Hasta La Gadget!

Plenty ink has already been spilled about the new restrictions in clause 3.3.1 of the new iPhone SDK terms of use. The new wording disallows developers to use third party, cross platform development tools (like Flash CS5) to build their apps, and plenty of folks (like Adobe) are angered by it. Now it seems Steve Jobs has chimed in as well. Developer Greg Slepak reached out to Steve, citing the large outpouring of negativity on the topic, including a post by John Gruber of Daring Fireball, who Greg calls Apple’s “biggest fan.” Steve apparently responded, citing a newer post by Gruber that explains Apple’s theoretical reasoning for locking down the platform like this. Steve called the post “very insightful.” When Greg replied, raising some very legitimate defense that highly popular, important apps like Mozilla Firefox are built with cross platform frameworks, Steve Jobs had a slightly less terse response:

We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.

On Greg’s blog he breaks down some of Gruber’s claims and makes a pretty compelling case for third party toolkits — important examples of which can be found all over the Mac and Windows landscape. We get the feeling his impassioned pleas, and the oft-bandied threat of developer migration, will fall on deaf ears at Apple as always, but at least he helps shape this debate somewhat, which will no doubt rage on for months and years to come. Check out the full conversation between Greg and Steve, including Greg’s final response, after the break.

Continue reading Steve Jobs responds directly to developer over new iPhone SDK rules, cites blog for explanation

Steve Jobs responds directly to developer over new iPhone SDK rules, cites blog for explanation originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:48:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Mashable  |  Tao Effect Blog (Greg), Daring Fireball (Gruber)  | Email this | Comments

If you make an app for the iPhone, it has to be done Apple’s way or the highway.

That’s the upshot of new iPhone developer rules, released Thursday without fanfare, even as Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced myriad details of the company’s new mobile operating system to a packed room of reporters.

The changes affect the so-called developer’s agreement required to access tools for building apps for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. They add significant new restrictions to software makers hoping to create products for Apple’s mobile devices, which happen to be among the most sought-after in the world. More than a billion apps have already been downloaded so far from Apple’s App Store, creating a billion-dollar software business nearly overnight. It’s also led media companies, including Wired.com owner Condé Nast, to make big bets on emerging platforms such as Apple’s iPad tablet.

With so much at stake, some software developers on Thursday bristled at the new agreement, which for the first time appears to bar any app built using “intermediary translation” tools, such as those made by Adobe, from running on its various mobile devices. Instead, apps must be written directly in Objective-C and other approved languages.

“So much for programming language innovation on the iPhone platform” said Joe Hewitt, developer of the Facebook iPhone app, via Twitter. “I’m upset because frankly I think Objective-C is mediocre and was excited about using other languages to make iPhone development fun again. It’s so hard to reconcile my love for these beautiful devices on my desk with my hatred for the ugly words in that legal agreement.”

Apple has exercised tight control from the start over the iPhone platform, at first refusing to provide a software developer kit, or SDK, of any kind. Under pressure, Jobs ultimately relented, spawning a massive outpouring of creativity. More than 150,000 apps have made their way to the App Store so far.

But Apple’s grip over the iPhone has not loosened — and on Thursday appeared to tighten considerably.

While the long-term implications of the policy change are not certain, immediate losers appear to be providers of software that translates applications built originally for other platforms, like the web, to run natively on the iPhone OS.

A number of companies have created tools offering flexibility to developers who wish to code in different languages and port their software into native iPhone apps. The best-known example of such a tool is Adobe’s Packager for iPhone. The tool lets people build apps using the company’s Flash development tool, then export those apps to an iPhone-native format so they can run on Apple’s mobile devices, which don’t support Flash.

The Packager for iPhone is in public beta now, but will be a part of Adobe Creative Suite 5 when it’s released later this spring.

Adobe’s Creative Suite is widely used by the publishing industry and by videogame designers, and Apple’s new rule throws a wrench into their plans to publish iPad and iPhone versions of their magazines, newspapers and games using Adobe’s tools.

Other cross-compilers (as they’re known) are made by smaller companies like Appcelerator, which are scrambling at the news of Apple’s latest curveball.

“It seems like it will be difficult for Adobe to get around this restriction,” said Ross Rubin, an NPD analyst, regarding the updated iPhone developer agreement. “Apple wants to ensure developers use the technologies exposed in its tools and wants to avoid being an assimilated platform. It extends the Flash ban and says Apple is willing to risk doing without certain content rather than ceding control to Adobe.”

Apple did not return e-mails or phone calls seeking comment.

“We are aware of the new SDK language and are looking into it,” an Adobe spokesman said in a statement e-mailed to Gadget Lab. “We continue to develop our Packager for iPhone OS technology, which we plan to debut in Flash CS5.”

The policy change comes amid a chilling in relations between Apple and Adobe. Addressing his staff shortly after announcing the iPad, Jobs railed against Flash, calling it buggy. He also threw barbs at Adobe for being “lazy,” as first reported by Wired.com.

In the past, Apple’s agreement stipulated that applications “may only use documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple” and barred the use of private APIs.

The same portion of the new iPhone Developer Program License Agreement now reads:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

Additional reporting by Wired.com’s Michael Calore.

See Also:

• Flash Lands on iPhone — One App at a Time
• HTML5 for iPad Won’t Kill Flash, But Could Change Apps
• Apple Video Shows iPad Flash Support, But Don’t Believe It
• Why Apple Won’t Allow Adobe Flash on iPhone
• 5 Features the Apple Tablet Definitely Won’t Have — But Should
• Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra is ‘Bullshit,’ Adobe Is Lazy: Apple’s Steve Jobs

The iPhone community has reacted strongly to the Wired.com report that some app-review sites have pay-to-play policies.

Last week Gadget Lab reported on payola practices prevalent at several websites dedicated to reviewing iPhone apps. At least two authors of one site, TheiPhoneAppReview.com, recently required money from iPhone developers in exchange for reviews.

Those demands were at odds with TheiPhoneAppReview.com’s stated policy, which says that it only requires a fee for “expedited” reviews — those that are reviewed sooner than others.

Several developers responded to our story by promising to avoid sites with such policies. Jeff Campbell, owner of Tapestry Apps, pledged to blacklist pay-to-play websites and urged other developers to do so as well. Alexandra Peters, community manager of Firemint, which develops the popular iPhone game Flight Control, also said she would avoid sending news releases to pay-to-play sites.

“I encourage fellow developers to publicly pledge their intent to not support these sites by succumbing to their pay-to-play schemes,” wrote Jeff Campbell, owner of Tapestry Apps, in a blog post this week. “The sooner that well of income dries up, the sooner these guys might move on to more journalistically sound practices. Tapestry is willing to make that pledge.”

Paid reviews are not illegal, but critics of the practice say requiring money in exchange for reviews inevitably creates a conflict of interest and brings a publication’s credibility into question. Rich Cleland, a member of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told Wired.com last week that he frowns on the practice because a paid review can very easily be the same as a paid advertisement. Payment can induce a more favorable evaluation, and consumers, as a result, may be misled into purchasing a product based on a falsely positive review that was bought, he explained.

The FTC in October 2009 issued guidelines requiring bloggers to provide disclosure on reviews whenever goods, such as money or gifts, are exchanged. TheiPhoneAppReview.com and other sites covered by Wired.com disclose their “expedited review” fees in FAQs.

Some app-review websites responded to Wired.com’s coverage as well. Nine new websites have signed up to become part of the Organization for App Testing Standards (OATS), a set of ethical guidelines that rejects payment for reviews, according to Jeff Scott, owner of the app-review site 148Apps and co-creator of OATS.

Apple news publication Macworld, which owns an app-review website called AppGuide, is the latest OATS member. Jason Snell, editorial director of Macworld and a former journalism teacher at UC Berkeley, said the publication already follows “old-school journalistic practices,” so it was easy to join OATS.

