Apple drops iPhone NDA

Apple's insistence on locking down iPhone developers with a restrictive NDA has been controversial from the start, and it looks like the company's seen the light -- it's just posted up a tersely-worded letter saying that the NDA is being dropped. It's a strange little note, actually -- the first paragraph comes off as a little defensive and whiny, if you ask us -- but we're not going to complain about anything that makes developing apps easier and faster for devs. Now let's work on not capriciously rejecting and deleting apps from the App Store, and maybe we can go back to focusing on the iPhone platform's actual merits instead of all these paperwork shenanigans -- we've got some suggestions if you're having a hard time figuring this out on your own.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[avester @ Oct 1st 2008 12:05PM]

Yes, Symbian handsets are really faulty for allowing all developement...

Nothing new on the front though, even with this.

[Hosain @ Oct 1st 2008 12:19PM]

Flash, Firefox anyone?

[talrico @ Oct 1st 2008 12:33PM]

I guess I don't really understand. DOES this mean that they'll be able to put Flash on the iPhone, really?

[Philippe @ Oct 1st 2008 12:57PM]

talrico,

Lifting some of the NDA only means that some devs would be able to go open source (if their app makes it), and that some people _might_ be able to publicly write docs and/or books. As a reminder NDA stands for "Non-Disclosure Agreement", so it doesn't change what you can do, only what you can say.

[Testies, Testies, 1, 2... 3? @ Oct 1st 2008 1:30PM]

Uhm Copy/Paste... Are you sure no one has provided "constructive feedback" on that one?

[viewsource @ Oct 1st 2008 1:45PM]

"comes off as a little defensive and whiny"
You must be new to the world of Apple.

[KarlW @ Oct 1st 2008 1:55PM]

This is a good thing. It shows that Apple are at least listening and responding to the community's demands.

They work in secrecy, so it's good to know they are listening, not ignoring. Good precedent, let's hope it continues with some clarification on the App Store rejection policy.

[iGO @ Oct 1st 2008 2:18PM]

Excuse my ignorance if the answer is obvious.

With all those patents that Apple has on the iPhone, how is it that so many manufacturers jumped on to the Touch Screen interface after Apple introduced the technology back in Jan 2006?

Just curious because so many of the new phones user-interfaces
are a direct rip-off of the iPhone interface.

[Jeff @ Oct 1st 2008 2:45PM]

@igo
just how did apple introduce a touchscreen/multitouch interface? it's been around for some time before apple got a hold of it.

[coffee @ Oct 1st 2008 2:41PM]

iGO,

mostly because they didn't invent it. they improved on it, added to it.

[Bassir @ Oct 1st 2008 12:05PM]

Now, uh, where's the push notification that Apple promised?

[waiownsyou @ Oct 1st 2008 12:13PM]

SRSLY

I can haz AIM that doesn't teh sux?

[NHAnimator @ Oct 1st 2008 12:22PM]

Seriously.

Can you get a vocabulary that isn't for 4-year-olds?

[nerdtalker @ Oct 1st 2008 1:21PM]

For once, I think it's best that they not introduce new features and make the stuff that should "just work," work. You know, like reception, calls, 3G data, that kind of stuff. After we've got that working, then let's focus on adding this mystical "push" functionality that was supposed to come with the platform.

Honestly, lifting the NDA is the best thing apple can do for themselves right now. Developers aren't going to waste the time making an app only to have it rejected after the fact with an apple gag order on the reason and rejection to boot. This isn't how you treat developers which are going to make the value-added software for your platform, this isn't how you deliver a suite of different apps, this isn't open at all. Refusing to have some sort of interface through which developers can precertify apps (which, of itself, is depressing considering the relative openness of even WM) means that people aren't going to waste their time making things.

[fred @ Oct 1st 2008 12:05PM]

So the Dear Leader loosens up the leash, and it all hugs and sugar cookies?

