This is just the same as the physical Apple Stores.
Apple don't sell millions of products in their stores, e.g. Dell computers, Sony TVs, Nintendo Wii............. why? Because they chose what they sell.
Just because you make a product that can run on an iPhone does mean that Apple MUST sell it!
It is their store, they choose.... how hard is that to understand.
Do Apple sell every piece of software written for the Mac in the Apple Stores - No.
In general I'm grateful for all the many good works of the EFF, but this seems like such a wasted effort.
Over 100,000 software professionals have declared in writing that they disagree with the Foundation: they signed the license agreement! That won't stop a few of them from complaining about the terms after the fact, but given their own economic interests in loosening the terms it's hard to take them too seriously.
Unfortunately, some resort to moralistic appeals that have no place in a simple business arrangement, and which only serve to diminish the real moral conflicts we all struggle with in the real (ie non-software) world.
The part that was originally in bold,i.e., "bs", which I increased in size.
Funny, somebody else understood exactly what I was referring to.
First off, lets get something clear in regards to the iphone:
First party developer: Apple.
Second party developer: Anybody Apple contracted to contribute to the development process.
Third party developer: Those who write apps for the iphone (which can be anyone.)
Nobody else understood exactly what you were referring to, they were just making a corny joke stemming from their own ignorance.
Am I wrong to say that developers put up with the strict rules Apple enforces in order to have a shot at the large audience via the app store? If so, please explain how that's a false statement.
When I say iphone could be better because of third party developers, I'm talking from experience from what I see at xda-developers and the cool stuff people produce over there for WM sometimes (an OS not controlled NEARLY to the extent as the iphone OS is.) The potential for a device like the iphone is great (not that it isn't already.)
I have to go root around for my old dev VM where I put the XNA creator club stuff on. I bet the EULA for that isn't that much different than the Apple one when all is said and done. I never did much with that since I moved to Java soon after but all of the EULAs sound pretty draconian.
There's a non-compete section in the Google Android Developer agreement. It's short and to the point:
4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.
Regarding takedown:
7.2 Google Takedowns. While Google does not intend, and does not undertake, to monitor the Products or their content, if Google is notified by you or otherwise becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof or your Brand Features; (a) violates the intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party; (b) violates any applicable law or is subject to an injunction; (c) is pornographic, obscene or otherwise violates Google?s hosting policies or other terms of service as may be updated by Google from time to time in its sole discretion; (d) is being distributed by you improperly; (e) may create liability for Google or Authorized Carriers; (f) is deemed by Google to have a virus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on Google?s or an Authorized Carrier?s network; (g) violates the terms of this Agreement or the Market Content Policy for Developers; or (h) the display of the Product is impacting the integrity of Google servers (i.e., users are unable to access such content or otherwise experience difficulty), Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.
Google enters into distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Carriers to place the Market software client application for the Market on Devices. These distribution agreements may require the involuntary removal of Products in violation of the Device manufacturer?s or Authorized Carrier?s terms of service.
In the event that your Product is involuntarily removed because it is defective, malicious, infringes intellectual property rights of another person, defames, violates a third party?s right of publicity or privacy, or does not comply with applicable law, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown,: (i) you must refund to Google, all amounts received, plus any associated fees (i.e. chargebacks and payment transaction fees), and (ii) Google may, at its sole discretion, withhold from your future sales the amount in subsection (i) above.
Liability...
12. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
12.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
We get to change the rules whenever and you get to accept them or get booted in 30 days:
14.1 Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made. Google will also post a notification on the Market site describing the modifications made. The changes will become effective, and will be deemed accepted by Developer, (a) immediately for those who become Developers after the notification is posted, or (b) for pre-existing Developers, the modified Agreement will become effective upon Developer?s acceptance of the modified Agreement (except changes required by law which will be effective immediately). Pre-existing Developers will show their acceptance of the modified Agreement by going to the Market site and accepting the modified Agreement. In the event that Developer does not agree with the modifications to the Agreement within thirty (30) days after the date the email is sent, then Google will suspend the distribution of your Products until Developer agrees to the modified Agreement. In the event that You do not agree with the modifications within ninety (90) days after the date the email is sent, then You must terminate your use of the Market, which will be your sole and exclusive remedy.
Conclusion
This isn't any more or less harsh than the Apple EULA in reality. No company is going to go out of their way to harass their developers just for the heck of it.
The only instance I can recall of a hook being used to disable software was when Google disabled voice guided navigation on European Android phones which had had the feature activated by developers on their "open" platform.
Where was the EFF then, huh?
