EFF: Apple's Dev Agreement Means No EFF Mobile App For iOS 220
schwit1 writes The EFF launched a new app that will make it easier for people to take action on digital rights issues using their phone. The app allows folks to connect to their action center quickly and easily, using a variety of mobile devices. Sadly, though, they had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them. Why? Because they could not agree to the terms in Apple's Developer Agreement and Apple's DRM requirements.
is this like those idiotic petitions (Score:1, Insightful)
from change.org
that a few internet idiots "sign" thinking that those in power will care. while us old people go out and vote and elect the people the internet idiots complain about?
Re: (Score:2)
The internet idiots are also voting for the very people they complain about and then reelect them as many times as they can, makes them even bigger idiots. And of course we have the fools who believe the republican and democrats are actually in opposition to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet idiots are also voting for the very people they complain about
It's hard not to when both the Republican and the Democrat in a particular House or Senate race have received campaign donations from the same organization with whose legislative vision a voter disagrees.
and then reelect them as many times as they can
Even a policy of always voting against the incumbent fails if the same bad actors are financing both candidates' campaigns.
Hubris (Score:2)
Yes, you get elect a person from a limited group, one carefully selected for compliance by the corporations and the powerful via their proxies, the political parties.
You may even think it makes a significant difference which candidates you pick. Most often, it makes no difference.
It makes more difference which products you choose to buy. The real trick is figuring out what that difference will be. All corporations aren't as clearly aligned as the Chick-Fil-A leadership, who wear their objectives on their sl
Re: (Score:1)
What's the weather like up there?
Re: (Score:2)
from change.org that a few internet idiots "sign" thinking that those in power will care. while us old people go out and vote and elect the people the internet idiots complain about?
some of us write directly to the politicians and vote, that really gets their attention.
No, it's not. (Score:2)
No, voting for candidates isn't like change.org.
The petitions on change.org have a significant record of actually working to change the issue at hand. This has not been true for voting for these preselected candidates for some time.
At best, with legislators, your vote might make the difference between candidate A and candidate B. The question whether that difference will result in actual change spans issues from the effect one good legislator can have in the context of five hundred and thirty four others to
Re: (Score:3)
No, more like these:
o http://www.change.org/p/depart... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/congre... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/tell-u... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/amnest... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/end-fg... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/sony-w... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/gap-in... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/genera... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/justic... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/govern... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/help-r... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/food-a... [change.org]
o http://www.change.org/p/center... [change.org]
Also, you
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, they're claiming it was their petition to the FDA - "Fast track Drug and vaccine research for Ebola Hemorrhagic fever" - that did it? That's a joke. And Des Hague being given the boot for giving a dog the boot had much more to do with the millions and millions who saw the video on TV.
There's a name for these meaningless gestures - slacktivism [wikipedia.org]
Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little physical or practical effect, other than to make the person doing it feel satisfied that they have contributed. Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them
anti-scam crusader Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes.com: "It's all fed by slacktivism ... the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair"
Micah White has argued that although slacktivism is typically the easiest route to participation in movements and changes, the novelty of online activism wears off as people begin to realize that their participation created virtually no effect, leading people to lose hope in all forms of activism. [19]
Malcolm Gladwell, in his October 2010 New Yorker article, lambasted those who compare social media "revolutions" with actual activism that challenges the status quo ante. He argued that today's social media campaigns can't compare with activism that takes place on the ground, using the Greensboro sit-ins as an example of what real, high-risk activism looks like.
Dunning ... cites Change.org as an example. The site is full of hundreds of thousands of petitions. A person signing one of these online petitions may feel good about himself, but these petitions are generally not binding nor lead to any major change. Dunning suggests that before donating, or even "liking", a cause one should research the issue and the organization to ensure nothing is misattributed, exaggerated, or wrong.