[Zak @ Oct 1st 2008 12:48PM]

Well gosh Fred, maybe you should learn to read. Nilay said "the first paragraph comes off as a little defensive and whiny". Does that sound like hugs and sugar cookies to you?

Oh right, I'm talking to Fred, I forgot. Logic doesn't work.

[fred @ Oct 1st 2008 1:11PM]

"but we're not going to complain about anything that makes developing apps easier and faster for devs. Now let's work on not capriciously rejecting and deleting apps from the App Store, and maybe we can go back to focusing on the iPhone platform's actual merits instead of all these paperwork shenanigans"

Translation:

Let's all stop this fussin and feuddin so we can get back to lovin you, Apple.

[LameDuck @ Oct 1st 2008 3:23PM]

Mmmm... cookies.... *drools*

[Zak @ Oct 1st 2008 3:35PM]

Oh, so you think Engadget should be complaining about things that make life easier for developers. Sure, that makes tons of sense in Fred-world. Remind me again, why is Engadget not allowed to post anything positive about Apple? Because you don't like it? This is positive news any way you look at it, so I'm not really sure what your problem is.

I mean, other than you being a rabid Apple hating MS kool-aid drinker.

[Mikey @ Oct 1st 2008 3:46PM]

So "positive" now includes backtracking from a position you never should have taken in the first place? Where I come from, that isn't positive, it's just correcting a mistake. Positive would be to have not made the mistake in the first place.

[macserv @ Oct 1st 2008 9:54PM]

Aww, they deleted the last line! It read:

"Thanks to everyone who provided us *constructive* feedback in this matter. To everyone commenting at Engadget, fuck you."

[tlarkin79 @ Oct 1st 2008 12:05PM]

Not a good headline. They are only changing some of the NDA not removing it entirely. It's not going to help people developing as much as it could, and it definitely isn't good for apps that get rejected.

Apple has went from the house that had it's lights out on Halloween to the one that answers the doors and hands out Kleenex tissues instead of candy.

[CraigJ @ Oct 1st 2008 12:39PM]

Apps that get rejected had nothing to do with the NDA.

Most software companies require an NDA when they make available unannounced pre-release software to developers.

This is more industry standard now.

[jakem @ Oct 1st 2008 12:47PM]

How does the iPhone SDK fall into the unannounced, pre-release software category?

Also, I agree about the tone of the letter. It reads like it was written by Steve after a bout of chemo.

[CraigJ @ Oct 1st 2008 12:59PM]

"How does the iPhone SDK fall into the unannounced, pre-release software category?"

Generally speaking, developers get versions of the firmware before they are GA, therefore as a developer, if I get version 2.3 of the firmware tomorrow, I cannot disclose new features of that version. Microsoft does this, my company does this. It is a standard business practice. In fact, in my experience NDAs more restrictive than Apple's are standard.

Frankly I never understood why the NDA was such a big deal to developers: How does my not being able to tell people unrelated to my project about the inner working of the iPhone affect my ability to create my application? Maybe I've been in this industry for too long...
Does someone that had a big problem with the NDA care to explain what the big deal is?

A far bigger deal (to me) is the seemingly arbitrary way in which Apple rejects applications from the store. I have a couple of apps I'd like to develop but I think they might cause issues for Apple so I'm not willing to invest the time until I know that they will be allowed...

[Shan @ Oct 1st 2008 2:34PM]

@CraigJ

Nobody was complaining about Apples initial NDA. The whole thing just snowballed when they rejected apps whos owners decided to go public about why they got rejected from Apple without any firm reasons and the fact that there is no policy set in stone regarding what constitutes a rejected app. Then when all the upset blog writing was grabbing people's attention, Apple then stated that rejection letters are subject to a NDA too. That is why there was so much drama over it.

[cromas @ Oct 1st 2008 2:58PM]

My question is: what does Apple mean by "released software"? Are they referring to software /they/ have released (i.e. non-beta versions of the iPhone SDK), or are they referring to software that /I/ have released, i.e. I'm only allowed to talk about code for software that is approved and available for purchase on the App Store?

