Apple’s iPhone: You own it, but Steve owns you
Imagine a world in which you could only run programs on your computer that were specifically permitted by its manufacturer. Imagine that you couldn’t install a P2P application, not because it could potentially be used for copyright infringement, but because the maker of your PC wouldn’t let you. Imagine that you couldn’t install a VoIP program to make cheap calls, not because of any technical limitation, but because it threatened the profits of a phone company with whom the manufacturer has an agreement.
Imagine no more. That brave new world is here!
The Apple iPhone is an impressive device. Not so much because of the hardware—the multi-touch screen is important, but the radio side doesn’t even do 3G communications—but because of the software. After stagnant development in mobile phone user interfaces, with development being focused on technical features at the expense of actually being able to use them, it should shake up the market and teach phone manufacturers that they could be doing so much better.
To see an iPhone is to want one. But I’m not going to buy one. If I’m paying that much for a portable computer, I want to be able to use it as I please. But you can’t even use an iPhone without creating an iTunes account and signing up for a contract with a mobile phone operator—the kind of ‘tying’ that is illegal in many countries, incidentally.
Apple’s iPhone is, in a way, the phone of the future. Unfortunately, I can’t help feeling that it’s a kind of authoritarian, dystopian, science fiction future, in which technology is used to maintain the subservience of the huddled masses.
Last week, Steve ‘Reality Distortion Field’ Jobs announced the release of an SDK for the iPhone. In short, this allows programmers to write applications that run on the iPhone. That’s great! But it comes with some draconian restrictions, enforced by Apple as gatekeeper: you can only get programs onto the iPhone through Apple’s installation mechanism.
No porn, for example. That’s OK: maybe you don’t care about porn. Certainly, few people are going to stand up and complain. Besides, the iPhone already has a web browser. I think it’s a bit shortsighted, though, considering the influence of pornography in driving technical development throughout history.
No ‘illegal’ applications. What does that mean? I don’t know, but you can probably forget about getting MAME or another game system emulator on there.
No VoIP over EDGE. WiFi’s allowed—i.e., VoIP is permitted only when it isn’t competing with the mobile operator. That sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
No interpreters. That means no Ruby, Python, Perl, Lua or anything like that. No text adventure games, either.
Applications can’t run in the background. Correction: non-Apple applications can’t run in the background. So even if you do write that VoIP application that runs over WiFi, it’s not going to be able to receive many calls. Similarly, your Facebook utility can’t let you know that you have seventy-three invitations to play a game of mediaeval-scrabble-zombie-star-trek-am-I-hot-or-not.
If you sell an iPhone application, you have to let Apple take 30%. This is ‘to pay for running the app store’. You know, the one you have to use.
Developing ain’t free, either: you have to pay $99 to get the SDK (in fact, this charge is for the signing key; see the comments for a clarification) and be allowed to start developing an application. (On the plus side, the SDK does at least allow you to put your own programs onto your own iPhone.)
The iPhone is a useful, groundbreaking device, with an interface that is a genuine leap forward. But it’s also ruled by Apple’s iron fist: you can’t do anything with it that they haven’t specifically permitted. In direct opposition to Apple’s hip, progressive, individualistic image, the iPhone is, in fact, the embodiment of a cynical, illiberal, corporatist philosophy that treats the end user with contempt.
Fortunately, it’s still possible to jailbreak the iPhone, to escape Apple’s restricted walled garden and to use it in whatever way you wish. But it’s a game of cat and mouse, with Apple shutting down the loopholes as they are discovered.
There are even suggestions that Mac OS X on the desktop is also moving towards requiring all applications to be signed. Even if you can live with these kinds of restriction on your phone, how would you feel about your big computer being equally limited?
It’s not only governments that take away your freedom: consumer electronics manufacturers can do it too. Steve, why do you hate freedom?
2008-03-10 21:27 UTC. Comments: 8.
James Darling
Wrote at 2008-03-11 00:12 UTC using Unknown browser on Mac OS X:
slightly confused by this article.Granted, it’s an article agaisnt an Apple practice, and one may describe me as an “Apple Fanboy” if you believe such a term should exist.
And I will say it’s true, this is a concern. But why do you go along these lines of calling Apple Inc., the publicly owned corporation, “Steve”? And this piece isn’t exactly a thoughtful piece on why this decision was made, it’s pros and cons, and the pros and cons of any suggestions you may have.
It certainly creeps into FUD. So yes, it’s a good point, one that asks important questions of the future of our personal electronics, but it kind of got lost into an generic anti-Apple haze.
Nathan
Wrote at 2008-03-11 02:54 UTC using Safari 523.15 on Mac OS X:
You are correct about most of the things you state, but you do not have to pay 99 $’s for the sdk. I have the sdk right now for free.You pay 99 $’s for the developer certificate which allows you to run your app on a device (iphone or ipod) instead of just the emulator. Now I understand that this is a crucial part of the development process, but you are not actually paying for the sdk.
I do agree that is very different and is very constricting, but I think slow controlled growth in the number and complexity of applications will probably be better than just foisting anything and everything (in the long run). This will (for the time being) keep most viruses and crap apps out of the iphone ecosystem.
