- You get to choose what city you want to live in (i.e. OS)
- You get to choose what house to live in (i.e. Phone)
- The city has stores where you can buy merchandise (i.e. App Store, Market Place, etc...)
- A store chooses what merchandise they can sell (whether it be free market, or closed market)
Here's the restraints Apple has placed on it's city and phone
- You can only visit one store
- You must buy only things in that one store
- Trying to drive to another store means we're not going to help you in case of an emergency
Some people love the city and what it offers, others like other cities with different offerings.
Actually, it's more like you know these are the rules of the homeowners association, you buy the house anyway, then, you whine endlessly about the rules of the homeowners association and how unfair they are.
Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them
...particularly if your new app is free or much cheaper than an app from one of our buddies.
enough already, institute the ESRB ratings [and if you're a parent of a kid purchasing stuff on the app store, set the max rating of software they can purchase when you put in your credit card info.]
Someone would discover fire, and then eventually civilisation would emerge.
As a reminder, here's what you responded to:
Quote:
Imagine a world without rules, laws, policies, etc. What would happen?
You'll note he left out the word "any" but it was implied. Pre-civilization, nature itself provided rules, laws and policies that governed things. Now-a-days, it still does to an extent, but humans have become more powerful in many ways, hence the need to govern ourselves. There have always been rules, laws and policies in one form or another.
The bottom line is that this is Apple's store, and they can choose what goes on the shelf. If they are too strict or unfair, the developers will leave the platform (followed by the users). In most cases though the users are happy that the developers who are impacted by these rules have left the platform. The set of users who want broader access will jailbreak or go to Android.
If you really want your content on the iOS platform without going through the AppStore, build an HTML5 / Web2.0 app. Then Apple doesn't get a cut and you're immediately cross-platform.
Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them
...particularly if your new app is free or much cheaper than an app from one of our buddies.
I think this is a reasonable guideline.
Imagine that you have a successful To Do list app in the app store (to pick an example of which there are many of them). Some guy sees that yours is the top rated simple To Do app (as opposed to say, Things or OmniFocus) so he decides to reverse engineer it, change the color scheme and a few icons, but basically exactly duplicate your functionality, and undercut your price (or even free with ads). Not really fair to the original developer, since he did all the work of figuring out how the app should work, and you just copied it. (Something Apple has experienced itself, in one form or another.) And this is exactly what I think they have in mind.
Now, if you do a To Do list app, it's obviously going to be similar in some ways to other To Do list apps, but you can obviously have it do things in a slightly different way, because you think it works better that way. So you create a To Do list app that manages To Do lists in some novel way. I doubt very much they are going to reject that, even though there are a lot of other apps that offer similar functionality.
In the first instance, the copier is just that, and doesn't add any value to the ecosystem, but just syphons revenue off some honest, hard working developer. So, why should they approve his app? In the second instance, you're actually being an honest, hard working developer yourself, and creating something with a unique approach to a problem, and I don't think you're the one they are looking out for.
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
I am not a developer either, but at the time people were saying that the rules Apple announced banning 3rd party tools would exclude gaming engines such Unity, and as someone else said, Unreal (which looks really nice, btw).
There are several blogs on the net today positing that these changes are aimed at games developers because of the imminent WP7 release and its integration with Xbox Live and Xbox games. With the new rules, game developers can port their Xbox games to the iPhone (which supposedly they could not do before without completely re-writing the code). Thus, Apple can attempt to negate the one advantage that WP7 potentially has over the iPhone, which is a rich gaming platform with the social aspect.
I don't know if any of that is true, but it is a bit odd that Apple has announced new features to iOS 4 that WP7 will have when it is released in October.
I am not a developer either, but at the time people were saying that the rules Apple announced banning 3rd party tools would exclude gaming engines such Unity, and as someone else said, Unreal (which looks really nice, btw).
There are several blogs on the net today positing that these changes are aimed at games developers because of the imminent WP7 release and its integration with Xbox Live and Xbox games. With the new rules, game developers can port their Xbox games to the iPhone (which supposedly they could not do before without completely re-writing the code). Thus, Apple can attempt to negate the one advantage that WP7 potentially has over the iPhone, which is a rich gaming platform with the social aspect.
I don't know if any of that is true, but it is a bit odd that Apple has announced new features to iOS 4 that WP7 will have when it is released in October.
I would imagine that if that was their only reason for doing this, they would simply have reworded the developer agreement to allow it.
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
+1 Insightful
I wonder how many Board members it took to beat Steve into submission on this....
