FreePress Blog

8 Comments

1. Dan Cameron
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 10:03 am | Permalink

   Why share this?

2. JB
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 11:42 am | Permalink

   Same basic reason for everything else I share: I thought it was interesting.

   For this one specifically, I find it kind of funny that the terms of their agreement are so restrictive that it actually prevents people from writing books about the development platform.

   Just thought I’d mention it in an effort to wake up anyone who might somehow still be under the impression that Apple is supportive of openness in regards to development for this platform, despite all evidence to the contrary.

   I’d suspect that eventually they will be allowed to write the book, since Dave is a well respected author and Prag. Prog. is a very well respected brand, but I just find it interesting that even after actually talking to people at Apple they haven’t already gotten a “oh, yeah, of course that’s fine”.

   According to Dave in the comments:

   We’ve been trying to get information out of Apple for the last 6 weeks, but have not found anyone willing to say something more definitive than “we’re discussing it.” I thought maybe I’d be able to get a more direct dialog going with Apple by asking insiders for the names of people to contact directly.

3. Dan Cameron
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

   I figured you’re using this to only re-enforce your opinion towards Apple.

   Two things:
   This is a common legal NDA and will be resolved, its only been 8 days since the new software has been released.
   I mention it will be resolved because Apple hasn’t prohibited publishers from writing the many developer books already released.

   Something you should recognize: The Mac and iPhone developer community is strong. The amount of quality apps on a system that’s been out for 8 days shows how well they treat their developers through a solid platform and tools. Regardless of the Apple legal department not updating the agreements for iPhone development the tools, documentation, videos, podcasts and “connections” provided in their developer community surpass any measurement of openness for developers.

4. JB
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

   Not really; just taking it at face value for what the author said. Of course, I did take note of it because it does reinforce my current perceptions of how Apple approaches things.

   I’m assuming that your claim that this is “common legal NDA” is primarily founded on your assumption of Apple’s good intentions.

   I would tend to believe that Dave Thomas, having extensive (to say the least) experience in writing these kinds of books, would know better than you or I whether it’s “common” or not. Since he saw fit to make note of it in the way that he did, that’s a pretty strong indication that it isn’t.

   Regarding the rest of the “openness” discussion: LOL.

   You can’t possibly be serious in suggesting that a process that is so heavily encumbered in restrictions, from the point of artificially limiting what you can do when writing the programs themselves at the lowest level, all the way up to the means of distribution, requiring their official stamp of approval for each and every “release”, is in any way “open”.

   I understand that that doesn’t bother you; and I’m OK with that. I also understand that lots of developers consider it to be an excellent platform, in spite of (and/or because of) the restrictions. Just don’t feel the need to try to defend them as “open” when they’re clearly not going in that direction.

5. Dan Cameron
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

   Your use of “open” in conversations is confusing, I had thought “supportive of openness in regards to development” meant how it read.

   I said that it’s standard NDA because of how it reads. He’s not pointing out that the NDA is the issue, the issue is having to wait for it to lift and their lack of communication.

6. JB
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

   I don’t think I understand the confusion. I don’t think anyone could reasonably consider the iPhone to be an “open” platform in regards to developing applications for it. In fact, I can’t really think of any other platforms that are as “un-open” as this model, except for some of the other phone platforms that are tightly controlled by the carriers.

   I’m just saying it would be nice if that wasn’t the case. I understand your conflict, in believing in the idea that openness is good and also wanting to believe that Apple is good, and therefore wanting to reconcile that by saying that Apple supports openness. I just don’t think the evidence supports that in this case.

   I also don’t necessarily think that that makes them “bad”, so it’s OK for you to accept that they are not providing an open platform. Come on, you’ll feel better if you just admit it.

   But seriously, could you list any ways in which the iPhone (in terms of being a platform to develop and deploy software to) is more open than Windows Mobile? I’m really curious to hear that, unless you agree that WM is the more open of the two in that regard.

   Re: the “standardness” of the restriction language, I’m not sure if you actually read this article, but let me quote you a relevant excerpt:

   …in order to get the iPhone SDK, you have to agree to the terms and conditions — you know, that standard box of legalese that you skip over before pressing I AGREE. Except, in this case, the legalese has some unfortunate consequences…

   Note the use of the word “except“. This is used to convey the idea that this is an “exception” to the “standard box of legalese” that he refers to immediately before he uses the word “except”, and leads to “unfortunate consequences” that are out of the ordinary.

7. Dan Cameron
   Posted July 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

   Sorry to break it to you, I don’t have a conflict.

   Confusion: It sounded to me that you think Apple isn’t open to developers. Gist: Apple doesn’t like developers and they’re not open to gaining their works.

   Open + conflict: I’ve said this before, everything is closed, no company is truly open and it doesn’t matter to me how “open” a company should or shouldn’t be. That’s why I’m not going to be baited(1) into a debate on openness between Apple’s platform+hardware solution vs. WM’s software solution.
   I care about quality; I care about the product(s) fitting my needs and likes. You say it’s “apple telling me what I want”, absolutly not, it’s Apple knowing what I (and many consumers) want and care to have. I want more, that’s for sure but no other phone or computer does - in my experiences.
   I’m not about to sacrifice…[I give up, it's too late and I've said this too many times: 'Apple's contributions to open source and standards is a good thing, openness is only relative to opinion, Apple could be better, and IMO Apple does a better job top to bottom its competition and loves it's developer community - proven by quality, their leveraging of standards and OSS...']

   I know we have different standards and that’s why these conversations always run down a rabbit hole.

   Good night.

   (1)I mention baited because I never mentioned WinMo, only that after 8 days the apps on the iPhone are great.

8. JB
   Posted July 21, 2008 at 8:52 am | Permalink

   Well, at least now I understand the confusion…

   This post (the original story + my comments) was very specifically focused on one particluar issue / aspect: the openness (or lack thereof) of the iPhone development platform (SDK, license, and distribution of apps).

   The Windows Mobile example was a directly relevant comparison related to that topic, not baiting. It’s OK if you’d rather not address it, though.

   I think perhaps the confusion arose when you tried to broaden the scope of the conversation into areas it didn’t originally address (software quality, etc. - other areas Apple is strong in). It was a valiant effort to turn the discussion in a positive direction in regards to Apple, but it’s easy to see how confusion could arise in light of that.

   I was a bit confused in your disagreement, since we have had the conversation before about how you acknowledge and are in favor of these specific restrictions on the iPhone development model. This is why I did not understand your objection; these restrictions do make it a more “closed” development platform, and that’s something we’ve both agreed on. We just differ in our opinions as to whether that’s a positive thing.