for a second - would not win any favours.

Liberty is great but when I am tired and going back home last thing I want to
do I trying to figure out a best way to look up directions to a restaurant,
make call or check messages. I've had android and iOS devices previous one
android now an iPad. It is just that much easier to work with these devices
when on the road. Perhaps if google will get their act together and tighten
the leash on OEMs and make them use a uniform and usable interface across the
board - that would be a step in the right direction. There's just too much
dissonance in Android community it seems to me.

~~~
saurik
When ~10% of the people who buy an iPhone are willing to go to extreme
lengths, following complex instructions from sketchy people (like me) on the
Internet, voiding their warranty in the process, to get it open, you simply
must assume that the real number of people who want to do it (even if they
cannot verbalize that, as they are currently stuck on other scary steps that
they feel are intrinsic to the experience) would in a world where it was even
slightly more supported and not actively trodden on.

~~~
CountSessine
How many of them want to do it for the freedom of installing apps that aren't
available in the App Store, versus how many want to just install App Store
apps without paying for them?

Of all the people I know who've jailbroken their iPhones, I know exactly one
who wanted to extend the system capabilities of his iPhone (he has some cool
mods that let him make wifi and bluetooth adjustments from the home screen).

The rest of them just wanted to get software without paying the developers for
a license.

~~~
saurik
The problem with anecdotes is that other people can use them too: I only have
ever met a single person who "just wanted to get software without paying the
developers for a license". Most of the people I've met are addicted to the
ability to change the icons and sounds with custom themes.

------
nikster
The only thing the EFF should demand is that Apple provide an official way to
jailbreak.

That's it. The rest of the policies are fine. They can show 100 warning
messages, remove any warranty, et cetera - it's their stuff, why would they
support it if you hack it?

Of course Apple will never do that. They will not officially provide a way to
get the device into unsupported territory. Not because they're evil, or want
the money, but because that's against Apple's entire philosophy.

By and large I think the locked down app store is a really good idea - I like
it as a user, even. While I can't get some things I'd like to have, it also
protects me from the kind of crap that happens on the Android app store.

The locked down app store is the reason I don't need to install "Anti Virus"
software from dubious peddlers of scareware. That's something I appreciate to
no end.

------
mitjak
I'm glad the issue is getting an increasing amount of attention. One has to
keep in mind that at the end of the day, all the corporations care about is
increasing their profits.

------
st3fan
"Two weeks ago, Steve Wozniack made a public call..."

I stopped reading after they spelled the name of one of the most important
people in the PC revolution wrong.

------
Morg
In the end, while the author makes interesting or even compelling points for
those who jailbreak phones, most consumers do not give a flying duck about all
that and that makes it unlikely to change.

------
Terretta
It bothers me when these articles pretend you cannot let users install fully
open source apps on their iPhones:

<http://sixrevisions.com/web-development/html5-iphone-app/>

Your users can't install closed binaries except through the app store, but
you're all about open source, right?

So make your app using HTML5 like LinkedIn or Facebook, and simply bypass the
app store.

~~~
__alexs
You can't _install_ open source apps on iOS.

~~~
mxey
You can't get GPL apps. There are other licenses.

~~~
__alexs
Apple don't display any license information when purchasing an app so I think
all OSI approved licenses are off limits since they all have a clause that
requires the license text to be included by the distributor of the work.

~~~
gurkendoktor
Apple lists all the BSD-licensed parts of iOS under
Settings/General/About/Legal. Third-party apps usually hide this information
deep down in the About screen. I have also seen apps that come with a Settings
bundle just to show the licensing information there.

I think it really is only an issue with the (L)GPL.