“In the end, it’s all about being as transparent as possible so readers can make up their own minds about who to trust, and about not posing as something you’re not,” Snell said. “Readers need to know that true editorial reviews are fair, and aren’t the product of any quid pro quo involving money or any other favors…. People need to know where the opinions they’re reading are coming from.”

Wired.com’s article also sparked some debate among review websites. Michael Vallez, owner of the app-review site Crazy Mike’s Apps, said he charges for reviews, and he does not guarantee positive ratings.

“I provide more than a paid review, and I do not guarantee any positive reviews and have returned developers’ monies, because frankly their apps were horrible,” Vallez said.

Vallez added that websites that charge for advertising of iPhone apps, or benefit from affiliate links to iPhone apps, have financial ties as well.

In response to that argument, Macworld’s Snell said traditional media businesses build walls between editorial and advertising departments so advertising clients cannot influence coverage. He also said the actual dollar amounts from affiliate links are tiny, and that information is also walled off from editorial operations.

“I think it’s a ridiculous, slippery-slope argument — but hey, the payola sites have to find some way to try and hide their shame,” Snell said. “Maybe they should argue that any site that takes advertising is fundamentally compromised. But let’s visit reality: We live in a society with commercial media businesses. The way we’ve traditionally solved this conflict is by building walls between editorial and business, so that sales people can sell ads endlessly but the editors don’t even know who the advertisers are, and don’t care.”

In the journalism industry, the ethical debate surrounding pay-to-play operations has been longstanding, said Kenneth Pybus, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at Abilene Christian University. However, he said undisclosed paid reviews are indisputably unethical because they manipulate the public.

“I don’t think it’s defensible to fail to disclose that,” Pybus said. “That’s an easy call to say it’s ethically wrong because that is a disservice to readers. It ought to be information that applies to readers and not information that advances yourself financially.”

See Also:

• Pay to Play: Some iPhone App Sites Demand Money for Reviews
• iPhone Developer May Be Bribing Reviewers
• Ad Exec: Payola Can Save Webcasters, Music Business
• FCC, Broadcasters Agree to Anti-Payola Guidelines

Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

Apple on Friday said it would begin accepting submissions for iPad apps next week to launch with the grand opening of the iPad App Store.

Apple’s e-mail, provided to Wired.com by a developer who asked to remain anonymous, told developers to submit their apps by March 27, 5 p.m. PT if they wished to release their apps when the iPad lands April 3.

“You will also receive additional information about submitting your app for final review before iPad ships,” Apple’s e-mail stated. “Only apps submitted for the initial review will be considered for the grand opening of the iPad App Store.”

With the iPad launch just days away, we’re sure to see a wealth of brand-new tablet apps from developers eager to get a head start. Most of those developers, however, are coding in the dark, because they haven’t actually seen the device yet.

BusinessWeek on Friday reported that a select group of developers who have worked with the iPad had promised to keep the device isolated in a room with blacked-out windows. Apple also required them to sign a 10-page pact swearing not to disclose any information about the iPad.

Apple has only granted a few developers the privilege of using an iPad to help make their apps, according to BusinessWeek. Some major developers, including Evernote, have been rejected when they requested access to iPads for testing.

That creates a reverse conundrum for the Apple developer community. When the iPhone 3G and the App Store launched in July 2008, many apps were riddled with bugs, because developers were still getting familiar with the new iPhone OS 2.0 software development kit — but at least the original iPhone was available for testing. With the iPad, the situation has flip-flopped: Developers have experience with the iPhone SDK, but most have never touched an iPad.

And that means developers are coding apps that fit a tablet screen without any hands-on testing to gauge whether their interface is suitable for the iPad experience. Apple provides an emulator for testing iPad apps, but that won’t be the same as actually using the app with a large, multitouch screen.