Two things that interested me is that they apparently backtracked on their bans over third-party development apps (read Adobe and flash-based apps ban), and over third-party ad networks (read Google?s AdMob ban), fixing two of their recent clearly anti-competitive moves: that's something encouraging for developers and will help avoiding possible legal trouble.
Yep, that's correct. However, on this planet displays of weapons or violent activities independent of an association with traditional sexual icons are very unlikely to stimulate erotic feelings. Therefore, a different rationale has to used to prohibit violent games or weapons
At least in the US guys do get erections over their weapons. Especially if the wife is two hundred pounds over weight.
Two things that interested me is that they apparently backtracked on their bans over third-party development apps (read Adobe and flash-based apps ban), and over third-party ad networks (read Google?s AdMob ban), fixing two of their recent clearly anti-competitive moves: that's something encouraging for developers and will help avoiding possible legal trouble.
Huh!?
Are you judge and jury on antitrust? Did I fall asleep for a few weeks, and miss the fact that someone ruled that these were "......clearly anticompetitive moves"?
Are you judge and jury on antitrust? Did I fall asleep for a few weeks, and miss the fact that someone ruled that these were "......clearly anticompetitive moves"?
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
I would imagine that if that was their only reason for doing this, they would simply have reworded the developer agreement to allow it.
Oh, I don't think it was their only reason, and the increase in Android and its apparent "openness" was probably a factor. However, I think they see WP7 as potential competition, unlike Blackberry or Symbian for reasons we discussed in a different thread.
Comments
A better metaphor would be the following:
- You get to choose what city you want to live in (i.e. OS)
- You get to choose what house to live in (i.e. Phone)
- The city has stores where you can buy merchandise (i.e. App Store, Market Place, etc...)
- A store chooses what merchandise they can sell (whether it be free market, or closed market)
Here's the restraints Apple has placed on it's city and phone
- You can only visit one store
- You must buy only things in that one store
- Trying to drive to another store means we're not going to help you in case of an emergency
Some people love the city and what it offers, others like other cities with different offerings.
Actually, it's more like you know these are the rules of the homeowners association, you buy the house anyway, then, you whine endlessly about the rules of the homeowners association and how unfair they are.
...particularly if your new app is free or much cheaper than an app from one of our buddies.
enough already, institute the ESRB ratings [and if you're a parent of a kid purchasing stuff on the app store, set the max rating of software they can purchase when you put in your credit card info.]
Without rules the above sentence would look like this:
"Without rulz, there could be no civilisation."
Actually, without rules, the sentence would look like this:
"fjennn gakl438 Kl%eK\\\\ E393 kejs//lkj3 5 u&mm,,?m930 vx8lp2"
Someone would discover fire, and then eventually civilisation would emerge.
As a reminder, here's what you responded to:
Imagine a world without rules, laws, policies, etc. What would happen?
You'll note he left out the word "any" but it was implied. Pre-civilization, nature itself provided rules, laws and policies that governed things. Now-a-days, it still does to an extent, but humans have become more powerful in many ways, hence the need to govern ourselves. There have always been rules, laws and policies in one form or another.
If you really want your content on the iOS platform without going through the AppStore, build an HTML5 / Web2.0 app. Then Apple doesn't get a cut and you're immediately cross-platform.
Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them
...particularly if your new app is free or much cheaper than an app from one of our buddies.
I think this is a reasonable guideline.
Imagine that you have a successful To Do list app in the app store (to pick an example of which there are many of them). Some guy sees that yours is the top rated simple To Do app (as opposed to say, Things or OmniFocus) so he decides to reverse engineer it, change the color scheme and a few icons, but basically exactly duplicate your functionality, and undercut your price (or even free with ads). Not really fair to the original developer, since he did all the work of figuring out how the app should work, and you just copied it. (Something Apple has experienced itself, in one form or another.) And this is exactly what I think they have in mind.
Now, if you do a To Do list app, it's obviously going to be similar in some ways to other To Do list apps, but you can obviously have it do things in a slightly different way, because you think it works better that way. So you create a To Do list app that manages To Do lists in some novel way. I doubt very much they are going to reject that, even though there are a lot of other apps that offer similar functionality.
In the first instance, the copier is just that, and doesn't add any value to the ecosystem, but just syphons revenue off some honest, hard working developer. So, why should they approve his app? In the second instance, you're actually being an honest, hard working developer yourself, and creating something with a unique approach to a problem, and I don't think you're the one they are looking out for.
