I am continually amused by developers who've gotten outraged about by Apple removing "I Am Rich" from the App Store. Mr. Steven Frank goes off in a libertarian rant on the issue of "I Am Rich" in an absurd attempt to show that removing it violated some sacred right. As a veteran of more than 20 years of software development, Mr. Frank's list of "inviolable principles" of a software development strike me as incredibly naive. They made me laugh.

"I Am Rich" is a fraud -- pure and simple. Apple is well within it rights, I would argue obligated, to remove it from sale. Apple has obligations to protect its customers (Yes, even the stupid ones!) and to protect the good will of its brand and store.

Perhaps it would help developers to think of Apple as their business partner in the iPhone software business. If Apple was a real investor in ones venture one would likely have to accept even more terms and conditions on your business. As anyone who has ever worked with investment partners can attest, sometimes those terms seem arbitrary or whimsical and even unfair.

If one doesn't want to have Apple as your business partner then there are other opportunities for software development where Mr. Frank's list of "inviolable principles" may be a bit less violated. (But chances are no one will be there sending you a monthly royalty check.) That's where Mr. Frank can exercise his choice in pursuing opportunities rather than demand that Apple make the opportunity they are presenting to developers conform to Mr. Frank's narrow view of how the world should work.

I am surprised by what richard says. Apple has once again gone down the road of isolating itself from the open market in an attempt to keep control over its product.

I wonder if he actually read the conditions apple put forth to become a member of the exclusive club that can develop for the iphone.

In my opinion apple puts unreasonable restrictions on its members. They must basically become silent partners letting apple have the final word on whether or not to deploy their software. In other words you must work with apple if you want to develope software for the iphone.

Your not allowed to share ideas or coding techniques with other developers. Coding help is limited to only apple support if they decide to give it to you.

The tools and development software they give you is not the full set of tools they said they use, but a stripped down version that restricts software development to specific areas of the phone apple wants you to work in.

I understand apple wants to be carefull with this new device, but, what if microsoft tried to do the same thing?

Imagine, if you will, the absolute fury that would come down on microsoft if they tried to put these limitations on windows software developement?

Why do people defend Apple for doing the same things that microsoft gets taken to court for? They put unreasonable restrictions on the development of software by potential competitors. This same way of doing business is what hurt them(apple) in the beginning. Restricting access to their technology unless it falls within what they want to have happen.

I hope apple doesn't find itself stuck in the courts for monopolizing the software development market related to its products.

Good Luck Apple.

Oh please. Don't be so naive. Apple is certainly not alone with any of the conditions of the iPhone SDK. Microsoft does do the same and more with the XBox. Sony does the same with Playstation and PSP. Nintendo with Wii and DS. Qualcom/Verizon with BREW. I list just a few.

Richard- he IS exercising his choice to not develop for the iPhone and go with a more open platform (the Mac). And he is exercising his right to make his issues known, in the hopes that others will join him to pressure Apple to make the iPhone even better- by opening up development.

I know I've considered developing for the iPhone- especially looking at the income generated- but I just can't get past the stupid restrictions: Can't openly talk about actual coding, can't release betas, can't get updates out immediately, can't do shareware/demos, and biggest one of all- can't know that spending months of development time (which I could being doing other development) will be wasted because Apple didn't like my program.

Oh, and just because other companies do it, doesn't make it right. In fact, I think any company who does it misses out on huge revenues.

Let's look at these one at a time.

Can't openly talk about actual coding - True. The iPhone SDK has been available on various levels for less than six months and is covered by several NDAs. No one outside of Apple knows when or if those NDAs will ever be lifted. So I think you should only enter into the iPhone software business assuming this situation may not change.

Can't release betas - Not true. The iPhone development system allows for "ad hoc" provisioning of up to 100 devices for beta testing.

Can't do shareware/demos - half true. Nothing prevents you from distributing a free or reduced cost version with limited features. There are certainly a multitude of methods being used to "monotizing" iPhone software development besides the App Store "retail" price.

