
Tell HN: The iPad is open to hacking - cpr
I don't get the hate.<p>Pay your $99 to become a developer, and, once the NDA is lifted, share your code freely with others on github or some other public venue.<p>Think of the $99 as the cost of the SDK. (Even though the SDK &#38; associated tools are freely downloadable.)<p>If you're really interested in sharing arbitrary code with people, this is even perhaps the best way to do it. They download the code, and build &#38; go in Xcode.<p>You're running on a Mach/BSD Unix-based system, so go hog-wild. Port terminal programs, or write your own. Yes, it's true that apps are sandboxed, but now you've got inter-app file sharing (oops, is that under NDA?).<p>Apple has zero interest in what you do with the iPad that doesn't go through the App Store.<p>Think of the App Store as the public roads for the iPad--the state has a vested interest in making sure that drivers are minimally competent, so they have a gatekeeping function in the form of a license. On the private roads, or roads you make yourself, go crazy.
======
jacquesm
> Think of the App Store as the public roads for the iPad--the state has a
> vested interest in making sure that drivers are minimally competent, so they
> have a gatekeeping function in the form of a license.

That really makes no sense at all. You are basically saying that in order to
produce software you have to pass a 'driving test', but in fact there are
millions of people producing open source software that would make the majority
of these apps look like the toys they are.

Sorry, but that really doesn't fly with me, the app store is simply a method
of control that has nothing to do with quality.

Or were those google programmers that got their application refused somehow
incompetent?

The only arbiter of what is 'good enough' and what isn't is the user, not some
approval process.

If all they did was scan for malware I'd have no problem with it.

~~~
cpr
Ok, perhaps the analogy was weak.

Perhaps it's more like you're building cars for people to drive, and some
third party needs to check before people get in the car and kill themselves
because you've made a steering wheel that falls off under slight stress.

~~~
jacquesm
Notepad computers don't kill people, worst case your stuff doesn't work and
they won't use it again.

This is not 'mission critical' by a long shot.

It all boils down to the safety vs freedom argument, we can be 100% safe or we
can have a lot of freedom. Personally I'll take the freedom, if you want to be
100% safe but only able to run vendor approved applications then that's fine
with me, but it is one step too many in the direction of 'trusted computing'
for me.

~~~
cpr
No, worst case your app steals their credit card info (witness the recent
Android bank phishing app) and costs them tremendous time and bother (not to
say potentially money) cleaning up the mess.

In this case, at the first sign of malwareism, Apple can disable the app
immediately for everyone, limiting the damage.

~~~
jacquesm
Phishing requires active participation by the end user, you can't protect
against stupidity.

Do app store applications have the source code audited?

Will Apple take responsibility if something like that were to happen to the
iphone?

Besides, I already said I'm fine with malware scans, what they could simply do
is audit and release a key that approves the app.

If you install an app that was not vetted you're on your own.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"you can't protect against stupidity."_

Trusting that an app on the Android marketplace is who it says it is is _not_
stupidity. Honestly, this sort of geek arrogance ("but surely you must've
known to discombobulate the zorgotron before you bazzed the foobar!") is what
turns people off to geek-friendly platforms.

> _"if something like that were to happen to the iphone?"_

Apple at least vets who you say you are supposed to be before publishing your
app. It's questionable if they will take responsibility if something makes it
through, but the idea is that they're doing due diligence up front, Android is
apparently not.

> _"Besides, I already said I'm fine with malware scans"_

This isn't malware that a malware scan will pick up. It doesn't try to take
root, it doesn't nuke your files, and in fact it _doesn't do anything a
banking app is not expected to do_. No amount of port blocking will save you,
since everything this app does (according to the OS) is fully expected.

> _"If you install an app that was not vetted you're on your own."_

Yet... One side vets the app for you, the other one carries itself like an
authoritative safe haven, but in fact isn't. Any wonder why people flock to
the iPhone App Store?

------
david3smith
Except the $99 is per year, not a one-time cost.