Slacktivism is for slackers - those who are too lazy to get their butts out of a chair.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what they're claiming is that the desired outcome was reached and the petition was pushing in that direction. The degree to which any one petition took a lead or decisive role might be unknown, however, any assertion that all those petitions were simply ineffective noise is ludicrous. Clearly, looking at the individual cases, there are some where the petition
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, they're claiming it was their petition to the FDA - "Fast track Drug and vaccine research for Ebola Hemorrhagic fever" - that did it?
I think what they're claiming is that the desired outcome was reached and the petition was pushing in that direction. The degree to which any one petition took a lead or decisive role might be unknown, however, any assertion that all those petitions were simply ineffective noise is ludicrous. Clearly, looking at the individual cases, there are some where the petition would have been a very significant form of pressure (to which electing one legislator does not favorably compare.)
Some of these petitions deliver nearly half a million signatures to the decision makers engaged with a specific problem. When the target is a corporation or some other entity that is actually concerned with public opinion, any thesis that the petition is inherently ineffective is about as dubious as anything gets. Particularly in light of the outcomes often going the way the petition was asking for, whereas prior to the petition, these same conditions were not extant (obviously that is why the petitions arise in the first place.)
They got 19,000 signatures. That's nothing. There was an international race to get control over Ebola. This petition had ZERO effect.
Slacktivism is for slackers - those who are too lazy to get their butts out of a chair.
Gratuitous, research-free, unjustified name-calling is for the ignorant, the disingenuous and the propagandist. I wonder which of those you represent.
Research-free? The term has been used repeatedly in news reports to deride the people who think that signing a petition or clicking on like will mean something - usually when comparing slacktivists to the people who are in the streets marching, protesting, resisting police, or actually doing something. Besides, how can you say it's research-free when I provided a link to s
Re: (Score:2)
The length of time a term of disrespect exists is no endorsement for its verity or worth. As you ought to know very well, as a 't' in LGBTt.
These petitions aren't useless; the bottom line is every time you attempt to characterize them that way, regardless of if you're using some half-witted slang term, you're making a fool of your
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of these petitions are not presented or relevant in a global context. Pretty sure the denizens of Beijing really don't give a crap about Pizza Hut's US hiring policies. Etc.
Nice try, though. When you don't have facts, just play air guitar, eh? Ooooo, nice "chord"!
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas the record of success of voting for legislators in achieving social change is...
Ah, that's right. Near-zero.
Re: (Score:2)
lol... you'll have to get in line for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question. Perhaps you should ask them.
However, would the answer alter the likelihood that some of the petitions that were agitating for the results that were obtained were effective? No, of course not.
Irrelevant.
The broken clock is right because conditions match its state twice out of a set of results that are cyclic and are guaranteed to create such a match; that makes it ine
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was a precise and essentially correct description of the initial condition.
Straw man. No one is petitioning sports games, coin flips or other situations where opinion is irrelevant; the petitions in question take aggregated opinions to decision-makers in order to let them know that some number of individuals desire a particular outcome.
In the case of corporations and other entities where public opinion can assert
Re: (Score:2)
the petitions in question take aggregated opinions to decision-makers
No, they don't. They take an aggregate of a singular shared opinion by some set of like-minded people, but they don't represent an aggregated set of opinions. Note the plurality in opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Do you have any proof that they didn't? Also no.
Now stepping beyond proof to what we do know: We know that in every case, the desired outcome was not in place prior to the petition's engagement. We know that getting people and organizations to go back on an action taken, or revise their behavior, is almost uniformly an uphill battle. We know that public opinion
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, McDonald's DID bring back hot mustard sauce recently, according to a sign I saw.
Re: (Score:2)
It is trivial to prove you are spreading disinformation. [change.org] But I applaud you for following the AC tradition of posting false claims. That'll get you quite a distance with people who don't bother to check such claims. However, it won't work for anyone who takes the time to actually look.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you have shown no proof it wasn't. Yet the information we do have supports my position quite well: When decision-makers are in receipt of as many as hundreds of thousands of signatures, all backing one specific outcome, the assertion that no such decision maker would take that aggregate mass of opinion into account when determining the ultimate outcome is ludicrous.