[FuzzyCat @ Oct 1st 2008 2:59PM]

@Shan

Actually people are complaining about the NDA.

@CraigJ

The problem is for any new developer, not just the the iPhone, talking to other developers is how you gain knowledge. I don;t see why developers who are all under the NDA couldn't talk to one another since they all have access to the same things so nothing new would be exposed to "people who shouldn't know".

"How does my not being able to tell people unrelated to my project about the inner working of the iPhone affect my ability to create my application?"

Maybe you're lucky, maybe you're a really good developer, I dont know. If you've never ever had to ask someone for help with anything you've done then you are certainly lucky.

[CraigJ @ Oct 1st 2008 4:37PM]

@fuzzy. That's why I said "... not being able to tell people unrelated to my project ..." I was not aware that the NDA excluded you from talking to other people under the same NDA.

Are you saying that in fact Developers under the NDA were excluded from talking to other developer under the same NDA? If that's true then it made zero sense for Apple to do that; nobody's documentation is that good.

Also, I pointed out that the far bigger problem was the way in which Apple decides what to allow in the App store (or not).

And, yeah, I'm good, but not that good. I use forums and talk to other devs frequently.

[Josh @ Oct 1st 2008 9:25PM]

@ jakem

"Also, I agree about the tone of the letter. It reads like it was written by Steve after a bout of chemo."

Dude, that is just WAY over the line.

[huh @ Oct 1st 2008 12:07PM]

Apple will always be a protective, smug, whiny company that caters to people who like well-integrated shiny.

[matt merritt @ Oct 1st 2008 12:23PM]

I'm not trying to get all defensive or anything, but people that like well integrated and shiny as opposed to what? Haphazard and lackluster? Every time I see something like that I can't help but wonder why it's looked upon as a generally 'bad thing'.

In any case, I never quite understood the reasons NDA but I could understand why people were up in arms about it. It effectively pushed the iPhone across the very fine line that seperates "well-integrated" from "totally closed". Maybe Apple has had technology stolen from them in the past, hell, it's known fact that they've done it to others (just ask the folks at Xerox)... but you can't have a mostly closed platform and then say "HEY LOOK! WE ARE BASICALLY SORTA TOTALLY OPEN FOR DEVELOPMENT!" Something about having cake and eating it too...

But then again, maybe the cake really is a lie and we all have no idea what's going on.

[huh @ Oct 1st 2008 12:30PM]

matt merritt , Apple takes a subtractive approach to well integrated shiny. They remove features they don't like, sometimes because they can't integrate them well, but often because it doesn't fit into their marketing plans, and often this is anti-consumer and anti development.

I'm not going to say they make bad stuff, because it's very good, but their garden-path approach makes me and many other people uncomfortable. I am very hopefully for the impact Android will have on what's available, and what people are asking for. There is an unfathomable amount of innovation ahead of us, we don't need artificial limitations.

Of course, Apple can do what they want, and I'm sure they would do a lot worse if it weren't for competitors and well spoken consumer advocates. They are really a pre-Internet company, a lot of their ways were formed in the 80s when they lost the commodity PC wars by suing Apple ][ clone makers.

[CraigJ @ Oct 1st 2008 1:33PM]

Can we please stop perpetuating the whole Apple stole from Xerox thing? Apple gave Xerox shares of Apple stock to pay for visits to PARC with the express intention that Apple was using the information to develop a GUI for the Mac. Mac OS didn't even resemble Xerox's research that closely from what I've seen and read. Yes, Xerox later sued Apple, but the purpose of this suit had more to do with protecting Xerox's IP in the event that apple prevailed in their suit against Microsoft, and in any event it was dismissed.

This is all documented. Apple stealing from Xerox is no more true than Bill Gates saying that 640KB should be enough memory for anybody.

