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?
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
First 95 days, 250,000 copies of the iPhone SDK downloaded; 25,000 registered developers; 5200 developers attend WWDC 2008.
In one year, first 3,000 apps by September, 2008; 1,000,000 SDK downloaded; 50,000 apps available by WWDC 2009.
Watch the WWDC 2009 video at the 49 minute mark. Devs didn't "go where they [thought] their audience is or will be." It wasn't a priority. Dev's went there because it was fun and the pride it gave them getting their apps into he store.
Remember, these are Mac users. We become so because we love it. Certainly not because everyone else is using it.
First 95 days, 250,000 copies of the iPhone SDK downloaded; 25,000 registered developers; 5200 developers attend WWDC 2008.
In one year, first 3,000 apps by September, 2008; 1,000,000 SDK downloaded; 50,000 apps available by WWDC 2009.
Watch the WWDC 2009 video at the 49 minute mark. Devs didn't "go where they [thought] their audience is or will be." It wasn't a priority. Dev's went there because it was fun and the pride it gave them getting their apps into he store.
Remember, these are Mac users. We become so because we love it. Certainly not because everyone else is using it.
All your number show is that the number of devs grew as the number of users grew.
Some devs, i am sure, were there because it was fun. But those hobbyists would not go there is they thought no one would use their apps.
As for "Remember, these are Mac users". If this is what you believe, you have completely missed the point of the iPod, iPhone and the trajectory that Apple has been on for most of the last decade. The point is to move beyond the Mac. The guy in the office across from me never owned a Mac in his life. He owns one now so that he can work on the few games he has released in the App Store. He is not a mac head. He uses what he needs. Are Mac uses the core for Apple? Obviously. But Apple has moved beyond the Mac. Welcome to the 21st century.
All your number show is that the number of devs grew as the number of users grew.
Some devs, i am sure, were there because it was fun. But those hobbyists would not go there is they thought no one would use their apps.
As for "Remember, these are Mac users". If this is what you believe, you have completely missed the point of the iPod, iPhone and the trajectory that Apple has been on for most of the last decade. The point is to move beyond the Mac. The guy in the office across from me never owned a Mac in his life. He owns one now so that he can work on the few games he has released in the App Store. He is not a mac head. He uses what he needs. Are Mac uses the core for Apple? Obviously. But Apple has moved beyond the Mac. Welcome to the 21st century.
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
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!
All federal agencies have FOIA compliance offices, which should be conversant in what the act requires them to disclose on request. But I have heard more than once that some agencies are very slow to comply and refuse to release documents that they should release, or release them only heavily redacted. I do think the EFF is being melodramatic here (as they tend to be in general) but it seems their use of the FOIA to get their hands on a copy of this agreement by this means was clever. This way Apple has nobody to go after for violating the agreement by releasing it.
BTW, I have my first FOIA request pending with the FBI as we speak. I'll be very interested to see what comes of it.
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
He is indeed now a Mac user. But because of need not romance. You implied they were iPhone devs because they were Mac users. But he is a Mac user because he is an iPhone dev...see the difference? Logic is hard isn't it? It is true that many iPhone devs come from the Mac world, but hardly overall.
Your continual romanticizing of the Apple dev community is touching, though perhaps a little creepy. Money wasn't mentioned. Audience was. I suppose I can understand how you are confused between the two. For hobby or profession, they do it to reach an audience.
"The point is to stay or move to a Mac." No. Only the SDK is limited to Macs (and well it should be). I would hope this isn't Apple plan for Mac growth. The iPhone itself is sold to Mac and Windows users. As is the iPod. As is Apple TV. As will the iPad. Seeing a trend? While still a focus, Apple is moving past the Mac. You should catch up.
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?
"The developers made the app store, not the other way around" Actually, Apple made the app store, and developers applauded the idea of having a central hub for everyone to access their apps. You're saying they didn't?
As the number of users grew, so did the number of developers. Access to a wider audience brings more people willing to make an investment of some type for a chance at a positive return.
I really don't see how any of this can be argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
Seriously, and you ask ME how old I am? LOL
The iphone sdk only runs on a mac just like visual studio and the .net compact framework only run in windows. Clearly the person he's speaking of made an INVESTMENT to write his apps and get them published, all at a chance at some kind of return.
You say his buddy is now a mac user whether he "likes it or not." Wtf? If he likes it or not? Why would he care. We at least know he's a mac user when he's developing for the iphone, but assuming he's a mac user now for everything else holds as much water as saying he won't become a mac user for everything.
You say welcome to a more knowledgeable 21st century as if owning a mac makes you more knowledgeable about everything LOL. That's funny, ESPECIALLY considering one of the selling points of a Mac is that it's not as complicated as those horribly hard to use PC's.
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.
If Microsoft turned round one day and said there changing the licensing terms for developing Windows and said anyone developing software for Windows must sell it through their online store and that they can remove any piece of software from any copy of Windows for whatever reason they want. Do you think that would be ok? Basically everyone developing software for Windows would have to agree to it, somewhere along the lines you will have agreed a license with Microsoft so you would have no choice. Would you count that as evidence that all those developers have declared in writing that they are fine with it.
Fine its a phone and not a pc but it's the same software language, the inner workings are essentially the same. I don't really agree that games consoles can do this as well, but at the end of the day it one company having this much control isn't right.
No, because developers have the electronic freedom to peddle their wares on any platform they want.
There are no restrictions imposed by Apple on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
What, like a Zune or an X-box (which is a game console and not a phone), but it's the same software language, the inner workings are essentially the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
If Microsoft turned round one day and said there changing the licensing terms for developing Windows and said anyone developing software for Windows must sell it through their online store and that they can remove any piece of software from any copy of Windows for whatever reason they want. Do you think that would be ok? Basically everyone developing software for Windows would have to agree to it, somewhere along the lines you will have agreed a license with Microsoft so you would have no choice. Would you count that as evidence that all those developers have declared in writing that they are fine with it.
Fine its a phone and not a pc but it's the same software language, the inner workings are essentially the same. I don't really agree that games consoles can do this as well, but at the end of the day it one company having this much control isn't right.
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?
I forgot to address this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFF
Ban on Public Statements: Section 10.4 prohibits developers, including government agencies such as NASA, 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.
So as it turns out, there's "Nary a whimper" because they aren't allowed. Apple reserves the right in the agreement to pull their apps, and the developers have to agree not to bitch about it.
Who are the big influential members or contributors to the EFF?
Likely some of them have forced EFF to lay into Apple to create FUD and negative controversy around Apple.
It is the Illuminati. They have conspired with the Bolderbergs. And now the EFF is in on it. The EFF was not forced. They are willing accomplices in the plan.
Like it or not, Apple has the right to run its store however it wants. No developer is entitled to space in their store. If Apple's system pisses off enough people, they'll just leave the platform -- there is no need to use government to coerce Apple into changing its terms.
Its obvious and I agree,
I mean has everyone on this forum forgot that we live in a free society and Apple's App store is just like any department store but the products on their shelves are just digital. To draw and analogy, if Macys buyers don't want to bring in your dresses or shirts because they deem them to be unworthy of Macys class or style and approach to selling shirts and dresses, than you are SOL. I don't ever remember hearing anyone complaining about retailers (other than jealous comments on Walmarts success) over the last several hundred years, do you? Perhaps they may be too expensive (Lord and Taylor) or too cheap (Walmart) but its their company and the owners can do what they want?
I didn't see anyone on this forum point out that maybe Apple would like to stay in business. No one company is invincible, they could lose market share if they make the wrong choices and possibly go out of business, did anyone think that can happen? Like any business, Apple should be able to choose how, who and display what they want in order to satisfy their business model.
Today developers can be compared to just another clothing manufacturer or seamstress/designer and Apples App store is one department store.. Its that simple. Again this is just another example of a government agency not understanding this type of commerce. Just because you have the ability to design and sew, doesn't mean you have the right to get others to move your ideas or products. Developers can always try and peddle their goods on other platforms or make their own store to run on products they develop themselves. Maybe they should go out and get a business loan now!
Comments
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?
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
First 95 days, 250,000 copies of the iPhone SDK downloaded; 25,000 registered developers; 5200 developers attend WWDC 2008.
In one year, first 3,000 apps by September, 2008; 1,000,000 SDK downloaded; 50,000 apps available by WWDC 2009.
Watch the WWDC 2009 video at the 49 minute mark. Devs didn't "go where they [thought] their audience is or will be." It wasn't a priority. Dev's went there because it was fun and the pride it gave them getting their apps into he store.
Remember, these are Mac users. We become so because we love it. Certainly not because everyone else is using it.
First 95 days, 250,000 copies of the iPhone SDK downloaded; 25,000 registered developers; 5200 developers attend WWDC 2008.
In one year, first 3,000 apps by September, 2008; 1,000,000 SDK downloaded; 50,000 apps available by WWDC 2009.
