The politics of Apple really is quite fascinating.
Is there any other company that people feel so passionately about that they are prepared to totally reverse their normal political positions? Mention Apple and you can get a bunch of free market libertarians to come out and demand strong consumer rights regulation, purely because they hate Apple so much. Conversely you can get a bunch of socialists sticking up for the right of a multibillion dollar mega-corp to use DRM, censor all competitors from their platform and sell products containing materials extracted through slave and child labour, purely because they like Apple products more than the alternatives.
"sell products containing materials extracted through slave and child labour" has no basis in fact; besides every phone manufacturer builds their devices in the same factories. At least Apple and a few others make attempts to verify conditions publically. Not everyone even tries.
Heh, you are kind of making my point for me here. Buying the rare elements needed to build a modern phone is just about impossible to do without sourcing things from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or other places where child and slave labour is likely to be involved.[1][2]
The fact that all the other phone manufacturers are just as bad is a convenient line to use in 'winning' an online platform war argument, but it's not a good moral argument.
Just a nit pick... they are sourcing from Rwandans... which is the first sign that they are dealing with bad guys. The materials they get from the Rwandans have come from the Congo... where the Rwandans ethnically cleanse areas so that they can mine the minerals.
So technically... the materials they source from the Rwandans are conflict materials procured from genocidal Rwandans... not really materials procured through child labor.
Of course... that just means it's much WORSE than child labor... I just thought people should have the facts straight more as a matter of principle.
You can start by googling Laurent Nkunda. To get a feel for what the Rwandan backed militias who loot these mines are like. Fair warning... that reading is really not for the timid though.
You can read background on the actual technical and logistical aspects of the mineral trade from Nest. The book is titled "Coltan".
If you want the actual dry but raw data of the UN reports there are several which touch on the DRC mineral situation, and they are all at the UN's site. (They only go back to 2004... to go further you'd actually have to get it out of google cache. But obviously the UN has compiled reports going back much further for the purposes of future Crimes Against Humanity prosecutions.) In any case, you can find them here:
Buying the rare elements needed to build a modern phone is just about impossible to do without sourcing things from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or other places where child and slave labour is likely to be involved.
Unless you stop buying and using such devices, yours is not a good moral argument.
Is this actually from the EFF or is the EFF Action Center a change.org-style site where anyone can submit petitions?
I ask only because the text of the letter isn't particularly well written and contains some glaring mistakes: "Wrap every app in the Apple store with unnecessary DRM" (emphasis mine).
Apple isn't the government, and no one is compelled to enter into a contract with them. The EFF's reason for removing their Action Center app from the App Store are outlined in this petition, which is ironic considering the app itself is a web app made native with the Ionic framework[2]. Nothing in Apple's terms prevents the EFF from releasing the app on the web (nor do they have to agree to any of Apple's terms to release a web app).
Just because they're not the goverment, it doesn't mean their business values and practices are above reproach, criticism and complaints. Remember, corporations ARE ALLOWED to be criticized for their business practice choices and that's OK. Really.
Given their market power and prominence; you could make a strong case that unduly restrictive covenants in the contract language are in fact against the interests of a society that values freedom and equity.
Many of the arguments on this page in defense of Apple could equally well be applied to a defense of debt slavery or indentured servitude.
Apple taking a third share of every creators work may have been reasonable when they were a small part of the market; but is less so when they are able to turn their dominance in the smart phone market into outsized profits and onerous terms in the media distribution market.
Maybe their app is taping on some Cordova API that is not available for the web.
The only platform exposing similar APIs for hosted pages is Firefox OS and even so it doesn't expose sensitive APIs to hosted apps.
There is another issue with hosted apps which is the discoverability of such apps. People on iOS tend to believe that things need to be on the App Store...
I'm a bit surprised by all the people here who think that the best way to object to a corporation's contract offer is to just avoid working with that corporation. If that's all we do, how is the corporation supposed to know what it's doing wrong?
Make a public complaint, and (a) you provide better feedback, and (b) you maybe convince other people to join your boycott, which improves your chance of modifying the corporation's behavior and making the world a little bit nicer.