Under what terms was Google able to do this, did the developers have to agree to them?
I have to go root around for my old dev VM where I put the XNA creator club stuff on. I bet the EULA for that isn't that much different than the Apple one when all is said and done. I never did much with that since I moved to Java soon after but all of the EULAs sound pretty draconian.
There's a non-compete section in the Google Android Developer agreement. It's short and to the point:
4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.
Regarding takedown:
7.2 Google Takedowns. While Google does not intend, and does not undertake, to monitor the Products or their content, if Google is notified by you or otherwise becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof or your Brand Features; (a) violates the intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party; (b) violates any applicable law or is subject to an injunction; (c) is pornographic, obscene or otherwise violates Google?s hosting policies or other terms of service as may be updated by Google from time to time in its sole discretion; (d) is being distributed by you improperly; (e) may create liability for Google or Authorized Carriers; (f) is deemed by Google to have a virus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on Google?s or an Authorized Carrier?s network; (g) violates the terms of this Agreement or the Market Content Policy for Developers; or (h) the display of the Product is impacting the integrity of Google servers (i.e., users are unable to access such content or otherwise experience difficulty), Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.
Google enters into distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Carriers to place the Market software client application for the Market on Devices. These distribution agreements may require the involuntary removal of Products in violation of the Device manufacturer?s or Authorized Carrier?s terms of service.
In the event that your Product is involuntarily removed because it is defective, malicious, infringes intellectual property rights of another person, defames, violates a third party?s right of publicity or privacy, or does not comply with applicable law, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown,: (i) you must refund to Google, all amounts received, plus any associated fees (i.e. chargebacks and payment transaction fees), and (ii) Google may, at its sole discretion, withhold from your future sales the amount in subsection (i) above.
Liability...
12. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
12.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
We get to change the rules whenever and you get to accept them or get booted in 30 days:
14.1 Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made. Google will also post a notification on the Market site describing the modifications made. The changes will become effective, and will be deemed accepted by Developer, (a) immediately for those who become Developers after the notification is posted, or (b) for pre-existing Developers, the modified Agreement will become effective upon Developer?s acceptance of the modified Agreement (except changes required by law which will be effective immediately). Pre-existing Developers will show their acceptance of the modified Agreement by going to the Market site and accepting the modified Agreement. In the event that Developer does not agree with the modifications to the Agreement within thirty (30) days after the date the email is sent, then Google will suspend the distribution of your Products until Developer agrees to the modified Agreement. In the event that You do not agree with the modifications within ninety (90) days after the date the email is sent, then You must terminate your use of the Market, which will be your sole and exclusive remedy.
Conclusion
This isn't any more or less harsh than the Apple EULA in reality. No company is going to go out of their way to harass their developers just for the heck of it.
Well, I guess one distinct difference is demonstrated by your own post.
I'm sure nobody here believes that an NDA is for written for your benefit. Even the EFF doesn't believe that. The EFF is just like the ACLU. They fight for principles and sometimes those principles change sides.
You can write anything in a contract you want, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. Apple has every right to protect its own. Just as you do too. It's not a matter of open or closed ecosystems. It's only your interest versus mine. The only right anyone has is to choose from the available options. No one has to play. Not business, not government, nor consumer.
...is that NASA is somehow bound by this "Free Information Act" (Does it apply only to government organizations? I'm no US citizen), yet the signed the apple NDA... Who is to spot these contradictions and when?
...Guess next lawsuit is Apple inc. vs. US Government or NASA?
I think a lot of people who post here must put Fairy Dust on their mac and expect it to Fly. Quit buttering up Apple. You Like Apple. But I'm not sleeping in my bed with my mac like everyone else is here. Apple is a corperation and they should abid and respect Privacy and Digital Rights just like anyone else should and not Violate them.
No Tinkering with Any Apple Products: Section 3.2(e) is the "ban on jailbreaking" provision that received some attention when it was introduced last year. Surprisingly, however, it appears to prohibit developers from tinkering with any Apple software or technology, not just the iPhone, or "enabling others to do so." For example, this could mean that iPhone app developers are forbidden from making iPods interoperate with open source software, for example.
...is that NASA is somehow bound by this "Free Information Act" (Does it apply only to government organizations? I'm no US citizen), yet the signed the apple NDA... Who is to spot these contradictions and when?
...Guess next lawsuit is Apple inc. vs. US Government or NASA?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it's called. Applies only to federal agencies. They aren't allowed to withhold information held as government records, subject to certain exemptions. Trade secrets happen to be one of them, so I suppose NASA could have refused the request on those grounds.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it's called. Applies only to federal agencies. They aren't allowed to withhold information held as government records, subject to certain exemptions. Trade secrets happen to be one of them, so I suppose NASA could have refused the request on those grounds.
I think it means that NASA's reviewers of FOIA request didn't deem it to be a trade secret. Which it isn't. Going to the trouble of filing a FOIA request was just a bit of *drama*, like playing vampire organ music when you say "Apple." Surely these guys know a developer. They have the agreement on pdfs. They could have copied the pdf.
Unless (shudder) Apple put an invisible poison in the contract, that only would activate in case an interloper copied it, and then it would seep into your skin and fifty years later, you'd be dead!
The foundation managed to obtain a copy by making a request to NASA under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act
Apple should now sue NASA in federal court.
FOIA does not mean that the docs have to be turned over simply because they were requested.
Company confidential/proprietary and certain contractual info is is exempt from FOIA.
The EFF could have signed up for the developer program and received a copy of the license but they were smart enough to obtain it from someone else (and advertise that fact) so they would not get busted.
First off, lets get something clear in regards to the iphone:
First party developer: Apple.
Second party developer: Anybody Apple contracted to contribute to the development process.
Third party developer: Those who write apps for the iphone (which can be anyone.)
Nobody else understood exactly what you were referring to, they were just making a corny joke stemming from their own ignorance.
Am I wrong to say that developers put up with the strict rules Apple enforces in order to have a shot at the large audience via the app store? If so, please explain how that's a false statement.
When I say iphone could be better because of third party developers, I'm talking from experience from what I see at xda-developers and the cool stuff people produce over there for WM sometimes (an OS not controlled NEARLY to the extent as the iphone OS is.) The potential for a device like the iphone is great (not that it isn't already.)
Clear?
How old are you?
Are you wrong? Yes. Most of us of the 100,000 iPhone Developers were on board before the audience reached such great levels. The developers made the app store, not the other way around.
You were called out because of your 'bs' attitude towards Apple. Interesting that developers aren't taking your side. And I base that on my own personal experience and the hundreds of developers I have met and conversed with since day one.
If this weren't the case, there should have been a deluge of criticism from the creators of the 5,000 or so apps that were removed recently. Nary a whimper. Why? Because it wasn't Apple that was trying to take advantage of the situation.
Comments
As an antitrust lawyer of 30 years, I agree with this post. ...
Thanks for bringing your experienced perspective to the issue.
EFF criticizes Apple for their app store practices = terrorist scum!
Never change, appleinsider.
Apple don't sell millions of products in their stores, e.g. Dell computers, Sony TVs, Nintendo Wii............. why? Because they chose what they sell.
Just because you make a product that can run on an iPhone does mean that Apple MUST sell it!
It is their store, they choose.... how hard is that to understand.
Do Apple sell every piece of software written for the Mac in the Apple Stores - No.
Cool... and I was totally talking out of my a$$ :-)
Well then, you do a good job of it! (that's a compliment, not snark)
Ummm, what? Just what the hell are you talking about?
Am I being trolled because your comment makes zero sense in regards to what I said.
The part that was originally in bold,i.e., "bs", which I increased in size.
Funny, somebody else understood exactly what I was referring to.
What possibly "illegal act(s)" -- on either side -- are you hinting at!?
I don't believe he was hinting at anything pertaining to this thread, just a general clarification to the poster's assertion.
What possibly "illegal act(s)" -- on either side -- are you hinting at!?
Nil. Just pointing out there are laws which proscribe behaviour between consenting parties to a contract.
a day? more like an hour...
I'm a youngin, I don't get paid that much. Yet.
Over 100,000 software professionals have declared in writing that they disagree with the Foundation: they signed the license agreement! That won't stop a few of them from complaining about the terms after the fact, but given their own economic interests in loosening the terms it's hard to take them too seriously.
Unfortunately, some resort to moralistic appeals that have no place in a simple business arrangement, and which only serve to diminish the real moral conflicts we all struggle with in the real (ie non-software) world.
The part that was originally in bold,i.e., "bs", which I increased in size.
Funny, somebody else understood exactly what I was referring to.
First off, lets get something clear in regards to the iphone:
First party developer: Apple.
Second party developer: Anybody Apple contracted to contribute to the development process.
Third party developer: Those who write apps for the iphone (which can be anyone.)
Nobody else understood exactly what you were referring to, they were just making a corny joke stemming from their own ignorance.
Am I wrong to say that developers put up with the strict rules Apple enforces in order to have a shot at the large audience via the app store? If so, please explain how that's a false statement.
