3 ms·

doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by Adobe Sure

by ynniv 17y ago

doesn't even attempt to address why requiring all programs be originally developed in objc,c, or c++ is a good way to prevent being held hostage by Adobe Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash. That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile platform that would nor does it address the huge repercussions it could have. There have been a lot of keys struck in anger since this was announced, and I find it to be too naïve. Apple would never enforce such a clause against something that was beneficial to them. So far, there have been no killer apps in the mobile space (sorry guys). While I enjoy the massively discounted offerings on the AppStore, the core OS and applications that Apple provides are the only things that affect my device buying decision. When someone makes a killer app that cannot be released on the AppStore, then this will matter. Until then... Sorry, no one was going to buy your Scheme-based app anyway.

chc 17y ago
I'm having trouble following your logic. How do I determine whether a useful and nonthreatening program in the App Store is beneficial to Apple? It seems like it would go without saying that every good app is a boon, but you appear to imply that there's some threshold of "killer"-ness that needs to be breached before your contribution is beneficial (and by extension you are allowed to use whatever language you want). How is this determined? Further, since you state that an app must be "killer" to be beneficial, and that there are no killer apps in the store, does this mean that Apple derives no benefit at all from the App Store? Because that seems like a pretty absurd claim.
Psyonic 17y ago
"Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash. That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile platform that would" A legal footing? Do they really need more than they already had? They were already arbitrarily rejecting apps they didn't like, why couldn't they continue doing that? And games are a killer app for many people, and Unity3D is potentially affected by this. So while you personally may not care, don't assume other people don't have legitimate reasons for caring. Is it possible they will only selectively enforce this? Of course! But if they only intended to go after flash apps, why bother with the clause at all? Why not just reject all Flash apps?

by ynniv 17y ago

chc 17y ago

I'm having trouble following your logic. How do I determine whether a useful and nonthreatening program in the App Store is beneficial to Apple? It seems like it would go without saying that every good app is a boon, but you appear to imply that there's some threshold of "killer"-ness that needs to be breached before your contribution is beneficial (and by extension you are allowed to use whatever language you want). How is this determined? Further, since you state that an app must be "killer" to be beneficial, and that there are no killer apps in the store, does this mean that Apple derives no benefit at all from the App Store? Because that seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Psyonic 17y ago

"Sure it does - it provides a legal footing for denying apps based on Flash. That pretty much prevents Adobe and Microsoft from establishing a mobile platform that would" A legal footing? Do they really need more than they already had? They were already arbitrarily rejecting apps they didn't like, why couldn't they continue doing that? And games are a killer app for many people, and Unity3D is potentially affected by this. So while you personally may not care, don't assume other people don't have legitimate reasons for caring. Is it possible they will only selectively enforce this? Of course! But if they only intended to go after flash apps, why bother with the clause at all? Why not just reject all Flash apps?