What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
187 Comments
- wastelander, on 10/01/2008, -4/+176Thank Android.
Competition is good! - mingistech, on 10/01/2008, -4/+94It's about time. :)
http://www.*****.com/ - relinquish, on 10/01/2008, -19/+92Thank you GOD.
- AncientPC, on 10/01/2008, -5/+63This release from NDA only covers released software. What about application rejection letters?
- flipmeat, on 10/01/2008, -5/+60Steve says 'You're welcome'.
- andrewcod, on 10/01/2008, -5/+50It's ridiculous it's taken them this long to drop it, but I'm glad they finally have anyway. Hopefully the increased level of communication between developers which can result from this will turn out better applications for all iPhone users.
- HaloZero, on 10/01/2008, -2/+42Wait, unreleased software. Does that mean they'll still NDA rejection letters?
- jamaph, on 10/01/2008, -5/+42Thank you ANDROID
- wilhoitm, on 10/01/2008, -6/+34iPhone Programming Tutorials
http://icodeblog.com/page/3/
http://icodeblog.com/page/2/
http://icodeblog.com/ - inactive, on 10/01/2008, -11/+37Wait, Apple actually did something not evil for once?
- worldchanger, on 10/01/2008, -0/+17porn site.
- austin63, on 10/01/2008, -0/+17Because it's not about hackers, its about apple shutting down competing applications. I want better mail apps, browsers, customize, an amazon store, who knows. Until the development community is free to create apps for an open marketplace we can expect only what apple wants us to have.
- plucas, on 10/01/2008, -2/+18FTA: "This move should open up discussion between developers as well as publication of books on the iPhone SDK."
- greensky, on 10/01/2008, -4/+20or the fact you have to get Apple approval to be able to sell your application.
- runeasgar, on 10/01/2008, -1/+16And yet the problem was not RESOLVED until Android hit the market.
- speel, on 10/01/2008, -2/+16Ballmer says 'give me another chair'.
- inactive, on 10/01/2008, -1/+15Let's hope it isn't English, for your sake.
- normalkid, on 10/01/2008, -1/+15actually, the article was reworded. it's released "iphone software" which seems to refer to Apple's software. not apps. So Firmware 2.1 ok. Firmware 2.2 (not yet released) not ok.
- MrChunks, on 10/01/2008, -0/+13Into a wi-fi?
- atgmac, on 10/01/2008, -0/+13That's step one. Thanks for listening Apple. Step two is to publish comprehensive rules on what is allowed and what will be rejected.
- dcmjzero, on 10/01/2008, -0/+11He accidentally the whole wi-fi.
- ravage86, on 10/01/2008, -0/+10supersteve: because legitimate applications that don't try to exploit you are rejected simply because apple fears competition.
If you provide a good product, you shouldn't have to fear competition. - brundlefly76, on 10/01/2008, -0/+9This is awesome.
However, I am sorry but I am not going to kiss Steve Job's feet for 'allowing me to discuss programming with other people without being sued'.
I never understood this in the first place - how exactly did the NDA protect Apple from competitors learning about the SDK contents? Was it protection from really cheap and dumb competitors who don't have $99 and cannot fill out the online form?
Now lets get to work on making them allow any app to be optionally installed without the damn app store, its ambiguous, secret, post-development rejection criteria + 30% tax per app sold.
Like Android, Windows Mobile, Java handsets, and every other damn phone platform on earth. - MacTyler, on 10/01/2008, -0/+9For the people who do not understand, non-seasoned developers such as myself, were not allowed to communicate with other developers with problems that we ran into in the development process. Places for iPhone development discussion were outlawed, that is why so many developers were mad. Now that it is lifted, it is time to celebrate!!! We are throwing a celebration party over on http://www.iphonedevforums.com/forum/iphone-sdk-de ...
- youareretarded, on 10/01/2008, -1/+9I agree, I give the credit to android on this one.
- jtinz, on 10/01/2008, -0/+8It's not the first time. Apple will do things like this if there's enough pressure and publicity. When they started working on the KHTML engine to use it in WebKit, they formally complied with the LGPL and provided patch sets. However, these patch sets were massive drops that were nearly impossible to integrate into the KHTML repository. After vocal protests, the Apple developers started to provide smaller patches that could easily be integrated.