When I say iphone could be better because of third party developers, I'm talking from experience from what I see at xda-developers and the cool stuff people produce over there for WM sometimes (an OS not controlled NEARLY to the extent as the iphone OS is.) The potential for a device like the iphone is great (not that it isn't already.)
Clear?
There's a non-compete section in the Google Android Developer agreement. It's short and to the point:
4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.
Regarding takedown:
7.2 Google Takedowns. While Google does not intend, and does not undertake, to monitor the Products or their content, if Google is notified by you or otherwise becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof or your Brand Features; (a) violates the intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party; (b) violates any applicable law or is subject to an injunction; (c) is pornographic, obscene or otherwise violates Google?s hosting policies or other terms of service as may be updated by Google from time to time in its sole discretion; (d) is being distributed by you improperly; (e) may create liability for Google or Authorized Carriers; (f) is deemed by Google to have a virus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on Google?s or an Authorized Carrier?s network; (g) violates the terms of this Agreement or the Market Content Policy for Developers; or (h) the display of the Product is impacting the integrity of Google servers (i.e., users are unable to access such content or otherwise experience difficulty), Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.
Google enters into distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Carriers to place the Market software client application for the Market on Devices. These distribution agreements may require the involuntary removal of Products in violation of the Device manufacturer?s or Authorized Carrier?s terms of service.
In the event that your Product is involuntarily removed because it is defective, malicious, infringes intellectual property rights of another person, defames, violates a third party?s right of publicity or privacy, or does not comply with applicable law, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown,: (i) you must refund to Google, all amounts received, plus any associated fees (i.e. chargebacks and payment transaction fees), and (ii) Google may, at its sole discretion, withhold from your future sales the amount in subsection (i) above.
Liability...
12. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
12.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
We get to change the rules whenever and you get to accept them or get booted in 30 days:
14.1 Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made. Google will also post a notification on the Market site describing the modifications made. The changes will become effective, and will be deemed accepted by Developer, (a) immediately for those who become Developers after the notification is posted, or (b) for pre-existing Developers, the modified Agreement will become effective upon Developer?s acceptance of the modified Agreement (except changes required by law which will be effective immediately). Pre-existing Developers will show their acceptance of the modified Agreement by going to the Market site and accepting the modified Agreement. In the event that Developer does not agree with the modifications to the Agreement within thirty (30) days after the date the email is sent, then Google will suspend the distribution of your Products until Developer agrees to the modified Agreement. In the event that You do not agree with the modifications within ninety (90) days after the date the email is sent, then You must terminate your use of the Market, which will be your sole and exclusive remedy.
Conclusion
This isn't any more or less harsh than the Apple EULA in reality. No company is going to go out of their way to harass their developers just for the heck of it.
Where was the EFF then, huh?
Under what terms was Google able to do this, did the developers have to agree to them?
The EFF are a bunch of hypocrits.
I have to go root around for my old dev VM where I put the XNA creator club stuff on. I bet the EULA for that isn't that much different than the Apple one when all is said and done. I never did much with that since I moved to Java soon after but all of the EULAs sound pretty draconian.
There's a non-compete section in the Google Android Developer agreement. It's short and to the point:
4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.
Regarding takedown:
7.2 Google Takedowns. While Google does not intend, and does not undertake, to monitor the Products or their content, if Google is notified by you or otherwise becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof or your Brand Features; (a) violates the intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party; (b) violates any applicable law or is subject to an injunction; (c) is pornographic, obscene or otherwise violates Google?s hosting policies or other terms of service as may be updated by Google from time to time in its sole discretion; (d) is being distributed by you improperly; (e) may create liability for Google or Authorized Carriers; (f) is deemed by Google to have a virus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on Google?s or an Authorized Carrier?s network; (g) violates the terms of this Agreement or the Market Content Policy for Developers; or (h) the display of the Product is impacting the integrity of Google servers (i.e., users are unable to access such content or otherwise experience difficulty), Google may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.
Google enters into distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Carriers to place the Market software client application for the Market on Devices. These distribution agreements may require the involuntary removal of Products in violation of the Device manufacturer?s or Authorized Carrier?s terms of service.
In the event that your Product is involuntarily removed because it is defective, malicious, infringes intellectual property rights of another person, defames, violates a third party?s right of publicity or privacy, or does not comply with applicable law, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown,: (i) you must refund to Google, all amounts received, plus any associated fees (i.e. chargebacks and payment transaction fees), and (ii) Google may, at its sole discretion, withhold from your future sales the amount in subsection (i) above.
