“The group recently used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the license from NASA, a government body which like many has its own iPhone app,” iPodNN reports. “Although the document is outdated in that it comes from March of last year, the EFF notes that one of the terms of the agreement is that developers are normally banned from talking about it publicly.”
iPodNN reports, “The group does acknowledge that the terms are not uncommon for end-user agreements, but also points out that they apply to over 100,000 developers. Apple can only get away with this scale because it is the lone gatekeeper for the iPhone, the EFF adds, acting as a ‘jealous and arbitrary feudal lord.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The EFF, like Greenpeace and several other entities who’re wound more than a wee bit too tightly, just loves to have its collective panties in a bunch whether or not the issue warrants panty bunching. Each and every one of those “over 100,000 developers,” ourselves included, agreed to Apple’s terms. Most of them gladly, in fact. Any developer who doesn’t like the terms of Apple’s agreement can certainly choose to disagree and not make apps for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
Like MDN said…these developers sign an agreement. Out of their own free will.
They used a Freedom of Information act to get an Apple license agreement. From NASA. I guess they also could have signed up as an iPhone developer but taking the long way around the barn definitely adds some melodrama!
As much as I may not agree with what Apple is doing, they absolutely have the right to do it this way…
Is it legal? Yes.
Is it ethically correct? Questionable.
I can’t see how this license agreement can be called unethical. The only way you could presumably call it that is if Apple demanded that you not disclose anything about it publicly, and meanwhile they go and share your own developer data with others.
Anyone has the right to their terms being met by anyone they choose to have dealings with. Many that have gotten burned by trusting in good faith, neglected to protect themselves with signed agreements. This is perfectly legal and rightfully done.
Anyone who doesn’t want to accept the terms can, bluntly put, go fuck themselves.
If they signed up for the program, they couldn’t expose it legally. Going through the FOIA makes the government do the dirty work for them without leaving them liable.
Don’t lump the EFF in the same sentence as Greenpeace as “entities who’re wound more than a wee bit too tightly”, unless you include the prudes at the Parents Television Council explicitly (hah!) to balance it out.
Just because developers agree to the terms of their own free will doesn’t mean the terms don’t deserve criticism.
Apple is the only one innovating.
You only stifle innovation if you control platforms outside your own.
Anyone can develop whatever they want for jailbroken phones, Palm, Nokia, MS and Android platforms.
Innovate away, nobody is stopping you.
Apple has created a platform that has provided the most innovative apps that anyone could imagine, including Apple.
I’m fine with not having buggy apps infecting my iPhone. If Apple didn’t control it, I would be much less trusting of the device.
Just to play devil’s advocate:
@jon1:
So, you’re much more trusting of your iPhone since Apple has such strict control over apps. Does the same apply to your Mac- are you much *less* trusting of your Mac since Apple does not have such strict control over the apps on it?
And please, lumping the EFF in with Greenpeace? Must be a slow news day. The EFF has done plenty of good for all of us consumers.
And while yes, Apple’s developer agreement is (I assume) legal, I fail to see the harm in making it public. How does it hurt the marketplace for the public to be aware of what Apple requires of iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch developers?
This program is a symbiotic relationship. Apple would like to develop all apps in house, but knows it can’t. Developers would like to ride the iPhone gravy train unfettered, but the can’t. Both live with these shortcomings because both benefit by doing so. So STFU. Quite making a federal case over this. Those of us adults still in the room have recognized the mutual benefit of compromise.
Dude, you said “who’re”…..
Your criticism of the EFF could be reduced to Apple development “love or leave it”! It is a weak argument and only one a step above “I don’t care”. As a developer I don’t purport to know why one clause in one version GPL make more since over the other, but I am grateful for those that do spend time looking at the details. I for one feel Apple developers are better served by public discourse.
Why couldn’t they simply go though the motions of becoming a developer, then decline to agree to the Dev Agreement? At that point, they’d not agreed to keep it secret, no?
Shiva105,
My point was to the question of whether Apple was stifling innovation. I don’t care who see’s the agreement.
My phone has to work and can’t have battery drained or any other glitches.
As to my Mac – it is not affected by the same forces that a phone is. – It is not a valid comparison.
Ethics? Give me a break. Developers simply want to create products to sell to make money, plain and simple. They want to make profits and make money selling their product. Well, since the product is going to be used in an Apple product, Apple then has the right (ethically, morally, whatever) to create rules for playing in the playbox that it created. Its a really simple concept. Imagine, you build a swimming pool. To keep kids from drowning, you put up a tall fence and a locked gate. Kids beg you to play in the pool. To let them play, you insist that every kid wears a life vest, and that there are lifeguards on duty at all times. Life vest specifications are blank, and every kid has to have an approved life vest. If they want to swim under water, then they need to wear goggles too. Any kid that pisses in the pool, starts a fight, or starts taking off his or her swim wear is banned.
All makes sense now right?
Twerps like this love to target Apple because the company’s high image is so shocking to besmirch. If they’re anything like GreenPeace, they don’t care what the truth is.
How many ass whining Me Generation types are there that sign up, and now whine like ass squealing, self important babies about sticking with your personal responsibilities and decisions.
Let me guess .. you like Nancy Pelosi, are for the student strike in California, and wear a pussy flower in your hair when you go to that gay shithole San Francisco. Right?
From the MDN post: “The EFF, like Greenpeace and several other entities who’re wound more than a wee bit too tightly, just loves to have its collective panties in a bunch whether or not the issue warrants panty bunching.”
