Apple Finally Realizes That NDAs For Developers Are A Bad Idea
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
It was definitely surprising to see Apple trying to enforce an NDA to stop iPhone developers from talking about their applications, so it's nice to see Apple (for once!) respond to the backlash by dropping the NDA. However, the company's explanation for why it had the NDA in the first place doesn't make much sense:
Either way, it's good that Apple has recognized that such NDA's significantly limit its developers. It's tough to have much of a developer "community" when said developers are barred from communicating.
We put the NDA in place because the iPhone OS includes many Apple inventions and innovations that we would like to protect, so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before. While we have filed for hundreds of patents on iPhone technology, the NDA added yet another level of protection. We put it in place as one more way to help protect the iPhone from being ripped off by others.It's unclear what "inventions and innovations" would be "stolen" (the company probably means infringed, not stolen, obviously) without such an NDA in place. Also, the patents are a separate issue. The whole explanation, frankly, is misleading. The NDA and the patents protect entirely different things in very different ways, and it's difficult to see how the lack of an NDA allows anything to be "ripped off."
Either way, it's good that Apple has recognized that such NDA's significantly limit its developers. It's tough to have much of a developer "community" when said developers are barred from communicating.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Everyone else left
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ah... not quite.
So if you're the developer of the game Trism, which is available on the App Store, you can discuss it and its code. You can also discuss and write about the currently shipping iPhone OS and its SDK (2.1).
Unreleased applications and SDK API's (2.2), however, are still bound under NDA, which basically works to prevent developers from disclosing new features and functionality before they've been officially announced.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ah... not quite.
So, for instance, the fellow whose podcasting app was rejected for competing with iTunes would be unable to disclose it because the NDA would apply.
Apple just keeps confirming for me why I don't need or want their products.
Woadan
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
FINALLY realizes?
After all, why the hell do you think new TVs, DVD players, PCs, browsers, game consoles, cell... ah, hell. You get the idea.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mixing Apples and Oranges...
This is an agreement to not disclose some proprietary information about Apple (in this case).
This is silly, the developers get documentation on the API (which is what Apple claims they need to NDA). APIs are doorways into your InnerWorks.
Apple is effectively saying that the doors to their building are secret, only a few thousand developers (and anyone else who is willing to purchase the SDK) are allowed to know where those doors are.
Yes, it sounds silly because the Apple NDA argument is silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Already public
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"so that others don't steal our work"
--
www.chl-tx.com Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest of the document is just wishful thinking.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "so that others don't steal our work"
How, again, is paying for something stealing?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment