Not sure if you read the end of my last comment...



I'm NOT saying it's "bad". I AM saying that it's definitely not *open*.

I know, I just think open is relative.

I said that because it's open just enough for you to write and release an app. Maybe you're jealous that you didn't write the iFart app so you could take a 10 year work break from the profits :)

Relative to???



I don't think it's relative enough that the term open could possibly apply to the iPhone development platform in any way.



If you want to say that "open is relative" and it's "open" because (if everything goes OK and you get Apple's blessing) it's *possible* that you can get an app released using it, then I can't think of a single SDK in the world that isn't "open" by that definition. Yay! - *everyone* is open!



"Relative" just doesn't stretch that far. It's like saying a guy who only murdered one person is a "relatively" nice guy compared to the one who murdered 100. It's much more accurate to just say neither is a "nice" guy.



If you want to argue that there's a relative scale, with "open" on one end and "closed" on the other, I just don't see any way you could possibly argue that they are towards the open end or even the middle.

You're right, apple is evil and must be stopped.

You're missing my point. I don't care for the DRM but when I buy software I expect it.

As I mentioned, if I was an iPhone developer I would want it. And Apple is and has positioned it as a feature for iPhone developers because of most of platforms you (as a developer) need to worry about it.

If you read articles from iPhone developers you'll hear the praise for the system even when they complain about the review process at the same time.

Digital media is a different story.

Anyways...you'll always be able to find fault in their system, that way you can be critical to your arch enemy. Regardless if they're successful and the users don't mind.

To further clarify my main point on the iPhone not being anywhere near an open platform for development, I'll let you know exactly what I mean by that.



The only two phone platforms I've ever developed and deployed mobile apps on have been Palm OS and Windows Mobile. Both of these are (or were - don't know the current state of Palm) truly open platforms, in stark contrast to the iPhone in almost every way.



(1) Both had SDKs that were free to download and use, without overly restrictive licenses.

(2) Both allow you to build ANY apps you choose to, without the restrictions and limited access to the hardware that the iPhone SDK enforces.

(3) Both allow you to build and deploy your app in any way you choose, anywhere you choose. You can sell it (with or without DRM) or give it away, and you don't need to get anyone's approval to do so.



There are other significant differences, but these are the big ones I consider to be *absolutely essential* if you want to talk about an "open platform" for mobile app development.



I'm well aware that it's your position that the way Apple has decided to do things will result in a better overall experience for the end user, in terms of quality, and that it probably works well for most of the developers that choose to use it to. I'm not arguing any of that. Just don't try to call it "open", because it really, really isn't.

You should develop for the iPhone and then post how awful it was OR maybe you wont think it's so bad.

I don't think I'm missing your point, I just don't quite get how you can justify hating DRM for music but loving it for apps.



Just because you as a developer might want it, that doesn't make the concept of DRM itself any better. DRM is DRM, whether it's on music or apps, so I think you need to evaluate your position for consistency.



But anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that you shouldn't be ABLE to have DRM if you *want* it (although I still would think it's a bad idea), my problem is that they are *forcing* you to use it - you have no choice in the matter.



To clarify, I don't really care (for the purposes of this point) whether you or I like DRM, I'm proving that *Apple likes it*. This is irrefutable (so far) evidence that counters your earlier claim that Apple actually hates DRM and only uses it because other third parties force them to, because here they are forcing it on devs, with no third party pressure at all.

I love DRM as a developer. I don't care about DRM for software as a user.

I deal with DRM for music/video as a user. I don't make music.

and here it comes...if you don't like it don't write an app...don't hate the game hate the players...BAM!!!

I'm talking about an open platform for application developers. OS X, the iPhone and iTunes allows for anyone to participate. The iPhone is open in comparison to other mobile platforms.

The iPhone is by no means an "open platform for app developers".



When you have to sign up for on of the most restrictive SDKs ever published (full NDAs on unreleased apps, for example) AND have to go through an approval process where the gatekeeper is the single company who both sells the phone and runs the only authorized app store (and will deny your app if it competes with something they've released or even plan to release in the future), I'm just not sure how you could get LESS open than that.

Oh, and don't forget the MANDATORY DRM for purchased apps.



For a company that claims to dislike DRM and likes to blame it on third party content rights holders (record labels, music studios, etc.) I find it very telling that in the situation where there are no third parties (just Apple and the app developers), they force it on you if you want to sell apps. I wonder who the scapegoat will be for that one?

If I were an app developer I would prefer DRM. I know when they had their WWDC Apple positioned the DRM as a feature. I guess they could give the option of no DRM but they could just release the app for free.

Who are you and how did you get Dan's login? :-)



How is it that you like DRM for apps but very definitely don't like it for music and other media?



The point is, when Steve was talking about how they supposedly don't like DRM, the common answer to the question of why they still had it on everything was that the record labels and movie studios forced them to. My question to them then is in the app store, that is not an issue, and yet they still require DRM for purchased apps. Doesn't line up, IMHO.



Of course they can release the app for free (although I wouldn't be surprised if even the free apps have DRM - meaning you can't share directly, each person has to download direct from Apple), but what about the case of people who want to sell their apps (just like music or movies) without DRM? So far it looks like that is not something Apple is interested in backing.



For me, all this really points back to the idea that the only reason they've been easing up on the DRM on the music side of things is because of pressure from the consumers and from the competition (Amazon, etc.), because when it's completely their decision, they choose to stick with DRM.

Ha ha!

Well, the NDA argument isn't valid anymore. IT's been removed for sometime now.

They allow for 3rd party browsers but they are restrictive but I've already made that point too.

I thought the NDA was only dropped once the app was released, but was still in place for non-released apps?



In any event, it is still one of the most restrictive models out there. I can't think of one that's more restrictive. Expensive, maybe, but not controlling. Could you mention one you had in mind?

As far as I can tell, unreleased apps as well as rejection letters (for when they decide to exercise that closed control) are still NDA'd.

Read the links I posted. They refer to that announcement and clarify that the NDA is still in place UNTIL the app is approved by Apple and released, AND Apple also claims that the rejection letters are under the NDA. This is all after the notice you lined to.

I knew you wouldn't get the open comment.



I think if there's a line their close to the side of being "open", more than being closed.