Even Apple seems to have already been challenged by its own product. A few weeks ago I pointed out that some default iPhone apps — Calculator, Clock and Stocks, for example — are conspicuously missing from the iPad, according to press releases and images. Later, Daring Fireball’s John Gruber cited tipsters who explained that Steve Jobs scrapped the iPad versions of those apps.

“Ends up that just blowing up iPhone apps to fill the iPad screen looks and feels weird, even if you use higher-resolution graphics so that nothing looks pixelated,” Gruber wrote. “It wasn’t a technical problem, it was a design problem.”

In theory, making games for the iPad shouldn’t be as difficult. Games resized for a higher resolution might just work out fine. Designing iPad apps in general, however, will likely be a new art that developers — and even Apple programmers — fine-tune over time.

See Also:

• 5 Apps We Can’t Wait to See on the iPad
• The Wired Tablet App: A Video Demonstration
• Will the iPad Be Missing a Few iPhone Apps?
• Rumor: Some iPhone Apps Scrapped From iPad by Steve Jobs

If you can’t pitch the press, pay them. That’s the proposition some review sites have for publicity-starved iPhone developers.

Several websites dedicated to iPhone app reviews are requesting payments from developers in exchange for writeups of their apps, Wired.com has learned. Those payments are not always clearly disclosed to readers, and the practice hasn’t received much discussion outside of gaming blogs.

Soliciting money in exchange for a product review is not illegal, but the practice should raise questions about the credibility and independence of the review sites, critics say.

“They prey on people who need exposure,” said Oliver Cameron, developer of the popular iPhone app Postman, who has avoided pitching his apps to sites that request payment for reviews. “It strikes me as a paid ad, really. They never seem to actually ‘review’ it.”

The two sites that were most frequently mentioned by programmers who contacted Wired.com were TheiPhoneAppReview.com and AppCraver.com. Both sites appear in the top four Google search results for the search term “iPhone app review.”

With more than 150,000 apps in the iPhone App Store, rising above the crowd is a major challenge for developers. Getting a good review on the web can help drive sales and that, in turn, can raise an app’s profile within the App Store. While apps that earn their creators hundreds of thousands of dollars are rare, they do exist, and many developers seek publicity in hopes of achieving this dream.

Driven by that demand, app review websites are offering to “expedite” reviews — that is, bring apps to the front of the review queue — in exchange for a fee. But at least one site, ThePhoneAppReview.com, has gone even further, and threatened to shun products whose developers haven’t paid for reviews.

The iPhone App Review told independent developer Michael D’Ulisse it would not review his app Pocket Labeler at all unless he paid a fee of $25. The demand is at odds with the website’s About section, which implies that fees only apply to reviews that are expedited. D’Ulisse provided a copy of an e-mail from a site editor:

I would be interested in writing a review and having it on our website (www.theiphoneappreview.com). We do charge a $25 fee for reviews (this is used to compensate our authors), so the decision is yours. If you want a review written, but have no promo codes left, I can purchase the app and add the price of the app into your invoice. Let me know either way. Thanks!

–Sarah Parker
The iPhone App Review

D’Ulisse noted that on a separate occasion in November 2009, he received the same e-mail response from The iPhone App Review when he distributed press releases for his app 2,001 Easy Gifts.

“So you’ve got a reviewer, and she’s an editor at the site who wants to use my app personally but will not post a review on her site unless I give her $25,” D’Ulisse wrote. “What happened to journalistic integrity?”

The iPhone App Review’s editor-in-chief Shaun Campbell said he was unaware that his site’s writers were requesting payment in exchange for reviews. He explained that the reviewers work autonomously, so he is unsure of how they’re paid by app creators. As of this writing, The iPhone App Review’s About section remains unchanged, stating that fees only apply to expedited app reviews.

“I have never once sent a request for a fee to a developer to review their app,” Campbell told Wired.com. “That is not our policy, which is why that is not stated in the About.”

Campbell said that his site’s policy is to offer expedited service in exchange for a fee because with the gigantic number of apps in the App Store, it would be an “impossible task to review all the apps we receive, paid or unpaid.” He added that very few talented writers would be willing to review iPhone apps for free and that providing payment ensures quality work.

