If you work for Apple, we need your help...

So, it's been a week. The iPhone 3G was released, and the iPhone 2.0 software upgrade shipped. We can now all write applications that will run on what is undeniably a cool platform. You can even download the iPhone SDK for free.

We love Apple stuff. Andy and I both run Macs as our main machines (at last count, I have 8 Macs in my home). When the App Store was announced, we were keen to spread the word. We have a new book on iPhone software development. We have a brand new section in Bill Dudney's Core Animation book. And Mike Clark has a set of screencasts on how to write code for the little fella.

And we can't show you any of them.

Why? Because in order to get the iPhone SDK, you have to agree to the terms and conditions—you know, that standard box of legalese that you skip over before pressing I AGREE. Except, in this case, the legalese has some unfortunate consequences. For example, it says:

3. Confidentiality. As a Registered iPhone Developer, you may be receiving information from Apple. You agree that all information disclosed by Apple to you that relates to Apple's products, designs, business plans, business opportunities, finances, research, development, know-how, personnel, or third-party confidential information, will be considered and referred to collectively as "Confidential Information." ..... You agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Confidential Information to anyone other than to other Registered iPhone Developers who are employees and contractors working for the same entity as you and then only to the extent that Apple does not otherwise prohibit such disclosure in this Agreement. Except for your authorized purposes as a Registered iPhone Developer, you agree not to use Confidential Information in any way, including, without limitation, for your own or any third party's benefit without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Apple in each instance.

Then, later on, it says

10. Use Of Apple Trademarks, Logos, etc. You agree to follow Apple's Guidelines For Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights as published on Apple's website at www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html and as may be modified from time to time. You agree not to use the marks "Apple," the Apple Logo, "iPhone," "iPod touch" or any other marks belonging or licensed to Apple in any way except as expressly authorized in writing by Apple in each instance.

So, to write a book about the iPhone SDK, you have to download it. In order to download it, you have to accept the agreement. And the agreement says that the download will contain confidential information that you can't pass on to third parties. That makes it hard to publish the book. And, if that wasn't enough, it also appears that you can't even use the word "iPhone" (for example, in a book title).

We'd hoped these restrictions would be lifted at the announcement of the 3G. They weren't. We'd hoped they'd be lifted when the 2.0 software shipped last week. They weren't. We'd heard rumors they'd be lifted on July 14th. They weren't. And, what's worse, we can't pin down anyone who'll tell us just what is going on.

We're not the only people in this particular boat. Manning, for example, has an iPhone development book. They've published the part on doing web-based iPhone development (using the iPhone as a browser), but they're having to hold back the SDK-related material.

So, here's where you can help. If you work for Apple, and have any ideas on who we can contact to find out what's going on, we'd really appreciate knowing. We'll keep your personal information confidential. Just drop me an e-mail at dave@pragprog.com.

Thanks

Dave

Comments

[anon]

Sounds like poetic justice if you ask me. This is what you get with a locked-down platform.

[Trotter]

@Jeffseters: Dave is a real publisher. He's trying to take care of it and is looking for help.

[Pecos Bill]

Send a note to sjobs@apple.com and one of his staff will get back to you.

I would presume their guidelines offer standard TM usage (attribution is the biggie).

As for the confidential info, usually, once something is released (like Mac OS X Leopard), the confidentiality requirement is gone. Not sure how this one is different. Again, this is where his staff might help as it is in their interest to get developers working on well written code.

[eitan]

i can already see it.. "apple sues manning for using the word "iPhone" in their book 'iPhone in action'." wait a minute..i just published this comment, in which i used the word iPhone. time for me to get a lawyer.. :-)

[Lyle Johnson]

Dave, have you talked to Laurent Sansonetti about this, to see if he can escalate the issue? He seems to be the lead for all things Ruby in OS X and so he might be sympathetic to the cause.

[Jeffsters]

He's a "real" publisher? My publisher is SAMS and IDG Books and my Agency is Studio B and they've always taken care of working with the vendor to clear up issues like this and have the contacts within the PR departments to make this happen. That is where you need to talk Apple's PR dept, perhaps Natalie?

[addicted]

Glad you bring this to attention Dave. However, I think it would be completely stupid of Apple to prevent books about iphone programming from being written. Which simply means they did not really delve into the consequences of this legalese, with all the other stuff they have going (you know, releasing a brand new phone, mobile development platform, cloud service within a span of a week...).

Again, I am glad you brought this in the open, but your positive move has the unfortunate side effect of feeding trolls who dont even have the courage to sign their own name (or pseudonym)

[addicted]

Out of curiosity. Does Apple define or list "Authorized purposes of a Registered Iphon Developer"? Is it possible that writing a book on programming the iphone is considered an authorized purpose? And would this override the "agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Confidential Information" statement?

[Darren Kopp]

Dude, that could be the easiest book ever.

Chapter 5: Communication
Now, imagine how you would write some communication code to use the 's 3G capabilities. And there you have it, a fully functioning communication base to take advantage of the 's 3G speeds.

