4 ms·

Letter to Steve Jobs

142 points by blahpro 16y ago

benologist 16y ago
This is probably the only open letter that'll get a reply... ... saying you and your apps are banned.
jsz0 16y ago
This is a good example of approaching the subject like a non-idealogue that people can take seriously. The Salem remark was probably a bit much but at least it's near the end. Ending with a jab is always very tempting.
- duncanj 16y ago
  So, should Steve Jobs respond, "Well, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..."? I think the author ruined his letter at that point.
gxs 16y ago
While I appreciate his letter, I think he needs to realize that quality of apps is an incidental reason. As John Gruber stated, the real reason behind the band is to prevent someone from establishing cross platform development tools that will trivialize the choice between getting an iphone and another phone/OS.
- greendestiny 16y ago
  We're light years away from that happening. I think Apple isn't used to being in control. Cross platform on OSX generally means poor versions of programs designed for other platforms. That isn't an inherent factor of cross platform tools, its because OSX is a minority OS. For instance in all the complaints about Firefox on OSX noone has stopped to think that Firefox on Windows is equally developed on a compatibility layer. With the iPhone OS dominance in handheld software compatibility layers, Android and other platforms will be the minorities dealing with poor ports. Cross platform tools will be designed for iPhone OS. Having said all I've said against section 3.1.1, I'd have to say I support banning Flash CS5 from the App Store, there is just no need to blanket ban compatibility layers. Maybe Apple should institute a framework whitelist - it'd certainly be up their alley in terms of control, and would let decent platforms like Unity continue.
  - bruceboughton 16y ago
    If there had been a whitelist in place all along, none of these cross-compilers would exist. A whitelist would stifle innovation as much as a blanket ban.
    - greendestiny 16y ago
      Sure, I'm just thinking of options that Apple might approve of.
- tjogin 16y ago
  He never goes into how he uses Lua, but if he's still targeting Apple's libraries (rather than some cross-platform transition layer), they might not even be able to tell he is using Lua in the first place.
  - brandon 16y ago
    The author of the open letter is behind iPhone Wax: http://github.com/probablycorey/wax http://github.com/probablycorey/wax It may also be worth nothing that the particular case of Lua was already prohibited under the iPhone DPLA section 3.3.2 which states that no interpreted code may be included unless it's run by Apple's interpreter(s). Wax embeds a third-party Lua runtime that does just that.
    - pederb72 16y ago
      This is stated again and again on HN, but it is just not true. You could run interpreted code, it just wasn't allowed to download and run modules, everything had to be linked into the application.
      - brandon 16y ago
        That was true given early revisions of the agreement. If you revisit the language you'll find that the phrase "download and run" has been replaced with "download or run." That said, there was talk about moving Wax to llvm-lua such that the resulting application would be compiled machine code. The new clause precludes this option entirely. The only uncertainty left, now, centers around enforcement. There are a number of PhoneGap and Wax powered apps already in the store, and PhoneGap was even blessed as an approved framework. Only time will tell if that blessing stands.
        wisty 16y ago
        I'll take a guess - Lua isn't there to abstract the iPhone. It's just there to make development faster. Apple won't clamp down on better apps, they will only target cross-platform abstractions. But it's still a bit worry.
- binspace 16y ago
  Leave it to the suits to create artificial barriers.
  - mo34 16y ago
    and to create billion dollar companies...
- barrkel 16y ago
