 |
|
Apple's 3.1.1.
Crappy developers will make crappy apps regardless of how many layers there are by Apr 11
There are tons of crappy apps on the AppStore that were written in C/C++/Obj-C, for example. Perhaps Apple should hire more people to insure that submitted apps adhere to UI quality guidelines rather than blaming something that has pretty much no bearing on it. by Apr 11
I cannot sell development work to have it rejected down the line, there is so much uncertainty around Apple and app rejections that I have personally lost confidence. I see my future in developing good, creative, reliable and useful apps but for other platforms, primarily Android, Apple is just too risky a bet for me as a small business. by Apr 11
For a game, the UI conventions go out the window (in large part), so most of the it breaks the iPhone experience arguments dont hold water. by Apr 11
Matt D
And, obviously, such a meta-platform would be out of Apple’s control. Consider a world where some other company’s cross-platform toolkit proved wildly popular. Then Apple releases major new features to iPhone OS, and that other company’s toolkit is slow to adopt them. At that point, it’s the other company that controls when third-party apps can make use of these features. There is truth to this, but I think it’s absurd to think that a third-party toolkit that failed to keep up with Apple’s APIs and produced poor quality apps would ever be popular. Why would users and/or developers willingly choose to use an inferior product?
Publishing on console hardware is a vastly different experience... by Apr 11
I know for a fact that several Unity games have been #1 in the whole store, and a whole handful of other ones have been in the top 10. (Zombieville USA #1, Skee-ball #1, Battle Bears #3, all Unity3D titles). To say that quality applications cannot be produced with middleware is arrogant and frankly dumb. Unity has made Apple a fair amount of money and now they just want to terminate it and its many developers. Steve Jobs used to be an idol of mine, obviously since he has become such a fascist that is no longer the case. by Apr 11
You’ll see that most of the front page stories about this new restriction, with #1 being: “Steve Jobs Has Just Gone Mad” with (currently) 243 upvotes. The top 5 stories are all negative reactions to the TOS, and there are several others below them as well. Not a single positive reaction, even from John Gruber, your biggest fan. I love your product, but your SDK TOS are growing on it like an invisible cancer. Lots of people are pissed off at Apple’s mandate that applications be “originally written” in C/C++/Objective-C. If you go, for example, to the Hacker News homepage right now:
MonoTouch binds directly to the exact same CocoaTouch APIs that native ObjC apps use. The UIs are built in Interface Builder, again, exactly like native ObjC apps. The only difference is that the apps logic is written in C#, rather than ObjC, which is completely invisible to the user. by Apr 11
MonoTouch
Manav
With replies this short (understandably, of course) I can only guess at his meaning. Perhaps he’s referring to the days when some applications were being written with CodeWarrior and various other build systems. Or maybe he’s referring to the transition from Carbon-based applications to fully Cocoa applications (like Apple’s own Finder), or applications that were written using Macromedia’s Shockwave, or applications written in pure Java or those written in the now-defunct Java-Cocoa bridge. Perhaps it’s a bit of all of these.
Steve Jobs is a monoplistic control freak. He is misusing Apples position to attack Adobe. I wonder where are FTC and other judicial system to kick Apple hard in their nuts this time. by Apr 11
That said, I did not, and still don’t, consider those reasons to be very good, so I sent a reply in kind: Sorry. I didn’t catch that post, but I finished it just now. Of course he was right, I had somehow missed that post by Gruber, having only read the original . Gruber’s second post , which Jobs appears to be endorsing here, is indeed, very insightful, and may explain Apple’s motivations for the updates to section 3.3.1.
I heard that Apple has a patent on How to be a Douchebag. It appears that Apple is using this patent a lot. by Apr 11
Brian Mastenbrook
Greg His response: Sincerely,
In 1st Amendment jurisprudence in the United States, the term chilling effects is used to describe the potential encouragement of self-censorship resulting from an overbroad law. The theory is that by criminalizing certain kinds of speech that are not obviously deserving of the full protection of the law, the government will discourage other kinds of speech which are on the margins but more obviously protected. This culture of fear spreads as each individual at the current margin of prohibition decides to practice self-censorship, thus establishing a new margin of acceptable speech. by Apr 11
That said, I did not, and still don’t, consider those reasons to be very good, so I sent a reply in kind: Sorry. I didn’t catch that post, but I finished it just now. Of course he was right, I had somehow missed that post by Gruber, having only read the original . Gruber’s second post , which Jobs appears to be endorsing here, is indeed, very insightful, and may explain Apple’s motivations for the updates to section 3.3.1.
Justin Baker
Forcing restrictions on people just makes them resentful, and thats what is being done to the developers. It hurts both Apple, the developers, and the end users who wont be getting the great app NOT written in a language used to just to satisfy Apple. by Apr 11
Many (if not most) developers do not view a company that is blatantly trying to “lock them in” favorably. It is not a virtue that people respect. If I were to write an app for the iPhone, I would choose the tools that I deemed “the best”, voluntarily, and that probably means I’ll use Objective-C and Xcode.
Apple vs the developpers
SDK 4.0 section 3.3.1 war
 |
|
 |