While I agree with your FSF software freedom philosophies in general, the reality is that, had the iPhone and iPad been free/open, it wouldn't be as stable or as accessible.
Apple has lots of technology related rules about how you can develop your program. While there are lots of rules about what you can't do, and what tools and techniques you can't use, they all stem from people wanting to build software in a way that goes against Apple's design for the iPhones/iPads. Apple's design is to have a platform that is stable, that is free from rogue software, and that is intuitive and consistently operated. Your software is intended to be written in C, C++, or ObjectC, and isn't intended to use APIs that are any higher or lower level than the Foundation and UI kit frameworks. That isn't some plan to ruin your business possibilities or shut down your freedom. That is a deliberate decision that is intended to avoid the traps that most other smartphones and PDAs have fallen in to. The I devices have been successful specifically because of this approach. I think that we had a discussion about iPhone/iPad development languages here already. The reasons for requiring C/C++/ObjectC are because of performance. The I devices use a 1Ghz or less processor with practically no cache memory and a slow memory controller. They have way less computational power than a 1Ghz desktop processor. They would be terrible at running interpreted run-times for high level languages. The lack of interpreted run-times is why the I devices seem to run so much faster than the Android devices, which have practically all of their applications written in Java. Another problem with run-times is that Apple would become dependent on them for the software that they host. if Apple needs to change a small part of the Foundation or UI kit frameworks in an OS update, then this would only break the few apps that used those features, and only until they could be updated. If a change like that broke a run-time, Apple would be blocked by Adobe or another run-time provider until they could update their run-time. We know how eager Adobe hasn't been to do anything about flash on the Mac desktop. I suppose that this, among other lessons, taught Apple that they can't afford to be ignored by a 3rd party developer. Even if the problem with updating run-times didn't exist, run-times would make the accessibility situation worse for us. As things stand today, if you want to create an app for an I device, you must create it from scratch, targeted specifically to the I device, and must use Apple's standard APIs. If Apple permitted high level languages and frameworks, then we'd have a lot of apps that were simply ports from other platforms with a user interface proxy layer to get their existing user interface to display on the I device. These attempts, no matter the platform, seem to always be profound hacks. The resulting interface never quite works like a native app's interface, and the accessibility is almost universally poor to nonexistent. It's no surprise, since, instead of having to use Apple APIs to do things like create a window and populate it with user interface objects, the developer's proxy layer is just as likely to create a window with a canvas object and directly draw their entire interface in to this single object. For sighted people, this means that the interface of these apps won't work as they expect. For blind people, it means that the app won't talk. Since I device apps must be written specifically for the I devices, and since the native UI objects have accessibility support inherently included, we get a fair amount of accessibility to an app, even if the developer didn't make any specific effort to make their app accessible. On my Symbian devices, there are lots of cross-platform apps that bypass the native user interface support, and do things their own way. That's partly why we have practically no accessible Symbian apps when compared to what is available on the I devices. The situation is very much the same on Windows Mobile. Finally, Apple does compel you to use their compiler and dev tools, true. However, this isn't a play for your money, as everything, from the compiler, to the IDE, to the emulator, to the SDK are available for free. Forcing all apps to be built with their compiler means that they can adjust optimizations to code compilation in one place, and all apps will benefit. Since everyone will be building from their SDK app templates in Xcode, this decreases the likelihood that noobie developers will bork a compile flag and cause a performance problem or conflict. As for code signing and the app store, I like this the least, but I understand that it's necessary for security and ease of software distribution. When it comes to security, you'll never see any substantial malware or viruses on an I device, as, once an app like that is discovered, Apple can pull the plug on it everywhere. Further, you can't just be some anonymous developer of some freeware app and sneak malware on to I devices like that, since you must register for a developer certificate from Apple. A developer is far less likely to break the law if it is quite easy to discover who they are and prosecute them. For software distribution, the app store is great. In exchange for a small fee, Apple helps people easily discover your app, pay you for it, and install it on their device. Anyone with a finger and a brain can find and install your app, even if they don't know squat about computers. Contrast