7 ms·

Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

184 points by sant0sk1 17y ago

jasonlotito 17y ago
All are good points, but number 2 is the big one for me. That was my first thought when I heard what Apple was doing, and I think it's important to keep that in consideration. While I don't always agree with DHH, he makes some good, rational points here. It should be noted that most of these arguments have been made elsewhere, but it's a great summation.
- MWinther 17y ago
  It's fascinating. This is the way I look at them, as being on the side of people who agree with Apple on this one. #1: Don't agree. Apple has 180,000 apps in their App store, maybe a good time to remove incentives for a new influx of non-programmer-written apps straight from Flash? Oh, they're getting rid of other stuff that also encourages people to use other tools than their own? I think they can live with that. #2: They're not. Tell me where and when Apple said: "You will be able to develop for the iPhone using any and all tools of your choosing." They didn't. They're simply clarifying what's been their position all along, that XCode/Cocoa is the environment in which you create iPhone apps. Sure, other stuff have been able to sneak in stuff, but hardly with an Apple seal of approval. If you're using one of those tools without a suspicion Apple might not like it even before this, I'd say you're a bit naive. #3: Irrelevant. Apple has told developers which tools they can use from the get-go. I imagine the existing cross-platform products have been too small to have been a priority, but here comes Adobe with something that creates iPhone apps straight from the desk of a designer. Yes, did you see the CS5 presentation? "Create iPhone apps without writing any code!" Sounds like great apps to me. #4: Of course it's unfair. But there isn't any better way to enforce their rules. Naturally there'll be apps that fall through the cracks. But a "Aw, why can't I when that app could?" whine sounds very 7-year-old to me. They're putting up rules, if you follow them you should be fine. If someone does something that might be within the rules, but they're not sure, they might get rejected. If someone else tries the same thing, they might get rejected, regardless of whether the first guy was caught or not. #5: Not sure this ia a very good argument either. For me, I develop for Apple products because I love the platform, and I think there are quite a lot of other apps that have been hanging around with Apple because we feel that is the best platform in the world. Not perfect, but best. And I like it when Apple says that what we've learned during the years of sticking by the company because of that conviction, rather than some sense of duty, is going to pay off. Sure, Apple could release the platform to any and all languages out there, implement C#, Java and whatever else might be popular right now. But that would seem to me to cater to the populist crowd, rather than the faithful, so to speak. And those programmers are the same programmers that will move away from the platform when something else catches their fancy. I think Apple wants people like Omni Group rather than the "Oh, lord, another device, another language, who cares? I guess I'll _have_ to learn it, then."-crowd.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    I don't have time to respond to each point, but I will say that it's well thought out. I don't agree with many points, but you've clearly thought about it. =) "They're putting up rules, if you follow them you should be fine." The big issue is that they are changing rules. They are. There isn't anything you can say that changes this. So even if you did follow the rules, you are still stuck with an unsure situation.
    - MWinther 17y ago
      They're undoubtedly changing the language in the developer TOS, that is of course undisputable. =) However, when introducing the iPhone SDK, they clearly said (about XCode) "This is where you'll be developing all your apps." I'm saying you could consider this a change in legal language to more clearly adhere to the spirit of the premises of that SDK. The fact that people have been able to use products in a grey area to sidestep this, doesn't mean that the rules have been changed, just that they haven't been enforced before. Apple never said: You can develop in any IDE you want for the iPhone, and then changed their mind again. None of these tools that are affected have been approved as developer tools by Apple before, and people using them know or should have known that. What has happened is that Apple is starting to clearly stress that Xcode is the only approved developer tool. The major change is that unapproved tools now clearly are marked as unapproved, which in itself isn't a change from before. They've always been unapproved. Now, as far as enforcement, that might be just the same as before, since we haven't seen any rejections based on the new policy. Most people, including me, seems to be guessing on that this will mean some kind of enforcement as well, but we're just going to have to see what's going on there. Either way, if you've been using Apple approved development tools before this change, nothing has changed, and therefore there is nothing more to worry about after than before this change in stance.
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        "Either way, if you've been using Apple approved development tools before this change, nothing has changed, and therefore there is nothing more to worry about after than before this change in stance." That's one way to look at it. Of course, then the question becomes one of a permissive development platform. You are only allowed to use what they say you can, and if they don't say you can use it, you shouldn't. And even then, they've proven in the past that even this isn't reliable. You can follow their rules, and it still not matter. This isn't the first time they've done this. Just because they say you can do something now doesn't mean they won't pull the plug later. This is a volatile situation to be in. Now, I won't argue whether they can do it legally. Nor will I suggest that other companies can't do it. But Apple seems to be rather blatant about it.
mrcharles 17y ago