Principles vs Practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm sorry for the EFF, then, but everyone knows what the terms are to get an app in the iOS App Store.
This sounds, to me, like the EFF allowing slavish adherence to their principles to prevent them from doing something that might actually help real people in the real world advance those principles in meaningful ways.
Either that, or they just realized they could use it as a publicity stunt.
Dan Aris
Re:Principles vs Practicality (Score:5, Informative)
This.
There are TWO "app stores" that every iOS device has access to. The walled garden is the obvious one, but there's one where there is NO DRM, no approvals, nothing. And it was around since the original iPhone and since iPhoneOS 1.0
It was Apple's original SDK strategy, too.
It's called a web application [apple.com] and it uses HTML and JavaScript to do everything. You "install" it via Safari and it shows up as a icon in the home screen. No approvals from Apple are required (it's just a very specially formulated link), it can do a lot of things already (thanks to HTML5 integration) and is completely DRM-free. Do it right and it's practically native.
Oh yeah, you can program it in any OS, no Mac required :). As a bonus, it'll be usable on other OSes, too. (I think Android has the same ability too).
Re:Principles vs Practicality (Score:4, Insightful)
Web apps don't count, have never counted, and never will count. That's why Apple deigned to allow people to write real apps -- something they adamantly did not want to allow when the iPhone was first released.
Re: (Score:2)
So name one feature of this app that couldn't be done on a web browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Web apps don't count, have never counted, and never will count. That's why Apple deigned to allow people to write real apps -- something they adamantly did not want to allow when the iPhone was first released.
The iPhone was designed to only support web-apps. It was only iPhone2 that opened up for native apps after consumer and developer pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really correct. HTML5 apps aren't even remotely as smooth as a native iOS app, particularly when it comes to scrolling and window moves. I have a few on my ipad. Developers will use them in a pinch but pretty much just until they are able to get a native app approved.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sorry for the EFF, then, but everyone knows what the terms are to get an app in the iOS App Store.
This sounds, to me, like the EFF allowing slavish adherence to their principles to prevent them from doing something that might actually help real people in the real world advance those principles in meaningful ways.
Their specific complaints about Apple's license agreement make it sound to me like a practical, real-world problem. I don't think the petition will garner any response from Apple directly, but it's useful for educating people who don't bother to read carefully the entire agreement before signing up. There are certainly a lot of things in that agreement that will cause me not to click Agree.
Their first objection alone makes it obvious why the EFF cannot provide the equivalent iphone app: "Ban on Public State
Re: (Score:2)
... allowing slavish adherence to their principles... or they just realized they could use it as a publicity stunt.
Why can't it be both?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Plus ask Mozilla how their purity stands over h.264 and not using WebKit on iOS worked out...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm sorry for the EFF, then, but everyone knows what the terms are to get an app in the iOS App Store.
Yes, of course everyone knows [xkcd.com].
The headline and other content is all old news, only perhaps a first exposure to anyone who hasn't read much about the Apple development process. The linked article is from March 2010 [eff.org], almost five years ago.
EFF announced a new app for Android, so the first two sentences of the /. post are great and newsworthy. Everything else in this submission is just inflammatory clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Principles vs Practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
You're post implies that, if EFF agreed to Apple IOS dev's T&A, that they could change the way Apple does things w/ regard to it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I'd rather EFF not break it's principles, and show just where Apple stands with regard to its walled garden, than have them bow to a Corporate overlord.
No...you may have inferred that, but that's not what I was implying. What I was implying was that, since the app is designed to help people help the EFF achieve some of its goals, if the app were in the app store of one of the most breakout popular devices in the history of the entire world, it would thus make it possible for a significant number of additional people to help the EFF achieve the goals aimed at with this particular app.
But because they have decided that some of the principles behind what they want to achieve are utterly inviolable, and the Apple dev agreement conflicts with some of those inviolable principles, they clearly feel that they are therefore obligated to prevent anyone who owns an Apple device from using their app.
