At the launch of the App Store, Apple noted the ability for developers to distribute software outside of the App Store. Essentially, Apple allows developers to issue software based on the iPhone’s serial number. This allows a company to issue an application to iPhones, without the application being on the App Store.
More importantly, it gave Apple an out to bypass anti-competitive business practices. If a developer doesn’t want to sell their software on the App Store, they can still sell it to customers directly. This was put to the test last week when Podcaster, an application barred from sale on the App Store, began being sold directly to customers.
Apple today shut down Podcaster’s developer once again. Essentially, Apple removed the developer’s ability to deploy software onto client (customer) devices. Prior to today, Podcaster was banned from the App Store, due to Apple’s assertion that it competes with iTunes, and that they do not have to allow iTunes competitors to be offered on the App Store.
This puts Apple in a dangerous legal position. Before today, Apple had rights to assert that the App Store was only one sales channel, which they had every right to control. Now Apple is asserting rights to control any and all sales channels of software to iPhone and iPod touch owners. Apple appears to be betting on the legal precedent of time; it would take years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, to challenge such an anti-competitive business practice.
Apple now joins the ranks of BREW carriers as imposing a fully walled garden. The “walled garden” refers to an ecosystem where one company or group has complete control over what software can be run on a user’s device. A groundswell of legal and consumer opposition to walled gardens prompted Verizon (the largest BREW carrier in America) to announce late last year that it would no longer prohibit any valid application from their store.
The key legal opposition to walled gardens surrounds the nature of anti-competitive business practices. Essentially, consumer advocates (including PhoneNews.com), argue that the manufacturer/carrier is instituting an overbearing monopoly over the device’s ecosystem, such that no external organization could bypass the barriers to entry. Mac clone maker Psystar has argued this similarly in a recent counter-suit against Apple.
Today’s events come on the eve of both looming Apple product announcements, as well as the announcement of the T-Mobile G1 (also known as the HTC Dream). The G1 is the first production Google Android phone, and will be announced alongside Google’s own equivalent to the App Store. Google promises developers that they will not block any functional software from being sold or offered to customers.
Apple has declined numerous opportunities for comment.
This makes me sad that Apple even introduced the iPhone. An open phone capable of employing all of its abilities (like my Mac) would be so much more desirable than this walled in abomination.
That was what I had hoped for, but Apple must know better 🙁
If you don’t like a walled phone, don’t buy one. If you’re a developer and don’t like Apple’s policy then don’t develop for the iPhone. Apple isn’t taking away your freedom of choice, they’re just limiting it as it relates to their products. You’re perfectly free to voice your opinion with your wallet.
For the record, I’m an iPhone developer. The more developers that decide they don’t like Apple’s policy, the better it is for me.
The Ad Hoc method was originally limited to 100 users by Apple and to be used only for testing, the Podcaster guy was using it as it was not intended.
While I would prefer that Apple allow any non-harmful software the Ad Hoc runaround wasn’t right.
And, like it or not, Apple’s approach is a good thing. While it unfortunately is using the policy to stifle some intriguing and useful products, the approval and vetting process Apple uses is ultimately to protect your phone from malware and hacking.
The Apple right wing will argue till their leader changes to a white turtleneck.
If this was how computers worked people would flip out.
Trust me .. I as well a number of people will not buy into Apple’s closed system and you can all enjoy your sanctioned environement.
I heard theres a church you can join in Texas .. seems you have much in common.
Dan: Before yesterday, Apple never asserted that the garden lacked an opt-out (via Ad Hoc). How would you like it, if you spent six months working on an app, only for Apple to pull out some secret criteria and prevent you from selling it? That is where we see Apple using an illegal tactic… they could essentially have any developer waste time and money, when Apple knows they will block the app anyways. The Developer, has no way of knowing that.
WhoDean: Apple never said that the Ad Hoc distribution process was limited to testing. They only started saying that yesterday.
Kevin: That’s fine for the typical consumer. However, without an opt-out, we view it as an illegal, anti-competitive business practice.
I think I’m with Dan on this one. As a small iPhone developer myself I’ve not found ANY issue with how Apple does the selecting. Revenue wise I’ve made plenty with my two apps compared to several shareware Windows programs which make me almost nothing. Building an application for the iPhone that’s useful and unique is a good place to start, duplicating similar functions to what the phone already has is perhaps the wrong place to start. Would a clear cut standard be nice? Most certainly! Is such a guide coming, I don’t know though I expect so. Are there other smart phones to write for, yeppers (There’s a ton of WinMoblie out there, just don’t hold your breath on earnings). As much as I am sympathetic to this developers plight, the DRAMA around it does not do them any favour.