This is illogical and amateurish. The title of the petition claims that Apple (1) tramples free speech and (2) innovation. Yet the detailed verbiage of the complaint gives no evidence that they trample free speech, and if their contract terms trample innovation it is a matter of interpretation. Apple's developer agreement bans developers from talking about the developer agreement. A bit draconian, perhaps, but hardly a trampling of "free speech", and actually quite common within contracts generally. The other complaints are simply silly. What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices? What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates? And we can debate about the morality of DRM, but if you want to see the difference between a DRM-protected environment and an unprotected environment, look at the difference between the App Store and Google Play. Profitability for developers, quality of software, absence of viruses... DRM does accomplish some positive results. And whether it does or doesn't, in no sense are anyone's "rights" quashed here.
It's a contract, people. It can say whatever the parties to the contract agree it should say. If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.
> actually quite common within contracts generally
Really?
> What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices?
It's my device and I have the freedom to do with it as I wish. EFF goes into a lot more detail if you want to read it.
> What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates?
It's not their own security updates, it's security updates to other people's apps.
> we can debate about the morality of DRM
This is about the fact that developers are forced into shipping it even if they don't want it.
> If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.
I won't sign it, and and I will sign a petition, and I will warn other developers about it. It's my right to point out bad behaviour and to complain. You presumably accept this since you just posted a comment complaining about something.
It always surprises me when people say this. If somebody forced all fishermen to only sail in circles, catch fish with their tongues and drink a liter of sulfuric acid every morning - they would be up in arms. Sure they're not forced to be fishermen, but you can't blame them for caring.
Well but the key word there is "somebody." If there was a single, all-encompassing, global world government that forced all fishermen to do this, then yes, we'd have a problem. If the United States (for example) caused its fishermen to do this, then the people of the United States would be well-advised to change this law, else they'll soon be out of fish. But even if they didn't, it's still not a question of "forcing" or "rights." Fishermen would simply fish elsewhere; at great cost, perhaps, with a loss of opportunity, no doubt, but it's still a question of choice.
Well you can't go anywhere else and be an ios developer. Maybe you could learn something else and bring some of your customers with you, but it certainly is harder than just going somewhere else to fish.
My first game was approved and released on Apple's App Store 2 days ago. It's currently displaying in the "Featured" section of its category. As a fledgling game developer who is learning to fly, trying to make a dream come true, I can say that I simply do not have the financial resources or marketing muscle to reach the audience that my game is reaching on my own. I just would not have this exposure available to me as a solo coder, and for that I am grateful. Also, I'm not saying that I'm special in any way; actually, I suspect that my story isn't much different from the stories of other game developers who are just getting started.
Up until the point that I started developing the game, I'd never owned an Apple product. I figured that I might as well try something new, and get some exposure with OS X, Xcode, etc. So, I ordered a Macbook Pro, an iPhone 5S... and then I lit the fuse.
And that is why the game ended up on iOS. Yes, I know that I've sort of locked myself in with a single platform, rocking Swift over cross-platform options, embracing that beautiful, "Walled Garden", etc., but, I had to start somewhere.
In the final analysis, I own the code. I can convert the code and create versions of the game on the platforms of my choice.
I can certainly understand if people have issues with Apple, and of course they have every right to voice and discuss their concerns. However, the restrictions outlined in the petition have not prevented me from delivering on my dream.
It is very strange to me when I see public discourse about Free Speech in any context not involving the government. Free Speech is not some unlimited right, Free Speech is more akin to a limitation on the Government's power to restrict my speech. However, just as important as Free Speech is my right to contract, including contracting away certain rights - it is for the free market to decide if the terms are acceptable.
The free market has spoken and it appears Developers are willing to contractually exchange their right to publicly disparage Apple in exchange for their apps appearing in the App Store. Of course Developers would prefer not giving up any rights, just as I am sure Developers would prefer not sharing revenue with Apple, and if the Free Market did not accept Apple's terms then Apple would have to change or fail allowing room for new competition.
While this is a guess, I would be shocked if the EFF does not include similar provisions in their employment agreements (i.e. restricting the rights of their employees to publicly disparage EFF, or at minimum restricting employees right to speak about EFF's trade secrets) - not that I am suggesting anything nefarious on behalf of EFF or some double standard, simply that such provisions are boiler plate and industry standard.
Yes, it's a contract. It's a contract that moves the world in a direction the EFF thinks is bad. You may disagree with that, but they (obviously) don't.
