5 ms·

This is like apologizing for the Patriot Act. As long as you play nice with the feds and you don't look like one of the undesirables, we won't mess with you.

extension 17y ago
The blog post strikes me as a pragmatic observation rather than an ethical justification. It makes a very good point too. If you use an in-house tool that compiles lisp/ruby/whatever to Objective C, I seriously doubt Apple is going to go through the trouble of detecting this. Even if they did, I don't see them giving two shits as long as you follow the HIG, stick to public APIs and keep the tools to yourself. Since the do-gooders can't release the tools publicly, the only people who have them are the people who can make them. If you are one of those people, you can probably come out ahead from this whole debacle, even if it doesn't give you a warm freedom fuzzy inside.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  The flip side is the consumer side: This isn't good for the consumer. I simply have no desire to add apps now, knowing that Apple can remove them at any time. Especially now with all the changes, it's obvious that even a 'legal' app might be removed. Or updates won't be approved. There are just so many problems. I realize that the average consumer won't see this, but it's a problem. You could argue that it benefits the consumer, because better apps will get through. With more restrictions, less apps will be sent in, freeing up more manpower to approve legit apps quicker. This might happen. Still, I try to avoid buying software that I can't install at any time, and I avoid buying into harsh DRM. I don't always succeed, but I don't want to rely on a single vendor who has proven their willingness to eliminate popular content, stall important updates, and drastically change rules whenever they please.
DenisM 17y ago
Attempting to trivialize abhorrent human right violations by comparing them to restrictions on a piece software run on a gadget? I invoke Godwin's law - you lose your argument.

extension 17y ago

The blog post strikes me as a pragmatic observation rather than an ethical justification. It makes a very good point too. If you use an in-house tool that compiles lisp/ruby/whatever to Objective C, I seriously doubt Apple is going to go through the trouble of detecting this. Even if they did, I don't see them giving two shits as long as you follow the HIG, stick to public APIs and keep the tools to yourself. Since the do-gooders can't release the tools publicly, the only people who have them are the people who can make them. If you are one of those people, you can probably come out ahead from this whole debacle, even if it doesn't give you a warm freedom fuzzy inside.

jasonlotito 17y ago
The flip side is the consumer side: This isn't good for the consumer. I simply have no desire to add apps now, knowing that Apple can remove them at any time. Especially now with all the changes, it's obvious that even a 'legal' app might be removed. Or updates won't be approved. There are just so many problems. I realize that the average consumer won't see this, but it's a problem. You could argue that it benefits the consumer, because better apps will get through. With more restrictions, less apps will be sent in, freeing up more manpower to approve legit apps quicker. This might happen. Still, I try to avoid buying software that I can't install at any time, and I avoid buying into harsh DRM. I don't always succeed, but I don't want to rely on a single vendor who has proven their willingness to eliminate popular content, stall important updates, and drastically change rules whenever they please.

DenisM 17y ago

Attempting to trivialize abhorrent human right violations by comparing them to restrictions on a piece software run on a gadget? I invoke Godwin's law - you lose your argument.