Phew… I’m glad I went with the Samsung Instinct….
😉
Really? How is the third party software system on the Instinct?
The “wink” means I’m joking…
Duh, my sense of sarcasm is broken today.
There’s a similar discussion going on here: http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=202#comments
The skinny is, I’m a longtime Apple user, and this practice sickens me. Anyone who defends it is no better than parents who take their screaming child to a crowded movie and then defend his and their own actions because they can do no wrong in their eyes. It’s a bullshit practice, plain and simple. I’m of the opinion that, I bought it, I should be free to do whatever I want with it. I signed no waiver claiming that the iPhone “remains the property of Apple INc. and must be surrendered on request.” If I had, this would be a different story.
If ANY WinMo device pulled this bullshit, they’d NEVER sell. Same goes for Symbian or Android.
I love my iPhone, thoroughly. I’m just really starting to loathe the company behind it.
Lo, the clonflict.
@Jeff: Sammy INstinct?!? REALLY?? (Then again, I assume you’re on Sprint and not dealing with the severely gimped version we have up here…although gimped or otherwise, that browser, um, sucks 🙂
I’m for Apple running a tight ship in it’s own store and I’m willing to give Apple more time in writing up a document that clearly states what type of apps aren’t allowed. I believe the end user is more important than the developer (sorry about that). I also think that Apple should protect it’s own apps from potential overlap from third-party apps. My reason is that Apple may be in the process of development of more of its own apps and/or Mobile OSX is still lagging behind in development.
I’m a long-term Apple user and investor, so I believe that Apple knows best how to run the company. I’m not worried about lots of developers pulling out and writing for Android. The educational apps I want are getting developed and that’s good enough for me. In my opinion, I don’t think Apple is in danger destroying the iPhone/Touch platform due to it’s restrictions.
I haven’t yet looked into the Podcaster fiasco yet. Couldn’t a podcast be made into a strictly music stream instead of just talk?
I find it hard to believe that Android is going to be perfect right from the start and will allow any type of apps to be uploaded without restriction. I would think it would be a nightmare for whoever has to give support for users when devices start crashing. Is Google going to give support for a dozen different Android-running handsets? More power to them.
This Android OS must really be something. If it’s that good maybe it should be scaled up for desktop computers.
Regarding “Apple never said that the Ad Hoc distribution process was limited to testing. They only started saying that yesterday.”.
Have you actually read the NDA that no-one can talk about? I have, and they definitely did describe ad-hoc distribution as for testing only.
(Of course, it also describes the SDK as “to be only used internally” – interestingly, many developers agree that thats where Apple should put its SDK…)
This developer, saying ‘nyah, nyah, I’ll use ad-hoc distribution’ got exactly what he should have expected; every *real* developer could see this coming a mile off.
Constable Odo, Google has said that Android will be scaled up to “devices more powerful than phones”. Google hasn’t gone as far as to say that there will be a desktop version, but it really is just a fine-tuned flavor of Linux… there’s no reason why it couldn’t be.
Of course, by the same token, there’s no reason Apple couldn’t port the remainder of Mac OS X to a more-powerful version of iPhone someday, either.
Jeff, of course I can’t disclose anything given to me under NDA from Apple, nor can anyone else here at MechaWorks. However, going on Apple’s public statements about the Ad Hoc model, there was never any barring of distribution via that channel.
And, the public record is what lawmakers go by when setting policy. The FCC and FTC were, until today, under the impression that Apple was allowing developers to take their hard work, and sell it via Ad Hoc. Now, Apple is saying that they can tell developers that they may have to throw their work in the trash, based on some unspecified set of criteria… which developers are not made privy to prior to submission.
If that is not an overbearing, illegal use of monopoly powers, I really don’t know what is.
[…] to make developer’s life a little hearder, one NDA at a time and Apple is making the news, again, about it’s very unfriendly way of doing […]
Anyone who likes this idea, does not fully appreciate our God-given freedoms. Maybe you Big Brother watching your every move, dictating every thing you can or can not do or think? Wait until the lawyers get done with eating Apples lunch just like they did with Microsoft. There’s only so much absolute control a company can exert over it users. Until the lawyers prevail … we users will vote with our pocket-book. Unfortunately, it will take time. That’s what Apple is gambling on…
If you own Apple stock — now is the time to sell. These anti-competitive and restrictive practices will be their downfall.