What do you expect them to do? Ignore what they consider a serious problem just because many people choose to accept it? Might as well tell them to ignore the DMCA because it was (and, AFAICT, still is) overwhelmingly popular in Washington.
If the EFF thinks developers are unwise to agree to this contract, they should carefully, logically, and constantly explain to developers why that is. They should persuade developers. They should not treat the contract as if it were or should be illegal or a violation of "rights." Appeal to developers, don't petition against the contract.
This comment just shows how good Apple is at what they do. They trample upon your freedom to do your computing as you wish and are praised for it. Look at how nice life is in Apple's walled garden! If someone other than Apple controls your computer, someone else could do something bad to it!
So don't use Apple kit! Simple, really. But, if you espouse freedom of speech and freedom of choice, you must logically accept that people will want this choice. That's the problem with the OSS Stasi; the choice they mean is their choice or no choice...
You just stepped into an argument between an enormous corporation that imposes extremely long and draconian terms on their closed system they control and others who use pretty mild legal terms to keep their work in the public commons, and you called the loose bunch of community folks "Stasi".
Ok I up voted, but couldn't some of these points be made stronger? For example the security updates, what exactly is being proposed, that patches should be able to go into the App Store without review and Apple's static analysis checks? Or are they just saying there should be a checkbox during submission for "Security related, please expedite"?
There is an email address where you can request an expedited review. I'm sure they would accept for security issues (assuming you only make occasional requests).
>If people don't like Apple's terms, don't develop for them.
This has been the EFF's exact response, and this community has lambasted them for it. We are told that organizations like the EFF and developers of security/privacy software should compromise on their ideals and not forsake deserving users on iOS. This is a classic Catch-22, because providing beneficial software (Chatsecure, Firefox, etc.) to these users just perpetuates their abusive relationship with Apple.
The tears may have been predictable (and maybe even planned), but they most certainly aren't crocodile tears.
These are issues the EFF and its membership deeply and sincerely care about. The whole point of the organization is to call attention to these issues and push for change. Complaining that they're working on their mission is pretty silly.
I don't see how this first item -- "Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement" -- is true. First, I don't see any such clause; second, you're allowed to discuss anything that's publicly available, and you can read the agreement without signing it as part of the developer program application process, so the agreement is publicly available and thus can be discussed. You're welcome.
"Require Apple to approve every security update, which means that unaddressed security bugs could linger and leave users at risk."
Yes, the App Store approval process could cause lingering security problems. In practice, Android -- which has no such requirements -- is festooned with malware and iOS is not. So let's protest a hypothetical problem caused by a solution to a real problem.
Apple also requires that your code with signed and checksummed before installation. How evil!
"Wrap every app in the Apple store with unnecessary DRM, which limits what users can do with their apps even if the code is published as free software."
How is it "unnecessary"? It's how the App Store works. It's what allows Apple to remotely disable an app that turns out to be malicious (and which has slipped through the approval process). It's part of the iOS value proposition -- pay us extra to give you a device that won't screw you.
> I don't see how this first item -- "Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement" -- is true.
Section 10.4. It's plain English.
"You may not issue any press releases or make any other public statements regarding this Agreement, its terms and conditions, or the relationship of the parties without Apple's express prior written approval, which may be withheld at Apple's discretion."
Then you create a cartoonishly bad alternative and use that to justify Apple's policies. The Google Play Store isn't "festooned with malware," and nothing in Apple's review process catches malware. Similarly, every application that runs on Android must be signed, but it doesn't have to be signed by a certificate signed by Apple after paying a yearly developer fee and agreeing to an overbearing contract. The DRM is unnecessary because free software doesn't require it, and malware in the Play Store can be yanked off phones without wrapping apps in DRM, so your claim that it's for malware doesn't hold either. (The agreement doesn't restrict Apple from disabling apps for any other reason, unlike the Play Store agreement, which does. Applications installed by the user outside the Play Store are left alone.)
Honest question, if you are interested in freedoms why not develop for Android? You know what you are getting yourself into when you devote your time developing for a closed system and culture like Apple's.
I'd argue that Firefox OS is an even better proposition if you care about freedom. Android is slowly becoming the shadow of its former self with more and more core functionality (from the point of view of a developer) slowly moving to Google Play Services (which is proprietary).
> Developers shouldn't have to sacrifice their rights to speak and innovate freely just to bring their applications to millions of Apple users.