Apple really needs to figure out some kind of open development plan for iPad.
I'd argue it's not so important for the iPhone, but for the iPad, I think it
may be critical...

~~~
jacquesm
It's the new subscription model, subscribe to rights that you should have by
default. Such as the ability to program the computer that you just bought.

Early computers all came with built in programming capability, then we lost
some of that and then open source happened and suddenly it seemed ridiculous
to ask developers money to support your platform.

It's like charging the guys that sweep your street toll.

Be happy that people want to develop for your platform and make it as easy as
possible for them.

Things like this will incrementally push developers away from closed
platforms. Why on earth would anybody pay a subscription to a toolchain. Open
source tools are abundant and free, run on practically any piece of hardware
from small embedded controllers all the way to supercomputers.

When switching from a windows environment to open source for my main dev box a
couple of years ago, I was worried about not being able to bring my tools
along. Now I feel completely unable to do anything useful on a machine that
does not come with at least a full complement of unix tools.

I can see a device like the ipad as a target, but if development is going to
be limited to apple-only then the subscription fee is the smaller part (we do
have an imac here, but I doubt that everybody that wants to develop for the
pad has a mac ready to go).

So for some the cost is significantly higher than just the subscription to the
SDK.

I prefer software without a built in expiry date anyway.

~~~
cpr
The apps you built will never expire. (I know that from personal experience;
we let our iPhone dev certificate expire for a while due to lack of attention,
but our apps never failed to work.)

The SDK you've downloaded will never expire.

Yes, the ability to sign apps will disappear, but you could run them in
unsigned debug mode forever.

~~~
jacquesm
So, effectively you're on the hook for as long as you decide to support your
product.

~~~
cpr
Sure thing! I don't find it offensive to pay $99/year to Apple in exchange for
them maintaining their developer portal and tools.

They invest tens of millions in the toolchain alone every year, and, I'm even
underwriting a lot of great LLVM/clang open source development with my fee...

~~~
wizard_2
They also take 30% of every app you sell. The fact I bought doodle jump
underwrote the developer tools. As of this year they are the single biggest
mobile company due to their app and phone sales. The $100 a developer isn't
much of a profit for them as it is a means to control access.

~~~
cpr
I'm sorry, but I don't think 30% is an unreasonable cut.

When I sell my current indie Mac/Win software through resellers, I have to
give them at least 25% to make it worth their while.

~~~
jacquesm
> I'm sorry, but I don't think 30% is an unreasonable cut.

That's good for you. Did you negotiate with Apple?

Or did you find that since there can not be any competition that it was 30% or
forget it?

> When I sell my current indie Mac/Win software through resellers, I have to
> give them at least 25% to make it worth their while.

Ah, but the interesting bit here is that apparently there you can negotiate.

~~~
cpr
Well, not really--if you don't give a reseller at least 20-25%, they're not
going to be motivated to sell.

------
plinkplonk
"Pay your $99 to become a developer"

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you have to pay this _every year_? (I
remember something like this for IPhone dev). Insane to pay year after year
for the privilege of developing and deploying _your_ code on _your_ device.

yeah we don't "hate" Apple/IPhone/Ipad but it is natural for people to resist
being treated like idiots/serfs/sharecroppers.

~~~
rimantas
How much would hosting your app and doing payment processing yourself cost you
a year?

~~~
plinkplonk
"How much would hosting your app and doing payment processing yourself cost
you a year?"

Ahh but I am _not_ talking about the 30% Apple takes off the price of my app
when sold through the Apple Store ; The AppStore itself is another
sharecropper management device but never mind that for now

I am talking of how much it costs me per year to put _my_ program on _my_
device. The commission on sales (which arguably pays for hosting and payment
processing) is a separate issue.

The latter is arguable. The former is indefensible.

Look, no one is arguing _you_ shouldn't sell your soul to Apple. It is your
money, go right ahead.

The OP asked why people balked at paying 99$ (every year). I was just
explaining why some of us unenlightened developers refuse to see the light
;-).

------
blhack
Am I buying this device from apple, or am I licensing it? Why on Earth should
I have to pay $99/year fee to run code _on my own device_?

~~~
lukifer
The $99 is a one-time fee. (Edit: Oops, I guess not.) If you don't want to go
that route, though, you can bet this thing will get jailbroken in the first
month. :)

~~~
forgotmypasswd
Did they recently change this? It used to be $99 yearly

------
apgwoz
> share your code freely with others on github or some other public venue.