This is the kind of cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face behaviour that really hamstrings a lot of efforts to improve the world. I'm not saying the ends justify the means—far from it. Just that when you're living in a badly imperfect world, insisting that you, yourself be perfect at all times while trying to make the rest of the world better is very, very often going to prevent you from doing more good than it actually does in itself.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
in the app store of one of the most breakout popular devices in the history of the entire world, it would thus make it possible for a significant number of additional people to help the EFF achieve the goals aimed at with this particular app.
True as far as it goes. But, firstly, iOS isn't the most popular platform, so choosing not to develop for it isn't automatically a terrible decision. If I were the EFF, I would do the same thing. Nobody should ever accept contractual terms they find objectionable, and especially not if their objection is that the terms are counter to the primary goals of the organization. Staying true to your ethics, particularly for an organization like the EFF, is critically important.
they clearly feel that they are therefore obligated to prevent anyone who owns an Apple device from using their app.
That's a massive distortion. They are
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they had any principles they wouldnt be using an apple device.
Not always for example my father has to have a iPhone because the vendor that provides the automation platform his business depends on only releases their app for remote manegment on iOS and WIndows phone with an Android one in development supposedly for the last 4 years or so. So he had choice between a Windows phone 7 and iPhone. Neither are good options, so he picked the less shitty of the two.
Re:No They Aren't Adhering At ALL (Score:4, Informative)
Did you look on the EFF page about this app?
Here ya go. [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has agreements with carriers and none of them come with crapware as far as I know.
How is it that Android's failure to protect the users from phone carriers where Apple *does* protect the user from carriers from installing crapwares a positive?
It isn't quite black and white.
With Apple, you may have limits to ADDITIONS you can make for installing, but with the typical Android experience
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't refuse. If you go to their github page for the app, it says that it runs under either Android or IOS.
They chose not to push it through the Apple App Store, because of those terms and conditions. The code is there, though, if you want to figure out how to get it onto your iDevice.
Just when I donate to the EFF, they go off again. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with a few of the items they list, but not with the "DRM" (it's not really DRM in the classic sense) issue. I personally think that's important to maintain app store security that protects non-technical users.
But to not release an application over this is absurd. This potentially hurts many more people than it helps... you can still complain, still put together a petition while still delivering the app - in fact it's MORE of a statement because it goes against the clause that developers "cannot ta
You need to read the EFF reasoning (Score:2)
which is the last link in the submission. I'm an EFF member and re-upped last month and couldn't be prouder and their reasons are all sound.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that's important to maintain app store security that protects non-technical users.
Android's model is perfectly fine. The play store is there by default. The ability to use other stores is off by default.
Non-technical users are perfectly safe. My mom is NEVER going to alter those settings or go outside the official app store. Neither do my in-laws.
But I can have F-droid, and support HumbleBundle, etc.
There is NO justification for Apple's policy except greed and control.
Re: (Score:2)
My mom is NEVER going to alter those settings or go outside the official app store. Neither do my in-laws.
The clueless old folks might not. The clueless kids certainly will.
Re: (Score:2)
The clueless old folks might not
They are the ones that need protection.
The clueless kids certainly will.
They're not clueless, just unwise. There is a big difference. They aren't fooled into thinking the chinese app store with pirated games is in any way official; they aren't accidently unchecking the 'allow software from untrusted sources' button because they got confused... they know what they are doing and what they want.
They don't need protection.
No difference in effect (Score:3)
They're not clueless, just unwise. There is a big difference.
There is NO DIFFERENCE in terms of millions of people being easily infected in ways that are not really possibly with iOS devices.
You also blow over the whole app permission debacle on Android, where you have to agree to all permissions up front - even without outright malware that leaves just about everyone open to tons of spyware that happily lives in the official Google store.
Re: (Score:2)
There is NO DIFFERENCE in terms of millions of people being easily infected in ways that are not really possibly with iOS devices.
