Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPhone App In App Store Limbo Open Sourced

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the richarded-over dept.

Iphone 432

recoiledsnake writes "The author of iPhone prototyping tool Briefs has decided to open source it after the App store submission has been in limbo for over three months. The app had got into trouble for what Apple believes is being able to run interpreted code, though the author denies it, saying all the compiling happens on the Mac. While Rob stays civil, his co-worker blasts Apple for not even rejecting the app. Three months is nothing compared to Google Voice for the iPhone though, which is still being studied further by Apple after more than a year."

cancel ×

432 comments

Hey timothy... (-1, Troll)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412644)

Well, looks like another first post. Here I am, 1:35 in the morning, jacking off to goatse, and I see that you got an article up. And it looks gay as usual, douche tool. First post.

--TrisexualPuppy

Suck my (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412660)

Sweet penis.

Re:Suck my (-1, Troll)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412674)

Yeah, warning on link [encycloped...matica.com] .......

Re:Suck my (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412718)

HA! At least it wasn't the infamous baby fuck.

It's Awwwwwright! Jumpin' jack flash, it's a gas gas gas!

Re:Hey timothy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412678)

I see your name is TrisexualPuppy; can I call you Dick?

It's hard to believe that out of 8,000,000,000 sperm, you were the winner.

At least Timothy doesn't come down to McDonald's and hassle you while you're working.

Re:Hey timothy... (-1, Troll)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412690)

Listen timothy, just give up now. Convince taco to let ME take your place. Although this surpasses your understanding, it would be a lot better for you in the long run and a lot better for Slashdot immediately. Scram man, nobody likes you.

Re:Hey timothy... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412698)

You're a good example of why some animals eat their young.

Re:Hey timothy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412714)

To be fair to the other sperm, his mom's cunt was wrecked and broken, like a chandelier stuffed inside of a leather beanbag and dropped from the Sears Tower. They all had the good sense to commit suicide, TrisexualPuppy had no sense and unfortunately dodged all manner of retroviruses to reach her pulsing evil egg, and she of course never had the good sense to get an abortion.

And now we are all suffering because of those combined misfortunes.

Captcha: Pavement

Re:Hey timothy... (1, Offtopic)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412706)

An offtopic thought: given the recent (re?)surge of seemingly organized trolls here, mod points allocated by the automated system are going to waste, both from the karma-whoring trolls to mod up their own posts and from the people in the audience/freakshow modding them down. I have come across recent discussions in the usual places regarding playing the Slashdot moderation system, so I think the question must be asked: how many points wasted would be needed to destabilize the system by impoverishing it? If the number of posts and moderations increase and remain stable over a period of time, malicious or not, will the system compensate?

Re:Hey timothy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412776)

Fag.

Re:Hey timothy... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412814)

No, he's emotional. GET IT RIGHT!

Re:Hey timothy... (2, Insightful)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412980)

the moderation system has failed.

in it's stated goal of minimizing demoralizing offtopic posts, it has created an incentive to create such posts to take the heat off other such posts. it doesn't give any 1 user more than a few mod points because 1 user shouldn't have too much power, but they do absolutely nothing to stop 1 PERSON from creating thousands of users and build up their moderation through automated self fulfilling "karma whoring". if 1 user shouldn't have too much power, then methods have to be put in place to require 1 PERSON per moderation enabled user. only problem with that is there is already legions of trollbots ready to whine about privacy so they can keep up their same games on this internet chat board.

slashdot = stagnated.

pathetic.

Re:Hey timothy... (0, Offtopic)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412998)

So the "Testing"/"+1 Insightful" messages sprinkled over the discussions from the last weeks actually was, as I thought, test messages for modbots? Did anyone else think that when they saw them?

Not News (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412650)

Really... Stop posting these gossip articles... Thats what they boil down to... gossip about that hot shallow girl who keeps turning you down.

"OMG! Did you hear what apple did now?!?!?!"

Or are you still expecting open and fair treatment from apple... In which case all i can say is.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Why really does Apple behave this way? (5, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412654)

Can someone explain to me why Apple behaves this way? I fail to understand. What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

I for one, will not touch an iPhone even with a 10 foot pole for my HTC Incredible does all that want it to and even more. The trouble is Oracle that is threatening to cut off Android's air supply with patent suits against Google.

 

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412676)

When you've got a market locked down, people think buying your products will make them cool, and you've closed everything off so the only way out is to avoid apple - then you can afford to (mis)treat people anyway you want.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412990)

sounds exactly like cigarettes!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413076)

I don't know about that. One is a filthy, disgusting habit that costs thousands of dollars every year and is only really done by wannabe hipsters, and the other is smoking.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413034)

When you've got a market locked down, people think buying your products will make them cool, and you've closed everything off so the only way out is to avoid apple

They've got the market locked down because people choose to buy their products? Kind of like how Google has the search market locked down because most people choose it for searching? I envision a day when we don't get to choose what we use, and instead are treated to a random selection of all the available alternatives. No more locked down markets, for one!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413074)

I didn't mean that, I meant -

1. You need to use their hardware (smaller SIM Card, propriatry charger/connector)

2. You need to use their store to get applications

2a. You need to obey their rules to get your application there

2aI. [I'm not going into these, seriously]

-
That sort of thing is what I meant. Once you 'buy' apple what you can do with it is pretty much dictated.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413100)

1. You need to use their hardware (smaller SIM Card, propriatry charger/connector)

The Micro SIM wasn't developed by Apple.

"The micro-SIM was developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute along with SCP, 3GPP (UTRAN/GERAN), 3GPP2 (CDMA2000), ARIB, GSMAssociaton (GSMA SCaG and GSMNA), GlobalPlatform, Liberty Alliance, and the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) for the purpose of fitting into devices otherwise too small for a mini-SIM card." source [wikipedia.org]

As for the other point, your on the mark.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413120)

I'm a dreamer I envision a day when the truth is the only acceptable and legal form of advertising. Any time a company falls short of that they pay triple the profits they generated as damages and that goes into a public fund so that victims can make claims against it. In this current day and age I'd expect that fund to be worth a trillion dollars within a couple of years.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413326)

I'm a dreamer I envision a day when the truth is the only acceptable and legal form of advertising. Any time a company falls short of that they pay triple the profits they generated as damages and that goes into a public fund so that victims can make claims against it. In this current day and age I'd expect that fund to be worth a trillion dollars within a couple of years.