It seems to me that part of number 3 (about private APIs) is bogus -- it's pretty easy to compare an executable against private API addresses to make sure it isn't linked to any of them. They likely have a tool and it likely results in an instant fail and I doubt there are any approved apps that use private APIs.
- reitzensteinm 17y ago
  I think you mean #3.
  - mrcharles 17y ago
    Curse that 2 key, always next to the 3.
- minalecs 17y ago
  this is not completely true.. when google first released their search application, they were allowed to use an undocumented api (at the time), that detected when you moved your phone from your ear, and was allowed. Not sure if this is the same as a private api, but in general they do reject the use of private api's.
  - mrcharles 17y ago
    Special exceptions aside, of course. That follows with his other point about big players, which I agree with. They get to do things the little guys don't.
- MWinther 17y ago
  They did start this checking relatively late in the game however, and I seem to remember it giving rise to a number of outraged developer stories on the web.
fjabre 17y ago
The problem is Apple has no real competition. They can do almost anything they want without fear of retribution because your average consumer has no idea what any of this means. That's bad news for all us pissed off developers since Apple's new platform will continue to be extremely popular in which case devs are forced to develop for it. Google seems to be inching towards being a real threat but they also seem extremely unfocused. Does anyone really need a toaster running the latest version of Android? Apple needs some competition in this space and Android-based mobile devices seem like a really distant second. It's time for Google to kick it up a notch.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  There is tons of real competition. There will probably be 50 Android smartphones on the market by the end of the year, if not sooner. RIM and Symbian are still ahead, even if you see them as waning. Yes consumers have no idea what any of this means. But that actually works in favor of Apple's competitors. When an average consumer looks at the smartphone market, Apple may stand out, but the iPhone is still just one among hundreds of smartphones. There is tons of competition on features and price. Finally, Google doesn't need to kick it up a notch. Android is doing extremely well. Keep in mind that Google doesn't need Android to make money. Google doesn't care if Nexus One sales are sluggish. They are in the market to change the game. And I'd say they are succeeding with that.
  - rimantas 17y ago
    There is tons of competition on features and price. That's exactly the problem. Apple does not compete on features and price, they compete on user experience.
    - stanleydrew 17y ago
      I don't understand why that's a problem.
      - grinich 17y ago
andreyf 17y ago
The web is not a carefully curated gallery of web pages and yet we're still able to find the good stuff all the time thanks to intermediaries of discovery This is hardly a strong argument, as the main "intermediary of discovery" is Google, and most internet users are all too ready to give up their banking information to websites which have an official looking header on the page. Just because it worked for the web doesn't mean it'll work for Apple's AppStore.
- dhh 17y ago
  So you'd like for the web to be put back in the box and replaced with an AOL Walled Garden of wonder? Freedom can indeed be dangerous, but I'd rather be free to hurt myself than smothered to dead by paternalism.
  - clawrencewenham 17y ago
    The existence of a restricted marketplace doesn't mean the greater internet must become just like it, as if through some kind of relative application of logic. The internet--and the real world in general--can host a million restricted marketplaces, each designed for specific interests--and still be free in general. Your reductio ad absurdum is suggesting that the presence of a gated community in the Hamptons means that every neighborhood ought to be gated.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    The post you're replying to specifically said that it "worked for the web". Nobody's trying to take away the open web.
- flogic 17y ago
  I believe that forcefully weeding out the crap is detrimental. It's hard to define crap. If a buggy app provides functionality users consider critical, is it crap? Wouldn't it be better to let it evolve into not crap?
duck 17y ago
I hope #5 turns out to be bigger than I think it will be, but people end up sticking with what is popular (iPhone) even when it hurts to do so.
- GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
  I been saying this ever since I first got wind of the new TOS. We went away from Windows because MS was holing a leash on us with their API lock-in. Now we're 1-up ing that with Apple's new TOS which takes the MS lock-in to a whole new level. People say "oh but it will keep the already crap x-platform apps out" to which I say "Yes it will keep the would-be flashy x-platform POS games/crap apps out, but it will also keep out the apps that let me do my business better that run on Android / WebOS / iPhone because the developers of the TOOLS had to cater to a larger market share." If I am making a tool that takes pictures and uploads them to my website for special needs of people running on the BlackBerry, Android, WebOS, iPhone because it has to be a compliment to my web tool there is no reason why I can't write it with minimal effort and use the iPhone store to distribute it for free with that exact goal in mind! Its not about making a wonderful iPhone app, its about doing my damn business and giving a business process convenience using the iPhone. Not every iPhone app has to be a super innovative new way to run the world, sometimes its just a piece of crap complimentary tool that's just needed to do some grunt work easier.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    This is exactly the thinking that Apple doesn't want going into App Store apps: "I'll just put up this good-enough piece of crap because that's all I have time/money to do." They've got a ton of businesses wanting to be on iPhone so they're willing to lose those businesses that will only put out crap. I agree with you that putting out a piece of crap might make the most sense for your business. But it's not what Apple wants for its platform. A key thing to understand here: the existence of a platform controlled in this way increases diversity, since there are several other prospering platforms that do things differently.