The "millions of people infected on android", by and large are in eastern markets on unofficial / pirate stores (often pre-installed on their phones by crappy local vendors. The infection rate from the offical app store is very low to the point that its still news when it happens.
There are not millions of infected androids in the West due to the ability to select another app sto
Re: (Score:2)
They're not clueless, just unwise.
Take a look around sometime.
And certainly they do need protection. (Where clueless kids using smartphones is a wide category from about 5 to about 35.) Insightful knowledge of the dangers of the internet does not come along at the same time as the ability to switch on other app-stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look around sometime.
So what do you suggest?
I already suggested it be a $1 app to add the UI for the feature to switch. That'll keep out the young kids. And make darn sure nobody just does it without thinking. Putting even a small price on something stops the VAST majority of people from getting it.
Insightful knowledge of the dangers of the internet does not come along at the same time as the ability to switch on other app-stores.
And being able to cause yourself serious personal injury and damage to
Re: (Score:2)
I already suggested it be a $1 app to add the UI for the feature to switch. That'll keep out the young kids.
Nice idea.
do you also advocate vehicles have dealer locked hoods that only they can open?
I know car metaphors are de-rigour here, but that's really not a good metaphor. This is approvals of add-ons and consumables, not repairs. And there are a few other examples. Games consoles, printers, razors.
The bizarre thing is it's framed as if it's imposed on consumers. But of course it isn't. It's entirely opt-in. There's a large number of people that are willing to pay a bit extra for the safety and quality that the iPhone platform gives. And one of the important mechanisms by which that safe
Re: (Score:2)
Nice idea.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. :) But I sincerely think it would be a somewhat reasonable solution.
I know car metaphors are de-rigour here, but that's really not a good metaphor. This is approvals of add-ons and consumables, not repairs. And there are a few other examples. Games consoles, printers, razors.
I actually think games consoles, by virtue of their transformation to using software/online stores deserve to face the same criticism as iOS here.
People aren't being MADE to be safer. The
Re: (Score:2)
in fact it's MORE of a statement because it goes against the clause that developers "cannot talk about the developer contract".
That clause was removed years ago. The EFF quoted a very old version of the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about that, I thought it had been removed but I thought perhaps there was a new version.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your analogy of ruthless and myopic missed the target; Gates pales in comparison to the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie and never mind how bad United Fruit was to Central America. The Apple walled garden approach comes with the territory of buying and using Apple products. Those who buy the devices want this kind of environment and there are alternatives. Competitors may not like the fact that Apple's TOS locks them out and Developers may be annoyed that Apple gets its cut, but there's alternativ
Calling bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a labor camp where people are making money.
Go back to the day to app stores like getjar. Did you even know they existed? Did you know how people bought and sold software before app stores? Did you know how developers did?
I do, and it was expensive to sell. The app store led the way to what is almost a zero-cost way to sell your software. You didn't have to provide a few thousand copies of your software as "payment." You didn't have to print a box, manual, and make physical media.
Saying the app store and its execution weren't a great revolution shows that you are totally ignorant of how software was made and sold only a few years ago. Small developers for software really didn't exist. Nobody pays for shareware, and making a living as a small dev was basically impossible. The app store basically recreated the hobby developer market, period, and brought it to a level of mainstream that was never attained by normal PCs.
Better PR? Apple does have better PR. But Apple also does things that nobody else things will work, and makes it work well. Making something work well is substantially harder than you can imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually make a living selling those 99 cent apps on App Store? As in, you don't have another day job?
That's pretty hard. Very rare.
Saying the app store and its execution weren't a great revolution shows that you are totally ignorant of how software was made and sold only a few years ago. Small developers for software really didn't exist. Nobody pays for shareware, and making a living as a small dev was basically impossible. The app store basically recreated the hobby developer market, period, and brought it to a level of mainstream that was never attained by normal PCs.