And who gets to define the truth?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413488)

Glenn Beck

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412688)

How about failing to pay homage to SJ?

But authoring uses a simple language called bs. BS is a simple language written specifically for creating briefs.

Reading the web site it does look like a new development tool. If apple want to force people to use their tools (because the tool enforces policy) then it seems logical they would want to tie this one up in the approval process.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Michael D Kristopeit (1887500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412712)

interpreting code is the beginning of another platform layer. look at windows... the root cause of most problems is the requirement to keep legacy software supported... even if the software relies on old system buggish quirks that become protected "features". the card game you bought on cd for windows 95 will probably still work on windows 7. that is perfectly fine, but causes exponential bloat over time that wreaks havoc on latency... when your product is intended for multimedia conversation, protecting latency is important. taking a preemptive stand to protect the user experience is something apple believes is noble... because you're questioning the motivation behind such actions, i'm assuming you're the type that would also be complaining if that old card game didn't still work...

emulation and virtualization platform layers are NEVER the optimal platform for a single system application relative to latency.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

Michael D Kristopeit (1887500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412782)

i find it telling that the stated purpose of the company behind the briefs product is: "to give [our] users the best experience possible."

the thing is, the "user" to briefs is someone with an application idea drawn on napkins who wants to release a prototype application "without expensive development". to apple the user is the REAL user... the user of the application created by the user of briefs prototyping tool, and to apple, that user is not getting the best experience possible... they are getting a translation.

imagine you are a company that could benefit by making a high profile apple product look slow and buggy and prone to crashing... you release an innocent enough looking "prototyping" tool... it doesn't make applications as optimized as one's with "expensive development", or using the free native development environment, but it's dumbed down and simpler, and hey, it's just a prototype and it works... the translation isn't optimized at all, but all the buttons will do what you tell them to do... now these prototypes are going to be seen by people and the hardware will be judged by the responsiveness of the software.

apple has taken a firm and understandable stance: THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE SOFTWARE FOR THIS DEVICE. NO EXCEPTIONS. *cough* except javascript.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413506)

except that you don't get working apps from Briefs, you get wireframes. It doesn't produce stand-alone applications at all.
So the scenario you described wouldn't happen.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Interesting)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412794)

look at windows... the root cause of most problems is the requirement to keep legacy software supported...

What does that have to do with interpreted code?

Isnt it equally likely a ton of app developers could be slow to re-factor out deprecated APIs as it is for a platform of interpreted code?

And latency? Really? It's simply about protecting profits. Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

This whole thing is about profit. The really isn't anything complicated about it. The mental gymnastics some people go through to justify it really amaze me sometimes though.

There are some fantastic things about iPhone and Apple's tech and even advantages to the draconian locked down system. But 'saving' users from interpreted code isn't one of them.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Insightful)

Michael D Kristopeit (1887500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412868)

look at windows... the root cause of most problems is the requirement to keep legacy software supported...

What does that have to do with interpreted code?

are you serious? how do you think the old dynamically linked libraries are updated to run on a vastly different modern multiuser operating system?

even briefs isn't about interpreted code... i never said the issue was with interpreted code. apple never said anything... let alone this being about interpreted code.... the REAL question is why are YOU talking about interpreted code? the problems apple is taking a stand against stem from unnecessary emulation and virtualization layers that degrade latency and mask application thread information from the operating system, that could be used to optimize the user experience.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412882)

Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

milliseconds of latency on every single executed flash bytecode instruction... billions and billions and billions of them, all of which also require electricity that will be drained from the battery.

show me a flash application that can't be written natively and function better and use less resources.

show me a flash application that without it, your phone is useless.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412976)

milliseconds of latency on every single executed flash bytecode instruction... billions and billions and billions of them, all of which also require electricity that will be drained from the battery.

show me a flash application that can't be written natively and function better and use less resources.

show me a flash application that without it, your phone is useless.

Seems the mods are taking the axe to your posts (from two accounts?) but I wanted to reply to this one.

Interpreted code doesn't need to function as fast as native code in order to be good or useful. Look at JavaScript/Java/Python/Lisp/PHP/C#. And the software: Open Office, Eclipse, etc, etc. There are endless examples. Google Docs, Desktop Tower Defense.

The beauty of interpreted code is that it opens up a platform to developers who think differently about how they write code. And who prefer different tools. It enables rapid prototyping. And, if the end result is good, it doesn't matter if a native app is a tiny bit faster or uses a tiny bit less resources. (You really have no idea how fast Flash is on an N1 or how much battery is uses either though, do you?)

Nothing needs to be essential to a phone in order for a user to have the opportunity to try it out. How many fart apps are essential to the phone? Are you really arguing Apple should be protecting it's users from everything it deems non-essential?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0, Troll)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413114)

i do really have exact ideas about the n1 architecture, battery technology, and the native flash environment implementation, and the implied extra layer necessary to do the interpreting.

i also really have many exact ideas about the implementation of applications in flash not being optimal relative to latency, cpu usage, and battery life, compared with a native app capable of recreating any interface flash is capable of. why let the developer shoot themselves in the foot just because they think different about shooting themselves?

maybe you should have one of those ideas.

you are NOTHING.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413306)

You could apply this to any programming language, why should we ever have to deviate from C++. Its not necessarily about resources, or which language is technically superior, its about how people can use them. Flash is something that is easy to code in, easy to get into, and is relatively cross platform. If I wanted to develop an app that was to be used on Android and an iPhone, would I chose to write the same program in two different languages, or the same program in a single language at the cost it might run a little slower.