The following are my personal thoughts and mine alone…
1) The creator of Podcaster forgot that Apple holds the keys (literally) to the iPhone.
2) Downloading podcasts takes a LOT of bandwidth and SHOULD have been limited to Wi-Fi connections ONLY. This would have bypassed the ATT bandwidth “argument” and not violated the ATT service agreement.
3) Storing podcasts in application storage space or in the SQL-Lite database is a BAD idea. Even having “too many applications” is causing memory problems and crashes in the iPhone (Apple, please fix this).
4) Ad-Hoc distribution was ONLY for development and testing purposes. Selling the application that way violated many parts of the developer’s license agreement.
5) Apple MUST be forthcoming with the rules regarding unacceptable applications or provide a secure mutually non-disclosed method for developers ask Apple if an idea is acceptable.
6) Apple MUST clearly communicate the reason(s) for rejecting an application with the developer.
7) Apple MUST NOT limit free speech regarding the iPhone and development for it. Such limitations are stupid and hurt ALL developers and end users in the long run.
“of course I can’t disclose anything given to me under NDA from Apple, nor can anyone else here at MechaWorks. However, going on Apple’s public statements about the Ad Hoc model, there was never any barring of distribution via that channel.”
I’m puzzled by this logic. Can you explain how a policy in the NDA is less enforceable than a public statement?
In other words, if it’s in the agreement YOU AGREED TO, then how is it negated if it wasn’t also repeated in public. I’m not trying to be an ass pointing this out, I just want to figure out the logic you’re using.
[…] Além de modificar (ou esclarecer) o NDA do iPhone SDK com relação a comentários de rejeições da App Store, a Apple passou a bloquear hoje a distribuição direta de softwares — artifÃcio este que estava sendo utilizado por desenvolvedores insatisfeitos com avaliações negativas da Maçã. Inicialmente, a idéia disso seria a de permitir que desenvolvedores distribuÃssem aplicativos gratuitamente para amigos, familiares e, principalmente, que realizassem testes dos seus softwares sem a necessidade de colocá-los à venda na App Store. A liberação era feita diretamente pelo número serial do iPhone. O problema é que alguns estavam se aproveitando da funcionalidade de má fé. O criador dojá bastante falado Podcaster, por exemplo, começou a vendê-lo diretamente para consumidores, após ter sido barrado pela Apple. Isso não só ia contra o fundamento do serviço, como não repassava os 30% devidos à Maçã. Alguns afirmam que esta prática poderá levar a Apple aos tribunais por acusações de um modelo de negócios anti-competitivo, no qual ela teria controle sobre todos os meios de venda de softwares para iPhones e iPods touch. Isto é, as regras até então eram ditadas apenas para a App Store; por outro lado, eu vejo esta funcionalidade como um serviço prestado por ela mesma, o qual ela também tem direito de impor limitações. É diferente de um mundo informal de programas que rodam via jailbreak, por exemplo. O anúncio de mais cedo do G1, da T-Mobile (também conhecido como HTC Dream), marca a chegada do primeiro telefone com o sistema operacional Google Android e a inauguração do seu serviço equivalente à iPhone App Store. Neste, a gigante de buscas promete não bloquear a venda ou o oferecimento de quaisquer softwares funcionais para seus consumidores. Por um lado, a liberdade soa como uma maravilha mas, por outro, se você parar pra pensar, isso possibilitará a criação de aplicativos dos mais variados, sem qualquer controle de qualidade e/ou padronização. Além disso, especula-se bastante sobre como o Google pretende controlar a inserção de softwares com códigos maliciosos, spywares e afins. Parece que a história dos desktops começa a repetir-se no mundo portátil só que, desta vez, a Microsoft foi chutada pra escanteio. [Via: PhoneNews.com.] […]
in reply to RebelScum – “I’m of the opinion that, I bought it, I should be free to do whatever I want with it.” – duh! what kind of attitude is that? If you buy something, it doesn’t give you a right to do whatever you want with it!
Buying a computer doesn’t give you the right to be a hacker.
Buying a hi-fi system doesn’t give you the right to blast it at full volume after midnight.
Buying a car doesn’t give you the right to roadkills.
Buying a gun doesn’t give you the right to shoot people.
It is this kind of attitude that breeds Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech massacre and other violent /non-violent crimes.
Duh!