  It's all well and good to say such and such is the reason, but that's not what the license actually says. What's to stop a tool developer producing an Objective C library and compiler that can target both iPhone and Android? The original source would still be in Objective C. If it was developed specifically for the iPhone, and only later for Android, it wouldn't be a compatibility layer - only the Android port would count as the compatibility layer, with the iPhone original being the native one.
  - biafra 16y ago
    If it comes to that, Apple will ban it's use. No biggie. As long as Apple thinks they have no competition to fear they can limit developers as they wish. So let's all hope Android (or any other mobile platform) is very successful. Yes, you iPhone-Developers, too should wish for Androids success!
    - MWinther 16y ago
      I don't think Apple would, or even could ban anything of the sort. I think they want people to develop for iPhone first, and if you want to automatically convert that code to Android and get the cross-platform inferior experience there, then so be it.
      - catch23 16y ago
        I agree with this as well... I'm sure Apple wants more apps for the Mac, and if someone were to create a 3D modeling tool targeted for iPhone apps that could produce cross platform Android apps, they'd welcome it into their Mac family.
    - voidpointer 16y ago
      I see this the same way. The TOS states that you are not allowed to use an intermediary layer to call the iPhone OS API. A C++ or C library that would abstract the underlying OS' API would clearly be such an intermediary layer and if there would be sort of a QtMobile or wxPhone or whatever framework that would allow you to write cross platform mobile applications in C++, Apple could ban it based on their new rules - even if you were sticking to the approved set of programming languages.
SwellJoe 16y ago
Odds that Steve Jobs will read or care one whit about this letter: 0% (with a margin of error of ±0%)
bbuffone 16y ago
Disclaimer -- I am not an iPhone developer, why? Two reasons: 1.) I don't own a Mac and 2.) I don't know objective-c. Even though I can't build iPhone applications, to me this ban makes sense for the following reasons: 1.) Limits the total number of applications. Apple knows that the "100,000+ apps" is just marketing. How many unit conversion applications do you need or does Apple want clogging up their approval process. 2.) Reduces the velocity of the application submissions. Having a more controlled ecosystem means that everything isn't done at once. This is core to Apples strategy. Roll things out in phases; build features that people want over time. Cut&Paste, Multi-tasking... 3.) Forces people develop iPhone applications on Mac hardware. 4.) The more layers between you and the developers building the applications increases compatibility issues, which are out of your control. 5.) The more layers between you and the developers building the applications decreases the speed at which applications can take advantage of new features. Apple releases a new api now any developer using a 3rd party framework needs to wait for that framework to support the new API. This impacts the significance of the new feature.
- mrbad101 16y ago
  Very very well put.
- rimantas 16y ago
  #5 makes a lot of sense and is often overlooked. The argument often is that it is not the tools that determine the quality, of the app, but let's see: Adobe CS5 Flash2iPhone is developed without iPhone OS 4 in sight. The main target users for it are those who are not familiar with iPhone OS and frameworks and would enjoy just pushing a button and letting the tool to do the rest. The timing is such, that a flood of apps developed this way would arrive just in time iPhone OS 4 comes out. End user does not know and does not care which tools the App was developed in. No surprise this does not look pretty in Apple's eyes. I and cannot imagine Flash2iPhone style of app producing anything about mediocre. If it targets Android too — even more so. This way all you can get is unisex, unisize sportswear. Apple wants tailor suits and designer dresses.
  - Tichy 16y ago
grumpyfart 16y ago