Yes there are reasons to develop in one language over another, but it works both ways, and the pros and cons have to be weighed up.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Interesting)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413012)

And latency? Really? It's simply about protecting profits. Go watch Flash running on a Nexus One and tell me Apple is saving the world from those milliseconds of latency.

Ummm, I have (and obviously you haven't), and it's quite horrible. Perhaps *you're* ok with a program that runs that slow on any device, but if THAT is what they want to release, then please, keep it off whatever device I'm using (in this case, the iPhone). I have nothing against Android (I have a milestone as well), in fact, I love it! However, to say flash runs smoothly on the Nexus One means you're either a) delusional b) a fanboi/hater or c) both.

I guess being subjective is not cool these days. :\

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (3, Insightful)

indiechild (541156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413170)

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Why would having Flash running on iPhone be a threat to Apple's profits? It's not like those Flash apps/games can replace App Store apps -- Flash apps would always be less than a native app. If Flash worked properly and efficiently, I can tell you that it would've been on the iPhone already and we would not be having this debate. Steve Jobs doesn't tolerate failure or incompetence, and Flash on mobile devices has been less than spectacular so far.

Apple has draconian App Store restrictions and unwritten rules etc not because they want to protect their profits, but because that is how Steve Jobs operates. He's a control freak -- he will do anything to protect his vision of how things are supposed to be. If he's purely in it for profit, there's dozens of things he could've done differently in order to milk the cash cow to the max. But nope, that's not how Apple rolls -- Apple is the embodiment of a technology company that intersects with the Liberal Arts. Steve Jobs is the brooding, demanding and often cranky artist holding the paintbrush. The App Store is effectively a dictatorship largely run at the (sometimes changing) whims and desires of one man.

"Saving the users" or "protecting the users" is exactly the kind of thing that Steve Jobs does.

Geeks tend to claim Apple's decisions are always in the name of protecting their profits, but that's usually not the case. It's about protecting Steve's vision of how things should work. Profits come second. That's why Apple has been so successful after Steve's return. Apple was in trouble during Steve's absence precisely because they were only concerned with milking for cash, and they didn't care about quality or the user experience. Steve turned that all around. Geeks keep on screaming how Apple is the ultimate evil and how its downfall is imminent, but it won't happen as long as Steve Jobs is the CEO. He's got too strong a vision. He won't sell out.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412870)

I don't see any relation here. Indeed, you point at Windows as an example, but Windows does not use any kind of interpreted code to support legacy software! And, of course, there are countless uses of interpreted code that have absolutely nothing to do with legacy etc - user scripting is an obvious one, and exists solely to empower the user.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412916)

There's that word. Empower. Is slashdot home to a bunch of retarded kids in tights, pretending to be superheros, or what? Empower. What did those little freaks call themselves? Rocket rangers? Rump rangers? Rap rangers? POWER - that's it. POWER rangers. Little freaks. That woman in England should have thrown those little Rat Rangers into the trash bin, instead of the cat. Oh - wait - she should have thrown the rat rangers into the bin, then the cat. That would have been truly entertaining!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412950)

If your sole association with the word "empower" [wiktionary.org] is superheroes, then I'm afraid that the problem isn't with retarded kids on Slashdot ... (elsewhere, perhaps?)

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412910)

Re: backward compatiblity *causing* latency and virtualization also being the root cause of "latency" ...

You're a fucking idiot.

There is no other way about it.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412954)

there is the one way about it when backward compatibility is achieved through the application of emulation and virtualization... but that would make you the fucking idiot.

you're an anonymous coward. ur mum's face is no other way about it.

you are NOTHING

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412742)

What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

I bugled your mother!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412754)

Oracle doesn't want to cut off Android's air supply. They want to milk it for everything they can. Larry Ellison is certainly greedy, but even he knows not to kill the golden goose. Patent lawsuits like this rarely result in a product being destroyed.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Interesting)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412792)

According to Steve Jobs, they get 1500 app submissions per day. Even so, this wait is unusually long for an approval/reject. Maybe this one just fell through the cracks?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412800)

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks. They want absolute control over their platform. Their ultimate vision is that they'll be the source of all your media, all your apps, etc. They'll dictate how you consume stuff. Such a setup would be, needless to say, very profitable.

As for why they can get away with it, well I'd say there are two reasons:

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

2) For many of the Apple buyers these days, Apple is not a technology company but a fashion company. They largely won't admit it, but they buy them as fashion accessories. They are the "cool" product to own. As such they are purchased based on that alone. Whatever restrictions/costs accompany that are ok because they want to be cool. I see the same thing these days with fixed gear bikes. They are in with college kids (I work on campus and bike to work). They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

I KNEW IT WAS A LIBERAL PLOT!!! (2, Funny)

BigMeanBear (102490) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413190)

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

So we're in agreement here? This is yet moar evidence of the elite liberal media slant!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413248)

They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

This is overstated. Sure, Mac fans have been giving me hives too for 25 years now, but c'mon -- _no_ company is lambasted by the general populous and general media for something as obscure as this. It's only an issue to friggin geeks like you, me, and the parent. This isn't time to pull out the fanboy charge.

Apple is not a technology company but a fashion company.

Oh just stop. Yes, shiny tech is fashionable. So what? You're just pulling "I liked it before it sold out & got popular." This too is "Fanboyism/zealotry", just of a different stripe than Apple fans.

[And hey, try a fixie sometime. They're a blast. Yeah, I know it's stomach-churning to try something when it's fashionable, but if you can get over that ego-blow, they're a lot of fun. And not actually harder to ride up hill, just different. Your legs bitch for the first week, then figure out 'standing' and then you wonder what the problem was. Me, I prefer a one-speed coaster for city use. Did the mountain/road/touring/track nonsense years ago and finally got over it. But if you haven't played with a fixie yet, do.)

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (3, Insightful)

beh (4759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413274)

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks.

What is it with all the hate-mongering nowadays?

Have you also thought, that the same control also keeps the phone fairly free of malware?
You might be able to diagnose that - but most of the people outside the geek community can't.
I have a tough enough time telling people that they need to secure their PCs - you don't believe how many are out there that simply shrug and say "Why bother? I have nothing important on my computer."... The fact that their system could in turn be abused into participating in cyber-crime? "Nah... Why would anyone want to use my computer for that?"