Paul Battley
Wrote at 2008-03-11 07:53 UTC using Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Linux:
Thanks for the clarification about the $99, Nathan. That’s a subtle but important difference.I understand your concerns about ‘crap’, but not about ‘foisting’ it. To me, it’s entirely reasonable that Apple runs a store and vets what’s available through there. That way, you can get software from Apple with confidence.
What I find restricting and odious is that it’s the only way to do it. You are, precisely, giving up liberty for security.
James: As to why I refer to Steve, it’s simple: he’s the top executive and public face of Apple, in the same way that Bill was for Microsoft for many years. He’s also, ultimately, the person responsible for the decisions of the company.
A corporation is not just some kind of invertebrate creature creeping blindly towards profit. It’s run by people, and it’s people who make the choices—and the buck stops with Steve Jobs.
If I attack Apple and Steve Jobs, it’s because they are responsible for these decisions—decisions I profoundly disagree with.
My suggestion, if it’s not obvious, would be for Apple to open up development of software so that anyone can write it and anyone can use it. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Clak
Wrote at 2008-03-11 11:46 UTC using Safari 523.15 on Mac OS X:
I hope “Steve” has more sense than to listen to you and the other freetards. If he listened to your stupid ideas, the iPhone would be about as stable as Windows Mobile and completely free. Because God forbid, Apple make any money off their device and actually control it in a way that’s beneficial to the user experience.James Darling
Wrote at 2008-03-11 12:34 UTC using Unknown browser on Mac OS X:
Clak’s response is exactly the sort of response I was expecting from the tone of your article. It’s going to fast descend into an irrational debate/name calling.Could we have this discussion again in a more mature, less Apple centric way.
Paul Battley
Wrote at 2008-03-11 13:08 UTC using Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Mac OS X:
I hardly think that’s fair. I didn’t invite ad hominem insults just by writing something negative about Apple’s strategy, though I could have predicted it: people justify themselves through their purchases, and it’s often cheapest (in time, money, and effort) to solve any cognitive dissonance by defending the company. This is especially true of Apple customers, but it’s not exclusive to them.Of course, I could just delete the offensive comment. I reserve that right, though I prefer not to use it.
Regardless of the risks, though, I’m not sure how one can discuss Apple’s closed-platform strategy without talking about Apple.
Paul Anthony
Wrote at 2008-03-11 18:09 UTC using Safari 523.15 on Mac OS X:
Howdy Paul, long time no speak.I personally think that Apple’s openness has been hindered by the mobile operators – but, they’re certainly making leeway in pushing the mobile industry forward, what with Visual Voicemail, unlimited data plans, and of course a truly next generation mobile device (barring 3G).
I couldn’t go so far as to say I disagree with Apple’s decision to act as the gatekeeper for new applications. This is a very early device, with a very early OS, and I imagine that if Apple were truly open with developers, they’d be inundated with security issues, memory clogging apps, etc.
For the average consumer, the cons of the “app store” are zero, and the iPhone is one of the biggest consumer devices available. I think that for now they’ve made the right decision, acknowledging the side-effects, like (probably) no VOIP, and interpreters/emulators.
I think that Steve’s a perfectionist, and doesn’t want people “stinking up his phone” so to speak, and that’s something I can identify with, and it’s been working pretty well so far.
I certainly hope for a more open future, and for the day Apple (and us all) are able to ditch mobile operators in favour of web-based solutions, like VOIP.
Ben R
Wrote at 2008-03-17 23:13 UTC using Safari 523.15 on Mac OS X:
Having worked for a mobile operator in the UK for a couple of years, and having gone through the pain of the negative consequences of however many billions the mobile industry paid for 3G licenses which they don’t know how to make back their money from (I took their redundancy money, thank you very much!), I don’t think we’re going to see Apple willingly making VoIP available on the iPhone. So much of the ‘restrictions’ that we see on the iphone are actually to do with the commercial sensitivities (and paranoid insecurities) of the mobile operators whose greatest fears are now being realised: they’re just a pipe for the delivery of data over wireless networks, voice is a commodity and will be charged for on a cost-plus (rather than retail-minus) basis, and they don’t know how to really make money from the ‘value-added’ services that they desperately need us to embrace if they’re going to make their 3G license money back. When I was at this particular mobile operator, we had the head of network operations running around saying we had to pull out of the auction because to break even we would have to get every one of our then-7-8m customers to pay two and a half times their average revenue per customer of £35. It was something like £85 we needed as the ARPU figure. So at a time when voice was becoming commoditised, they needed to find a way to encourage us to spend more on the ‘value-added’ services. What a joke. Mobile TV anyone? WAP? HSCSD? Repurposing TV news content for mobile devices? No thanks. The thing is, for true mobile VoIP to work, we need high quality ubiquitous wireless networks, and these cost money to build and operate. We can’t rely on a hotch-potch network of wifi networks that aren’t linked together and which are not reliable for mission-critical communication. Like it or not, we need the mobile operators to keep investing in their network so that we can take advantage of the sort of high-speed data services that the iphone enables. It’s these sorts of sensitivities that Apple has to consider when it opens up its phone to programmers. You can bet your bottom dollar that the mobile companies and their well-paid fat-cat lawyers will be watching their every move…