4 ms·
I think at least this part is a valid and solid reason for Apple's new developers agreement. "So, if you will indulge my claim that backwards compatibility is
by Aegean 17y ago
I think at least this part is a valid and solid reason for Apple's new developers agreement.
"So, if you will indulge my claim that backwards compatibility is hard (even absent the private API issue) it is pretty easy to see why supporting other runtimes is ceding a lot of control to a 3rd party. Imagine if 10% of the apps on iPhone came from Flash. If that was the case, then ensuring Flash didn’t break release to release would be a big deal, much bigger than any other compatibility issues. Since Apple doesn’t have access to Flash CS5’s runtime library code or compiler frontend, they might be put in a position where they would need to coordinate with Adobe to resolve those issues. Shipping a new release where Apple breaks any specific application, even a top seller, is not an issue if the release is compelling, most apps work, and Apple has the option of working with the vendor to help them fix their app. Shipping a release where they break a large percentage of apps is not generally an option. Letting any of these secondary runtimes develop a significant base of applications in the store risks putting Apple in a position where the company that controls that runtime can cause delays in Apple’s release schedule, or worse, demand specific engineering decisions from Apple, under the threat of withholding the information necessary to keep their runtime working."
- tptacek 17y agoAnd combine that with the fact that Apple is just now shipping a release that depend entirely on application/platform support for its most important feature (multitasking), and the fact that the TOS change is tied to exactly that release.
- blasdel 17y agoI don't think Apple will mind much if games don't have explicit support for multitasking right away, but they do care a great deal about getting massive uptake of their new GameCenter API, which a full-service cross-platform game framework might have a hard time supporting.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoSounds similar to Linux decisions about keeping the kernel API's fluid. I like how it's not about the code itself being wrong, because random developers are going to hit these corner cases too, but about the closed-source framework provider refusing to make fixes unless they get some quid pro quo based on the leverage they have.
- liuliu 17y agoCan you give any links to the "Linux decisions about keeping the kernel API's fluid". Curious about it. Thanks.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoHere's something from 2004 that came up high in Google: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html
- aarongough 17y agoThat's actually a very interesting read! Thanks for sharing!