From waffle.wootest.net
I seriously hope Gruber did not mean what he said, or that I am reading meaning into it where there is none. My app ThisService, which I wrote principally for him by request, has to date made less than $100 through donations. Is John suggesting that it is junk, or that junk that is free should be accepted?
I think the point here is being missed by all and sundry. If you’re seeing your app as a money making venture as opposed to free, then you’re going to need to use the App Store and that means accepting terms and conditions. It’s not just Apple who has a limit on the size of cheque they will send – Google does it too with AdWords.
The point is – if you’re looking to make a couple of hundred dollars out of the App Store then you are approaching it wrong. The App Store will have a few very specialist applications that may sell a couple of hundred copies but that’s because they’re in a very specific niche. And if they price them at a dollar then yeah, it’s going to take that number of sales before a cheque is printed.
Did anyone seriously think that Apple would send you a cheque for $0.70 every month because some user decided to buy it that month?
That’s not Apple being mean or giving indie developers a raw deal – it’s just the combination of ‘rules’ plus stupid pricing. And this storm in a teacup is typical of Mac user hysteria.
And the DRM rant?
Well, some people want to protect their wares from being copied. Go figure. You’ll get fights on both sides of that issue. If you don’t like it, release for the JailBreak community.
I dunno, I think the DRM rant is fairly spot on. Its an odd turnaround from the “open” platform that is OS X.
1) You can’t load apps of your own unless you have a Dev Certificate
2) You can’t easily carry out beta testing
3) You can’t sync data off the device easily unless you start using external servers
4) Your app is sandboxed from other data
I understand the desire / need to lock down some of the types of apps that run on the device, network bandwidth and so on, but not to the degree with which they seem to be taking.
1) This platform runs signed code. That’s because there needs to be a level of trust involved. Remember the iPhone runs as a privileged user. And premium rate telephone numbers are just a quick autodial away.
2) They provide a simulator. And developers will get access to the device and get certificates once the SDK is out of beta. This was in the WWDC Keynote. It’s STILL in beta.
3) Seeing as it hooks into SyncServices and pulls data from your mac, and there’s SDKs for the above, I have no idea what you mean here.
4) This is a bad thing? Explain?
I’m not against code signing (even mandatory code signing), I’m not against a central place to sell applications, I’m not against Apple refusing to wire piddly sums of money (even if the line for ‘piddly’ would go high at $250 – $25 seems more correct).
I’m against the way in which mandatory code signing, a central authority and DRM is combined to form something that gives Apple the ultimate control on what can eventually reach your iPhone, and not you. Carriers have been trying to pull this sort of crap with modified firmwares for years and haven’t gotten it to work as efficiently as this. (And “efficiently” isn’t positive here.)
I am unsure of if phone numbers can be automatically dialed. My guess is that it will bring up an alert asking if you’d like to call the number, as in Safari, but I can’t try since I haven’t plunked down the $99 or been approved to do so. The Simulator gives me an error about an unregistered URL scheme.
Carrying out beta testing in a way that’s compatible with point two in your previous comment means that every single beta tester will have to apply for and download the iPhone SDK, and that you’ll have to mail your source code to them, which is completely ridiculous. As luck would have it, it won’t be quite this bad with Ad-Hoc mode once that gets started, but you’ll still have to either hardcode hardware IDs somewhere or start generating good-for-this-app certificates, which is a ridiculous new step in the process since it adds extra process by the user, and tops out at 100 users.
When it comes to point 3, you’re completely bullshitting – iTunes may use SyncServices to spin the wheel on syncing calendars and contacts, but there are no hooks that I know of that can be used to sync user data into the applications themselves. You *have* to build something that interfaces with either your Mac/PC on the local wireless network or with a server in the cloud; you can’t even use Bluetooth. This is also why the current sandbox, while secure, is too inflexible. If you plan a suite of applications, you can’t share data between them unless you buy an online server and demand users are online. (Remember that in several countries, iPhone 3G won’t come with unlimited data.) Allowances for folders that other apps could have read-only access to or even that very specific apps could write to wouldn’t be hard to make.
I don’t think that economically, the deal the App Store provides is rough. It seems alright with me, and people who are otherwise happy with the SDK don’t seem to have visibly exploded. Then again, if I were to sell apps, I would be happy with an even split with Apple if the whole deal was restructured to eliminate some of my complaints.
