Mike Ash at Rogue Amoeba has published his fairly extensive thoughts on Apple's code signing policies and plans, as well as how they relate to the iPhone SDK. He makes some solid points and elaborates on thoughts that are being bandied about elsewhere on the 'net. In his critique of some points in the iPhone SDK announcement, his concerns regarding the "banned" iPhone apps are quite valid, in my opinion. Out of the list of apps to be denied (illegal, malicious, unforeseen, privacy, porn and bandwidth hog), he picks out a couple that are of concern. In regards to the issue of "porn", he notes that "...Apple is making moral judgements of the apps they sign." To me, it seems like Apple chose the safe option and just categorically denied materials that could sully their reputation, which I personally think was a good (if not obvious) choice. But the question arises, as it always does, about the definition of porn and obscenity... and who makes the call. Apple, as gatekeeper, gets to make those decisions for all of us. I can see some torrid debates arising in the future.
Also of particular (and potentially more controversial) concern is the category "unforeseen," which provides a fairly broad scope for Apple to add to the list later. Again, it's likely a smart decision on Apple's part and a good way of sealing off loopholes without making the list read like a legal contract (see "License Agreement"), but leaves open the option for some heavy-handed control over what you can put on your iPhone.
Of course, this initial list is incomplete, with restrictions outlined in the SDK license agreement (as pointed out in Rogue Amoeba's subsequent post). If you take an interest in this debate, be sure to check out Mike's post, "Code Signing and You."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
3-11-2008 @ 12:38PM
Skoalbandit said...
oh noes we can't make a porn app!!! To bad there is no way to play video or surf the web with this 'iphone'....
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 12:44PM
jus10 said...
Well, I think the list also includes an unwritten but general, "Nothing that Apple obviously wouldn't like".
As notorious as Mr. Block's question to Steve at the March 6th event was, an unlock app for the iPhone isn't "illegal, malicious, unforeseen, privacy, porn and bandwidth hog".
Now I grant you Steve's response was a given but I hadn't seen anything where it said you explicitly couldn't create an unlock. And hey, if they were allowing VoIP maybe they would let you have your cake and eat it too? Oh well.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 1:49PM
Brett Terpstra said...
I had that thought after my hasty response. I'll let cooler heads prevail :).
3-11-2008 @ 1:50PM
Brett Terpstra said...
Sorry, that was meant for Peter (next thread).
3-11-2008 @ 8:02PM
Tony said...
They're not really allowing VOIP. That requires a background task to listen for incoming calls - forbidden by the SDK rules.
You could make a VOIP app that's outgoing only I guess. Just hope the person on the other end isn't using an iphone!
3-11-2008 @ 1:00PM
DM said...
Good grief!! I for one am THANKFUL that Apple won't allow porn! Are you REALLY that messed up that you need it on your phone??!!!
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 1:07PM
Brett Terpstra said...
"...which I personally think was a good (if not obvious) choice"
"the question arises, as it always does, about the definition of porn and obscenity"
"I can see some torrid debates arising in the future."
*racking brain to figure out how this translates to being personally messed up and whether it's worth commenting on*
3-11-2008 @ 1:24PM
AC said...
It's not a matter of where one wants something, but rather how is such material defined to be pornography, and by whom.
Is a Christine Aguilera video porn?
Is a Rubens nude?
James Joyce's novels?
Or the statue of Justice with the bare breast that Ashcroft deemed to cover-up?
Or the version of Grand Theft Auto that Rockstar makes for the iPhone?
The issue is if we know it when we see it, who's the "we" that makes the decision? And what exactly did we see?
3-11-2008 @ 1:46PM
Peter Zich said...
Brett, I think he means the general "you" being readers of the post, not you specifically.
3-11-2008 @ 9:08PM
robogobo said...
yes. yes I do.
3-11-2008 @ 1:14PM
Kraig said...
Apple acting as a gatekeeper isn't any different than say Sony keeping porn off of the Playstation. And "torrid debates"? Seriously, most people creating an app are going to know if it's going to fly or not.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 1:30PM
conigs said...
I have to question these two quotes attributed to Apple in the background section:
"SIgning [sic] your code is not elective for Leopard. You are *expected* to do this, and your code will increasingly be forced into legacy paths as the system moves towards an “all signed” environment. You may choose to interpret our transitional aids as evidence that we’re not really serious. That is your decision. I do not advise it."
http://lists.apple.com/archives/apple-cdsa/2008/Mar/msg00009.html
"In order to achieve the nirvana of only running valid code, the system must completely refuse to run unsigned code. Since that would really have ruined third party developers’ Leopard experience, we don’t do that in Leopard (except for the Parental Controls and firewall cases, where we surreptitiously sign unsigned programs when they are “enabled” to run).
Eventually you will all have signed your recent releases, and we’ll have fixed all the (important) bugs and closed all the (important) holes, and a switch will materialize to this effect - to refuse (at the kernel level) to run any code that isn’t valid."
http://lists.apple.com/archives/apple-cdsa/2008/Mar/msg00007.html
While I agree that there is evidence of mandatory code signing requirements in future OSes, these comments don't appear to be from Apple except that they are on an Apple mailing list. I can't imagine Apple would let an employee post as "Perry The Cinic."
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 2:21PM
Zimmie said...
"Perry the Cynic" is a very well-known Apple employee on the CDSA mailing list. There are several others who have far stranger pen names. Quinn the Eskimo comes to mind.
3-11-2008 @ 2:42PM
conigs said...
Zimmie- Thanks for the clarification. I can't say I read the lists very much.
I was just a little surprised by some of the language used in the posts that sounded pretty unofficial and even unprofessional. Coupled with the odd name, it didn't seem like he was an employee.
3-11-2008 @ 6:08PM
Zimmie said...
Well, it's more that when you're one of the best resources for something, you aren't expected to be soft and friendly so much as accurate. What he said in those posts is the state of Mac OS X currently and where it is currently expected to go. Sugar-coating is for sales and management, not the people who know the technology.
Yeah, he can be a bit abrasive at times, but he also knows what he's talking about.
3-11-2008 @ 1:36PM
cashmonee said...
I think Apple has taken the right approach here. I don't know about you guys, but the last thing I want is the nightmare that is Windows Mobile. No phone should need a task manager!
With the choice Apple has made, we can be fairly sure that the apps released will not undermine the iPhone experience.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 1:46PM
Mike said...
The bigger concern with a wireless device (especially a phone) would be malware. If a virus or trojan got loose and wirelessly transmitted itself from iPhone to iPhone, the results could be catastrophic. I, for one, am extremely happy that Apple has locked down the iPhone so securely, and if I want porn on my iPhone, there are an infinite number of websites to get from.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 1:48PM
Mystic said...
Debates about if porn should be allowed on the apps site? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! Why aren't you idiots also fighting for XXX movies on iTMS? I have nothing against porn, but if Apple doesn't want it on their store, then I think that's probably a good business decision.
Reply
3-11-2008 @ 2:41PM
Brian said...
Why aren't you idiots also fighting for XXX movies on iTMS?
Well, if iTunes and QuickTime would *only* play movies from iTMS then similar issues would arise.
3-11-2008 @ 3:49PM
Joe said...
If you have nothing against porn, why are you calling your adversaries idiots? Clearly you have something against porn and you feel that anybody who wants it to exist is an idiot. You also feel that they shouldn't even be able to discuss it anyplace you may come across it.
Nobody is saying you have to like it. But you should respect people who like something you may not see any value in, because it's their choice.