“The iPhone App Review is not a PR charity,” Campbell said. “We’re a business, and like in any business, there are costs that need to be recovered.”

Requiring payment for product reviews is not illegal, but the Federal Trade Commission has frowned on the practice. The commission believes a paid review can easily be the same as a paid advertisement, and consumers as a result may be misled into purchasing a product based on a falsely positive evaluation that was bought.

To address the issue, the FTC in October 2009 published revised guidelines governing endorsements for bloggers, requiring bloggers to provide disclosure whenever a review is written in exchange for money or gifts.

Rich Cleland of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said he could not comment on specific websites, because they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. He said that in general, so long as payments are disclosed clearly and accurately, it is not considered misleading to the public.

“If a consumer knows that a producer pays for the review to appear, the consumer can make up their own mind to what extent that affects the credibility of the review,” Cleland told Wired.com in a phone interview. “From our perspective, the primary issue is not the payment but the disclosure of the payment.”

Still, paid reviews should raise questions about a publication’s credibility, he added.

“It’s reasonable to assume that a significant number of consumers wouldn’t give the same level of credibility to something they thought was a paid review versus something they thought was an independent review,” Cleland said.

Every time a review is written in exchange for pay, it should be explicitly disclosed on that review, Cleland said. Paid reviews on The iPhone App Review do not include such a disclosure in the text of the review.

AppCraver.com also seeks payment for expedited reviews. Lore Sjöberg, Wired.com’s Alt Text columnist, said he submitted his iPhone app The Cyborg Name Decoder to AppCraver.com for review, and in response the site offered to expedite a review of his app for $150. The letter included a promise to contact Sjöberg “prior to publishing a review that scores lower than 5/10.”

The e-mail also offered Sjöberg the opportunity to buy an advertisement on the site, along with the promise that every advertised app would also receive an editorial review.

AppCraver did not respond to Wired.com’s request for comment. However, it’s worth noting that AppCraver has, in some reviews, disclosed when reviews are “expedited,” providing a link to the site’s policy about paid expedited reviews, which states, “Simply put, an Expedited Review is one where the developer paid to move to the front of the line. Developers can NOT buy a good score.”

Not all iPhone app review sites require money or gifts in exchange for write-ups. The creators of app review sites 148Apps and Slide to Play authored a set of ethical standards called Organization for App Testing Standards, or OATS, that they hope other sites will commit and adhere to.

“Steve and I created OATS out of our concern for the lack of ethics when we started seeing more and more of these sites,” said Jeff Scott of 148Apps. “While we strive to stick to standard practices of editorial integrity, there are others that seem to operate under a very different set of morals,” said Scott.

Slide to Play’s Steve Palley said paid reviews are detrimental to the community of iPhone developers and customers.

“Paid reviews damage our entire ecosystem because they harm consumers, period, full stop,” Palley told Wired.com in an e-mail. “People who think they are reading objective reviews are going to be disappointed after taking paid ‘advice.’”

Added Palley, “We decided that we needed to do something to put a stop to it.”

The FTC’s Cleland said that if blogs are not clearly or honestly disclosing payments for reviews, consumers can file complaints to the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).

Update: 2:30 p.m. PDT — Matt Marquez, a Mac Directory editor, has published a post about his experience applying for a job at The iPhone App Review, in which Campbell said all writers were required to charge a fee to developers for reviews.

Update: March 19, 10 p.m. PDT: — The Today in iPhone podcast has posted another e-mail showing a The iPhone App Review author requesting payment in exchange for a review last month — with no mention of expedited service. The PayPal ID listed for sending payments is Shaun Campbell.

See Also:

• Apple Expels 1000 Apps From Store After Developer Scam
• iPhone Developer May Be Bribing Reviewers
• For the iPhone’s App Store, Quantity Really Does Matter
• With More Than Enough Apps, Apple Pushes for Quality
• The State of Mobile App Stores Summarized in Charts

Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com