What pisses me off more than anything is that Apple, that’s historically been so canny with giving developers great tools even if actual developer relations haven’t been so shiny all the time, doesn’t let me write apps for my own use unless I pay them $99 for the privilege. Imagine, if you will, the shitstorm this would cause if applied on any other major computer platform.
I’m sure part of the reason for the DRM is to protect the Dev Certificate. It wouldn’t do if a bunch of “non-sanctioned” apps grabbed somebody’s Dev Certificate.
But Robert, above, used the magic words: “open platform.” The iPhone is not an open platform, as much as we would like it to be.
Part of the reason is that the iPhone is more than a platform. It is Apple’s product. In creating it’s product, Apple had to sign various deals with others and must enforce the provisions of those rules.
Two examples:
1. AT&T is offering iPhone users unlimited Internet use for a single flat fee. However, needless to say, AT&T would rather that people don’t use lots of bandwidth. Thus, the iPhone cannot be used as a bluetooth modem for your laptop to do anything you want.
2. The music companies want their say as well. While at WWDC, I commented to some Apple people that the music program on the iPhone was really cool. But what would be even cooler is if I could peck out a song using that program and, say, use it as a ringtone. That earned me a lot of sheepish looks and a, “Yeah, I suppose that would be nice…” But, of course, giving applications the ability to add things to your iTunes library and set ringtones and such might interfere with Apple’s ability to make deals with the music companies which would affect Apple’s negotiating ability. Trust me, I’m sure Apple had to sign deals with them to “allow” the user to transfer music to a portable player. Remember that Apple needs the music companies to allow Apple to sell their songs.
Apple is delivering a mixed message here because there are two factions. One faction sees the iPhone as a platform which both Apple and developers could share and do great things with. The other faction sees the iPhone as a product which Apple must control in order to (a) create an appropriate “Apple experience” which will delight and impress customers (who will then think so highly of Apple that they will consider buying other Apple products, like Macintoshes) and (b) protect their partners’ interests.
Hang on, other devices have had signed apps for years but we didn’t hear anyone screaming about it. Why? Because these were closed platforms, like the iPhone. Symbian. BlackBerry. PalmOS.
Get it out of your head that the iPhone is a Mac in your pocket. It’s not. It may use some of the same code, some of the same frameworks but it’s not the same. It’s a new platform – who said it was going to be open? You’re bringing in preconceptions.
There’s nothing stopping people for targeting the jailbreak community – this community will grow. Maybe not as fast as the mainstream market but viable enough.
I wasn’t completely bullshitting about the syncing – I don’t think the original complaint was poorly defined but you have to ask yourself about your expectations.
With regards to Syncing, yes, there’s probably enough hooks in there for third parties to sync via iTunes but REALLY is that a big concern considering that if you’re in iTunes range then you’re also within WiFi range? So, balls to that. You can’t use data plan woes if you’re talking about syncing that would take place via iTunes – over a sodding cable. So yes, you HAVE to build some sort of interface but it’s hardly the doom and gloom that you present. You’d think WiFi was rare or something.
The real interest is going to be with Over The Air syncing and I can’t do anything about the data plans in other countries. It’s up to the application builders to manage their data flows. It’s up to them to permit or deny the possibility of downloading large data files. This isn’t an Apple concern.
We’re also dealing with a pre1.0 version of the SDK. This is a new platform, one that will evolve.
And you always have the choice NOT to develop for it.
“I’m sure part of the reason for the DRM is to protect the Dev Certificate. It wouldn’t do if a bunch of “non-sanctioned†apps grabbed somebody’s Dev Certificate.”
The application and the certificate work together to make code signing tick, and the certificate certainly isn’t redistributed in its original form. If it worked the way you said, it’d be possible to spoof every secure (SSL/TLS) site on the web or every signed app in the world.
Peter – I agree up to the mixed message. Apple has maintained a process of attempting to appease the music and movie businesses and at the same time trying to be insanely great – approaches which are sadly at odds (though really it shouldn’t be).
Apple, the Computer Company employer of Bright Young Things would love to do more (I’ve spoken to lots of people in Apple who are very bright) but are very much restricted by their ‘external’ culture.
“You’d think WiFi was rare or something.” Not exactly. But 100% of iPhone owners would have the necessary USB cable, and less than 100% would have Wi-Fi. It’s not “doom and gloom”, but it’s the extra degree of work needed to create, maintain and secure whatever network scheme you could come up with – time that could be spent building the app instead!