That's not true at all. Small devs sold on their own website (and they still do). I bought all kinds of Windows software from small devs. A few examples of stuff I bought (there are many others but not all of them are still around):
flashpanoramas.com
sourceguardian.com
supertintin.com
easypano.com/virtual-tour-software.html
They have trial versions they distribute on downloa
Re: (Score:2)
It's a labor camp where people are making money.
Where only a small percentage of people are making money. Most do not.
Saying the app store and its execution weren't a great revolution shows that you are totally ignorant of how software was made and sold only a few years ago. Small developers for software really didn't exist. Nobody pays for shareware, and making a living as a small dev was basically impossible.
I have decades of experience doing that, and all I can say is that you're dramatically overstating things. Small software developers were, until the last ten years or so, the most common type of developer. They made money. Not everyone, of course, but percentage-wise I think they did better than developers who exclusive use Apple store.
The app store basically recreated the hobby developer market, period, and brought it to a level of mainstream that was never attained by normal PCs.
That's just silly, unless you're talking just about hobbyist Apple developers. The hobby developer market seemed to be largely unaffected by the Apple store. The parts of the hobby sphere that are the most vibrant and growing have nothing to do with iPhone development.
Re: (Score:2)
Unapologetic AC. FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of SAAS solutions do exactly this.
But your app can't mention any of this directly in the app. Otherwise, they'll expect you to exclusively offer that service as an in-app purchase and give them their 30%.
Security protects the user too (Score:3, Insightful)
The things they're complaining about are certainly restrictions on freedom... but they directly address security concerns and protect the user at the same time. It's a walled garden - good and bad. Why can't they simply write a web app for this instead, and stop their complaining?
There's a reason that Apple's devices are smooth, reliable, and stable... and you just can't have that when you live in the Wild West of completely open software. Yes, it means putting some trust in a company to get there, but I don't see that as any worse than the alternatives.
So EFF - I have made large donations to you in the past, but pick your battles and stop wasting my time and money on the bad fights.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that Apple's devices are smooth, reliable, and stable... and you just can't have that when you live in the Wild West of completely open software. Yes, it means putting some trust in a company to get there, but I don't see that as any worse than the alternatives.
Oh please, come back in a year when the first major (pretty much mandatory) update hits you 1GB RAM phone, no more smooth and random crap like copy/paste stops working. Come back when Apple hardware at least runs 1% of the servers on the internet, which has to be reliable and stable. As of this moment it is the Wild West composed mostly of completely open software...
A modern phone is a small computer, nothing more, nothing less. There is no need for this hunkydory Apple store lock ins. It's not especially h
Re: (Score:2)
which security issue is addressed by "the first rule of Dev Club is you cannot talk about the rules of Dev Club"?
Re: (Score:2)
My thought too. None of their objections were over restrictions against a functionality they were trying to deliver. The objections were all philosophical.
Publicity stunt (Score:3)
Senior Manager: "That's a great idea!"
Principle Lobbyist: "Apple's TOS sucks, we can't do that!"
Senior PR Guy: "Wait, wait... we can use this. We'll do the Android app, then make a public complaint that we can't release the iOS app because of Apple's TOS. But we don't actually have to build the iOS app."
Senior Manager: "I approve, go for it!"
Sounds like good marketing (Score:2)
Sounds like good marketing by the EFF. They throw a hissy fit, gets people to notice that they have an app.
Nice to know that this is based on an agreement (Score:3)
that was published in 2010.
Look at the last link in the post. It's from March 9, 2010.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Nice to know that this is based on an agreement (Score:1)
Thank you, I wondered if anyone else would have caught that.
5 years later, Jobs has been dead for over two years, Tim Cook is at the helm, there are open-source apps, and the developer agreement has changed a lot. The "imminent launch of the iPad" has been replaced by "Tablet Sales Growth Plummets In 2014" and we still don't see an EFF app.
I haven't been too worried about it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the current version of Apple's iOS developer agreement does not contain the 6 items that the EFF highlighted?
When deailing with the Devil (Score:2)
All of the terms are irrelevant to the app (Score:3)
All of the terms cited are completely irrelevant to this particular app. They are general terms that all app developers have to adhere to. NONE of them would prevent the publication of their app. It's just that they don't like the terms. And, so, they don't have to accept them.