Liability...
12. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
12.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
We get to change the rules whenever and you get to accept them or get booted in 30 days:
14.1 Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made. Google will also post a notification on the Market site describing the modifications made. The changes will become effective, and will be deemed accepted by Developer, (a) immediately for those who become Developers after the notification is posted, or (b) for pre-existing Developers, the modified Agreement will become effective upon Developer?s acceptance of the modified Agreement (except changes required by law which will be effective immediately). Pre-existing Developers will show their acceptance of the modified Agreement by going to the Market site and accepting the modified Agreement. In the event that Developer does not agree with the modifications to the Agreement within thirty (30) days after the date the email is sent, then Google will suspend the distribution of your Products until Developer agrees to the modified Agreement. In the event that You do not agree with the modifications within ninety (90) days after the date the email is sent, then You must terminate your use of the Market, which will be your sole and exclusive remedy.
Conclusion
This isn't any more or less harsh than the Apple EULA in reality. No company is going to go out of their way to harass their developers just for the heck of it.
Well, I guess one distinct difference is demonstrated by your own post.
You can write anything in a contract you want, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. Apple has every right to protect its own. Just as you do too. It's not a matter of open or closed ecosystems. It's only your interest versus mine. The only right anyone has is to choose from the available options. No one has to play. Not business, not government, nor consumer.
...Guess next lawsuit is Apple inc. vs. US Government or NASA?
No Tinkering with Any Apple Products: Section 3.2(e) is the "ban on jailbreaking" provision that received some attention when it was introduced last year. Surprisingly, however, it appears to prohibit developers from tinkering with any Apple software or technology, not just the iPhone, or "enabling others to do so." For example, this could mean that iPhone app developers are forbidden from making iPods interoperate with open source software, for example.
<Who are you going to tell me that I can't?>
Point Made
...is that NASA is somehow bound by this "Free Information Act" (Does it apply only to government organizations? I'm no US citizen), yet the signed the apple NDA... Who is to spot these contradictions and when?
...Guess next lawsuit is Apple inc. vs. US Government or NASA?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it's called. Applies only to federal agencies. They aren't allowed to withhold information held as government records, subject to certain exemptions. Trade secrets happen to be one of them, so I suppose NASA could have refused the request on those grounds.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it's called. Applies only to federal agencies. They aren't allowed to withhold information held as government records, subject to certain exemptions. Trade secrets happen to be one of them, so I suppose NASA could have refused the request on those grounds.
I think it means that NASA's reviewers of FOIA request didn't deem it to be a trade secret. Which it isn't. Going to the trouble of filing a FOIA request was just a bit of *drama*, like playing vampire organ music when you say "Apple." Surely these guys know a developer. They have the agreement on pdfs. They could have copied the pdf.
Unless (shudder) Apple put an invisible poison in the contract, that only would activate in case an interloper copied it, and then it would seep into your skin and fifty years later, you'd be dead!
The foundation managed to obtain a copy by making a request to NASA under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act
Apple should now sue NASA in federal court.
FOIA does not mean that the docs have to be turned over simply because they were requested.
Company confidential/proprietary and certain contractual info is is exempt from FOIA.
The EFF could have signed up for the developer program and received a copy of the license but they were smart enough to obtain it from someone else (and advertise that fact) so they would not get busted.
First off, lets get something clear in regards to the iphone:
First party developer: Apple.
Second party developer: Anybody Apple contracted to contribute to the development process.
Third party developer: Those who write apps for the iphone (which can be anyone.)
Nobody else understood exactly what you were referring to, they were just making a corny joke stemming from their own ignorance.
Am I wrong to say that developers put up with the strict rules Apple enforces in order to have a shot at the large audience via the app store? If so, please explain how that's a false statement.
When I say iphone could be better because of third party developers, I'm talking from experience from what I see at xda-developers and the cool stuff people produce over there for WM sometimes (an OS not controlled NEARLY to the extent as the iphone OS is.) The potential for a device like the iphone is great (not that it isn't already.)
Clear?
How old are you?
Are you wrong? Yes. Most of us of the 100,000 iPhone Developers were on board before the audience reached such great levels. The developers made the app store, not the other way around.
You were called out because of your 'bs' attitude towards Apple. Interesting that developers aren't taking your side. And I base that on my own personal experience and the hundreds of developers I have met and conversed with since day one.
If this weren't the case, there should have been a deluge of criticism from the creators of the 5,000 or so apps that were removed recently. Nary a whimper. Why? Because it wasn't Apple that was trying to take advantage of the situation.
Clear?