In reply to RebelScuum – “I hate that phrase “that’s good enough for meâ€, because it denotes an air of selfishness and a general lack of understanding that just because it’s good enough for YOU does not mean that it shoudl be the defacto way of doing things.”
Well your “I bought it, I should be free to do whatever I want with it.” sounds just as selfish and even shows a greater lack of understanding that just because you bought it doesnt not mean that you can do anything you want with it!
It is like saying because i gave birth to a baby, or i am the father of the child, i can do whatever I want to him/her!
This kind of attitude is sick!
Apple sucks! They create a wonderful product & sell it at a premium price then control what I can run on it? Corporate Arrogance! It would be like buying a car stereo and the manufacturer telling me I can only play cd’s with country & western music on it.
@Jetleets: That argument is, um, stupid.
Sorry, I usually don’t reduce myself to saying things like that, but this is a special case.
To compare an inanimate object for which you have paid in order to either make you life easier to manage, or just to show off to your less fortunate friends, family members, and colleagues, to a living breathing and sentient human being is…well…stupid.
I can’t get over that you’re comparing cell phone ownership with human subjegation. Yes, I am laughing at you here 🙂
But since you feel the need to:
What if the company you bought your car from told you you could only drive it a certain amount of miles or only to specific places?
What if you bought a house but you could only furnish it with things bought at a specific store?
and so on and so on…
Phrases like ~Buying a car doesn’t give you the right to roadkills.~ indicate that you have missed the point of not only my posts, but this entire thread, so monumentally and entirely, that there really is no point in arguing with you, actually. In fact, your ramblings are so nonsensical, I have to write this off as some sort of joke.
Like, duh.
:tosses cookie to troll:
in reply to Ron – Yes actually they do have DVD region codes where you can only play certain DVDs in certain players! What do you have to say to that? Corporate Arrogance?
in reply to rebelscum – Then i wont buy the car or the house! are you stupid or dumb? hahahaha…
~Yes actually they do have DVD region codes where you can only play certain DVDs in certain players! What do you have to say to that? Corporate Arrogance?~
REALLY???!???!? You’re blaming Corporate Arrogance for NTSC & PAL?!?!?
http://www.strata.com/support/3dmanual/ch13/ch13_7.html
Jebus dude. Reading. It’s fundamental.
~in reply to rebelscum – Then i wont buy the car or the house! are you stupid or dumb? hahahaha…~
Ahhhhh, you’re trolling. my bad for responding.
duh! reading? now i am stupid and dumb. hahahah… i am elfing, not trolling.
By the way. I dont have an iPhone and I don’t like Apple! go figure!
VTH, you took my reply out of context. Of course the developer agreement could order developers to not distribute via the Ad Hoc model.
However, I was referring to the information given to the public… which was that the Ad Hoc model was not limited to testing. At no time did Apple say (to the public) that Ad Hoc was only for testing, and that was the knowledge that we, as well as regulators (the FCC and FTC in particular) were given.
We have no idea if Apple said to developers, under NDA, that they could or could not distribute via Ad Hoc. I don’t think that really matters either way. We do now know that they intend to regular iPhone apps regardless of if they are sold on the App Store… an illegal, anti-competitive tactic in our opinion.
[…] ha iniziato a venderla direttamente agli utenti. A partire da oggi, secondo una notizia del sito  PhoneNews.com non sarà comunque più possibile dato che la stessa Apple ha deciso di rimuovere questa […]
[…] Posts Yesterday’s story (and some of the comments I made after the original report) may lead some to believe that we at […]
Chaps you are all getting heated up about a device here. Sure I like the IPhone, I bought two of them. However this phone meets my requirements at the moment but I am by no means tied to using it. In the everchanging climate of smartphones I am sure we will have another phone that will out do the IPhone.
We can all vote with our wallets, we have a choice, but base your choice on relevance, does the device meet my requirements? Am I happy with the ecosystem?
If the IPhone is no longer relevant in the eyes of the consumer I am sure Apple will listen to the voice of the consumer,
[…] fa notare il sito PhoneNews, che ha pubblicato la notizia, questa scelta potrebbe costare alla Apple delle azioni legali: […]
[…] Read More […]
After this long attack thread, I’m really glad I didn’t buy an iPhone… I don’t like the “group-think” required to like it.