In the way that only Apple could make data syncing work the same way the rest of the native apps sync over data – you know, the way people are going to expect iPhone apps to bring data over – it *is* Apple’s problem. And for a range of apps, it’s not going to be about being bandwidth economical because the source data they need to work with is just huge to begin with.
Of course it’s a beta version, and of course even when it’s 1.0 it won’t be complete. Some of these problems are low-hanging fruit and Apple’s already fixed a few of the complaints from the launch. But like I said, my major beef is with the fundamental assumption that it’s okay for the device to be as closed as it is. I’m not opposed to signed apps, I’m opposed to being forced to pay $99 to get that certification from a central authority so that I can even begin to try it on my phone. I’m seeing some difficulty in getting this “fixed” as a bug in 1.1 or 2.0.
The reason I’m expecting the iPhone to be at least approaching as open as the Mac is has a bit to do with the way Apple’s been positioning it as such. The same tools, the same OS family, the constant quotes flashing of “the third great platform” next to Windows and Mac OS X… it’s being positioned as something *bigger* than just another mobile platform, and it’s also positioned, of course, as better than all the other platforms (and I agree, largely). If it’s better, it should also be at least as easy to pick up your text editor and have an app on your phone within minutes. But the problem is that I can’t get it onto my phone. “Free apps” on the App Store are only “free for the developer” once you’ve paid the $99 to get into the tent to begin with.
“I can’t do anything about the data plans in other countries”. I wasn’t asking you personally to do something about data plans in “other countries”. I was criticizing Apple and their associated carriers, many of who offer unlimited data plans for monthly fees literally several times less than the iPhone plans that don’t include unlimited data. This is a dishonest proposition towards the customer.
Finally, that no one’s forcing me to use something and that there are alternatives aren’t arguments that magically make valid concerns disappear.
>>>Apple has maintained a process of attempting to appease the music and movie businesses and at the same time trying to be insanely great
Don’t forget Steve Jobs is the largest Disney shareholder too.
Mike – yes, I’m sure that helps in his negotiations, they see him as a content creator as well with interests in protecting content. But Steve, if you follow his career and listen to what he says, is fundamentally opposed to DRM. It is just a necessary evil. People are buying DRMfree tracks on iTunes and I am one of the people that would rather pay a small amount for a DRM-free track rather than trying to get it off LimeWire.
Jesper – Large data sets can be synced over the cable as apps on the App Store can be as 2GB so you can sync considerable datasets and while I wouldn’t personally want to mess with that over WiFi, the fact that the iPhone only has 16 GB of storage is something to consider. It’s not a Mac or other computer with hundreds of GBs of storage, you’re not going to want to use it as a Sybase server. I don’t understand what your beef is here – it seems to me that you are treating it as a mini-Mac. It’s not a portable workstation, it’s a communications device. It’s not designed for data entry, it can hold apps with 2 GB datasets (a limit on the App Store currently which would not necessarily count for enterprise deployments).
The phone is what it is. There are tradeoffs and it is not a Mac. The argument that it is being positioned like a Mac in terms of development tools and therefore should be as open doesn’t really hold much water.
It shouldn’t be open because “it’s like a Mac”, it should be open because it’s a great platform and because it’s not fucking 1982 anymore. I should be able to put whatever apps on my phone that I please. That’s where the DRM/code signing gets to me, where it doesn’t hinder me from copying apps I’ve bought to other people as much as it stops me from writing my own. I suppose the jailbreaking route will continue to solve this problem for me.
To take two examples from the WWDC keynote, the large data sets might be new sound sets for a sound app (Band) or new data for an application (that radiology app they showed). You don’t need “workstation” ambitions to warrant needing large data.
Look, it’s $99 bucks to get the whole hog – Code signing, distribution etc. And yes it’s a shame that you have to pay that but this is a consumer device, it’s not a a hackers device. If you want that, go with the jailbreak.
Is it the one-size-fits-all that annoys you? The fact is, to get a trusted certificate for the phone costs $99. There’s no way round it. . There are other benefits (listing on the store etc) but you don’t have to use them.
As for the data sets thing, as I said, you can put apps up to 2GB in size on the Store. I think that makes the data problem pretty moot. Sync the large datasets over the wire, fire down updates over the air if necessary. Is there a problem there? Yes, you may have to build the infrastructure to support that. That’s part of how to build an app for a mobile device.
And Ad-Hoc distribution about 1:05 into the KeyNote. You can deploy those apps to 100 other phones? To do all of this you need to put your money down.