Hey AI, try not to make spelling mistakes in your headline, especially when you're misquoting a correctly-spelled original.
any more = additional, e.g. we don't need any more fart apps
anymore = from now on, e.g. we don't need fart apps anymore
Might have been better if Apple has said the latter.
Either you haven't been reading what's been said on these forums, or you don't understand it. third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful. That Apple had them shoved down their throat by the FTC doesn't make them any less so.
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
yes, no, yes
Well, I don't know much about the way Unity works/integrates with iOS SDKs (and don't much play games anyway), but, I still think the principle that meta-platforms are harmful holds. What if, for example, they don't support the gyroscope in their tools? Then there's this 6-axis controller on the iPhone, but it goes largely unused, to the detriment of the user experience. Perhaps it will be argued that there's no other way for game developers to be able to develop games, that it's a necessary evil, but it's still an evil.
I am not a developer either, but at the time people were saying that the rules Apple announced banning 3rd party tools would exclude gaming engines such Unity, and as someone else said, Unreal (which looks really nice, btw).
There are several blogs on the net today positing that these changes are aimed at games developers because of the imminent WP7 release and its integration with Xbox Live and Xbox games. With the new rules, game developers can port their Xbox games to the iPhone (which supposedly they could not do before without completely re-writing the code). Thus, Apple can attempt to negate the one advantage that WP7 potentially has over the iPhone, which is a rich gaming platform with the social aspect.
I don't know if any of that is true, but it is a bit odd that Apple has announced new features to iOS 4 that WP7 will have when it is released in October.
I am not a developer either, but at the time people were saying that the rules Apple announced banning 3rd party tools would exclude gaming engines such Unity, and as someone else said, Unreal (which looks really nice, btw).
There are several blogs on the net today positing that these changes are aimed at games developers because of the imminent WP7 release and its integration with Xbox Live and Xbox games. With the new rules, game developers can port their Xbox games to the iPhone (which supposedly they could not do before without completely re-writing the code). Thus, Apple can attempt to negate the one advantage that WP7 potentially has over the iPhone, which is a rich gaming platform with the social aspect.
I don't know if any of that is true, but it is a bit odd that Apple has announced new features to iOS 4 that WP7 will have when it is released in October.
I would imagine that if that was their only reason for doing this, they would simply have reworded the developer agreement to allow it.
But what are people who defended Apple's past policies going to do now? If they continue to argue that third party tools are bad and complain that Apple should never have changed their policy, then wouldn't that contradict Apple's current position, thus making them "Apple haters" and "trolls"? If they switch position to coincide with Apple new policy that third party tools are ok, then does that prove the poster's point that these people lack "intellectual consistency"?
+1 Insightful
I wonder how many Board members it took to beat Steve into submission on this....
Going by the examples in the guidelines, I'll bet they've seen some real doozies.
Yep, that's correct. However, on this planet displays of weapons or violent activities independent of an association with traditional sexual icons are very unlikely to stimulate erotic feelings. Therefore, a different rationale has to used to prohibit violent games or weapons
At least in the US guys do get erections over their weapons. Especially if the wife is two hundred pounds over weight.
third-party tools, specifically meta-platforms (like Flash) are always harmful.
What a ludicrous generalization... You should really stop repeating the ignorant nonsense that was pushed down your throat.
Two things that interested me is that they apparently backtracked on their bans over third-party development apps (read Adobe and flash-based apps ban), and over third-party ad networks (read Google?s AdMob ban), fixing two of their recent clearly anti-competitive moves: that's something encouraging for developers and will help avoiding possible legal trouble.
Huh!?
Are you judge and jury on antitrust? Did I fall asleep for a few weeks, and miss the fact that someone ruled that these were "......clearly anticompetitive moves"?
Huh!?
Are you judge and jury on antitrust? Did I fall asleep for a few weeks, and miss the fact that someone ruled that these were "......clearly anticompetitive moves"?
Good point. It seems far more likely that Steve Jobs just woke up, took a second look at this "Thoughts on Flash", and thought, "Wow, what was I thinking? Was I high?".
Yeah, that must be it. Couldn't have anything at all to do with the FTC....
I would imagine that if that was their only reason for doing this, they would simply have reworded the developer agreement to allow it.
Oh, I don't think it was their only reason, and the increase in Android and its apparent "openness" was probably a factor. However, I think they see WP7 as potential competition, unlike Blackberry or Symbian for reasons we discussed in a different thread.