    - confuzatron 17y ago
raganwald 17y ago
Giles "Goatboy" Bowkett: I even say (sic) DHH enter the fray, which is absurd hypocrisy, given that the first time I ever saw this guy, he was putting a giant "Fuck You" slide on a screen and explaining how he wasn't going to add features to Rails that he didn't agree with, because it was his framework, and he didn't believe that anybody who disagreed with him on that merited any other response but "fuck you". What kind of response does he think he merits from Apple? http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-his-platform-not-yours.html http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-his-platform-no...
- Tichy 17y ago
  git clone rails
  - raganwald 17y ago
    So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git clone rails" amounts to suggesting?
    - mrkurt 17y ago
      Has anyone really, seriously argued that Apple isn't "entitled" to do as they please? They are, and developers are entitled to be annoyed when their seemingly artificial and arbitrary limitations cause them problems. And we're all entitled to post our opinions about it, but you should maybe try and give the opposing views a little more respect. :)
      - raganwald 17y ago
        Well yes, I have read opinions that Apple is abusing some sort of market dominance and/or reneging on expectations it has set by changing its SDK terms. But let's stick with opinions that Apple is either (a) disadvantaging itself, or (b) disadvantaging developers with its current set of choices. I didn't realize that quoting Giles was considered disrespectful of either of these opinions. It was an interesting take. I like what I know of David, and consider myself an awfully opinionated guy as well. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worth pondering whether this particular bit of criticism is... Um... "interesting," nor do I predict he would be outraged at Giles' comment or my quote of it. If I thought you, David or anybody else wrote something that they were not entitled to write, I would use the flag feature, not a comment. To me, a comment is intended to provoke thought and debate, not to suggest there is something that should not be said. Now to clarify what I intended when I quoted Giles. I didn't think of it as a "David shouldn't have said that," rather I thought of it as a "If it's right for Rails it just might be right for iPhone!" I still think that even though David gives Rails away and Apple does not give iPhone away. iPhone is an opinionated product, and people are correct when they say that Apple is saying "Fuck You!" Apple is saying that in exactly the same sense that David said it, even though no you can't fork iPhone.
erichsu 17y ago
These are rational arguments for non-ObjC developers to be pissed at Apple. None of them are arguments for APPLE to change its policy. In the medium term it is clearly better for Apple's interests to implement 3.3.1, to maintain control over platform and encourage differentiation of its hardware (the way it makes most of its money!). In the medium term, they have more great developers than you can shake a stick at, so they won't cry about losing a few thousand more. The only real argument that makes sense is that long-term, enough developer goodwill will be lost that they will go flock to a better platform and eventually tip the balance against iOS. That certainly will not be for the next 3-5 years, which is an eternity in tech. I am not an iOS developer nor do I own Apple stock, so I'm just calling it like I see it. In short, it's a great business decision for them and I really doubt developers will make them pay for it, either short or medium term.
- statictype 17y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that this is not a good short-term business decision for apple. What everyone is furious about is the complete lack of respect for the platform's developers. Yes, Apple has every right to do that if they want, and developers have every right to get furious about it too.
marionogueira 17y ago
isn't that the guy who likes to say "f*ck you" to the developers who use the OSS framework he created and still manages?
- bad_user 17y ago
  In case you are serious, that quote is out of context. He said "fuck you" in a presentation on Rails where he tried expressing that Rails is opinionated and that if Rails doesn't suit your style you're better off choosing something else instead of trying to convince core devs to switch directions (or something of the sort). Say what you will about the guy, but he's a great salesman.
  - marionogueira 17y ago
    So Apple is also an "opinionated" vendor, so what? Not happy? Try developing for Android or something else. Really, what are the merits for this guy to complain about it given his own stand regarding Rails?
    - bad_user 17y ago
      You're comparing apples vs oranges ... Rails is an open-source web-framework. If you don't like its directions and you'd like to change that, you can always fork it without gettings sued ... and forks/clones in other languages have happened and are thriving. His merits are that he's a contributor to an open-source piece of software that changed people's perceptions and he's also a founder of 37signals, a small business that's quite profitable (which is a lot more than I can say for myself).
      - marionogueira 17y ago
        It's a free market... anyone can create their own platform from scratch. Even you and me. But it's hard, right? Anyway, it's not as if Apple had a special license to address this market. By the way, IP is far from being the only cost involved in building an ecosystem around a platform (as ESR has explained ad nauseum). So the "Rails is OSS" argument doesn't really apply here.
BudVVeezer 17y ago
Apple's focus is and always will be: 1) Apple, 2) Marketers, 3) Users, 4) Developers, and #4 has always been a distant one at best (anyone remember the Rhapsody fiasco?) Keep that ordering in mind, the latest changes make perfect sense.