Ummm... Is this really why they develop for iOS or are they just having fun mostly, enjoying their craft and (sometimes) making a small profit on the side. The App Store is but one way to get apps. Sounds like developers with the beliefs the EFF attributes to them would be better suited to developing for Jailbroken phones.
Having developed for 5 years on iOS I've never found it a burden. Sure you might wait a few days for approval, but at least generally it keeps the App Store content dependable and trustworthy from a customer standpoint. Like people always say, you don't like the rules, don't play in the sandbox. While the EFF has a lot of good things to say, complaining that Apple should do things against its own rules is not constructive. Android is far more open which makes some people happier but makes their store far less trustworthy (and even less so if you get apps outside their Store). You as a developer always have a choice. I don't think this is a useful point of argument for the EFF.
Honestly, the DRM and security update aspects are probably acceptable restrictions – in that we know what Apple's policies are, and these are unreasonable in that context.
If course, not being permitted to talk about the product or agreement is stupid.
What, they think that 3000 signatures will make Apple change their terms? 3000 devs that in all likelihood will find another reason to whine? 3000 people that do not under what free speech is?
Wat. How does a stores guidelines and agreements "trample" free speech?! It's their store, their rules. Don't like it? Start writing apps for another platform.
A muslim supermarket can chose to not carry non-halal food. Does that Trample on My Free Speech if I were a meat producer?! No.
I love this line:
> Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement.
Yeah. That's called NDA and is very common in contracts. Welcome to the real world, kid.
Burger King says "Have it your way", it's your burger, but that doesn't mean you can jump the counter, cook the burger to your own exacting specifications, and pay for it in 1-peso coins.
It's this kind of grandstanding that annoys the heck out of me and makes me want to reconsider donating to the EFF in the future.
There are far more important and immediate fish that the EFF should be focusing their limited resources on frying. Once said fish are fried then start taking potshots at Apple's Dev Agreement.
Your not giving up your rights when you agree not to do one thing in order to do another. You're actually exercising your right to enter into contracts.
You have the right to sleep all day. And perhaps you've agreed to not do that while you are collecting an hourly wage. Nobody's violating your right to sleep.
There are limits to what you can do in a contract for a reason.
A hyperbolic example: "I agree to allow you to kill and eat me so you can pay my family thousands of dollars. "
However I think that the rights signed away are not beyond the bound of normalcy. This is more of a campaign to change the expectations of the industry as they are all doing this in some form or another.
The focus on them is just because they are high profile enough to maybe push the rest of the industry.
Those barriers are erected precisely because the lack thereof was abused enough to warrant them. Take them down, and something worse than those limits will occur.
The developer agreement is between the developer and Apple. It's nobody else's business.
Jailbreaking tears down walls critical for user-convenient security. Walls, fences, and locking doors are normal in business.
Security flaws can be serviced by expedited review, screening for anything else going wrong as well in as little as 2 hours. Normal review is required to ensure nothing traumatic happens.
DRM ensures that what users get is what they expected from the developer. Repackaged-with-malware is avoided.
I'm disappointed EFF would make such a lame list of complaints, while having locks on their doors.
It's like an apartment complex owner, expected to provide a certain level of "security" in the form of locking doors, fences, lights, live guards, etc ... but then a tenant complains that the self-locking building door is keeping his friends out, that the fence prevents him from entering from the otherwise most convenient path, the lights keep him awake, and the guard patrol is preventing him from growing pot plants on his porch. The tenant then solicits signatures for a petition unlocking all the doors (ALL of them, closets included), removing fences & lights, firing the guards, and otherwise removing hindrances to growing a pot farm ... and then being surprised when most of the other tenants insult the idea.
I'd say Apple prioritizes their customers' rights to have a secure, safe, functional device that's reasonably free from concerns over things like malware and other malicious app behaviors. This has some developer downsides, but as both a customer and a developer on Apple products, I'd prefer they prioritize the user experience over development.
"Good for users"? it's not the users' business to know details of contracts between developers & Apple.
Jailbreak away - but Apple rightfully disavows any predicted or unforeseen consequences, and won't work with anyone who won't work with what Apple considers sensible rules facilitating development & usage. If you're going to bring bags of weed seeds (or anything else which predictably cause problems) into my walled garden, get out of my garden.