[…] PhoneNews‘ Christopher Price seems to suggest there is no difference. “Before today, Apple had rights to assert that the App Store was only one sales channel, which they had every right to control. Now Apple is asserting rights to control any and all sales channels of software to iPhone and iPod touch owners. Apple appears to be betting on the legal precedent of time; it would take years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, to challenge such an anti-competitive business practice.” […]
[…] Podcaster за пределами App Store оцениваетÑÑ ÐºÑ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ð¸ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸ негативно. Они отмечают, что теперь Apple ÑтараетÑÑ Ñ€ÐµÐ³ÑƒÐ»Ð¸Ñ€Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒ и […]
“VTH, you took my reply out of context. Of course the developer agreement could order developers to not distribute via the Ad Hoc model.
However, I was referring to the information given to the public… which was that the Ad Hoc model was not limited to testing. At no time did Apple say (to the public) that Ad Hoc was only for testing, and that was the knowledge that we, as well as regulators (the FCC and FTC in particular) were given.”
You still didn’t explain your logic but oh well.
I would however love to see the FTC filing which “doesn’t” state about Ad Hoc, or that there is some regulation that states that it must do so.
“We have no idea if Apple said to developers, under NDA, that they could or could not distribute via Ad Hoc.”
Ahh, now it’s understood. You have NO IDEA yet you complain. So what this really comes down to is a bunch of nerds reading into a contract what they want to read. Bill O’Reilly was right about his dislike for computer geeks. (look in November 17th 2006 if you want to listen to him and yes, if you want to hear all of it you’ll have to give up some coin)
VTH, we don’t care if Apple told developers, after they signed an NDA, that they could or could not distribute via Ad Hoc. It simply is not relevant to most people affected by this… the consumers.
The consumer was given the impression by Apple (either through misleading, or through a lie of omission) that this would be an acceptable sales channel. This change directly affects the choices with which consumers have to purchase software, for a device they already own.
Developers still have an interest here, again, it does not matter if Apple told developers to not distribute via Ad Hoc… it is still an illegal, anti-competitive business practice either way.
Please save your straw man arguments, which draw in other commentators, for other web sites.
You are mistaken, I worked with other developers on ad hoc and they all KNEW it was limited to 100 users and only for testing.
whoDean, I really think you haven’t read our posts fully.
We made it quite clear that it does not matter what developers were told under NDA. The consumer was mislead on this… as the consumer was never told that they would be tied to the App Store as the only sales channel. The consumer was told about Ad Hoc, with no mention that it would be limited for testing purposes.
Considering that developers were told this information under NDA, they had no means of noting the potential illegality (of such an anti-competitive business tactic), without facing legal action from Apple.
Everything I just noted in this comment was stated in the article, as well as several follow-up comments. I don’t know how you missed it.
Apple has never made an announcement to consumers about Ad Hoc, you are stretching the truth.
Wrong. They did so at the iPhone Roadmap Event, which was webcasted (and promoted) as a public event.
That was also followed up with Apple PR confirming it to the press. Like us.
The ability to distribute an app outside iTunes was only allowed during initial development and was never to be used after the iPhone 3g went live. Do some research.
Apple wasn’t interested in replying to your uninformed screed on your lame web site? What a surprise.
“as the consumer was never told that they would be tied to the App Store as the only sales channel. The consumer was told about Ad Hoc, with no mention that it would be limited for testing purposes.”
You are 100% wrong about this which is not a surprise because you either are just making it up to bolster a lie or its just ignorance on your part. Prove that consumers were never told this.
For the posters who label people fanboys and use silly terms like “groupthink” you need to consider why you are so insecure as to have to make such childish statements. Or maybe you just aren’t very bright or cannot afford an iPhone.
I do not think Apple should limit an app because it competes with one of theirs but I am all for them limiting apps that are not stable. See how successful java has not been on phones? Well it hasn’t and thats why. Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Palm are the same. I’m betting Android will be the same as well. Consider the number and quality of apps that are already out for the iPhone in an amazingly short period of time.
Terry, you’re wrong in both comment postings.
Ad Hoc is still allowed, but Apple has now blocked it except for testing. I’m surprised you didn’t know this. It is also allowed through the iPhone Corporate Program. Again, I’m surprised you didn’t know this.
To your second post, I’ve already responded to your points in prior comments. I encourage you to re-read where Apple made these statements. Asked and answered.
[…] on the precipice of monopoly control over applications that can be legally run on the iPhone. Phone News writer Christopher Price says, “This puts Apple in a dangerous legal position. Before […]
Apple is all about control. If Apple’s products weren’t so well designed, Apple would probably be right where everyone else is – commodityville.