[huh @ Oct 1st 2008 1:47PM]

CraigJ, you may be right, but Apple is now trying to steal (or artificially limit anyway) the benefits of development. I am sure Xerox "stole" many fundamental ideas from people who wanted more than corporate players getting rich from them. viz the original dynabook and memex.

"If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared."

I'm hardly religious, but St Augustine may have been onto something there. I am sure Apple could more than compete in an open market of ideas on their design chops.

[CraigJ @ Oct 1st 2008 1:56PM]

No argument from me, my comment was strictly related to the whole Apple stole from Xerox thing.

[Mikey @ Oct 1st 2008 3:49PM]

@ matt merritt: "Something about having cake and eating it too... But then again, maybe the cake really is a lie and we all have no idea what's going on."

I like cake.

[matt merritt @ Oct 1st 2008 6:36PM]

@huh: "There is an unfathomable amount of innovation ahead of us, we don't need artificial limitations."

I must disagree. Not so much about the innovation part, but more about the limitations part. While I will agree that Apple has a tendency to be fairly liberal in dishing out those artificial limitations, I believe that some limitation is necessary or else you will end up with the messy, haphazard hodgepodge - but that won't work out so well for the end user.

I suppose, you could say, that in the end it should be up to the end user whether or not they want the ability to have the hodgepodge of innovations or one set of known-to-work's and I will agree that Apple doesn't exactly give a person carte blanche in that regard but I don't necessarily think that just allowing a whole bunch of "OMGNEWSHIT" into the ecosystem is a good idea either.

[dotAaron @ Oct 1st 2008 12:10PM]

LOL at the way this is wrote

"... so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before... ripped off..."

Sounds a little too bitchey :)

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 1st 2008 12:19PM]

Sounds like a 6th grader wrote the entire letter.

[Jesse Felt @ Oct 1st 2008 1:00PM]

If it weren't on the apple site I would assume that it is fake because it has got to be one of the most unprofessionally written items I have ever seen on a corporate site.

[arkweld @ Oct 1st 2008 12:32PM]

did they really say "ripped off" in a piece of PR?

That's pretty poor copy writing and even worse editing. Assuming it actually saw an editor's desk and it sounds like it didn't.

[nikster @ Oct 1st 2008 2:37PM]

The first paragraph really explains how Apple can continually pull completely idiotic things like this. The mindset of planet Apple, for all to see.

I guess it's the madness that often comes with genius.

The whole iPhone release was a lesson in that. There they come out with their first phone, and it's indefinitely better than anything on the market and for years to come. On the first try! Genius. Then, they try to prevent sales as best they can by creating unheard-of exclusive contracts where they get a piece of the revenue. Which is not going to work in most places mobile phones are sold. So they just don't sell in most places for a year. Complete, and utter madness.

The NDA is just another example. As are arbitrary app store rejections. Create a fantastic SDK for a fantastic platform - then do your best to scare away developers...

[Aztec @ Oct 1st 2008 12:11PM]

Thanks for throwing us a bone Apple. :-)

[Togarth @ Oct 2nd 2008 7:37AM]

What! Steve and Apple admit they are WRONG! whatever next............................
Maybe he will threaten to close down iTunes if he cant get his own way on keeping artists royalty fees low! bad luck any mug who bought an iPod or IPhone if he goes ahead. "Cool" company Apple apparently!

[chefgon_ign @ Oct 1st 2008 12:14PM]

Android's influence on the industry is already bearing fruit. Kudos to Google.

[JL @ Oct 1st 2008 12:41PM]

chefgon_ign @ Oct 1st 2008 12:14PM said:

Android's influence on the industry is already bearing fruit. Kudos to Google.

Agreed!!

[scoob @ Oct 1st 2008 2:12PM]

Only in the sense that it lags so poorly behind the Jesus Phone it doesn't ever bear thinking about.

[webon @ Oct 1st 2008 12:16PM]

Android FTW

[Hosain @ Oct 1st 2008 12:16PM]

pwnt.