that to how things are on a desktop, where they'd need to get a link from someone to a sight where they can purchase your app, fill out an order form or open a PayPal account/transfer money to purchase the app, download the app from your site, potentially unzip/decompress it, transfer it to/install it on their device, get an activation code out of e-mail, and input that in to the software. Besides being time-consuming, there are huge segments of the population that have no idea how to do such things. If you force them to know that stuff in order to buy from you, you've dramatically shrunk your potential market down to only computer-literate people, rather than anyone with an I device. Even if most people can struggle through this task, they're still going to e-mail you for technical support with "how do I unzip a file? how do I download? The download link didn't work. I tried to connect my I device to transfer the app, but I got an error 22134 no data connection present error? The code that you sent me didn't work. I never got the code. Or similar." The app store gets rid of all of that. Finding, purchasing, and installing is brain-dead simple. And, if they need to reformat their device, the app store knows that they own the app, so will let them re-install. They won't be e-mailing you on a quest for help downloading and installing the app again, or getting you to look up their activation code because they can't find it. Apple's little fee they charge, and the app store approval headaches, are so worth not having to worry about all of this end-user support junk. All you have to do is to code and test. If you code to Apple's user interface guidelines, you usually don't even need to document, since it will be obvious to people how to operate your app. Finally, the locked down nature of the I devices, and the code signing, means that the I devices have really good copy protection. There is no 100% perfect copy protection, but the I devices are damn close. Since most everyone that uses your app will have paid for your app, since you won't need to spend your own money licensing copy protection, and since you don't need to spend time paying for people to handle support, or else wasting your own time handling support, you can actually afford to charge little prices like $5, and actually make enough money to make the time spent programming worth it. If you had to handle distribution, payment processing, and support, if you had to license copy protection tech, if you had to do any of those things the app store does for you, you'd need to increase your prices just to cover those costs. I think that the rules regarding app approval need to be more clear than they are now, and less subject to whim, but I don't begrudge them the technical limitations. The other smartphone/PDA manufacturers that are still working under the older approach of letting people write software any sloppy and hacked way that they want, letting anyone install anything that they'd like, and forcing people to know about download links/activation codes/etc in order to install apps have devices that aren't as stable and don't have nearly as much quality software. I learned to program on an Apple II, where we had complete hardware specifications and detailed firmware references and disassemblies. I obviously liked to tinker. Today, though, it is more important to me to have hardware and software that I can depend on to operate correctly. With the spammers, hackers, and hordes of third-rate software developers out there, it is looking more and more obvious that, without technological restrictions, those people will continue to, through malice or neglect, use our open computing platforms against us. Unless you want to learn a lot about working on a computer, which most people don't care about at all, a device with technical restrictions that serve as security and quality control barriers is a far more preferable choice. People that aren't computer-literate are a majority of the population. I think that they're going to eat up devices like the iPad. Very soon, the technical people on their general purpose computers may find themselves to be in the minority. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hofstader Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:02 AM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Apple regulating news and political content??? > jp: Well this is a law suit waiting and begging to be picked up and > they will win it. This is going against the your US right as a > citizen. Called Freedom of speech and Freedom of Press! So I think > this is why Apple changed it mind This is like saying you can surf the > internet but here is where you can go and read and this it. This is > not right for adults. Now for children under the age of 18 this might > have some value. So they I think should say yes you can have it on the > store but because of the nature of the app you need to have some kind > of age verification. But this is my thoughts and I been around the legal > system a long time. > > cdh: First, a week or two ago, a court shot down the FCC regulation requiring > net neutrality so ISP businesses can pick and choose what content they favor > and either prevent or slow down other pages. cdh: Apple, as a private company is not required to provide free speech to its developers on AppStore. You can read their developer End User License Agreement (EULA) on the EFF web site which is the most restrictive I've ever seen. If you want to get your program onto AppStore you need to follow its restrictions which, in the latest version, actually requires a specific development environment (Apple's of course) to write the program. While I consider Adobe to be accessibility poison, their new write once, run many development tools look pretty cool but one is banned from using them on Mac for AppStore. cdh: Apple has a long history of bad behavior regarding software freedom, including aggressive patent stances, lawsuits against a whole lot of different organizations for a wide variety of often obscure issues and making their OS restrict to their hardware - thus making the whole thing more expensive. cdh: Apple products have a lot of excellent stuff in them but the company itself can be pretty nasty. cdh > > Sign, > Joe Plummer ( JP ) > joeplum...