Chapter 6:....

[Darren Kopp]

bah, curse type pad. it splices out "less than" and "greater than signs" so my above comment should read ... "product name redacted"'s 3G capabilities.

[Bryan Payne]

Maybe instead of whining about this, you should actually do some legwork and contact Apple's PR and Legal departments directly to find out the real answer.

[Dave Thomas]

Brian:

Sorry if it seems like whining. We've been trying to get information out of Apple for the last 6 weeks, but have not found anyone willing to say something more definitive than “we're discussing it.” I thought maybe I'd be able to get a more direct dialog going with Apple by asking insiders for the names of people to contact directly.

Regards

Dave

[.]

Who ever could have guessed that developing on proprietary platforms could have restrictions? And from Apple no less?

[roz]

When I read this restrictions only apply to Confidential Information. Have you actually looked to see what is confidential?

[UncleOxidant]

Such are the perils of working with a proprietary system with draconian restrictions in the license.
Look, I'm not a GPL fanatic and I'm no RMS fanboy, but I wouldn't want to build a business around a piece of tech like this and hope that the company controlling that tech will suddenly become more lenient.

...maybe you could change the title to something like:

"Developing applications for that hot new phone thingy from that computer company named after a common fruit"

And then do something to obfuscate the names of all the API calls... good luck.

[Jon Dahl]

Roz: "all information disclosed by Apple to you that relates to Apple's products, designs, business plans, business opportunities, finances, research, development, know-how, personnel, or third-party confidential information, will be considered and referred to collectively as 'Confidential Information.'" Basically: everything.

I'm not a lawyer, but I see this kind of thing all the time in NDAs and contracts. Overshoot the terms and negotiate down from there. Of course, an individual can't negotiate terms and conditions like this; it's Agree or Disagree.

Thanks for talking about this, Dave! Maybe some buzz will make something happen.

[UncleOxidant]

Dave,

Publish a book like this for the OpenMoko phone:

http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page

You wouldn't face any restrictions of any kind were you to do that. I'd buy a book like that.

[Cody Brimhall]

@UncleOxidant:

I feel like you (and a lot of others) are over-simplifying the situation. Apple has an established infrastructure for supporting 3rd-party development on top of its other technologies, and seems so obviously in their best interests to help 3rd-parties write the best apps possible for their shiny new systems. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are suffering yet another complete failure to communicate effectively with developers, and I believe that a lot of Mac developers, having grown accustomed to the way developer relations work on the Mac, assumed the same, and have waited patiently for the SDK to come out of beta. The logical point at which to drop the NDA is passed, and it's time for Apple to get its message straight and say what's going on.

It would be a monumental disappointment if it turns out that Apple is deliberately screwing the 3rd-parties that are trying to add value to its platform. But as the another great megalomaniac once said, "never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." After all, what's the economic benefit of telling developers to stuff it?

[UncleOxidant]

@Cody:

"The logical point at which to drop the NDA is passed, and it's time for Apple to get its message straight and say what's going on."

From your perspective the "logical point at which to drop the NDA has passed". I'm not so sure that Apple feels the same. It's pretty clear from their actions that they want to retain a lot of control over this platform.

Yes, it's a cool platform, but I wouldn't waste any time trying to develop for it (or develop 3rd party docs) until Apple actually does demonstrate that they are willing to cede some control here. I do not think they really want to - This goes right up to Jobs, you can bet on it, and he's the ultimate control freak.

[Bryan Payne]

@Dave Thomas:

I take back my response then. Nowhere in the original post did you mention you had already tried to do this, it really just sounded like a whiny entitlement issue that you hadn't already done legwork on.

[gfdgfd]

"Publish a book like this for the OpenMoko phone:

http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page

You wouldn't face any restrictions of any kind were you to do that. I'd buy a book like that."

You and no one else in the entire world

[Michael Terry]

LOL @ Bryan Payne

Great, and now you've found out you were wrong. Actually, you made a fairly stupid assumption, but you know what they say about people who make assumptions.

[Rip Ragged]

As a lifelong member of the The Apple Fanboy Society, I sincerely hope this is just a lingering "beta" thing that will evaporate as soon as Apple realizes the problem.

Apple would have to be monumentally stupid to deliberately hamstring developers and future developers this way. Frankly, that seems unlikely.

[Dave Thomas]

@UncleOxidant:

I played with the Moko last weekend—very nice (if a bit slow). I'd love to have a book on it, if anyone's interested in writing one.

Dave

[Barry Kelly]

The contrast with MS is pretty clear: Ballmer - "Developers, developers, developers" etc. What's the equivalent for Apple? The closest I can think is "trendy consumers who like faux-boutique mass-market stores", i.e. "posers"? Probably doesn't translate well to the US anyhow.

I don't like Apple software, I don't like their closed platforms and I trust them less than Microsoft. I think they're too jealous to let developers get too much power.