6 ms·

More good news about 3.3.1 "must write in C, Objective-C or C++" clause: it's made even more obvious here that Apple only cares about commercial middleware UI-d

by tumult 17y ago

More good news about 3.3.1 "must write in C, Objective-C or C++" clause: it's made even more obvious here that Apple only cares about commercial middleware UI-driven applications. Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax. Though, I wish they would still change the wording. I dislike having to wait for my friend's cat to click the "I Agree" button, since I cannot actually agree to the terms as worded and not break them.

greendestiny 17y ago
Well 3.3.1 is worded poorly then, you'd think their legal team could do better if they just wanted to stop Adobe. Its pretty explicit about banning other languages.
- tumult 17y ago
  Yes, it's stupid. But with Apple, I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording. The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms. The wording is overly broad and stupid, but I'm no longer as afraid of it. If they were intent on getting rid of everything under the sun that isn't straight C, Obj-C or C++, there would already be an App-ocalypse underway. (I was going to say "App Holocaust" first, but that seemed even less tasteful.)
  - dhimes 17y ago
    I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording I'm leery of their capriciousness. They obviously have no qualms about changing their terms of service on a whim, giving folks only weeks to comply, and not accepting any compromise. That is simply not the type of folk I like to do business with.
  - lftl 17y ago
    The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms. This is actually the biggest part of Job's argument that I don't buy. If their intent was actually to stop crap from being produced, they would just reject apps that are crap from the App Store as they do now.
    - danudey 17y ago
      It's a question of technical vs. subjective evaluation. A lot of apps on the app store are technically acceptable (i.e. they do things right), but do useless or stupid shit (i.e. they're junk). Apple's only lately started to police the actual purpose of apps, rather than their technical merit (or compliance with the HIG).
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      I suppose making this rule more explicit was the goal. The #1 complaint about the app store rejection system is that it is not transparent or explicit. Still, 3.3.1 is poorly worded, so it's not a great solution.
plinkplonk 17y ago
"Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax." Which part of the submitted article supports this? (genuine question not snark). I see a lot of flash bashing but nothing indicating you don't have to " write in C, Objective-C or C++"
- jws 17y ago
  The rationale that Apple doesn't want developers shackled by third party development tools of which they have no control suggests that if you have control (e.g. you embed a Lua interpreter in an otherwise native app) or you still have full access to all the goodies (e.g. You use some sort of game engine for the guts of your 3D game) then the clause is not intended for you. Still, it would be better for them to spell it out more clearly or have a mechanism for you to get a preliminary ruling before you embark on development.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- protothomas 17y ago
  Not the parent but the article says: "The most important reason... We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features." Suggesting that the primary reason for the clause is that it will prevent third party apps effectively blocking enhancements made the the development environment; if you are using your own tools this isn't an issue. Not sure I agree that this means apple will be happy with developers using tools outside Objective C, but it certainly could suggest it.
  - Psyonic 17y ago
    The article is about Flash though. They clarified about Flash specifically, but reading other things into this seems foolhardy.
NickPollard 17y ago
Unfortunately in legal situations, it's often the letter of the law not the spirit of the law that carries weight. It's been pretty obvious from the beginning that Apple wanted to block Flash, but not, say, Unity. I think they'll find it hard to only enforce it against certain infringers though. Imagine if a government introduced a law that said no-one was allowed out on the streets after dark, but then only actually enforced it against Hispanics.
- Qz 17y ago
  That's really a terrible analogy.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Maybe, but it unfortunately is the way life is in many places, and it serves to make the point pretty good. Selective enforcement of this policy is a real risk.
Zak 17y ago
There's absolutely no need to specify languages for the purpose Apple is claiming they have in mind. They could simply say that you must not use an intermediate layer between your code and their API. There's no reason for them to not want you to write the application in Scheme (as an example).
danielh 17y ago
I'm afraid quite the opposite is the case: We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. IMHO, this sentences leaves no doubt that Apple does not only target Adobe, but any kind of layer they consider harmful for their platform.
- gaius 17y ago
  Anyone who doubts this need only write an AWT app to be convinced.

by tumult 17y ago

greendestiny 17y ago

Well 3.3.1 is worded poorly then, you'd think their legal team could do better if they just wanted to stop Adobe. Its pretty explicit about banning other languages.

tumult 17y ago
Yes, it's stupid. But with Apple, I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording. The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms. The wording is overly broad and stupid, but I'm no longer as afraid of it. If they were intent on getting rid of everything under the sun that isn't straight C, Obj-C or C++, there would already be an App-ocalypse underway. (I was going to say "App Holocaust" first, but that seemed even less tasteful.)
- dhimes 17y ago
  I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording I'm leery of their capriciousness. They obviously have no qualms about changing their terms of service on a whim, giving folks only weeks to comply, and not accepting any compromise. That is simply not the type of folk I like to do business with.
- lftl 17y ago
  The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms. This is actually the biggest part of Job's argument that I don't buy. If their intent was actually to stop crap from being produced, they would just reject apps that are crap from the App Store as they do now.
  - danudey 17y ago
    It's a question of technical vs. subjective evaluation. A lot of apps on the app store are technically acceptable (i.e. they do things right), but do useless or stupid shit (i.e. they're junk). Apple's only lately started to police the actual purpose of apps, rather than their technical merit (or compliance with the HIG).
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    I suppose making this rule more explicit was the goal. The #1 complaint about the app store rejection system is that it is not transparent or explicit. Still, 3.3.1 is poorly worded, so it's not a great solution.

plinkplonk 17y ago

"Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax." Which part of the submitted article supports this? (genuine question not snark). I see a lot of flash bashing but nothing indicating you don't have to " write in C, Objective-C or C++"

jws 17y ago
The rationale that Apple doesn't want developers shackled by third party development tools of which they have no control suggests that if you have control (e.g. you embed a Lua interpreter in an otherwise native app) or you still have full access to all the goodies (e.g. You use some sort of game engine for the guts of your 3D game) then the clause is not intended for you. Still, it would be better for them to spell it out more clearly or have a mechanism for you to get a preliminary ruling before you embark on development.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
protothomas 17y ago
Not the parent but the article says: "The most important reason... We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features." Suggesting that the primary reason for the clause is that it will prevent third party apps effectively blocking enhancements made the the development environment; if you are using your own tools this isn't an issue. Not sure I agree that this means apple will be happy with developers using tools outside Objective C, but it certainly could suggest it.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  The article is about Flash though. They clarified about Flash specifically, but reading other things into this seems foolhardy.

NickPollard 17y ago

Unfortunately in legal situations, it's often the letter of the law not the spirit of the law that carries weight. It's been pretty obvious from the beginning that Apple wanted to block Flash, but not, say, Unity. I think they'll find it hard to only enforce it against certain infringers though. Imagine if a government introduced a law that said no-one was allowed out on the streets after dark, but then only actually enforced it against Hispanics.

Qz 17y ago
That's really a terrible analogy.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Maybe, but it unfortunately is the way life is in many places, and it serves to make the point pretty good. Selective enforcement of this policy is a real risk.

Zak 17y ago

There's absolutely no need to specify languages for the purpose Apple is claiming they have in mind. They could simply say that you must not use an intermediate layer between your code and their API. There's no reason for them to not want you to write the application in Scheme (as an example).

danielh 17y ago

I'm afraid quite the opposite is the case: We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. IMHO, this sentences leaves no doubt that Apple does not only target Adobe, but any kind of layer they consider harmful for their platform.

gaius 17y ago
Anyone who doubts this need only write an AWT app to be convinced.