- Perceval 17y ago
  While I think putting marketers in that list is a bit trollish, I think you've hit on something that's broadly true. Developers reacted with rage to Apple's app screening process and are reacting with rage again to Apple's banning of intermediary layers/languages. Whereas Microsoft's slogan is "developers, developers, developers..." Apple's is decidedly not. Apple prioritizes the end user experience over the developer's experience and aren't shy about rubbing that in. More than that, Apple prioritizes having control over its own fate, and if developers using intermediary layers have to suffer for Apple to retain its relative autonomy then so be it. Microsoft's philosophy has the logic: if we have all the developers, then the end users will flock to us, so we're going to cater to the developers. Apple's philosophical logic is: if we make something that 'just works' and that all the end users lust after, the developers will come to us, so we have to retain our ability to push things forward. I'm not sure which philosophy, if either, is better overall. But it seems pretty clear which one angers developers more.
  - BudVVeezer 17y ago
    The reason I put marketers on that list (and higher than users) is because Apple sometimes goes with "shiny" things which are marketing fodder instead of things which truly improve the user experience. But you expounded on my point nicely -- Apple and MS have different philosophies about developers.
    - chc 17y ago
      In my experience, it is the users who go gaga over the "shiny things." If the media pays attention to these things at all, it's simply because they know that's what a lot of users will be interested in. If I tell my mom that the new OS X has a totally rewritten Finder that follows OS X standards much better and deals with failure much more elegantly, she'll just blink and say, "Oh, cool." If I show my mom the graphical interface for Time Machine with all the versions of my files apparently falling into a black hole, she'll point and scream and call people over to see how cool it is. The moral: Never forget that people really do like using shiny things a lot better in many cases.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
kevintwohy 17y ago
All these arguments would be valid if Apple was in the 'being a nice guy' business. But they're not.
pohl 17y ago
#1 is a bizarre argument. I can't weed my garden unless it is already free of weeds?
- mrkurt 17y ago
  It would be more like taking out flowers in an attempt to free your garden of weeds. :)
  - MWinther 17y ago
    Actually, rather more like saying "We won't accept another shipment of flowers mixed up with weeds until we sort the weeds from the flowers we already have."
    - rayval 17y ago
      That's not what they said. They said we are not taking flowers/weeds combinations that arrive on purple trucks. But if you want to dump a whole mess of stuff in a red truck, that is fine with us.
      - binspace 17y ago
        Meanwhile, they don't allow the gardeners to weed the garden because the gardeners are not dressed in their sunday best.
- flogic 17y ago
  I think it'a more "Don't claim you're weeding the garden. We know you're not."
  - pohl 17y ago
    I would say that adding terms to the document constitutes evidence of conscious weeding. Come to think of it, so does every headline I've ever seen about an app store rejection.
  - 17y ago
tmsh 17y ago
> 5. For developers it’s about more than just business I imagine Jobs might reply, 'for business it's about more than just developers'. Adobe's proprietary attempt at creating a cross-platform layer is thwarted. And Apple counts on having enough developers for new apps who already have a background in (or are willing to learn or relearn) Objective-C, C, C++ and JavaScript. It's simple and pragmatic. That said, I'm a developer and I generally only use FOSS products for software. But I give Steve Jobs and his advisors more and more credit for business intelligence. A lot of these comments are about Android. Could be that Apple learned from Sun's mistakes, whereas Google wasn't old enough to be around for the full cycle of that. I love Lua and Scheme. I wouldn't be surprised if senior engineers at Apple also love various different VMs, etc. And yet they would fully support this strategic move by Apple. Why? Steve Jobs' genius has less to do with his douchey presentations and more to do with seeing the big picture dozens of business quarters before everyone else. When you've been seeing that far ahead for three decades, and have all the experience and confidence from succeeding with that like fourteen times, controversial decisions like with Section 3.3.1 aren't as difficult. They are one of 50 decisions that you've made 6 months ago with many different things in mind that won't be released to the public for quite some time -- many of them involving hardly black-and-white tradeoffs (see the Wikipedia entry for Jobs quoting Wayne Gretzky). Apple has a model that works for them. And free software, free digital rights management, openness -- if it gets in the way of their business strategy, by default they're going to plan around it. If you really want Apple to change their policy, get the CEOs of businesses who develop apps to voice concern to Jobs. Show that Flash and Lua and Mono or whatever are mature enough technologies from a business standpoint. Make the argument that it's too much of a gamble for the iPhone/iPad 3GS to be without flash support with other tablets on the rise. (Apple is of course betting on HTML5 pretty heavily.) I guess my point is that: 'Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy' is a good start. But those are mostly developer-based arguments. As a developer whose not in the embedded space, I have no idea what the business strategy arguments would be. But as a developer, I know when a client's use of a library's interface is slighty off. Or something like that. Maybe I don't even know that. Anyhoo.
wrinklz 17y ago
Finally a rational analysis of the iPad developer agreement.
adnam 17y ago
I liked the comment: "Apple is like Venezuela"
jpcx01 17y ago
Extremely well reasoned I think. Much more persuasive than my screeching rants on the subject in the last few days. Nice work DHH!