A letter to "a letter to Steve Jobs" letters Yeah new policy sucks, Steve won't change it even if you send thousand of letters, sometime he might bother to answer, but it'll be the same thing. Although if he answers, that's great, because then you can publish it again and HN can be flooded with more "letters to Steve" and "Apple stole my teddy bear" stories.
- halostatue 16y ago
  I have written a letter about specific techniques that I suspect are covered under the ban that should not be. I don't intend to publish either it, or if I get a response, the response. Frankly, one shouldn't be publishing these notes without permission from Steve Jobs; this is no different than publishing other email. I'm hopeful that my letter causes change, but I haven't asked for an outright removal of the ban, but a clarification on these techniques.
khangtoh 16y ago
SERIOUSLY people, stop all the freaking letter to steve jobs post.. It's really overdone and doesn't get you much other than this response, sorry I just had to, go ahead and down vote me.
- bartl 16y ago
  It's quite ironic that, in the week after the release of the iPad, this here is the only subject with a buzz among computer geeks on the internet.
mjnaus 16y ago
For crying out loud people... The sun's still shining, the beer's still cold, in some parts of the world people are still dying due to lack of clean drinking water, to go short... in the big scheme of things; Apple's recent decision DOES NOT MEAN A DAMN THING. Get some perspective, perhaps cry like a baby for 30 minutes or so and get on with your life... You'll be OK!
hackermom 16y ago
I think the extension of the ban can result in a pretty big deal. I think the bigger issue is that now, Lua itself seems to be entirely banned for use in any app for the iPhone OS product family, even if the app itself is written in Obj/C/++ and just using the Lua engine for internal stuff - a perfect example would be Lua's popular use for "scripting" NPC actions and game events in f.e. World of Warcraft and many, many other online games; World of Warcraft is not written in Lua, it's written in C/++, but uses Lua as a component for "internal" stuff. By this new decision, all apps building on similar functionality would be rejected. I still maintain my stance regarding the main culprit in this debate, being that Flash should be set fire to and urinated on for the shitty product it is, but I definitely feel that the collateral Apple is causing here is a potentially much larger problem than the Flash problem they solved by the ban.
hoggle 16y ago
In general it is transition time in business world. I doubt that future ventures will be able to “successfully” act in a similar way. The only reason Apple is welcomed/accepted to do so by many (developers and users) is the excellence in their execution. Apple is not an “open” company - it never has been. Especially as a developer one should have understood from the beginning that using their tools might possibly be somewhat of a Faustian bargain. Sometimes I myself feel quite guilty for having chosen this path (trying to become an iPhone/iPad indie) but then I remember myself that the benevolence of this “dictator” is not really targeted at me as a developer but the users. I admire that approach and that is why I am not sure if users will really benefit from these particular kind of policies/politics. I was planning to partially use iPhone WAX not only because I really like Lua (and it’s highly embeddable scripting capabilities) but because of productivity reasons as a one-man team. In spite of introducing additional layers of abstraction I think it wouldn’t have significantly impacted performance (Lua is fast). I never cared about Flash nor any Adobe tools though and I am still among the ones who don’t care that much if they have to use C/ObjC because I like to use that set of technology but I see myself for the first time to become more than a little wary.
st3fan 16y ago
I doubt that section 3.1.1 means that you can't embed Lua anymore. People have been doing this for a long time, specially in games, and Apple has never seen that as a problem. This is all about using C# and Flash to create complete apps.
allertonm 16y ago
I've seen it stated a few times that "EA uses Lua on the iPhone" - but my googling hasn't revealed any evidence to support this. Does anyone have a cite for this?