DRM assures you can use your purchased products on the devices you want ... and that nobody else can, and that nobody is going to repackage apps to include malware.
>"Good for users"? it's not the users' business to know details of contracts between developers & Apple.
Who are you to say what a user's business is? If someone is engaging in unethical conduct, it is their customers' right to know about it. How are consumers supposed to make informed decisions if they do not even know what they are funding?
What is unethical? What are they funding? Why the emotive language? Who are you or the EFF to say that it is anybody's business to know about two other third parties agreements? What difference will it make to consumers to know what the contract stipulates?
Attempting to establishing a legal obligation to share information is pretty much that, I would think. Seems like that's the whole point of a democracy, no? To allow the people to make things their business?
I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe they should leave the country.
"Attempting to establishing a legal obligation to share information is pretty much that, I would think. Seems like that's the whole point of a democracy, no? To allow the people to make things their business?" No! Absolutely not!!! How is that any different from the asinine mutterings of David Cameron over data encryption? Freedom of speech does not give you the right to no my, or anyone else's business. What about freedom of privacy?
"I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe they should leave the country." So you agree that the NSA is right to snoop on the citizens of the US? It's exactly the same thing.
"Apple is contractually forcing developers to not discuss the contract, in what way is that good for users?"
What way isn't it? To what end does an end user need to know what the content of an agreement between to third parties is?
"Apple can still have a walled garden without contractually requiring developers to forgo their right to jailbreak their own device."
"It is not necessary to have DRM to have a walled garden."
Where is the DRM in the App store? I ask because I genuinely don't know. I would like to know in simple terms as the EFF have a tendency to use emotive language that detracts from the point.
>Developers shouldn't have to give up their rights to make an iPhone app. App makers should demand better terms, and the customers who love their iPhones should back them.
If this is what EFF is spending my money on I will never donate to them again. I was with them on the battle to keep jailbreaking legal.
Apparently, people are generally fine with it. You will routinely hear nowadays that private agreements cannot trample on free speech because that only applies to governments. This argument even made its way to xkcd.
The other issues are largely trade-offs. How much piracy are you willing to accept? How does it affect sales and availability of software for the platform?
How soon should we patch? Right away or on Patch Tuesday? How thoroughly should we test? How much instability are we willing to tolerate? And so on.
> You will routinely hear nowadays that private agreements cannot trample on free speech
That comic is a response to people complaining about "freedom of speech" after their harassing comments have been removed from a forum or article comment thread. I'm not sure the same line of thinking translates so directly to a corporate software development license agreement.
"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say."
It doesn't mean anyone else has to tolerate what you say. It doesn't mean a contract between private parties (i.e. not a contract with a gov't entity) can't dictate the things you may or may not discuss about the parties or the agreement itself.
In other words: "free speech" has nothing to do with anything except whether the government can arrest you for running your yap. Which further means a corporate software development license agreement can stipulate anything it wants.
And you are free not to accept that agreement and not partake of the benefits the agreement bestows.
What about getting fired. How many e-dramas have we seen lately over someone tweeting and losing their job? That's about as serious as a license agreement for someone doing iOS development as a full-time gig.
Also, there’s a difference between “Free Speech” as an ideal, and it’s implementation or lack thereof in law (e.g. First Amendment to the Constitution of the US, Article 10 European Convention Human Rights, etc.)
Forgive me, but what a stupid petition, presenting what is basically a consumer preference as a political claim! In my humble opinion, this does nothing but water down the potential significance of real petitions.
Are you implying consumers should not have their voices somehow heard (no matter how stupid their requests are) by private companies? I think your comment underestimate the power of consumers and customers of products -- and ultimately of boycotts. If this petition had been signed by 1.5 millions instead of just 1.5 thousand I wonder if you would consider it more... valued? Let them speak out if that is what they want.
Signing a petition is easy. If this is to make a difference those 1500 developers need to not support apples policies and boycott the apps tore, and get users to do the same.
Is there any other company that people feel so passionately about that they are prepared to totally reverse their normal political positions? Mention Apple and you can get a bunch of free market libertarians to come out and demand strong consumer rights regulation, purely because they hate Apple so much. Conversely you can get a bunch of socialists sticking up for the right of a multibillion dollar mega-corp to use DRM, censor all competitors from their platform and sell products containing materials extracted through slave and child labour, purely because they like Apple products more than the alternatives.