184 points by sant0sk1 17y ago

All are good points, but number 2 is the big one for me. That was my first thought when I heard what Apple was doing, and I think it's important to keep that in consideration. While I don't always agree with DHH, he makes some good, rational points here. It should be noted that most of these arguments have been made elsewhere, but it's a great summation.

MWinther 17y ago
It's fascinating. This is the way I look at them, as being on the side of people who agree with Apple on this one. #1: Don't agree. Apple has 180,000 apps in their App store, maybe a good time to remove incentives for a new influx of non-programmer-written apps straight from Flash? Oh, they're getting rid of other stuff that also encourages people to use other tools than their own? I think they can live with that. #2: They're not. Tell me where and when Apple said: "You will be able to develop for the iPhone using any and all tools of your choosing." They didn't. They're simply clarifying what's been their position all along, that XCode/Cocoa is the environment in which you create iPhone apps. Sure, other stuff have been able to sneak in stuff, but hardly with an Apple seal of approval. If you're using one of those tools without a suspicion Apple might not like it even before this, I'd say you're a bit naive. #3: Irrelevant. Apple has told developers which tools they can use from the get-go. I imagine the existing cross-platform products have been too small to have been a priority, but here comes Adobe with something that creates iPhone apps straight from the desk of a designer. Yes, did you see the CS5 presentation? "Create iPhone apps without writing any code!" Sounds like great apps to me. #4: Of course it's unfair. But there isn't any better way to enforce their rules. Naturally there'll be apps that fall through the cracks. But a "Aw, why can't I when that app could?" whine sounds very 7-year-old to me. They're putting up rules, if you follow them you should be fine. If someone does something that might be within the rules, but they're not sure, they might get rejected. If someone else tries the same thing, they might get rejected, regardless of whether the first guy was caught or not. #5: Not sure this ia a very good argument either. For me, I develop for Apple products because I love the platform, and I think there are quite a lot of other apps that have been hanging around with Apple because we feel that is the best platform in the world. Not perfect, but best. And I like it when Apple says that what we've learned during the years of sticking by the company because of that conviction, rather than some sense of duty, is going to pay off. Sure, Apple could release the platform to any and all languages out there, implement C#, Java and whatever else might be popular right now. But that would seem to me to cater to the populist crowd, rather than the faithful, so to speak. And those programmers are the same programmers that will move away from the platform when something else catches their fancy. I think Apple wants people like Omni Group rather than the "Oh, lord, another device, another language, who cares? I guess I'll _have_ to learn it, then."-crowd.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  I don't have time to respond to each point, but I will say that it's well thought out. I don't agree with many points, but you've clearly thought about it. =) "They're putting up rules, if you follow them you should be fine." The big issue is that they are changing rules. They are. There isn't anything you can say that changes this. So even if you did follow the rules, you are still stuck with an unsure situation.
  - MWinther 17y ago
    They're undoubtedly changing the language in the developer TOS, that is of course undisputable. =) However, when introducing the iPhone SDK, they clearly said (about XCode) "This is where you'll be developing all your apps." I'm saying you could consider this a change in legal language to more clearly adhere to the spirit of the premises of that SDK. The fact that people have been able to use products in a grey area to sidestep this, doesn't mean that the rules have been changed, just that they haven't been enforced before. Apple never said: You can develop in any IDE you want for the iPhone, and then changed their mind again. None of these tools that are affected have been approved as developer tools by Apple before, and people using them know or should have known that. What has happened is that Apple is starting to clearly stress that Xcode is the only approved developer tool. The major change is that unapproved tools now clearly are marked as unapproved, which in itself isn't a change from before. They've always been unapproved. Now, as far as enforcement, that might be just the same as before, since we haven't seen any rejections based on the new policy. Most people, including me, seems to be guessing on that this will mean some kind of enforcement as well, but we're just going to have to see what's going on there. Either way, if you've been using Apple approved development tools before this change, nothing has changed, and therefore there is nothing more to worry about after than before this change in stance.
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      "Either way, if you've been using Apple approved development tools before this change, nothing has changed, and therefore there is nothing more to worry about after than before this change in stance." That's one way to look at it. Of course, then the question becomes one of a permissive development platform. You are only allowed to use what they say you can, and if they don't say you can use it, you shouldn't. And even then, they've proven in the past that even this isn't reliable. You can follow their rules, and it still not matter. This isn't the first time they've done this. Just because they say you can do something now doesn't mean they won't pull the plug later. This is a volatile situation to be in. Now, I won't argue whether they can do it legally. Nor will I suggest that other companies can't do it. But Apple seems to be rather blatant about it.

mrcharles 17y ago

It seems to me that part of number 3 (about private APIs) is bogus -- it's pretty easy to compare an executable against private API addresses to make sure it isn't linked to any of them. They likely have a tool and it likely results in an instant fail and I doubt there are any approved apps that use private APIs.