[quote]Contract restrictions aside, the final barrier was knowing that we’d be required to include a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM).[/quote]
That's not true. There's no DRM that authors are "required to include". The platform includes it for you. Yes, it is Apple's store, apps are sold on Apple's terms.
[quote]DRM means that Apple is putting technical restrictions on what you can and can’t do with your app. When we create tools for EFF, we want them to be broadly available to others to use, adapt, and customize. That’s why we work to make our technical projects based on free software, and avoid DRM.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. It means users can copy it willy-nilly. They have to download it from the store. They can't alter it. That is the agreement users have with Apple.
You want users to be able to modify the application? Fine. Put it in the public domain or publish under and open-source license. Publish the source code. Anybody who wishes to become an Apple developer can copy it, modify it, and publish it as their own. Or simply install and use on their own devices.
Any nothing of value was last (Score:2)
4 issues EFF is worried about (Score:2)
I think the article should have listed the 4 issues the EFF had with Apple:
1) Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement.
2) Ban iOS developers from jailbreaking an Apple device, or even enabling others to do so.
3) Require Apple to approve every security updates. They were concerned that unaddressed security bugs could linger and leave users at risk.
4) Wrap every app in the Apple store with "unnecessary: DRM, which limits what users can do with their apps.
____
Now my editorial.
(1)
Re:Nothing of value was lost, (Score:4, Informative)
Right now, the app is an alert system designed to tell you when we have new campaigns
Okay, let me get this straight - the EFF has their knickers in a twist because they don't like Apple's terms for their walled garden. I'm sure Apple users are really upset that they can't download an app whose purpose is to spam them.
Trying to complain about spam when it comes to free apps is kind of like complaining about the smell of tomatoes in a ketchup factory.
The entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset. They agree to be spammed every single day with the other 73 apps installed.
Re:Nothing of value was lost, (Score:5, Funny)
I had to switch from Linux back to Windows because I couldn't bear the spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how most OEM versions of Windows come loaded with questionable "trial" versions... how did it work out for you?
Re:Nothing of value was lost, (Score:4, Insightful)
he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
First, I want to thank you for your selfless contributions to the app pool in order to provide a truly free app. That effort is appreciated.
It's just rather unfortunate that your work, along with "tons" of others, are buried under the other million apps that are busy winning the popularity contest by peddling spam..
Recovering the cost of your development hobby (Score:2)
While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
How do you recover the costs (Mac hardware, iOS devices for testing, iOS Developer Program fees, and the opportunity cost of your time) of doing so? Because if others understand how you do so, maybe they can learn to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not.... I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
Exactly. As hobbies go, it is rather cheap compared to other common first-world hobbies. I would estimate between hardware and developer membership fees it is at most $1000 per year. Contrast with annual costs of about:
Fishing on your motorboat: $1000 in fuel and $3000 in repairs and depreciation
Snowboarding: $500 in lift tickets, $1500 in travel/food/lodging
Interest Clubs (SCA, Poodle Fanciers, whatever): $300 in suppliesand $1500 in travel/food/lodging
I agree with others that
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the app is an alert system designed to tell you when we have new campaigns
Okay, let me get this straight - the EFF has their knickers in a twist because they don't like Apple's terms for their walled garden. I'm sure Apple users are really upset that they can't download an app whose purpose is to spam them.
Trying to complain about spam when it comes to free apps is kind of like complaining about the smell of tomatoes in a ketchup factory.
The entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset. They agree to be spammed every single day with the other 73 apps installed.
Assuming what the OP is implying is true, that EFF's only underlying to purpose is to spam you.
And yes, it's certainly true that users couldn't care less about having an app from the EFF, I personally wouldn't care for it. And yes, while it's certainly true that this agreement mostly applies to app developers, and not users, and that only developers have to agree to it, not users.