@tds.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ch...@q.com > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 12:48 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Fwd: Apple regulating news and political content??? > > I got this and thought it would be of interest to some n the list. > Not sure what I think yet. > Carolyn > > > Mark Fiore's job is making fun of political figures. And he's > actually quite good at it, according to the Pulitzer Prize Committee. > > Earlier this week it named him the winner of the Pulitzer Prize in > editorial cartooning, but Apple rejected an iPhone app containing > Fiore's cartoons in > December. The reason? Apple said applications that ridicule public > figures are not allowed. > > That presents a problem for Fiore, and all editorial cartoonists and > political satirists who'd like to submit their work to the App Store > for that matter, > because, well, that's what they do. > > Luckily for Fiore, the Nieman Journalism Lab took up his cause and > wrote about his app's rejection. A day later Apple relented, and on > Friday asked Fiore > to resubmit. The New York Times reported Friday afternoon that Steve > Jobs himself called it "a mistake that's being fixed." That's great > for Fiore, but > not every political satirist is a Pulitzer winner who can get > publicity for his app's unfair rejection. > > So what does that mean for the future of news or editorial products > on the iPad and iPhone? It's safe to assume that quashing political > satire isn't Apple's > goal here. But it's a legitimate concern for the journalism community > that to be featured on the App Store they have to submit their news > content to a > company unafraid to exercise what sometimes seems like arbitrary > control. The thinking goes, what if Apple finds a headline offensive? > Or what if there's > an unfavorable article about Apple itself even? That's not to say > Apple would do that, but its inconsistent handling of App Store > submissions sets a troubling > precedent. > > The rejected-then-unrejected brouhaha surrounding Fiore's cartoon > app, and others like it--the Mad Magazine artist's Bobble Rep app > comes to mind--also > illuminate the central issue facing Apple with the App Store right > now. The company's decision to tightly control what is and is not > allowed on the iPhone > or iPad has led it to develop a review process that is not > sustainable. > > Having individuals look at each one of the hundreds of thousands of > apps that pour into the App Store and accurately and consistently > police them for both > technical and content issues is impossible now and will only be more > so as the App Store inevitably grows. The solution would be to have > clear, stated > rules of what can or can't be put on the App Store, but that's not > what Apple has chosen. And that gray area is what scares developers > who put a lot of > work into their apps, and who could be rejected outright for some > subjective problem an App Store reviewer has found with that particular app. > > Which brings us back to the news issue. The problem of Apple's lack > of transparency with App Store rules and tendency toward control is > compounded by Apple > luring the print news industry to the iPad. It's a device that > (rightly or wrongly) is being praised as a way to save print publications. > And that control > inevitably raises new questions about Apple's relationship with > newspapers, like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for > example, that are putting > their content on the App Store via paid applications. > > The Columbia Journalism Review has issued a call to media companies > not to get too cozy with Apple. Writes Ryan Chittum: > > Look, let's face it. The iPad is the most exciting opportunity for > the media in many years. But if the press is ceding gatekeeper status, > even if it's > only nominally, over its speech, then it is making a dangerous > mistake. Unless Apple explicitly gives the press complete control over > its ability to publish > what it sees fit, the news media needs to yank its apps in protest. > > Yes, this is that serious. It needs to wrest back control of its > speech from Apple Inc. > > The CJR then points out the obvious: newspapers and magazines > wouldn't put itself under the influence of the government like this, > so why is a corporation, > especially one with control-freak tendencies like Apple, any > different? > > If the iPad does become a significant revenue source for print > publications who turn their newspapers or magazines into iPad apps, it > is logical that it > could be harder for them to stand up to Apple. > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