reitzensteinm 17y ago
I think you mean #3.
- mrcharles 17y ago
  Curse that 2 key, always next to the 3.
minalecs 17y ago
this is not completely true.. when google first released their search application, they were allowed to use an undocumented api (at the time), that detected when you moved your phone from your ear, and was allowed. Not sure if this is the same as a private api, but in general they do reject the use of private api's.
- mrcharles 17y ago
  Special exceptions aside, of course. That follows with his other point about big players, which I agree with. They get to do things the little guys don't.
MWinther 17y ago
They did start this checking relatively late in the game however, and I seem to remember it giving rise to a number of outraged developer stories on the web.

fjabre 17y ago

The problem is Apple has no real competition. They can do almost anything they want without fear of retribution because your average consumer has no idea what any of this means. That's bad news for all us pissed off developers since Apple's new platform will continue to be extremely popular in which case devs are forced to develop for it. Google seems to be inching towards being a real threat but they also seem extremely unfocused. Does anyone really need a toaster running the latest version of Android? Apple needs some competition in this space and Android-based mobile devices seem like a really distant second. It's time for Google to kick it up a notch.

stanleydrew 17y ago
There is tons of real competition. There will probably be 50 Android smartphones on the market by the end of the year, if not sooner. RIM and Symbian are still ahead, even if you see them as waning. Yes consumers have no idea what any of this means. But that actually works in favor of Apple's competitors. When an average consumer looks at the smartphone market, Apple may stand out, but the iPhone is still just one among hundreds of smartphones. There is tons of competition on features and price. Finally, Google doesn't need to kick it up a notch. Android is doing extremely well. Keep in mind that Google doesn't need Android to make money. Google doesn't care if Nexus One sales are sluggish. They are in the market to change the game. And I'd say they are succeeding with that.
- rimantas 17y ago
  There is tons of competition on features and price. That's exactly the problem. Apple does not compete on features and price, they compete on user experience.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    I don't understand why that's a problem.
    - grinich 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago

The web is not a carefully curated gallery of web pages and yet we're still able to find the good stuff all the time thanks to intermediaries of discovery This is hardly a strong argument, as the main "intermediary of discovery" is Google, and most internet users are all too ready to give up their banking information to websites which have an official looking header on the page. Just because it worked for the web doesn't mean it'll work for Apple's AppStore.

dhh 17y ago
So you'd like for the web to be put back in the box and replaced with an AOL Walled Garden of wonder? Freedom can indeed be dangerous, but I'd rather be free to hurt myself than smothered to dead by paternalism.
- clawrencewenham 17y ago
  The existence of a restricted marketplace doesn't mean the greater internet must become just like it, as if through some kind of relative application of logic. The internet--and the real world in general--can host a million restricted marketplaces, each designed for specific interests--and still be free in general. Your reductio ad absurdum is suggesting that the presence of a gated community in the Hamptons means that every neighborhood ought to be gated.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  The post you're replying to specifically said that it "worked for the web". Nobody's trying to take away the open web.
flogic 17y ago
I believe that forcefully weeding out the crap is detrimental. It's hard to define crap. If a buggy app provides functionality users consider critical, is it crap? Wouldn't it be better to let it evolve into not crap?

duck 17y ago

I hope #5 turns out to be bigger than I think it will be, but people end up sticking with what is popular (iPhone) even when it hurts to do so.

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
I been saying this ever since I first got wind of the new TOS. We went away from Windows because MS was holing a leash on us with their API lock-in. Now we're 1-up ing that with Apple's new TOS which takes the MS lock-in to a whole new level. People say "oh but it will keep the already crap x-platform apps out" to which I say "Yes it will keep the would-be flashy x-platform POS games/crap apps out, but it will also keep out the apps that let me do my business better that run on Android / WebOS / iPhone because the developers of the TOOLS had to cater to a larger market share." If I am making a tool that takes pictures and uploads them to my website for special needs of people running on the BlackBerry, Android, WebOS, iPhone because it has to be a compliment to my web tool there is no reason why I can't write it with minimal effort and use the iPhone store to distribute it for free with that exact goal in mind! Its not about making a wonderful iPhone app, its about doing my damn business and giving a business process convenience using the iPhone. Not every iPhone app has to be a super innovative new way to run the world, sometimes its just a piece of crap complimentary tool that's just needed to do some grunt work easier.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  This is exactly the thinking that Apple doesn't want going into App Store apps: "I'll just put up this good-enough piece of crap because that's all I have time/money to do." They've got a ton of businesses wanting to be on iPhone so they're willing to lose those businesses that will only put out crap. I agree with you that putting out a piece of crap might make the most sense for your business. But it's not what Apple wants for its platform. A key thing to understand here: the existence of a platform controlled in this way increases diversity, since there are several other prospering platforms that do things differently.
  - confuzatron 17y ago

raganwald 17y ago

Giles "Goatboy" Bowkett: I even say (sic) DHH enter the fray, which is absurd hypocrisy, given that the first time I ever saw this guy, he was putting a giant "Fuck You" slide on a screen and explaining how he wasn't going to add features to Rails that he didn't agree with, because it was his framework, and he didn't believe that anybody who disagreed with him on that merited any other response but "fuck you". What kind of response does he think he merits from Apple? http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-his-platform-not-yours.html http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-his-platform-no...