They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

Not sure on the fixed-gear bike thing - don't have one of those. But sometimes restrictions can also be positive... Say, forcing you to rethink perspectives when using a prime lens on a camera as opposed to a zoom.

Also, sometimes the extra gears themselves can cause problems. One of the things Linux on the desktop still isn't happening, is that Linux may have all those fancy extra gears - but usability wasn't high up on the scale of important things, so the gears are in an awkward order, making them unnecessarily hard to use... (And - before you just apply your fanboi hatred on me - I have been using linux for a LONG time - since before linux 1.0 came out... I still use linux, but my desktop machine for the past 3 years has been a Mac - they're more expensive, but to ME, the extra convenience they offer on the desktop is worth it. Your mileage obviously varies...)

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413376)

In the case of a bike variable gears are well established and nearly universally used. The reason to own a fixed gear bike is cost. It is simpler and cheaper to build. You sometimes find people who own old ones for that reason, the can be purchased cheaply and maintenance is potentially less as there is no derailleur or internal gear hub to break. However the cost advantage is not present when you buy a brand new, trendy one complete with the "bull horn" handle bars. Many of the trendy fixed gear bikes cost more than my commuter, which features a gear hub.

Sorry if you don't like the control freak assessment but it is accurate. You can argue that there are benevolent reasons behind it, however that doesn't make it any less true. Apple has always had serious control issues and as of late they've been able to expand that a lot. They dictate to you how the platform goes.

Something to consider, with relation to that, is would you be ok if Microsoft did the same thing? Suppose Microsoft allowed Windows to only run on Microsoft hardware. Suppose Microsoft wanted to be the sole apps provider for some of their devices. Would you be ok with that? If not then ask yourself why you are ok with Apple doing it. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple has any process in place to prevent them from abusing their power, and several examples of them already abusing it in one manner or another.

If you are ok with Apple doing something but not MS, that implies that your emotions, like or dislike for the companies, are influencing the decision, not logic.

Personally, I don't like a system where one person controls everything. I like it when things are more divided, where no one company has the sole deciding power over everything.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413454)

That is exactly what MS does, although in a more devious manner...

The xbox already functions much like the iphone, you need to sign up (and pay) to be a developer, you must use their sdk which runs only on their os and any code you release must first be approved and signed by ms and they take a cut of any sales you make.

They do the same thing in other areas too, not by directly dictating, but through market inertia and various forms of lock-in... This is arguably worse because when people start sending proprietary formatted files around the lock-in extends to people who would prefer not to be customers of ms.
Apple on the other hand, can be totally ignored should you wish. You may have an iphone and i may not, but i will still be able to access the emails, photos, video, sms and voice calls generated by your iphone either on another type of phone or a computer.

That's not to excuse apple's behaviour, just pointing out that apple are a minor offender compared to ms here.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Insightful)

mgblst (80109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413318)

You are right, but your two points are just stupid.

The reason is that most people are not affected by these problems affecting developers. A casual user isn't out screaming for this app. There are already 250,000 apps in the app store, I think most people are happy with that.

Apple products are purchased because they are great devices, designed well, fantastic support, easy to use. They cost a bit more, but most people do not mind paying a bit more for a better device. Not everyone, plenty of people love shopping at Walmart getting the cheapest stuff they can.

Why you people can not understand this just makes you sound and look stupid.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413342)

Add a third option: For some of us, their stuff works, and we're so tired of hearing conspiracy theory crap from extremists that we want to puke. It's a technology company not a religion. Yes, it was funny at first, because we were laughing at the idea. Now not so much. We just want to be able to use the stuff and be left alone.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (3, Informative)

Lupu (815408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413430)

They behave the way they do because they are control freaks. They want absolute control over their platform. Their ultimate vision is that they'll be the source of all your media, all your apps, etc. They'll dictate how you consume stuff. Such a setup would be, needless to say, very profitable.

As for why they can get away with it, well I'd say there are two reasons:

1) Fanboyism/zealotry. Apple has had a following for a long time of people for whom they can do no wrong more or less. A non-trivial amount of these people are in the press (Macs are big in prepress work). They just love Apple and everything they do. So when something bad comes out, they find ways to rationalize it away, or ignore it.

2) For many of the Apple buyers these days, Apple is not a technology company but a fashion company. They largely won't admit it, but they buy them as fashion accessories. They are the "cool" product to own. As such they are purchased based on that alone. Whatever restrictions/costs accompany that are ok because they want to be cool. I see the same thing these days with fixed gear bikes. They are in with college kids (I work on campus and bike to work). They buy brand new, surprisingly expensive, fixed gear bikes. This, of course, makes them harder to ride up hill, but they are ok with that because fixed gear is cool, road or mountain bikes are not.

or 3) Their market share is sufficiently low to face antitrust investigations for monopolistic behavior.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (4, Funny)

Michael D Kristopeit (1887500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412806)

slashdot user: "I fail to understand."
slashdot mod: "Insightful."

*sigh*

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (5, Insightful)

beh (4759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412824)

Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.

And it's not even limited to the iPhone - most people still use MS Office, despite how many competitors again? Despite the free OpenOffice?

You might like Android - and you're perfectly in your right to be. Be happy with it. But please accept, that if I had to buy a new phone for my parents/grandparents, it'd be an iPhone - I think it would be more geared to what she'd need and what she'd be capable of using, simply because it is more streamlined.
The closed Appstore may be something you hate - on the other hand, as far as non-geeks are concerned, I'd rather have the AppStore than seeing a proliferation of new phone threats (like - wouldn't you hate being spammed by a mobile botnet?). As a developer myself, I also see the stores limitations, but as a normal person, I see the advantages of the store as well in that it gives some more peace of mind to the less tech-savvy user.

Don't get me wrong - the iPhone has its own set of quirks I don't like. On the other hand - for me (and most people), it was APPLE that made smart phones a lot easier to use - everyone, including Android, is trying to copy that ease of use (with varying amounts of success).