Watch the WWDC 2009 video at the 49 minute mark. Devs didn't "go where they [thought] their audience is or will be." It wasn't a priority. Dev's went there because it was fun and the pride it gave them getting their apps into he store.
Remember, these are Mac users. We become so because we love it. Certainly not because everyone else is using it.
All your number show is that the number of devs grew as the number of users grew.
Some devs, i am sure, were there because it was fun. But those hobbyists would not go there is they thought no one would use their apps.
As for "Remember, these are Mac users". If this is what you believe, you have completely missed the point of the iPod, iPhone and the trajectory that Apple has been on for most of the last decade. The point is to move beyond the Mac. The guy in the office across from me never owned a Mac in his life. He owns one now so that he can work on the few games he has released in the App Store. He is not a mac head. He uses what he needs. Are Mac uses the core for Apple? Obviously. But Apple has moved beyond the Mac. Welcome to the 21st century.
All your number show is that the number of devs grew as the number of users grew.
Some devs, i am sure, were there because it was fun. But those hobbyists would not go there is they thought no one would use their apps.
As for "Remember, these are Mac users". If this is what you believe, you have completely missed the point of the iPod, iPhone and the trajectory that Apple has been on for most of the last decade. The point is to move beyond the Mac. The guy in the office across from me never owned a Mac in his life. He owns one now so that he can work on the few games he has released in the App Store. He is not a mac head. He uses what he needs. Are Mac uses the core for Apple? Obviously. But Apple has moved beyond the Mac. Welcome to the 21st century.
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
Likely some of them have forced EFF to lay into Apple to create FUD and negative controversy around Apple.
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!
All federal agencies have FOIA compliance offices, which should be conversant in what the act requires them to disclose on request. But I have heard more than once that some agencies are very slow to comply and refuse to release documents that they should release, or release them only heavily redacted. I do think the EFF is being melodramatic here (as they tend to be in general) but it seems their use of the FOIA to get their hands on a copy of this agreement by this means was clever. This way Apple has nobody to go after for violating the agreement by releasing it.
BTW, I have my first FOIA request pending with the FBI as we speak. I'll be very interested to see what comes of it.
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
He is indeed now a Mac user. But because of need not romance. You implied they were iPhone devs because they were Mac users. But he is a Mac user because he is an iPhone dev...see the difference? Logic is hard isn't it? It is true that many iPhone devs come from the Mac world, but hardly overall.
Your continual romanticizing of the Apple dev community is touching, though perhaps a little creepy. Money wasn't mentioned. Audience was. I suppose I can understand how you are confused between the two. For hobby or profession, they do it to reach an audience.
"The point is to stay or move to a Mac." No. Only the SDK is limited to Macs (and well it should be). I would hope this isn't Apple plan for Mac growth. The iPhone itself is sold to Mac and Windows users. As is the iPod. As is Apple TV. As will the iPad. Seeing a trend? While still a focus, Apple is moving past the Mac. You should catch up.
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?
"The developers made the app store, not the other way around" Actually, Apple made the app store, and developers applauded the idea of having a central hub for everyone to access their apps. You're saying they didn't?
As the number of users grew, so did the number of developers. Access to a wider audience brings more people willing to make an investment of some type for a chance at a positive return.
I really don't see how any of this can be argued.
Most author's write because they like to. The joy for the most part is they write for THEMSELVES. Most don't bother to even publish their works.
Not much different than software developers. Particularly for iPhone app developers. Apple made it fun to do and extremely simply to get it published. Most developers won't make much money, many make their apps available for free and many won't stop after their first.
The iPhone SDK only runs on a Mac. It will never be made to run on a PC. The point is to stay or move to a Mac. Your work buddy is now a Mac user whether you like it or not. Welcome to a more knowledgeable 21 century.
Seriously, and you ask ME how old I am? LOL
The iphone sdk only runs on a mac just like visual studio and the .net compact framework only run in windows. Clearly the person he's speaking of made an INVESTMENT to write his apps and get them published, all at a chance at some kind of return.
You say his buddy is now a mac user whether he "likes it or not." Wtf? If he likes it or not? Why would he care. We at least know he's a mac user when he's developing for the iphone, but assuming he's a mac user now for everything else holds as much water as saying he won't become a mac user for everything.
You say welcome to a more knowledgeable 21st century as if owning a mac makes you more knowledgeable about everything LOL. That's funny, ESPECIALLY considering one of the selling points of a Mac is that it's not as complicated as those horribly hard to use PC's.
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.