If we want to discuss “panty bunching,” let’s discuss the majority of articles that include “MDN Takes” (aka whining) posted over the last year or so. Talking about a group that loves to get fired-up about nothing must, by definition, include MDN and a vast majority of commenters, right?
uhh.. your intelligence (or more aptly) .. the lack thereof
is showing..
Why not have a candy bar, and let your mommy have her computer back ?
and how many more have signed a usurious mortgage…. what’s the point exactly?
More MDN fanboi perspectives. Apple is incredibly secretive and controlling. Apple is fanatical, and this agreement has Jobs written all over it. The concern is that the agreement is unfair. Showing complete indifference to this fact just preserves the stranglehold big companies have over consumers.
Thus, it is not as simple as saying, if you don’t agree, don’t develop. This is a matter of what is fair, legal, ethical, etc. Let’s look at specific examples:
1. Apple will not be held liable for more than $50 if they cause damages to the developer or end user. That is unfair and unrealistic, and not something that would likely even be upheld in court. Example: Apple accidently leaks information about user data, where users get identities stolen, spammed, etc. Those users turn around and sue the App developer, who, knowing it was not a fault of his, turns around and sues Apple. Apple says they only owe him $50 because of their agreement. This clause is thus ridiculous and speaks of Apple’s complete disregard for software developers and consumers alike.
2. Apps that are rejected can’t be circulated for use on the iPhone through other App services. Incredibly controlling and closed off. It’s like Apple just takes over the copyright to the App as it becomes close to useless after they reject it. This is something that could implicate Apple in an anti-trust case.
3. Ban on discussing the agreement in public. Again, controlling and likely not something that would hold up in court. This can and is destructive for people and consumers. We want to know what kinds of constraints exist for those developing the Apps we are buying. If they are unfair, unlawful, etc. Apple should be held accountable. It’s just another clause enabling Apple to hide their unfair terms.
But here on MDN, anything Apple feeds to you you swallow and say thank you.
I think this is illegal, or certainly shady, using a backdoor of a Gov’t Agency to get a private company’s contract.
Generally, I support the EFF, but not this time.
“But here on MDN, anything Apple feeds to you you swallow and say thank you.”
Kinda like what you do in dark back alleys? Gulp!
Oh please. How much are you being payed to shit out that faux outrage?
Apple is one of the biggest proponents of free, open, and multiplatform standards. But now we’re supposed to forget all that and crucify them for being “controlling and fantatical” over their rather ordinary iPhone dev agreement? Sorry, but no.
Apple more often than not stands against the controlling and the fanatical, that they have an approval process for iPhone apps and a run of the mill dev agreement doesn’t magically erase their many contributions to open computing.
Making your rant even more toothless, a person can just jailbreak their damn iPhone and ignore Apple’s terms with impunity.
I wonder what your “solution” to the “tyrany” of Steve Jobs is?
Probably some closed, proprietary, highly controlled bullshit masquerading as open(for a perfect example of this, see Microsoft Windows), as seems to be the standard alternative to Apple offered by disengenuous little snots like you. Never do I see anything legit like Linux or Haiku being offered as the solution.
I doubt you’re going to change that. Infact, I doubt you’re even going to bother replying.
The fanbois come to the rescue again. More of the see no evil hear no evil crap from Apple fanbois. Make no mistake, I love Apple and their products. I am 100% a Mac guy. But I am not a blind follower of Apple, like many of you seem to be. This agreement is unfair. I deal with contracts constantly, most of them with the government, a a smaller percentage with private firms. We have big name clients. So when I look at these clauses in this agreement, they really stand out from contracts I have had to ratify our company to.
I would never sign an agreement such as this one. And if things are unfair, with government contracts, they can and do get challenged. Most of the time the clauses that are really unfair/unlawful get taken out, and even stricken from being included in any future contracts. With private firms, they are more flexible in that several clauses can be crossed out and they will still sign the contract.
I don’t see that this agreement is flexible like that first. That is a concern right off the bat. Second, banning people from talking about it… not allowing developers to take their apps elsewhere after rejection… being liable for only $50… if you don’t see how those clauses implicate Apple as being controlling, alongside having little regard for developers, consumers, and competition, no further explanation is going to help you step out of fanboiville.
Apple is not open. No way. The iPhone is closed. You can’t install whatever you want on it. You have to go through iTunes, and the App Store. They have a monopoly on that, and it’s intentional, although I do acknowledge that part of their practice here is to preserve the user experience.
Open is Linux, or even Android. Open is software under GNU. Open is Open Office.
Apple, open? Ya, right. The only thing open about Apple is that they promote open standards. That is something completely different. And they do that so they can circumvent the big competition, like Adobe and MicroSoft. But their business model, their business practices, the entire Apple ecosystem from a consumer perspective is that they are a closed system. No third party hardware. No licensing their Operating System to anyone. No legitimate alternative to the iPhone App Store.
And now they are threatening to sue more people for their multi-touch patents, not just HTC. And everyone gets tired of disputes over ridiculous computer patents that are, by their nature, not things that are unique and confined to the minds of a few at one company. The idea of multi-touch can be found in Sci-Fi films from decades past, long before all this came to be. But now Apple goes after others and tries to stymie the competition because of multi-touch patent infringements. If it were MicroSoft, you guys would be all over that company.
Apple is closed off, and doing its best to stop competition for the iPhone. I hope they lose that battle, and this is coming from an iPhone lover, a Mac guy. They need the competition. Public Administration 101…