Oh, in that case it's even easier because Apple could add a clause saying that app licenses override the default App Store EULA if they are more permissive.
I don’t know the legalities, but I think Apple should be free to set their App Store policies but allow alternative app stores to be installed (with some hoops to jump through so that it isn’t too easy for the tech-blind to do).
There's nothing stopping Apple (or any other app store vendor) from creating a middle ground, by requiring third parties to agree in advance to a strong set of data-handling and privacy rules in order to sell apps in their store. They could even periodically audit those third-party products; failure to live up to the terms the third party agreed to when they published the app would be pretty solid grounds for kicking them out of the store.
That stuff would cut into the planet-size hoard of profit Apple makes off the app store, though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
If appstore was part of every app and the appstore license only covered the appstore part and not the whole app, then that would be an improvement.
But I think it would be easier just to not have apps covered under the appstore license, and only add such license to their own DRM. How effective the legal DRM would be in that case could be discussed, but it would likely identical to consoles and tivo which are both gplv2 compatible. It seems unnecessary when looking at other products with DRM to have a license that cover every program running on them.
I think it would be pretty easy for Apple to allow apps to be installed on their devices without having to go through the app store. You can already jailbreak to do this so the capability is there Apple just needs to allow it. Not sure what legal damage you think they would incur except whatever they would pay to fight the suit.
Yeah, of course permissive licenses are compatible with anything, they just fail to preserve freedoms, see, e.g., the Apple App Store.
And you're right. I mistyped. I didn't mean that Apple made the iOS direction of everything clear, I meant that they made it apparent at all with enough hints of its potential to be really worrying.
I already think that the non-App-store warning message requiring changing security settings (which looks really scary to generic end-users) serves to somewhat sabotage the non-App-store market.
If Apple want to push big publishers off the app store because they have the resources to fight for changes in court this would be a subtle way to do it..
Good point. I guess the only possible legal alternative to the AppStore is an application installed via the AppStore that does the same thing, but the odds of Apple allowing something like that to be listed on AppStore are near nil.
You could be right. The only way to be certain of removing legal liability would be to allow people to install software through other means than the app store. Having the an app store as a kind of 'premium/safe' zone makes good sense - making it compulsory is the problem.
That would require some sort of law being broken, or some sort of right to be violated. I'm pretty sure all rights have been signed over to Apple in SDK agreement so that one wouldn't go very far. The only law I can think of would be anti-trust, but there are couple of problems with that:
1. Apple is not a monopoly in any traditional sense of the word
2. Anti-trust is moving very very slow. Look at Microsoft.
If majority of app developers pulled their apps for a week from the app store, that could get Apple's attention. Until the non-members jump in and start filling in the void... yeah, well I guess this idea won't work - you can't really prevent the strikebreakers from moving in.
But hopefully between Apple/Google/MS/etc there is enough lawyering to not put additional burden on the EFF for a such a generic feature to app markets. Particularly if these companies want to avoid the 'but what if i get sued' stigma.
It's certainly multiple things, but some things take precedent. If Apple allowed people to install third-party App Stores, then the freedom would take precedent and nobody would be throwing rocks at them.
All these problems could be solved if there were a way for companies to transfer your existing non-App-store licenses to the App Store, allow for paid upgrades on the App Store, and allow App Store licenses to be associated with real serial numbers (or something else) that could be used to "take" your license with you, in the event the App Store suddenly becomes too restrictive.
Basically make it seamless, monetarily and "upgradily", to go to/from the app store.
A great idea. Probably the only folks able to do something like this would be apple (at least pre- DOJ litigation) because they didn't have to worry about what publishers of apps thought. Once they have to offer other app stores publishers won't accept that and will just move off the apple store.
reply