What annoys me about the whole discussion of the iPhone is this: Noone attacks MS for being a commercial enterprise. MS is commonly attacked for 'innovating' things that have been out there for ages. With Apple it's the other way around - they're being attacked for trying to make money - while it's the 'open source' crowd 'innovating' all the things Apple has done on the phone.

The same with the iPad - the iPad came out to much ridicule from the tech-savvy crowd - but see how many projects there are out to 'innovate' a tablet computer now that the iPad is out? Some of those may even offer some more eye-candy - but eye-candy alone isn't going to make me buy one of them. It's the usability - the general usability for the majority of people out there (inclusive of all the non-geeks) - that needs looking at, not flashy graphics.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412968)

but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there

For the majority of people, it's not a matter of perception.. this really isn't a problem. There are iPhone apps for just about everything, they're cheap and easy to access. The majority of people love their iPhones and for good reason.

most people still use MS Office, despite how many competitors again? Despite the free OpenOffice?

But it works. And whenever Microsoft creates a new file format (ie. every release of office), OO isn't compatible ... again. As long as most people continue to use MS Office .. most people will need to continue to use MS Office. It's a matter of practicality not politics.

It's the usability - the general usability for the majority of people out there (inclusive of all the non-geeks)

The iPad is so much more of a killer tool than the iPhone. It's a cheap, secure web browser for all the people who don't need anything more than a web browser. Sure you can also load apps on it (which'll make all the people who love their iPhone apps want one) but ultimately it's the computer for the people who don't want to have a computer... most people.

Apple is fighting the same front as Microsoft. They're turning the computer into a commodity .. a tool for every man. The only problem with OSS and geek elitism is that they (we?) don't understand how to make a computer for every man. That's why OSS is so big in the server room and so small on the desktop.

Do me and my granny a favour and stop bashing Apple for accomplishing what me / you / Ubuntu / Richard Stallman keep failing to accomplish.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413146)

Choosing whether to buy an Android or iOS based phone is a political decision, and just that.
There are Android phones with a build quality comparable to iPhones (though I haven't played around with the iPhone 4 yet, maybe that ones better..), there also are apps for everything, and the usability, well, Android require about as much training as iOS does. Only when you're already used to iOS will iPhones be easier to use. The integration of different Apple devices is great of course, and makes for a better experience, but if you already have multiple Apple devices, the political decision was already made. That's a kind of vendor lock-in Microsoft can only dream of, at least concerning endusers.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (3, Insightful)

indiechild (541156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413198)

Well said. Apple products tend to be understated and a bit minimalist -- sometimes even conservative in design. It's the competitors' products that tend to be flashy and overdone.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Interesting)

julesh (229690) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413210)

Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.

No, actually, this particular issue is one standing in the way of corporate adoption, not geek adoption. Corporate types don't want to have to hire Objective C developers - who are rare and expensive - to develop their iPhone apps. Apple, however, won't allow any other language to be implemented (other than Safari's javascript interpreter).

Geeks don't want rapid development tools, which is what the app in question is (a brief read of the web site makes it sound like a modernised implementation of the same sort of idea Lotus Notes started out with -- a quick way of defining your data structures and a very easy way to prototype UIs to manipulate them). We're generally happier getting down to the nuts and bolts and playing with the hardware at a lower level.

And it's not even limited to the iPhone - most people still use MS Office, despite how many competitors again? Despite the free OpenOffice?

MS Office *is* technically superior to OpenOffice. It has a large number of features that are not duplicated in OO. Its programmability is substantially superior to OO's. Also, it is the only piece of software that is able to read 100% of uncorrupted MS Office documents, and as that is the de-facto standard document exchange format in most fields of business, it's an important consideration.

The iPhone is not technically superior to Android, or even Symbian, both of which have important features that are missing on the iPhone. Flash is merely the most obvious one, but it is well worth noting that it is not only geeks who care about it. Many geeks, I suspect, are happier without it.

The closed Appstore may be something you hate - on the other hand, as far as non-geeks are concerned, I'd rather have the AppStore than seeing a proliferation of new phone threats (like - wouldn't you hate being spammed by a mobile botnet?).

I'm not sure in what way a mobile botnet is any worse than a static one. Sure, I see your point, but when it comes down to it you can make the same argument for your desktop computer... why run the risk of installing malware by mistake? Let's get a PC which will only install software that's been approved by Microsoft. And, admittedly, there are a lot of people that would be an adequate solution for, maybe even better than the current situation. But there are also a lot of people it isn't adequate for, and you can bet that if it was a situation that existed we'd be making a lot of noise about it. Why? So that people don't get one *by mistake* without realising how limited they'll be.

The same with the iPad - the iPad came out to much ridicule from the tech-savvy crowd - but see how many projects there are out to 'innovate' a tablet computer now that the iPad is out?

You seem to be missing something, which is the large number of people who were already working on tablet computers before Apple even announced the iPad. Several manufacturers released devices in a similar factor before the iPad was released (e.g. Asus's T91). Microsoft have been working with numerous manufacturers on similar devices since the late 90s. It's hardly a new idea.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413288)

Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.

That's so true, and really strange. People usually like freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice. But if it's computer or digital media, people bend over and take it. For example the EULAs today. If I ever bought a coffee machine with that kind of EULA attached to it, I would be crazy. But people buy software with an EULA that says you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't share, you have no rights at all. People buy DVDs that are only playable in special devices, people buy music that they can't share or copy anymore. It's just crazy and if on coffee machines or on t-shirts were the same restrictions people would go to the streets.

But I think it's because people don't know better. They are just listening to the nonsense that copying is theft, they just know Windows, MS Office or Photoshop. The people don't know that they have now a choice.