This is actually what the EFF is complaining about (the emphasis in bold is mine):
Ban on Public Statements: Section 10.4 prohibits developers from making any "public statements" about the terms of the Agreement. This is particularly strange, since the Agreement itself is not "Apple Confidential Information" as defined in Section 10.1. So the terms are not confidential, but developers are contractually forbidden from speaking "publicly" about them.
Ban on Reverse Engineering: Section 2.6 prohibits any reverse engineering (including the kinds of reverse engineering for interoperability that courts have recognized as a fair use under copyright law), as well as anything that would "enable others" to reverse engineer, the software development kit (SDK) or iPhone OS.
App Store Only: Section 7.3 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, and that Apple can reject an app for any reason, even if it meets all the formal requirements disclosed by Apple. So if you use the SDK and your app is rejected by Apple, you're prohibited from distributing it through competing app stores like Cydia.
No Tinkering with Any Apple Products: Section 3.2(e) is the "ban on jailbreaking" provision that appears to prohibit developers from tinkering with any Apple software or technology, not just the iPhone, or "enabling others to do so."
Apple Owns Your Security: Section 6.1 explains that Apple has to approve any bug fixes or security releases. If Apple does not approve such updates very quickly, this requirement could put many people in jeopardy.
Kill Your App Any Time: Section 8 makes it clear that Apple can "revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time." Steve Jobs once confirmed that Apple can remotely disable apps, even after they have been installed by users. This contract provision would appear to allow that.
So I don't know about you guys, but as an app d
Re:Nothing of value was lost, (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, do you jump in the pool when you don't want to get wet?
Re: (Score:2)
I have an app on my phone for slashdot, because slashdot has multiple interesting articles every day, as well as discussion about those articles.
The EFF? Nope. Their first petition is just hand-waving. What a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have some weird, non-standard definition of "first." The EFF has had lots of petitions for lots of things for years now. The petition in question was just the first one since releasing the app.
Re: (Score:1)
Engrish prz
Re: Nothing of value was lost, (Score:1)
no. they just explained why they dislike the apple Dev agreement.
something the development agreement would prohibit then from doing if they agrees to it.
personally I find it funny now all the apple users are finding the "coolest" apps aren't available for their device.
although I wouldn't put this eff app in that category.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they wont allow "breaking" of DRM, they need to allow devs more access to the device. its really that simple
The apps in their store didn't need "more access" to be developed. The clauses against reverse engineering are also the norm. Sometimes, if you want something, you (or someone else) has to pay for it.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't just apply to the EFF app though does it...
The EFF just happens to be the one telling you about it, but it applies to all apps, and that's really what you should be focused on, not the EFF.
Oh look there's something shiny on the floor....
Re: (Score:2)
So what? People who develop for the iPhone already knew this, went into it with open eyes, and if they're not happy, they can switch to something else. Personally, I don't have much use for the EFF because they take the position of zealots, and as we saw with the 12 dead yesterday, zealotry is for dummies. Open is going to have to continue to coexist with closed, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.
For those who care about this, why are they worried about what's happening in someone else
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously comparing "zealots" defending your rights to terrorists who kill people in cold blood for drawing a cartoon??
Sheesh. Get some fucking perspective!
Sheesh, why don't you get some perspective? The EFF isn't defending my right or your rights with this. They're attention-starved hand-wringing over what is a non-issue because they in their zealotry are blind to the larger issue, which is that in a free society with copyright law, people are allowed to set restrictions on how their work is used, to keep it closed-source, to license it how they want. It's how they pay the bills. Zealots like the foot-cheese-eating RMS would deprive people of all their rights
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, Apple has given out over $25B (billion, with a B) to its iOS developers since its inception. You don't have to like all the terms, frankly, but in the real world being too altruistic isn't going to do you any favors. Apple puts a premium on the security of its devices and has to continuously juggle the sensibilities of dozens large companies.
History is littered with open-source programmers with so little business sense they wind up living in a RV park their whole lives and retiring with zero sav