If Microsoft turned round one day and said there changing the licensing terms for developing Windows and said anyone developing software for Windows must sell it through their online store and that they can remove any piece of software from any copy of Windows for whatever reason they want. Do you think that would be ok? Basically everyone developing software for Windows would have to agree to it, somewhere along the lines you will have agreed a license with Microsoft so you would have no choice. Would you count that as evidence that all those developers have declared in writing that they are fine with it.
Fine its a phone and not a pc but it's the same software language, the inner workings are essentially the same. I don't really agree that games consoles can do this as well, but at the end of the day it one company having this much control isn't right.
There are no restrictions imposed by Apple on this.
I am sure that for most developers, this is a non issue, just as draconian EULA for most consumer products are non-issues for most consumers. It might be crap, but we put up with it.
But, I have to ask you, do you honestly expect to hear many devs complaining? Some might believe that discussing the terms that they have issue with would result in them getting the ban hammer dropped on them hard, given the agreement they have entered into. You can't have it both ways. You support the terms that prevent the devs from discussing anything about the terms, but then use the lack of discussion as proof of satisfaction. Absurd logic to say the least.
And no, he was not wrong. Devs do accept the strict rules because of the benefits, including the captive audience. Many devs were on board before the number of users reached today's highs. In fact, logically speaking, they all did. Very weak argument. Devs go where they think their audience is or will be. Apple has been on a near-perfect track with their products, so of course the potential of the large audience of the app store is one of the reasons for a dev to accept the terms.
If Microsoft turned round one day and said there changing the licensing terms for developing Windows and said anyone developing software for Windows must sell it through their online store and that they can remove any piece of software from any copy of Windows for whatever reason they want. Do you think that would be ok? Basically everyone developing software for Windows would have to agree to it, somewhere along the lines you will have agreed a license with Microsoft so you would have no choice. Would you count that as evidence that all those developers have declared in writing that they are fine with it.
Fine its a phone and not a pc but it's the same software language, the inner workings are essentially the same. I don't really agree that games consoles can do this as well, but at the end of the day it one company having this much control isn't right.
No, because developers have the electronic freedom to peddle their wares on any platform they want.
There are no restrictions imposed by Apple on this.
I so wish we had a hand palm smiley for hill60's posts.
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?
I forgot to address this:
Ban on Public Statements: Section 10.4 prohibits developers, including government agencies such as NASA, 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.
So as it turns out, there's "Nary a whimper" because they aren't allowed. Apple reserves the right in the agreement to pull their apps, and the developers have to agree not to bitch about it.
I so wish we had a hand palm smiley for hill60's posts.
I don't think the Smilie's enough.
I so wish we had a hand palm smiley for hill60's posts.
This isn't any more or less harsh than the Apple EULA in reality.
Google is evil. They are trying to kill us.
Please don't say that Apple is just as bad as Google. Apple makes great products FOR YOU. Google is evil.
Who are the big influential members or contributors to the EFF?
Likely some of them have forced EFF to lay into Apple to create FUD and negative controversy around Apple.
It is the Illuminati. They have conspired with the Bolderbergs. And now the EFF is in on it. The EFF was not forced. They are willing accomplices in the plan.
Follow the money!
Like it or not, Apple has the right to run its store however it wants. No developer is entitled to space in their store. If Apple's system pisses off enough people, they'll just leave the platform -- there is no need to use government to coerce Apple into changing its terms.
Its obvious and I agree,
I mean has everyone on this forum forgot that we live in a free society and Apple's App store is just like any department store but the products on their shelves are just digital. To draw and analogy, if Macys buyers don't want to bring in your dresses or shirts because they deem them to be unworthy of Macys class or style and approach to selling shirts and dresses, than you are SOL. I don't ever remember hearing anyone complaining about retailers (other than jealous comments on Walmarts success) over the last several hundred years, do you? Perhaps they may be too expensive (Lord and Taylor) or too cheap (Walmart) but its their company and the owners can do what they want?
I didn't see anyone on this forum point out that maybe Apple would like to stay in business. No one company is invincible, they could lose market share if they make the wrong choices and possibly go out of business, did anyone think that can happen? Like any business, Apple should be able to choose how, who and display what they want in order to satisfy their business model.
Today developers can be compared to just another clothing manufacturer or seamstress/designer and Apples App store is one department store.. Its that simple. Again this is just another example of a government agency not understanding this type of commerce. Just because you have the ability to design and sew, doesn't mean you have the right to get others to move your ideas or products. Developers can always try and peddle their goods on other platforms or make their own store to run on products they develop themselves. Maybe they should go out and get a business loan now!
Sometimes EFF makes Don Quixote look like a realist.