Furthermore, it's the billions of $ spend in commercials, and for the IPhone in special. I really want to buy me an Android, but I looked around and there are no commercials for Google Android. Nobody says on the phone it's Google Android. Look at the phones [androphones.com] Where is a big logo of Android and where is a text Google Android? Now the iPhone [apple.com] There is big logo of Apple and the text iPhone. How can I know that a phone is a Google Android phone? If nobody knows that your phone is a Google Android phone than there is no value that it's a Google Android phone. I think that is a really big mistake, because they drop the value of brand recognition and the brand Google is really famous and stands for quality.

If I go to the shop there are 100 phones. They all look the same, but some of them are Android phones. Now I only want the phones with Android but they all look the same, so I have to ask which of the Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, LG, HTC, Dell and 10 others are Android phones. But the iPhone is an eye catcher, there is only the iPhone. People don't want to choose between 50 Android phones, they want The Android Phone. That's why the iPhone is so successful, there is only one brand and everybody else knows that you have an iPhone, because of the big Apple logo and the text iPhone.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413496)

I see quite a lot of prominent android phones being advertised on TV... And they quite often display the android logo and talk about the app market.

What is so hard to understand? MS does the SAME (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412874)

And so does Sony AND Nintendo. I am of course talking about game consoles. Closed platforms where the owner of the platform (not you dear consumer sheep) decides what gets to run on it.

Apple has made the decision to follow the console model rather then the PC model. That is their choice. Your choice as a consumer is whether you choose to buy it or not. Your choice is NOT to force Apple to go another way other then through voting with your dollars.

Why has Apple made this decision? One of the many stupid mistakes MS has made in its lifetime is to allow Emails to contains executable code. For the email reader, the application to run external code. Abobe is regularly blamed for doing the same with PDF's. Lots of people here claim that data should not contain code. So when Apple decides that it does not want the option on ITS platform for 3rd party apps to run totally unknown 4th party code, of course they are COMPLETLY wrong in doing so...

Apple has made a reputation for itself by having a better, more solid, hassle free user experience. But how has it gotten this? Partially by its users being UNABLE to install the crap they do under windows. IF the mac platform got the same kind of malware and cripple ware attention as the PC, it would be just as bad an experience, with DRM overwriting sectors on the HD it has no business overwriting.

Is Apple right in believing that a controlled environment makes for a better user experience? Who knows, what I do know is that they sell millions of iPhones. People are voting with their dollars. Apparently they like SOMETHING about the iPhone more then they don't like.

Don't buy/develop for a closed platform and then complain it is closed. That is like breaking into a prison and then complaining they won't let you go.

Re:What is so hard to understand? MS does the SAME (1)

Antarius (542615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413102)

Mod the parent up!

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412896)

I never trust anyone after they've had their mind bugled. Yeah, I've heard that you can be rehabilitated - but, I just won't ever trust you again. Call me a bugle bigot, it won't bother me. I don't HAVE to be politically correct. I've heard that mind bugling is the gateway to kiddie diddling - not sure if I believe it or not. It sure makes a guy think though. Should we have a no bugling zone around our schools?

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413048)

I'm 12 and what is this

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413280)

He's just trying to blow his own horn.

And take the wind out of Apple's sales.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (2, Interesting)

rjch (544288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413016)

Can someone explain to me why Apple behaves this way? I fail to understand. What even bugles my mind is the fact that Apple as a company is [still] a darling in many people's hearts. No bad publicity sticks.

Not here it doesn't. Less than six months after getting an iPhone (after being unable to find an Android phone at the time that didn't have decent enough hardware that also supported the weird 850Mhz 3G frequency required by my carrier for calls outside the city) my opinion of Apple has completely reversed.

Yes, the UI is fairly well thought out and it's relatively easy to use. However the outright refusal to give people what they want grates on my nerves significantly. The promises of iOS4 just didn't deliver. Multitasking is a huge pooch-screw...

Nope. Next time work gives me the option of what phone I want, I'll be picking something Android based - assuming Oracle (a company that is rapidly developing an even worse reputation than Apple) doesn't manage to squash it first.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413090)

> Can someone explain to me why Apple behaves this way?

If you have an app that can run interpreted code then you run the risk of someone being to craft something that will run on peoples phones without approval. Some people see this as restricting, but the other end of it can be sanity. You don't want an app to degrade the phone functions or put a customers phone into an unsupported configuration. Worse malware.

I don't see the big issue to be honest and there is probably more to this story then the author is telling us. The reason being there are already a number of prototyping applications for the iphone/ipad on the store.

Also now that jailbreaking is legal he can just sell to the jail break crowd.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413112)

The measure of a man, or a company, is how they behave when they finally gain some power.

You're seeing both Jobs and his company here, warts and all.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413426)

will not touch an iPhone even with a 10 foot pole

Sorry to hear about your restraining order against the iPhone. Apple has once again gone too far.

Re:Why really does Apple behave this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413438)

What even bugles my mind...

Is it playing Taps or Reveille?

Strange (1, Troll)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412670)

One would think he could easily cross to the dark side, and release his app in the Rock store, or the Cydia store.

In fact, I would be surprised if someone doesn't take the code, compile the app, and release it as a .deb anyways.

But using the Cydia store features the developer could still make quite a bit of money.
Sure, it limits your app to jailbroken devices, but that is a very large number of devices compared to zero as the current situation goes.

I'm sure he has his reasons and all, I am just curious what they might be.

Even stranger... (4, Funny)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412722)

In his blog post about it he has this "aw shucks, time to go write some apps Apple will approve" attitude.

It strikes me as the psycho ex gf/bf who cant accept Apple broke up with them and refuses to mail order a new Android companion (or at least get a RIM job)

/yeah, this post went in a completely different direction from where it started

Re:Even stranger... (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413134)

It strikes me as the psycho ex gf/bf who cant accept Apple broke up with them and refuses to mail order a new Android companion (or at least get a RIM job)

- hey, stop that. What do blackberries have to do with any of this?

Re:Even stranger... (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413278)

Perhaps he realizes that there's more money to be made in Apple apps. There have been a couple of articles lately on the tech press to this effect.

        -dZ.

Re:Strange (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412912)

One would think he could easily cross to the dark side, and release his app in the Rock store, or the Cydia store.