142 points by blahpro 16y ago

This is probably the only open letter that'll get a reply... ... saying you and your apps are banned.

jsz0 16y ago

This is a good example of approaching the subject like a non-idealogue that people can take seriously. The Salem remark was probably a bit much but at least it's near the end. Ending with a jab is always very tempting.

duncanj 16y ago
So, should Steve Jobs respond, "Well, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..."? I think the author ruined his letter at that point.

gxs 16y ago

While I appreciate his letter, I think he needs to realize that quality of apps is an incidental reason. As John Gruber stated, the real reason behind the band is to prevent someone from establishing cross platform development tools that will trivialize the choice between getting an iphone and another phone/OS.

greendestiny 16y ago
We're light years away from that happening. I think Apple isn't used to being in control. Cross platform on OSX generally means poor versions of programs designed for other platforms. That isn't an inherent factor of cross platform tools, its because OSX is a minority OS. For instance in all the complaints about Firefox on OSX noone has stopped to think that Firefox on Windows is equally developed on a compatibility layer. With the iPhone OS dominance in handheld software compatibility layers, Android and other platforms will be the minorities dealing with poor ports. Cross platform tools will be designed for iPhone OS. Having said all I've said against section 3.1.1, I'd have to say I support banning Flash CS5 from the App Store, there is just no need to blanket ban compatibility layers. Maybe Apple should institute a framework whitelist - it'd certainly be up their alley in terms of control, and would let decent platforms like Unity continue.
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  If there had been a whitelist in place all along, none of these cross-compilers would exist. A whitelist would stifle innovation as much as a blanket ban.
  - greendestiny 16y ago
    Sure, I'm just thinking of options that Apple might approve of.
tjogin 16y ago
He never goes into how he uses Lua, but if he's still targeting Apple's libraries (rather than some cross-platform transition layer), they might not even be able to tell he is using Lua in the first place.
- brandon 16y ago
  The author of the open letter is behind iPhone Wax: http://github.com/probablycorey/wax http://github.com/probablycorey/wax It may also be worth nothing that the particular case of Lua was already prohibited under the iPhone DPLA section 3.3.2 which states that no interpreted code may be included unless it's run by Apple's interpreter(s). Wax embeds a third-party Lua runtime that does just that.
  - pederb72 16y ago
    This is stated again and again on HN, but it is just not true. You could run interpreted code, it just wasn't allowed to download and run modules, everything had to be linked into the application.
    - brandon 16y ago
      That was true given early revisions of the agreement. If you revisit the language you'll find that the phrase "download and run" has been replaced with "download or run." That said, there was talk about moving Wax to llvm-lua such that the resulting application would be compiled machine code. The new clause precludes this option entirely. The only uncertainty left, now, centers around enforcement. There are a number of PhoneGap and Wax powered apps already in the store, and PhoneGap was even blessed as an approved framework. Only time will tell if that blessing stands.
      - wisty 16y ago
        I'll take a guess - Lua isn't there to abstract the iPhone. It's just there to make development faster. Apple won't clamp down on better apps, they will only target cross-platform abstractions. But it's still a bit worry.
binspace 16y ago
Leave it to the suits to create artificial barriers.
- mo34 16y ago
  and to create billion dollar companies...
barrkel 16y ago
It's all well and good to say such and such is the reason, but that's not what the license actually says. What's to stop a tool developer producing an Objective C library and compiler that can target both iPhone and Android? The original source would still be in Objective C. If it was developed specifically for the iPhone, and only later for Android, it wouldn't be a compatibility layer - only the Android port would count as the compatibility layer, with the iPhone original being the native one.
- biafra 16y ago
  If it comes to that, Apple will ban it's use. No biggie. As long as Apple thinks they have no competition to fear they can limit developers as they wish. So let's all hope Android (or any other mobile platform) is very successful. Yes, you iPhone-Developers, too should wish for Androids success!
  - MWinther 16y ago
    I don't think Apple would, or even could ban anything of the sort. I think they want people to develop for iPhone first, and if you want to automatically convert that code to Android and get the cross-platform inferior experience there, then so be it.
    - catch23 16y ago
      I agree with this as well... I'm sure Apple wants more apps for the Mac, and if someone were to create a 3D modeling tool targeted for iPhone apps that could produce cross platform Android apps, they'd welcome it into their Mac family.
  - voidpointer 16y ago
    I see this the same way. The TOS states that you are not allowed to use an intermediary layer to call the iPhone OS API. A C++ or C library that would abstract the underlying OS' API would clearly be such an intermediary layer and if there would be sort of a QtMobile or wxPhone or whatever framework that would allow you to write cross platform mobile applications in C++, Apple could ban it based on their new rules - even if you were sticking to the approved set of programming languages.

SwellJoe 16y ago

Odds that Steve Jobs will read or care one whit about this letter: 0% (with a margin of error of ±0%)

bbuffone 16y ago

Disclaimer -- I am not an iPhone developer, why? Two reasons: 1.) I don't own a Mac and 2.) I don't know objective-c. Even though I can't build iPhone applications, to me this ban makes sense for the following reasons: 1.) Limits the total number of applications. Apple knows that the "100,000+ apps" is just marketing. How many unit conversion applications do you need or does Apple want clogging up their approval process. 2.) Reduces the velocity of the application submissions. Having a more controlled ecosystem means that everything isn't done at once. This is core to Apples strategy. Roll things out in phases; build features that people want over time. Cut&Paste, Multi-tasking... 3.) Forces people develop iPhone applications on Mac hardware. 4.) The more layers between you and the developers building the applications increases compatibility issues, which are out of your control. 5.) The more layers between you and the developers building the applications decreases the speed at which applications can take advantage of new features. Apple releases a new api now any developer using a 3rd party framework needs to wait for that framework to support the new API. This impacts the significance of the new feature.