- supersteve, on 10/01/2008, -1/+9damn right
- inactive, on 10/01/2008, -0/+7Objective-C and Cocoa Touch
- debtman7, on 10/01/2008, -0/+7It means you can ask questions about iphone development on a forum or mailing list, you can find tutorials on iPhone development around the web and you can probably buy a book on iPhone development.
Other than that, it means about squat. It could mean better apps since developers have more resources, but in practice that's a bit doubtful since most programmers could get by just fine with apple's provided docs. - bieber, on 10/01/2008, -5/+12No, they just stopped doing one particular bit of evil. There's a big difference.
- Dalhectar, on 10/01/2008, -1/+8@supersteve Did Apple approve your OS X apps too? When you booted up your mac, did you lose all your private data? Are Symbian and Blackberry users pwned by dataminers?
The whole argument is a Red Herring. I'm slightly depressed that people still cite it. - worldchanger, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6that sounds dangerous.
- Laminarcissus, on 10/01/2008, -1/+7There's nothing wrong with Apple putting as restrictive a set of terms as they want on participation in the App Store. What's wrong is that the App Store is the *only* place to get apps without circumventing the system.
The simple solution is that Apple opens up the iPhone to third-party installation methods, but keeps the iStore as what it's supposed to be: an official, tested source for premium-quality applications.
That way they can exercise whatever discretion they want without limiting the overall growth of the platform, conservative users can stick to App Store apps, and more adventurous users can go into the open market without recrimination. - Angostura, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6I thought it was intended to come across as a disarmingly frank and straight forward mea culpa.
- decker12, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6About damn time. Now that the application developers can actually you know, TALK TO EACH OTHER and SHARE IDEAS with each other without running the risk of having their apps blacklisted and denied posting to the App Store, we might start seeing some very high quality programs becoming available.
- Black0ps, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6I logged in just to tell you for the 5th time that its OBJECTIVE C.!!!!!
- Logal, on 10/01/2008, -3/+9Does anyone else feel that that whole letter was very un-'Apple'? Talking about being 'ripped-off' and such, just didn't seem very professional, but, this is still very good news, and I'm loving my iPhone.
- insomniac8400, on 10/01/2008, -2/+8How is this fair? These NDAs do nothing to protect anything. They just allow apple to slow down development. They have no real hardware upgrades for the iphone. So new models are going to be based on purely software upgrades. They need to protect people from coding apps that interfere with redundant hardware sales.
- DanBoodro, on 10/01/2008, -1/+7Rather than digging you down, yes. All of there iPhone OS features that are still in beta are under NDA. Everything that is available on the iPhones now is not. Which I think is reasonable. But how easy do you think it would be for someone from Samsung or Motorola to join the iPhone developer program?
- dcmjzero, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6@supersteve:
I don't seem to have the same problem on my computer. Would you have the same opinion if Microsoft had to approve every application for Windows? Thought so. - nomore, on 10/01/2008, -4/+10It means Apple's released software, e.g. new iPhone APIs etc... so that they can still protect unreleased (beta) stuff with an NDA. Seems fair to me.
- thawk9455, on 10/01/2008, -4/+10I'm interpreting "released software" to mean iPhone V2.1 SDK, not released versions of your software...
- MacTyler, on 10/01/2008, -0/+5Hey now, why not! :)
- SSUK, on 10/01/2008, -0/+5Party, party hard.
- insomniac8400, on 10/01/2008, -3/+8Steve says, "Google scares me."
- ozziek, on 10/01/2008, -0/+5An app that makes your screen into a torch is NOT an application
- debuggercll, on 10/01/2008, -3/+8Thank you FSM.
- colincornaby, on 10/01/2008, -0/+5"This only applies to 'released' software. It says nothing about dropping the NDA for currently-in-development apps"
Um, if you have an NDA on your own app, that's kind of your own problem.
The NDA has been lifted on all development tools and languages. It only remains in place for pre-release versions of the iPhone OS. If you have NDA's on your own software, that's not exactly Apple's problem, now is it? - supersteve, on 10/01/2008, -1/+6enough with the ***** app approval process. it's keeps malicious apps off my iPhone, good enough reason for me.
- inactive, on 10/01/2008, -1/+6The rules are simple. If Steve likes it, it's approved. If he doesn't, it's not. If he likes it and sees an opportunity for Apple to make money with the idea... it's not approved. If he dislikes it but sees an opportunity for Apple to make money by selling the app, it's approved.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is