Or he could re-write the thing for Android and make _some_ money. Some being greater then none, which is what he's making now.

Eventually this is the kind of behaviour that will drive people away from the Apple ecosystem. Apple gets to decide who does and does not make money, just wait until they start buddying up with big dev houses to push out crappy titles and sequels at $10 a piece.

Read the license (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412672)

I don't know if this technically qualifies as open source, and it's not Free Software, because of this line in the license:

"The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
    sold without meaningful modification for a profit. "

Re:Read the license (1, Insightful)

odies (1869886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412728)

Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?

Re:Read the license (2, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412804)

>Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?

The fact that it's just not true. [opensource.org] The word has a definition.

How can I put this ? If it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck - then the fact that it's waterbird isn't enough to make it a duck.

Apple rapes customers! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412692)

This is the same Apple news as always. When will Slashdot learn these people enjoy being raped by Steve Jobs and stop wasting time on crApple?

Re:Apple rapes customers! (0, Troll)

DeBaas (470886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412768)

This is the same Apple news as always. When will Slashdot learn these people enjoy being raped by Steve Jobs and stop wasting time on crApple?

When we stop being entertained by bitching about it...

his product (1, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412704)

His product is one that creates wireframe prototypes of iPhone apps and allows you to run them on the iPhone. Presumably (from his experience, and others he's shown it to) this allows you to make better apps faster.

He shouldn't be surprised, he is running into essentially the same trap that was built for Adobe when they tried to create a compiler for Flash that translates onto the iPhone. Apple has said they want to be completely in control of the development environment, and anything that threatens to take away that control will not be allowed. They've written this into the license, and explained it several times. There is no reason for him to be upset over something he should have realized.

Now, if only someone would write a decent GUI builder for Android, I would be happy.

Re:his product (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33412750)

As you say, the app allows one to create wireframe prototypes, but those prototypes are not usable in any sense. So it isn't the same situation as Adobe allowing Flash to be compiled into apps.

The reason the app was rejected initially was for allowing the "execution" of code that could be loaded from outside the app. However, the "code" was nothing but an XML document that was read into the app and used to construct interfaces. In fact, the XML document even used Apple's "property list" format, and was simply loaded directly into an NSDictionary.

The insane part of this whole thing is that had the developer not given his "code" files a unique extension (he used .briefslist I believe), and had changed the wording in his instructions just slightly, the app probably would have gotten through fine. Others have noted that there are live apps that do essential the same thing that Briefs wanted to do.

Re:his product (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413300)

> However, the "code" was nothing but an XML document

Ah but XML looks a bit like Lisp with uglier braces.

Sometimes it seems like many Java (and other) programs are just Lisp interpreters that run huge XML "configuration files" ;).

Re:his product (2, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413000)

"...this allows you to make better apps faster."

To be honest, this seems pretty subjective. It also misses the definition of "better" - is it "better" as in the app has better performance than a native-built app? Is it "better" as in it can have more features than a native-built app?

"Apple has said they want to be completely in control of the development environment, and anything that threatens to take away that control will not be allowed. "

Can't blame 'em in this case, at least from an objective viewpoint. The phone's reputation relies a lot on the apps' reputation. Apps that hang, or run slow, or basically sucks the battery dry in short order affects the users' perception of the phone. If that perception is destroyed by a bug in this particular app causing a raft of apps that basically suck (not in content, but performance, efficiency, etc)? For Apple, that would suck - far better to have flaws in an API, runtime, or etc that they themselves can fix in short order, than to stumble across flaws that they'd have to beg a third party to fix. It also leaves open a trap that Microsoft is stumbling on with each new version of Windows: Compatibility/Legacy issues. Given that there isn't too much capacity on a smartphone for Moore's Law to cover bloat, you can't just code your way out of a legacy issue - especially those caused by some third party build/prototyping app.

Apple's stance is pretty simple, really: If you want to build an iPhone app, learn to write code and do it your own damned self. The tools are free. The store fees are dirt cheap.

Personally, vote with your wallet. Android phones (esp. thanks to Verizon's BOGO deals and a far larger pool of manufacturers) are selling like mad right now. iPhones are still selling like mad right now. May the market determine the best model...

Re:his product (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413144)

Erm... my understanding of Briefs is that it still requires you to make a native-built app. It is emphatically not a framework. Rather, it lets you try on different renderings of things that you could do within Apple's framework in a simple do-nothing environment. A bug in Briefs is highly unlikely to propagate into an app, since it appears mainly to be a "preview app" for UI decisions--a live white-board, if you will. From the description in TFA, it sounds like Briefs gives you a mechanism to quickly mock up new interfaces (within the constraints of what Apple's widgets let you do) and try it on to check out the feel, even though you can't actually hook it to an application.

Once you've got the fit and finish of the user interaction down, it sounds like it's still up to you to program your actual app to actually do that. That is, because Briefs is not a framework, you can't hang an application off of it. You can only prototype look and feel. It's still up to you to implement it, and when you implement it, you'll be implementing it as a native built app.

Or did I miss something?

Re:his product (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413336)

Verizon's BOGO deals

Buy one get one?

Damn the market's nasty in the US if that's a deal.

Re:his product (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413008)

Now, if only someone would write a decent GUI builder for Android, I would be happy.

Like DroidDraw [droiddraw.org] ?

Three months is nothing. (3, Informative)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412736)

Three months is nothing compared to QA times for the T-Mobile Sidekick. Small teams can't afford to wait a year from submission to first profits, especially when you're writing software on spec (not sure if it'll even be allowed onto the platform). When you outsource your QA and pay them per bug they find, you're going to get a lot of non-bugs and a lot of repeats, and the developer is going to get pissed. I know my team and I did.

Welcome to the mobile software industry, where your target platform doesn't care about you because there are 600,000 other developers who'll bend over and take it if you won't.

Re:Three months is nothing. (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412860)

Three months is pretty long compared to directly uploading somewhere the user can download immediately.