Can't get updates out immediately - Somewhat true. But this is most likely a result of a somewhat constipated App Store approval and publishing process. The timeliness with which one can distribute updates is just one consequence of the marketplace we are working in. It's certainly not unprecedented. In the olden days we used to have to make sure our programs worked BEFORE we shipped them because the costs of qualifying and distributing a bug fix release were huge. What's changed? The perception that software distribution must be instantaneous and cheap. Nothing else.

As for your "big one", I'm still looking for the corpse. Where are all these programs that have been pulled from the App Store due to Apple's capricious whims? The example that keeps being cited can only be described as a grotesque fraud.

richardl: No one is talking about "sacred rights". What we are talking about, is the rules of the game. Apple has laid out many rules and restrictions. These only are burdensome, preventing some applications from being created, others from being published. But these rules are at least clearly spelled out. When Apple made "a judgement call" to remove I Am Rich, and other applications such as Box Office and NetShare, they showed that the written rules are not all that matters. We also need to watch for anything Apple decides they don't like, and it's impossible to determine what that will be.

What about I Am Rich is "a fraud"? It was exactly what it said it was. There were no lies, no false promises. It's terribly stupid, but it fell within all the rules Apple put forth. As a businessman, I need to know that if I invest time creating a product, I'll be able to sell it. If I can't be reasonably certain of this, it becomes far riskier to devote time to developing at all.

Apple is not our "business partner" at all. A business partner can not spring additional terms on you after the fact, without your agreement. Upfront, they may have arbitrary conditions, or even unfair ones, but once a contract is signed, it needs both parties to amend it.

And yes, that's certainly true - we can go elsewhere. The point is, we -want- to develop for the iPhone, but it needs to change before that's feasible for some of us. "Love it or leave it" is a pretty simplistic answer to some very reasonable complaints. For that matter, we already ARE elsewhere - both Panic and Rogue Amoeba are quite successful on the Mac platform.

Matt: Just so.

I think the comparisons to all manner of other platforms may be accurate, but are ultimately meaningless. Yes, Nintendo does this. Yes, Sony does it. And it stinks there too.

It's worth realizing, however, that Windows Mobile, PalmOS, and Blackberry OS (the three big SmartPhone OSes) have never needed any of this. The Palm handhelds were huge precisely because of the vast quantity of useful third party software, none of which needed Palm's approval. So instead of looking to consoles and standard phones, let's compare oranges and oranges - why is the iPhone so different from other smart phones?

RichardL: First up, you say "In the olden days we used to have to make sure our programs worked BEFORE we shipped them".

That's great and nicely snarky, but in those same "olden days", we weren't limited in how many units could be used for beta testing, nor did we have to go through Apple to set up each and every test unit. Even now, we test our Mac software on a couple dozen different configurations internally, and with hundreds of users throughout the world when we go external. The iPhone makes this far more difficult. Couple that with a convoluted and seemingly-broken App Store review process, and you've got a fairly big problem.

As well, there are lots of excuses for each problem people have with the App Store. However, I've yet to hear a compelling answer as to why there's any benefit, to developers OR to Apple, for most of what they're doing. Again, Palm never needed this much control, nor RIM on the Blackberry, nor Microsoft on Windows Mobile. As I noted a few weeks back, AN App Store is great, but THE App Store is not.

If you want a "big one", a "corpse" as you put it, how does NetShare suit you? That's an incredibly useful app for thousands of users, and it's been up and down, and up and down, and now down permanently it seems. Even if we accept that it violates AT&T's TOS, why is Apple in charge of enforcing that? We can ignore the mischaracterization of I Am Rich as "a fraud", because it's not really important. There are other examples that also show Apple's capriciousness when it comes to what gets to stay in the App Store.

Further, the biggest problem here is that you're looking for others to prove a negative. We've heard of a few applications that have been pulled after being published, but we'll likely never hear about those that are never accepted in the first place. We'll certainly never hear about those that never got past the drawing board, because they violated too many of Apple's conditions. Ultimately, I (and many others) view that as a pretty big loss. If you don't, so be it, but that doesn't mean that sentiment is universal.