Tichy 17y ago
git clone rails
- raganwald 17y ago
  So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git clone rails" amounts to suggesting?
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    Has anyone really, seriously argued that Apple isn't "entitled" to do as they please? They are, and developers are entitled to be annoyed when their seemingly artificial and arbitrary limitations cause them problems. And we're all entitled to post our opinions about it, but you should maybe try and give the opposing views a little more respect. :)
    - raganwald 17y ago
      Well yes, I have read opinions that Apple is abusing some sort of market dominance and/or reneging on expectations it has set by changing its SDK terms. But let's stick with opinions that Apple is either (a) disadvantaging itself, or (b) disadvantaging developers with its current set of choices. I didn't realize that quoting Giles was considered disrespectful of either of these opinions. It was an interesting take. I like what I know of David, and consider myself an awfully opinionated guy as well. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worth pondering whether this particular bit of criticism is... Um... "interesting," nor do I predict he would be outraged at Giles' comment or my quote of it. If I thought you, David or anybody else wrote something that they were not entitled to write, I would use the flag feature, not a comment. To me, a comment is intended to provoke thought and debate, not to suggest there is something that should not be said. Now to clarify what I intended when I quoted Giles. I didn't think of it as a "David shouldn't have said that," rather I thought of it as a "If it's right for Rails it just might be right for iPhone!" I still think that even though David gives Rails away and Apple does not give iPhone away. iPhone is an opinionated product, and people are correct when they say that Apple is saying "Fuck You!" Apple is saying that in exactly the same sense that David said it, even though no you can't fork iPhone.

erichsu 17y ago

These are rational arguments for non-ObjC developers to be pissed at Apple. None of them are arguments for APPLE to change its policy. In the medium term it is clearly better for Apple's interests to implement 3.3.1, to maintain control over platform and encourage differentiation of its hardware (the way it makes most of its money!). In the medium term, they have more great developers than you can shake a stick at, so they won't cry about losing a few thousand more. The only real argument that makes sense is that long-term, enough developer goodwill will be lost that they will go flock to a better platform and eventually tip the balance against iOS. That certainly will not be for the next 3-5 years, which is an eternity in tech. I am not an iOS developer nor do I own Apple stock, so I'm just calling it like I see it. In short, it's a great business decision for them and I really doubt developers will make them pay for it, either short or medium term.

statictype 17y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that this is not a good short-term business decision for apple. What everyone is furious about is the complete lack of respect for the platform's developers. Yes, Apple has every right to do that if they want, and developers have every right to get furious about it too.

marionogueira 17y ago

isn't that the guy who likes to say "f*ck you" to the developers who use the OSS framework he created and still manages?

bad_user 17y ago
In case you are serious, that quote is out of context. He said "fuck you" in a presentation on Rails where he tried expressing that Rails is opinionated and that if Rails doesn't suit your style you're better off choosing something else instead of trying to convince core devs to switch directions (or something of the sort). Say what you will about the guy, but he's a great salesman.
- marionogueira 17y ago
  So Apple is also an "opinionated" vendor, so what? Not happy? Try developing for Android or something else. Really, what are the merits for this guy to complain about it given his own stand regarding Rails?
  - bad_user 17y ago
    You're comparing apples vs oranges ... Rails is an open-source web-framework. If you don't like its directions and you'd like to change that, you can always fork it without gettings sued ... and forks/clones in other languages have happened and are thriving. His merits are that he's a contributor to an open-source piece of software that changed people's perceptions and he's also a founder of 37signals, a small business that's quite profitable (which is a lot more than I can say for myself).
    - marionogueira 17y ago
      It's a free market... anyone can create their own platform from scratch. Even you and me. But it's hard, right? Anyway, it's not as if Apple had a special license to address this market. By the way, IP is far from being the only cost involved in building an ecosystem around a platform (as ESR has explained ad nauseum). So the "Rails is OSS" argument doesn't really apply here.

BudVVeezer 17y ago

Apple's focus is and always will be: 1) Apple, 2) Marketers, 3) Users, 4) Developers, and #4 has always been a distant one at best (anyone remember the Rhapsody fiasco?) Keep that ordering in mind, the latest changes make perfect sense.