Really though, what I mean is that it's a good thing the carrier controlled platforms are going the way of the Dodo. But let's hope they aren't just replaced with equally evil rent-seekers. Hopefully it's enough of a wedge to pry control of the devices away from them over the next 10 to 20 years and make device portability a reality too. I do give Apple a lot of credit though in that they caused so much love for their devices, AT&T was forced to start allowing things they never would have used to allow (like an app store not controlled by AT&T). But when you see Apple doing stuff like this, it should be clear we have a long bumpy road ahead with new players trying to control the market while others ebb. But hopefully the end result will be that these phones are ours and the Wireless cos are just dumb carriers.

apple (0, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412864)

a-pull
a-poll
a-p-holl
a-p-hole.
a-hole.

iBored (0, Troll)

Zemran (3101) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412920)

I like all the off topic posts that make me realise that people are finally bored with the iPhone hype. It looks great but is a pile a poo that has you locked in... Why do all the sheeple have to own one?

To be clear: The code is visible, but not FOSS (5, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33412928)

The Briefs code is now up on GitHub, and yes, you can go look at it, however it's not "Open Source" (per OSI), it's not "Free Software" (per the FSF), and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

If you look at the commit history [github.com] for the license, he even explicitly changed the license two days ago to make it less free:

2010-08-28
Modified license terms to disallow someone from reselling Briefs without making major modifications. Also protect the Briefs trademark. Still, free source code, huh? Not too shabby.

Prior to two days ago, the code was under the... well, I'm not exactly sure what license!

Here's the license (the first paragraph is a dead ringer for the opening of the MIT License [opensource.org] ):

Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Rob Rhyne
Briefs is a trademark of Digital Arch Design Corp.
http://robrhyne.com/ [robrhyne.com]
http://digitalarch.net/ [digitalarch.net]
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction except as noted below, including without limitation
the rights to use,copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
and/or sublicense, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Here's the non-FOSS part:

The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
    sold without meaningful modification for a profit.

This is more of the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
    included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This middle part looks like the BSD license [opensource.org] :

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
    the documentation and/or other materials provided with
    the distribution.

Actually, there are only two clauses there, so that's essentially the 2-clause BSD, not the 3-clause one (just a minor point, really).

Then we get the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause. Lawyers seem to love these things, but they seem so uncouth to me. Anyhow, for 5 points, from which license was this paragraph chosen?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's right! It's the indemnification clause from the MIT license.

I googled around trying to figure out if other people used this same license, but the best I came up with was the NCSA license [opensource.org] . It's unlikely that this license is based off that one, as the phrase to deal in the Software (MIT) is used in this new license instead of to deal with the Software (NCSA).

One more thing: let's point out exactly why the license doesn't pass any of the most popular FOSS metrics:

1) "Open Source" (per OSI)

Per the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] ,

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.

Obviously, if you have to make "meaningful modification[s]" before you can sell this software, it fails #1.

2) "Free Software" (per the FSF)
Per the Free Software Definition [gnu.org] ,

Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution

We fail on "meaningful modifications" again.

3) and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

The DFSG [debian.org] was the granddaddy of the OSD, and is very similar, so this license fails for exactly the same reasons.

(Why yes, I've been staring at FOSS licenses quite a bit over the last few weeks. How'd you guess that? :-)

Re:To be clear: The code is visible, but not FOSS (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413110)

Since this license doesn't force the publication/inclusion of the source code with the binary, couldn't he just have used an Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons License??? Of course, that Creative Commons License doesn't include the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause, but may be that clause should be rewritten anyway, he forgot to include the standard iTunes app store clause: You shall not use my app for the "development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

violated the apple developer agreement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413028)

So that means he violated the apple developer agreement he signed? ( "Apps made with the iPhone software development kit can only be distributed through the App Store" - http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/iphone-developer-agreement/ and something about you can not put it under less restrictive terms than the terms of the App Store )

It would be cool if apple sued for breach of contract. Just so everyone may notice how evil they are.

Reverse Engineering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413150)

Don't worry, Apple will reject it once they manage to reverse engineer it.
If the apps sucks (or farts), I'm sure they'll let it though.

Karma accumulating? (3, Insightful)

steveha (103154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413158)

How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?

Apple has done a fabulous job of polishing the iPhone and iPad. If you really want the best available phone, and you aren't too choosy about your freedom, you buy Apple.

Sure, they won't get my money because I refuse to pay a company to tell me what software I may and may not install on my own device. That's okay, they don't care about me. But the more time goes by, the more stories like this one come to light. How much of this before people start to view Apple not so much as the hip, cool company but rather as the controlling, evil company?

And stories like this one are inevitable, because Apple is exerting such a high degree of control. The approval process isn't a simple rubber-stamp thing. The more innovative and unusual an app is, the harder it is for Apple to decide whether it gives the user too much freedom. In this case, I would guess that the problem is that an app for mocking up new apps is a little too much like an emulator, and Apple can't quite make up its collective mind whether this is a sort of emulator or not. (I can't even guess why Apple approved other app mockup apps while letting this one languish.)

So, the more time goes by, the more wronged people there will be. I guess as long as the majority of Apple customers are happy, and the majority of app developers aren't mistreated too much, the Apple brand will be undiminished.

But you know, if he had released his app for Android, it would be on the market now. He could even make an Android app for mocking up iPhone apps! I wish he would, just for the irony value.

steveha

Re:Karma accumulating? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413388)

How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?

For me it's already tarnished enough that any product made by Apple is outright not worth considering.

The reason is obvious ... (0, Flamebait)

garry_g (106621) | more than 3 years ago | (#33413224)

... it's being held because of the use of indecent, immoral language ... check out the video, it says the software is "fucking fast" ...
So, dear developer, it's clearly your fault!

Oh well ... I guess Apple fanatics deserve what they're getting from Apple ... and I don't expect Apple's way of handling apps and the likes until Apple users understand they are being abused as moneybags ... guess it's about time for a class-action suit from both customers and developers ...

Really fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33413458)

The overview video for Briefs bills the app as allowing prototypes to be built "really f*ing fast." I suppose the video was made by a young person who had no appreciation for appropriate business language.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...