Did anyone notice if it's still a terms of service violation to do this? It is
for the iPhone/iPod as far as I remember.

~~~
cpr
[http://developer.apple.com/iphone/terms/registered_iphone_de...](http://developer.apple.com/iphone/terms/registered_iphone_developer_20081020.pdf)

I don't see anything in the iPhone developer agreement that addresses this
point.

If all you're sharing is your code, and not any of their headers,
documentation, etc., then you're free to do so.

There's a good deal of high-quality open-source iPhone library code out there
on github right now.

~~~
apgwoz
[http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-
app...](http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-
iphone-dont-mix)

------
NathanKP
It still doesn't feel right to have to pay $99 just to test your code on the
device.

~~~
rbanffy
Think of it as the cost of the device. You have a consumer-grade device and a
developer-friendly one that costs $99 more.

It doesn't feel right, really, because they are the same device, but I suspect
you can get used to it.

Besides that, it's a question of time for the device to be jailbroken. A
jailbroken iPad is a very nice thing to have, IMHO.

~~~
jonknee
... Per year. So if you have the device for three years, make sure you tack on
$297.

------
nollidge
Or I could wait for the next device to come along, one that's just a flat PC,
and not have to jump through any hoops whatsoever.

~~~
jacquesm
I've been looking around but I can't find anything that comes close and isn't
vapourware.

But I don't think it'll be long.

~~~
joezydeco
The Android-based MIDs are really close. Just ask Dell.

~~~
jacquesm
I googled a bit and found this:

[http://www.slashgear.com/dell-android-midsmartphone-
prototyp...](http://www.slashgear.com/dell-android-midsmartphone-prototypes-
spotted-3048259/)

[http://www.slashgear.com/dell-streak-5-inch-3g-android-
mid-l...](http://www.slashgear.com/dell-streak-5-inch-3g-android-mid-
leaks-2161220/)

neat!

------
drcode
I hope we can expect at least some loosening of app store restrictions for the
iPad- This pad would be great for an "iphone game construction kit" and I
think it's a bit irrational for Apple to argue that it would be harmful for
folks to create such an app on a full-screen device like the iPad.

------
ableal
> (Even though the SDK & associated tools are freely downloadable.)

"[citation needed]", as they say - today I looked into it, and that does not
seem to be true anymore.

I did bump into the free university program (
<http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/university.html> ), which is tucked
a bit out of the way. And there's the free "Online Member" (at
<http://developer.apple.com/products/membership.html> ).

But the path to the SDK does seem to be paved with 99 USD. I have no
particular objection to that, just curious to know if there is a free peek at
the goodies or not.

~~~
cpr
You appear to be right--you have to login as a developer to get at the
currently-available & public 3.1 SDK.

Edit: Oh, but you can register for free just to get access to the SDK. I guess
that means you can't test on a real device, though.

~~~
natch
Yes exactly (to your edit).

------
teeja
Pay to become a developer. A-ha-ha! Don't see much future in _that_!

"What got _you_ into programming?"

"The thrill of paying all those great companies to improve their product!"

(True enough of the great majority of those "100,000 apps" they keep touting.)

------
jncraton
I'll probably just wait for a more open android tablet to be released like
this one:

<http://convergeddevices.net/products/vega.html>

------
icey
Personally, I'm just going to wait until some enterprising soul turns one of
the slate PCs announced at CES into a hackintosh. Then I'll be very interested
in the "Apple tablet".

~~~
gcheong
There already is the Modbook.

~~~
icey
The Modbook is expensive ($1649 if you don't have a machine to sacrifice, $699
if you do).

I hope that the slate PCs that are coming are able to stay at the $1000 or
less price point.

------
AndrewWarner
A better option is to have healthy competition in this space so we have
options, but until then, I'll take all the suggestions I can get.

------
dbz
I think you get the hate very much so- In fact I think you get the hate and
disagree with it, which is why you made that post. I hate. I apologize, no
wait I don't. I'm not willing to sign my work away to Apple to code for them.
I have chosen NEVER to apply to a job for apple, and this would be like giving
my life's work away to them. I don't sign NDAs for no reason. (I'm lying when
I say this:) Sorry again. But No.

------
ozten
Did you just tell me to go fuck myself?

I believe I did Bob.

------
barrkel
I didn't realize it was 99$ _per year_. That's much worse than I thought.

Apple just keeps getting eviler.

------
mooism2
When will the NDA be lifted?

~~~
bkorte
Likely when the product is released to the public.