Perceval 17y ago
While I think putting marketers in that list is a bit trollish, I think you've hit on something that's broadly true. Developers reacted with rage to Apple's app screening process and are reacting with rage again to Apple's banning of intermediary layers/languages. Whereas Microsoft's slogan is "developers, developers, developers..." Apple's is decidedly not. Apple prioritizes the end user experience over the developer's experience and aren't shy about rubbing that in. More than that, Apple prioritizes having control over its own fate, and if developers using intermediary layers have to suffer for Apple to retain its relative autonomy then so be it. Microsoft's philosophy has the logic: if we have all the developers, then the end users will flock to us, so we're going to cater to the developers. Apple's philosophical logic is: if we make something that 'just works' and that all the end users lust after, the developers will come to us, so we have to retain our ability to push things forward. I'm not sure which philosophy, if either, is better overall. But it seems pretty clear which one angers developers more.
- BudVVeezer 17y ago
  The reason I put marketers on that list (and higher than users) is because Apple sometimes goes with "shiny" things which are marketing fodder instead of things which truly improve the user experience. But you expounded on my point nicely -- Apple and MS have different philosophies about developers.
  - chc 17y ago
    In my experience, it is the users who go gaga over the "shiny things." If the media pays attention to these things at all, it's simply because they know that's what a lot of users will be interested in. If I tell my mom that the new OS X has a totally rewritten Finder that follows OS X standards much better and deals with failure much more elegantly, she'll just blink and say, "Oh, cool." If I show my mom the graphical interface for Time Machine with all the versions of my files apparently falling into a black hole, she'll point and scream and call people over to see how cool it is. The moral: Never forget that people really do like using shiny things a lot better in many cases.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

kevintwohy 17y ago

All these arguments would be valid if Apple was in the 'being a nice guy' business. But they're not.

pohl 17y ago

#1 is a bizarre argument. I can't weed my garden unless it is already free of weeds?

mrkurt 17y ago
It would be more like taking out flowers in an attempt to free your garden of weeds. :)
- MWinther 17y ago
  Actually, rather more like saying "We won't accept another shipment of flowers mixed up with weeds until we sort the weeds from the flowers we already have."
  - rayval 17y ago
    That's not what they said. They said we are not taking flowers/weeds combinations that arrive on purple trucks. But if you want to dump a whole mess of stuff in a red truck, that is fine with us.
    - binspace 17y ago
      Meanwhile, they don't allow the gardeners to weed the garden because the gardeners are not dressed in their sunday best.
flogic 17y ago
I think it'a more "Don't claim you're weeding the garden. We know you're not."
- pohl 17y ago
  I would say that adding terms to the document constitutes evidence of conscious weeding. Come to think of it, so does every headline I've ever seen about an app store rejection.
- 17y ago

tmsh 17y ago

> 5. For developers it’s about more than just business I imagine Jobs might reply, 'for business it's about more than just developers'. Adobe's proprietary attempt at creating a cross-platform layer is thwarted. And Apple counts on having enough developers for new apps who already have a background in (or are willing to learn or relearn) Objective-C, C, C++ and JavaScript. It's simple and pragmatic. That said, I'm a developer and I generally only use FOSS products for software. But I give Steve Jobs and his advisors more and more credit for business intelligence. A lot of these comments are about Android. Could be that Apple learned from Sun's mistakes, whereas Google wasn't old enough to be around for the full cycle of that. I love Lua and Scheme. I wouldn't be surprised if senior engineers at Apple also love various different VMs, etc. And yet they would fully support this strategic move by Apple. Why? Steve Jobs' genius has less to do with his douchey presentations and more to do with seeing the big picture dozens of business quarters before everyone else. When you've been seeing that far ahead for three decades, and have all the experience and confidence from succeeding with that like fourteen times, controversial decisions like with Section 3.3.1 aren't as difficult. They are one of 50 decisions that you've made 6 months ago with many different things in mind that won't be released to the public for quite some time -- many of them involving hardly black-and-white tradeoffs (see the Wikipedia entry for Jobs quoting Wayne Gretzky). Apple has a model that works for them. And free software, free digital rights management, openness -- if it gets in the way of their business strategy, by default they're going to plan around it. If you really want Apple to change their policy, get the CEOs of businesses who develop apps to voice concern to Jobs. Show that Flash and Lua and Mono or whatever are mature enough technologies from a business standpoint. Make the argument that it's too much of a gamble for the iPhone/iPad 3GS to be without flash support with other tablets on the rise. (Apple is of course betting on HTML5 pretty heavily.) I guess my point is that: 'Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy' is a good start. But those are mostly developer-based arguments. As a developer whose not in the embedded space, I have no idea what the business strategy arguments would be. But as a developer, I know when a client's use of a library's interface is slighty off. Or something like that. Maybe I don't even know that. Anyhoo.

wrinklz 17y ago

Finally a rational analysis of the iPad developer agreement.

adnam 17y ago

I liked the comment: "Apple is like Venezuela"

jpcx01 17y ago

Extremely well reasoned I think. Much more persuasive than my screeching rants on the subject in the last few days. Nice work DHH!