Recently, the Electronic Freedom Foundation posted the previously secret iPhone Developer Program License Agreement – a contract that apparently all iPhone app developers are required to click-sign before using Apple’s iPhone Software Development Kit. Though a provision of the Agreement prohibits disclosure of its contents, EFF gained access by requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act, which mandates disclosure of government documents in order to promote open government, when NASA published an iPhone app. Federal law trumped Apple’s restriction and NASA turned over the Agreement. Key provisions include (at least as of the time of the released contract) (via EFF):
- Developers are banned from making public statements about the terms of the Agreement.
- Apps developed with the SDK can only be publicly distributed through the App Store and at Apple’s discretion.
- Reverse engineering (including what is considered fair use under copyright law) is prohibited.
- Developers cannot create an application or program that would interfere with any Apple product, not just the iPhone.
- Apple’s liability to a developer is limited to $50.
- Apple can revoke/kill an App at any time.
Google’s Android Software Development Kit License Agreement is very different from its iPhone counterpart. Not only is there no ban on public statements, but the Agreement is itself publicly available online. In addition, as we knew, developers don’t have to distribute apps through the Android Market or get Google’s pre-approval if they do (though Google can remove an app if it’s a security risk or violates the Agreement). If developers don’t use the Market, Google doesn’t take a cut of the profits.
These differences can significantly affect development of the smartphone ecosystem. On one hand there is the iPhone walled garden, aesthetic and secure but limited; on the other is the wide world of Android, with great potential for variety but also unknown risks, where rules exist, but enforcement is responsive, not preemptive.
Both models may end up coexisting, each phone attracting its own set of users. Those choosing Android would be willing potentially to sacrifice some security – or take some responsibility for ensuring that what they install on their phone is safe – for novel functions and greater utility, not to mention the cutting-edge cool apps. iPhone users would opt for a carefully curated set of verified apps at the expense of the most innovative, and riskiest, apps. Apps that are both useful and safe may transition between platforms, established on Android and subsequently accepted on a case-by-case basis for the iPhone. Apple may use Android as a testing ground to prove the security of apps that violate iPhone’s strict guidelines but are useful enough to warrant an exception.
Conversely, one of the models may be adopted entirely, the other fading from prominence into history. For Android to prevail, developers must continue to grow the Market and users judge innovation worth the security risks. Google itself can maximize this tradeoff by encouraging good apps and vigilantly removing dangerous ones. But it also requires developers and users to take some responsibility. Developers by self-policing can prevent the Market from turning into a minefield for users, both by designing secure apps themselves and using the developer community forums to maintain standards across developers within the Market. Users will have to think before they download and provide feedback to the Market should something go wrong (or right) that can be incorporated into the decisions of other users. In this scenario, Android would supersede the iPhone much as the Internet replaced AOL and CompuServe.
Alternatively, the iPhone may poach Android to extinction by pilfering all the best apps that Android has tested, leaving only the harmful or useless apps in Android’s exclusive domain. Or one of JZ’s concerns may materialize – the government may realize the potential for easy control and mandate tethering or users may prefer security to generativity and choose to be penned and shepherded by Apple.
It will be interesting to see how all the players – Apple, Google, developers, users, governments, and watchdogs – influence which story prevails. Right now, the divergence between the paths forged by Apple and Google is broad. Will the future follow one or strike out down some middle ground?
–by Jennifer Halbleib
Related posts:
