Apple, Your Developer Agreement Tramples on Free Speech and Innovation
act.eff.org
act.eff.org
Is there any other company that people feel so passionately about that they are prepared to totally reverse their normal political positions? Mention Apple and you can get a bunch of free market libertarians to come out and demand strong consumer rights regulation, purely because they hate Apple so much. Conversely you can get a bunch of socialists sticking up for the right of a multibillion dollar mega-corp to use DRM, censor all competitors from their platform and sell products containing materials extracted through slave and child labour, purely because they like Apple products more than the alternatives.
The fact that all the other phone manufacturers are just as bad is a convenient line to use in 'winning' an online platform war argument, but it's not a good moral argument.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/search-...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/smartph...
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-apple-conflict-metal-chain.html
So technically... the materials they source from the Rwandans are conflict materials procured from genocidal Rwandans... not really materials procured through child labor.
Of course... that just means it's much WORSE than child labor... I just thought people should have the facts straight more as a matter of principle.
You can read background on the actual technical and logistical aspects of the mineral trade from Nest. The book is titled "Coltan".
http://www.amazon.com/Coltan-Michael-Nest/dp/0745649327
If you want the actual dry but raw data of the UN reports there are several which touch on the DRC mineral situation, and they are all at the UN's site. (They only go back to 2004... to go further you'd actually have to get it out of google cache. But obviously the UN has compiled reports going back much further for the purposes of future Crimes Against Humanity prosecutions.) In any case, you can find them here:
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1533/egroup.shtml
Also, several lawsuits against American suppliers of conflict minerals related to the DRC morass. For example, here:
http://oecdwatch.org/files/raid-foe_vs-_us-companies_press-r...
And finally, if you want to get involved you can read information at Friends of the Congo here:
Unless you stop buying and using such devices, yours is not a good moral argument.
I ask only because the text of the letter isn't particularly well written and contains some glaring mistakes: "Wrap every app in the Apple store with unnecessary DRM" (emphasis mine).
Apple isn't the government, and no one is compelled to enter into a contract with them. The EFF's reason for removing their Action Center app from the App Store are outlined in this petition, which is ironic considering the app itself is a web app made native with the Ionic framework[2]. Nothing in Apple's terms prevents the EFF from releasing the app on the web (nor do they have to agree to any of Apple's terms to release a web app).
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/sorry-iphone-users-app...
The only platform exposing similar APIs for hosted pages is Firefox OS and even so it doesn't expose sensitive APIs to hosted apps.
There is another issue with hosted apps which is the discoverability of such apps. People on iOS tend to believe that things need to be on the App Store...
Our company donates to EFF, so you could say that we support their efforts, but this particular campaign is garbage.
Sure they're allowed to be criticized. But that doesn't make every criticism good or well-founded, and this one is neither.
Many of the arguments on this page in defense of Apple could equally well be applied to a defense of debt slavery or indentured servitude.
Apple taking a third share of every creators work may have been reasonable when they were a small part of the market; but is less so when they are able to turn their dominance in the smart phone market into outsized profits and onerous terms in the media distribution market.
Make a public complaint, and (a) you provide better feedback, and (b) you maybe convince other people to join your boycott, which improves your chance of modifying the corporation's behavior and making the world a little bit nicer.
It's a contract, people. It can say whatever the parties to the contract agree it should say. If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.
Really?
> What's wrong with Apple insisting that developers not jailbreak their devices?
It's my device and I have the freedom to do with it as I wish. EFF goes into a lot more detail if you want to read it.
> What's wrong with Apple approving their own security updates?
It's not their own security updates, it's security updates to other people's apps.
> we can debate about the morality of DRM
This is about the fact that developers are forced into shipping it even if they don't want it.
> If you don't agree with it, don't bang free speech drums and shout yourself hoarse about "rights." Just don't sign it.
I won't sign it, and and I will sign a petition, and I will warn other developers about it. It's my right to point out bad behaviour and to complain. You presumably accept this since you just posted a comment complaining about something.
What do you expect them to do? Ignore what they consider a serious problem just because many people choose to accept it? Might as well tell them to ignore the DMCA because it was (and, AFAICT, still is) overwhelmingly popular in Washington.
The free market has spoken and it appears Developers are willing to contractually exchange their right to publicly disparage Apple in exchange for their apps appearing in the App Store. Of course Developers would prefer not giving up any rights, just as I am sure Developers would prefer not sharing revenue with Apple, and if the Free Market did not accept Apple's terms then Apple would have to change or fail allowing room for new competition.
While this is a guess, I would be shocked if the EFF does not include similar provisions in their employment agreements (i.e. restricting the rights of their employees to publicly disparage EFF, or at minimum restricting employees right to speak about EFF's trade secrets) - not that I am suggesting anything nefarious on behalf of EFF or some double standard, simply that such provisions are boiler plate and industry standard.
What a crock of bovine excrement. Calling iOS a "free market" is utter lunacy.
My first game was approved and released on Apple's App Store 2 days ago. It's currently displaying in the "Featured" section of its category. As a fledgling game developer who is learning to fly, trying to make a dream come true, I can say that I simply do not have the financial resources or marketing muscle to reach the audience that my game is reaching on my own. I just would not have this exposure available to me as a solo coder, and for that I am grateful. Also, I'm not saying that I'm special in any way; actually, I suspect that my story isn't much different from the stories of other game developers who are just getting started.
Up until the point that I started developing the game, I'd never owned an Apple product. I figured that I might as well try something new, and get some exposure with OS X, Xcode, etc. So, I ordered a Macbook Pro, an iPhone 5S... and then I lit the fuse.
And that is why the game ended up on iOS. Yes, I know that I've sort of locked myself in with a single platform, rocking Swift over cross-platform options, embracing that beautiful, "Walled Garden", etc., but, I had to start somewhere.
In the final analysis, I own the code. I can convert the code and create versions of the game on the platforms of my choice.
I can certainly understand if people have issues with Apple, and of course they have every right to voice and discuss their concerns. However, the restrictions outlined in the petition have not prevented me from delivering on my dream.
Personally, I vote with my feet (ie. I currently own nothing Apple, the way they're going, probably never will again).
This has been the EFF's exact response, and this community has lambasted them for it. We are told that organizations like the EFF and developers of security/privacy software should compromise on their ideals and not forsake deserving users on iOS. This is a classic Catch-22, because providing beneficial software (Chatsecure, Firefox, etc.) to these users just perpetuates their abusive relationship with Apple.
These are issues the EFF and its membership deeply and sincerely care about. The whole point of the organization is to call attention to these issues and push for change. Complaining that they're working on their mission is pretty silly.
"Require Apple to approve every security update, which means that unaddressed security bugs could linger and leave users at risk."
Yes, the App Store approval process could cause lingering security problems. In practice, Android -- which has no such requirements -- is festooned with malware and iOS is not. So let's protest a hypothetical problem caused by a solution to a real problem.
Apple also requires that your code with signed and checksummed before installation. How evil!
"Wrap every app in the Apple store with unnecessary DRM, which limits what users can do with their apps even if the code is published as free software."
How is it "unnecessary"? It's how the App Store works. It's what allows Apple to remotely disable an app that turns out to be malicious (and which has slipped through the approval process). It's part of the iOS value proposition -- pay us extra to give you a device that won't screw you.
Section 10.4. It's plain English. "You may not issue any press releases or make any other public statements regarding this Agreement, its terms and conditions, or the relationship of the parties without Apple's express prior written approval, which may be withheld at Apple's discretion."
Then you create a cartoonishly bad alternative and use that to justify Apple's policies. The Google Play Store isn't "festooned with malware," and nothing in Apple's review process catches malware. Similarly, every application that runs on Android must be signed, but it doesn't have to be signed by a certificate signed by Apple after paying a yearly developer fee and agreeing to an overbearing contract. The DRM is unnecessary because free software doesn't require it, and malware in the Play Store can be yanked off phones without wrapping apps in DRM, so your claim that it's for malware doesn't hold either. (The agreement doesn't restrict Apple from disabling apps for any other reason, unlike the Play Store agreement, which does. Applications installed by the user outside the Play Store are left alone.)
Ummm... Is this really why they develop for iOS or are they just having fun mostly, enjoying their craft and (sometimes) making a small profit on the side. The App Store is but one way to get apps. Sounds like developers with the beliefs the EFF attributes to them would be better suited to developing for Jailbroken phones.
If course, not being permitted to talk about the product or agreement is stupid.
Hey EFF! I want my fucking money back.
I love this line:
> Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement.
Yeah. That's called NDA and is very common in contracts. Welcome to the real world, kid.
Burger King says "Have it your way", it's your burger, but that doesn't mean you can jump the counter, cook the burger to your own exacting specifications, and pay for it in 1-peso coins.
There are far more important and immediate fish that the EFF should be focusing their limited resources on frying. Once said fish are fried then start taking potshots at Apple's Dev Agreement.
You have the right to sleep all day. And perhaps you've agreed to not do that while you are collecting an hourly wage. Nobody's violating your right to sleep.
A hyperbolic example: "I agree to allow you to kill and eat me so you can pay my family thousands of dollars. "
However I think that the rights signed away are not beyond the bound of normalcy. This is more of a campaign to change the expectations of the industry as they are all doing this in some form or another.
The focus on them is just because they are high profile enough to maybe push the rest of the industry.
The developer agreement is between the developer and Apple. It's nobody else's business.
Jailbreaking tears down walls critical for user-convenient security. Walls, fences, and locking doors are normal in business.
Security flaws can be serviced by expedited review, screening for anything else going wrong as well in as little as 2 hours. Normal review is required to ensure nothing traumatic happens.
DRM ensures that what users get is what they expected from the developer. Repackaged-with-malware is avoided.
I'm disappointed EFF would make such a lame list of complaints, while having locks on their doors.
What are you talking about. Seriously nothing in your post makes sense.
I'd say Apple prioritizes their customers' rights to have a secure, safe, functional device that's reasonably free from concerns over things like malware and other malicious app behaviors. This has some developer downsides, but as both a customer and a developer on Apple products, I'd prefer they prioritize the user experience over development.
Apple can still have a walled garden without contractually requiring developers to forgo their right to jailbreak their own device.
DRM does not benefit users at all. It is not necessary to have DRM to have a walled garden.
What way isn't it? To what end does an end user need to know what the content of an agreement between to third parties is?
"Apple can still have a walled garden without contractually requiring developers to forgo their right to jailbreak their own device."
"It is not necessary to have DRM to have a walled garden."
Where is the DRM in the App store? I ask because I genuinely don't know. I would like to know in simple terms as the EFF have a tendency to use emotive language that detracts from the point.
Jailbreak away - but Apple rightfully disavows any predicted or unforeseen consequences, and won't work with anyone who won't work with what Apple considers sensible rules facilitating development & usage. If you're going to bring bags of weed seeds (or anything else which predictably cause problems) into my walled garden, get out of my garden.
DRM assures you can use your purchased products on the devices you want ... and that nobody else can, and that nobody is going to repackage apps to include malware.
Who are you to say what a user's business is? If someone is engaging in unethical conduct, it is their customers' right to know about it. How are consumers supposed to make informed decisions if they do not even know what they are funding?
That's exactly what the consumer wants to know. They are funding whatever is stipulated in those contracts.
>Who are you or the EFF to say that it is anybody's business
I am me, and I say what is my business.
I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe they should leave the country.
"I mean, if Apple doesn't want their contracts (which are enforced by democratic American law) to be the business of the American people, then maybe they should leave the country." So you agree that the NSA is right to snoop on the citizens of the US? It's exactly the same thing.
If this is what EFF is spending my money on I will never donate to them again. I was with them on the battle to keep jailbreaking legal.
Another clickbait from eff.
The other issues are largely trade-offs. How much piracy are you willing to accept? How does it affect sales and availability of software for the platform?
How soon should we patch? Right away or on Patch Tuesday? How thoroughly should we test? How much instability are we willing to tolerate? And so on.
That comic is a response to people complaining about "freedom of speech" after their harassing comments have been removed from a forum or article comment thread. I'm not sure the same line of thinking translates so directly to a corporate software development license agreement.
It doesn't mean anyone else has to tolerate what you say. It doesn't mean a contract between private parties (i.e. not a contract with a gov't entity) can't dictate the things you may or may not discuss about the parties or the agreement itself.
In other words: "free speech" has nothing to do with anything except whether the government can arrest you for running your yap. Which further means a corporate software development license agreement can stipulate anything it wants.
And you are free not to accept that agreement and not partake of the benefits the agreement bestows.