mrbad101 16y ago
Very very well put.
rimantas 16y ago
#5 makes a lot of sense and is often overlooked. The argument often is that it is not the tools that determine the quality, of the app, but let's see: Adobe CS5 Flash2iPhone is developed without iPhone OS 4 in sight. The main target users for it are those who are not familiar with iPhone OS and frameworks and would enjoy just pushing a button and letting the tool to do the rest. The timing is such, that a flood of apps developed this way would arrive just in time iPhone OS 4 comes out. End user does not know and does not care which tools the App was developed in. No surprise this does not look pretty in Apple's eyes. I and cannot imagine Flash2iPhone style of app producing anything about mediocre. If it targets Android too — even more so. This way all you can get is unisex, unisize sportswear. Apple wants tailor suits and designer dresses.
- Tichy 16y ago

grumpyfart 16y ago

A letter to "a letter to Steve Jobs" letters Yeah new policy sucks, Steve won't change it even if you send thousand of letters, sometime he might bother to answer, but it'll be the same thing. Although if he answers, that's great, because then you can publish it again and HN can be flooded with more "letters to Steve" and "Apple stole my teddy bear" stories.

halostatue 16y ago
I have written a letter about specific techniques that I suspect are covered under the ban that should not be. I don't intend to publish either it, or if I get a response, the response. Frankly, one shouldn't be publishing these notes without permission from Steve Jobs; this is no different than publishing other email. I'm hopeful that my letter causes change, but I haven't asked for an outright removal of the ban, but a clarification on these techniques.

khangtoh 16y ago

SERIOUSLY people, stop all the freaking letter to steve jobs post.. It's really overdone and doesn't get you much other than this response, sorry I just had to, go ahead and down vote me.

bartl 16y ago
It's quite ironic that, in the week after the release of the iPad, this here is the only subject with a buzz among computer geeks on the internet.

mjnaus 16y ago

For crying out loud people... The sun's still shining, the beer's still cold, in some parts of the world people are still dying due to lack of clean drinking water, to go short... in the big scheme of things; Apple's recent decision DOES NOT MEAN A DAMN THING. Get some perspective, perhaps cry like a baby for 30 minutes or so and get on with your life... You'll be OK!

hackermom 16y ago

I think the extension of the ban can result in a pretty big deal. I think the bigger issue is that now, Lua itself seems to be entirely banned for use in any app for the iPhone OS product family, even if the app itself is written in Obj/C/++ and just using the Lua engine for internal stuff - a perfect example would be Lua's popular use for "scripting" NPC actions and game events in f.e. World of Warcraft and many, many other online games; World of Warcraft is not written in Lua, it's written in C/++, but uses Lua as a component for "internal" stuff. By this new decision, all apps building on similar functionality would be rejected. I still maintain my stance regarding the main culprit in this debate, being that Flash should be set fire to and urinated on for the shitty product it is, but I definitely feel that the collateral Apple is causing here is a potentially much larger problem than the Flash problem they solved by the ban.

hoggle 16y ago

In general it is transition time in business world. I doubt that future ventures will be able to “successfully” act in a similar way. The only reason Apple is welcomed/accepted to do so by many (developers and users) is the excellence in their execution. Apple is not an “open” company - it never has been. Especially as a developer one should have understood from the beginning that using their tools might possibly be somewhat of a Faustian bargain. Sometimes I myself feel quite guilty for having chosen this path (trying to become an iPhone/iPad indie) but then I remember myself that the benevolence of this “dictator” is not really targeted at me as a developer but the users. I admire that approach and that is why I am not sure if users will really benefit from these particular kind of policies/politics. I was planning to partially use iPhone WAX not only because I really like Lua (and it’s highly embeddable scripting capabilities) but because of productivity reasons as a one-man team. In spite of introducing additional layers of abstraction I think it wouldn’t have significantly impacted performance (Lua is fast). I never cared about Flash nor any Adobe tools though and I am still among the ones who don’t care that much if they have to use C/ObjC because I like to use that set of technology but I see myself for the first time to become more than a little wary.

st3fan 16y ago

I doubt that section 3.1.1 means that you can't embed Lua anymore. People have been doing this for a long time, specially in games, and Apple has never seen that as a problem. This is all about using C# and Flash to create complete apps.

allertonm 16y ago

I've seen it stated a few times that "EA uses Lua on the iPhone" - but my googling hasn't revealed any evidence to support this. Does anyone have a cite for this?