@Jesper – First off – I understand what you are saying. Totally disagree with you, but hey, at least I listened.
“Read: people will be able to distribute fucking beta versions to their fucking beta testers, but only after collecting fucking hardware-specific keys in what must be appointed the biggest fucking waste of time ever introduced in the history of software development.” [from your blog]
“Finally, that no one’s forcing me to use something and that there are alternatives aren’t arguments that magically make valid concerns disappear.”
You aren’t voicing “valid concerns” – you’re ranting and swearing to a point of people thinking you a merely whining like a spoiled child.
Grow up! You know the options going in – develop for (a) iPhones at a $99 annual fee, (b) jailbroken iPhones, or (c) something else. Stomping your feet ain’t gonna change anything.
“It shouldn’t be open because “it’s like a Macâ€, it should be open because it’s a great platform and because it’s not fucking 1982 anymore. I should be able to put whatever apps on my phone that I please.”
Apple didn’t develop this product for developers. They developed it to be a profitable consumer device. Buying one doesn’t give you any rights to be able to program on it. You know that – just like you knew it before you bought it.
“As luck would have it, it won’t be quite this bad with Ad-Hoc mode once that gets started, but you’ll still have to either hardcode hardware IDs somewhere or start generating good-for-this-app certificates, which is a ridiculous new step in the process since it adds extra process by the user, and tops out at 100 users.”
“I’m against the way in which mandatory code signing, a central authority and DRM is combined to form something that gives Apple the ultimate control on what can eventually reach your iPhone, and not you.”
There’s always a cost of doing business. For iPhone development it’s an annual fee, sandboxes, no background threading, and an extra effort to do decent user testing. It’s unfortunate, but its Apple’s call.
As for who should ultimately control what reaches your iPhone… you can’t seriously be saying that it shouldn’t be Apple! Again, you knew the rules when you bought the device. If you don’t like it – don’t buy it.
mj: Since I referenced Ad Hoc previously, I obviously know about it – that is to say, I know what’s been publicly revealed, which is what’s been said in the keynote. I appreciate the olive branch from them, especially since it enables beta testing without needing to SEND OTHER PEOPLE YOUR CODE. 😉
DaveD: “Buying one doesn’t give you any rights to be able to program on it. You know that – just like you knew it before you bought it.” Indeed, and I “stomped my feet” back then as well. It seems to have worked, because sometimes the “spoiled child” is right. Back then it was about web apps not being a sufficient API. Reportedly, Apple HQ was filled with hacked iPhones before the SDK.
I’m not asking for Apple to distribute any app at all. That *is* their call. But it is traditionally my call as the owner of a device to be able to kick it into whatever shape I’d like, including writing my own apps for the thing. That this state of affairs thanks to carrier-manufacturer oligopolies isn’t currently the default for mobile devices isn’t a valid excuse – it’s like saying it’d be unreasonable for the people in Zimbabwe, Burma or China to hope for elections that aren’t complete shams, or like they said two years ago, that DRM-ed music is just the way it’s going to have to be.
I will still get an iPhone 3G because I am confident that one way or the other, I will be able to write iPhone apps, and because it will still be a great phone. But it won’t happen with the official SDK. I’m not against most of the technical calls Apple made on the SDK (sandboxes, no background processes), I’m against the non-technical calls.
If Apple wants to continue legitimizing the existence of the secondary platform that also happens to power every known jailbreak and carrier unlock, this is their decision to make. (I give it three weeks before you can develop iPhone apps using the official SDK and bring them to your hacked iPhone 3G – like you say, I know this much before I buy it.) But I think their own solution is so close to fulfilling the needs ‘just enough’ that it’s just dumb of them not to go the extra mile.
Hi Jesper – there may be other people who are not privy to the workings and may not have appreciated the Keynote to the same degree. I think it remediates the earlier concern you had about Beta testing.
I think it’s incredibly presumptuous (and not a little daft) to think that the community had anything to do with the SDK except perhaps in getting some smart guys a job. There was always a plan to do a ‘proper’ SDK. And it wouldn’t mean anything that there were hacked phones within Apple because only the development and QA teams had access to the beta SDK. Run of the mill Apple employees in other areas would be stuck with the same software as you and I. So, meaningless factoids mean nothing…
However topical it may be, comparing signed apps to present international regimes is a complete straw man argument. The fact is that signed apps in this sector are the norm, not the exception.