7 ms·

>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published fo

by ergo98 17y ago

>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? >For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what tools you use to generate the assemblies. If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. And you can target native, but you have to buy the expensive SDK and sign a revenue sharing agreement. That's the financial model behind consoles (where they are generally sold at a loss). Again, though, how you develop is not Microsoft's concern, and you have no limits on that, so long as you fall within the bounds of the runtime. Apple's restrictions are not at all comparable. If Apple implemented 3.3.1 as a clause that Apple will impose minimum quality levels, feature completeness (e.g. "you must use the current available features of the platform"), etc, that would be one thing and they would have been entirely within their rights to do that. That is not what they did, but instead they are saying that a super shitty, super inefficient crapshoot of an app that misuses and underuses the platform is okay, but one that is developed in a different manner is not just because.

roc 17y ago
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected thousands of apps, they would. To deny that is to refuse to learn from all the intentionally-protected bugs and legacy behaviors in modern desktop operating systems, that linger solely because the platform provider doesn't want to break large swaths of legacy apps.
- ergo98 17y ago
  This justification is one of the most astonishingly vapid ones around. I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. The distinction Apple is making is that they have a temporary mindspace monopoly of the smartphone markets and they want to cement it in by forcing developers to help the Apple cause.
  - roc 17y ago
    > I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. So you've never encountered a standard/API/platform that perpetuates bugs, support for bad practices or misuse of old interfaces to avoid breaking legacy apps?
    - bad_user 17y ago
      Good platforms get updated instantly and aren't using too many unofficial APIs. If something so awful happens on an upgrade that it breaks such a middle layer, it will also break many native apps which will also need upgrades. Also, applications written for cross-platform development tools are higher-level and for complying with any new interfaces you may have it's just a matter of rewriting some bindings. In case the change is so radical that it needs architectural changes (like from Carbon to Cocoa), you can always force tool vendors to update their platforms by pulling out Carbon completely (how could they do that if some of their own apps are still on Carbon?) In fact I would bet that applications on stuff like MonoTouch would've gotten upgraded from Carbon to Cocoa a lot faster than native apps were. Really, you're setting up a strawman argument.
      - roc 17y ago
        It's hardly a strawman. The history of personal computing is littered with examples of this, many of which have been covered ad nauseum during this 3.3.1 debate. Your argument, in contrast, is alternately "that doesn't/won't happen" or "that's no big deal". Which is an assertion that stands against the piles of evidence that it does and is, and an assertion you don't back up at all. Why should middle-ware be different this time? For the record, I don't think middle-ware decay is a reasonable argument for Apple disallowing it. (I do think it's the argument against developers relying on it.) I'm just getting rather tired of people either misrepresenting or ignoring the other side of an argument. There's plenty there to disagree with. It makes no sense to pretend that middle-ware decay doesn't or --for unspecified reasons-- simply won't happen this time.
  - wtallis 17y ago
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  The problem I see is that Apple feels poor apps (whatever that means) reflect poorly on it rather than just on the app makers themselves. This is new. On OS X a crappy app is just a crappy app. Nobody blames Apple, people blame the application developer. There has to be some argument made that on a small mobile device this distinction is warranted, but I haven't heard it yet.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Actually, it isn't a new behavior. Look at the history of Nintendo and the Atari 2600. Bad apps reflect on Apple, just as bad games reflected on Atari.
    - stanleydrew 17y ago
      I meant it's new for Apple in relation to, say, OS X.
      - protomyth 17y ago
        Despite all the Adobe advocacy, people blame Safari and Apple for crashing when the trace shows it was the Flash plugin. Most people don't know what did it and blame Apple. I think they are tired of it.
- zacharypinter 17y ago
  Wouldn't that apply to C/C++/Objective C libraries as well? Let's say everybody is using some popular Objective C library from github and it has a bug with a new iPhone OS. Apple would then be in a position of getting that library patched and getting potentially hundreds of apps to update to the latest version of the library. Should Apple outlaw 3rd-party Objective C libraries as well?
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The key difference is that if the bug is in your own code, you can fix it. This could be trivial or it could not be, but it's within your sphere of control. If the bug were in (say) Adobe's code, you could not, nor could Apple.
    - carussell 17y ago
      Fun excuse, but section 3.3.1 forbids even intermediary translation or compatibility layers under your control. So that's a line of bullshit.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        I said nothing about "intermediary translation or compatibility layers", nor did the post I was replying to. Please read the thread for context before posting.
        carussell 17y ago
        "[I]ntermediary translation or compatibility layers" is directly from section 3.3.1 and the entire reason this thread exists. Please read the primary sources for context before condescending.
archgrove 17y ago
The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that too. I also don't know what the requirements of their commercial licence are (and unless you're an XBox developer, neither do you), but it's almost certainly more than just revenue sharing (they would never allow the publication of a "Crash a plane into the twin towers" game, for example). Moreover, I do know that Nintendo certain did (and I think still do) have strict policies on types of violence in games for their platforms. Regardless, the general point stands. They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose. This is how the free market is supposed to work. It breaks down when there are entrenched monopolies, or when other external factors prevent people from exercising their right to buy an alternative, or start a competitor - but that is demonstrably not the case here. So why not let the market decide?
- ergo98 17y ago
  "They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose." The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it. Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplished the same goal more subtly, but, probably due to Jobs universe-sized ego, they had to bring this upon themselves. "This is how the free market is supposed to work." No, it isn't at all how the free market is supposed to work. 3.3.1 is the exact opposite of a free market.
  - ptomato 17y ago
    You're missing the bit where Apple isn't by any means the only phone manufacturer around.
    - 17y ago
tvon 17y ago
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
- ebiester 17y ago
  OS X isn't.
  - tvon 17y ago
    Neither is Windows.
    - ebiester 17y ago
      Couldn't you concievably develop with Mono, though?
      - tvon 17y ago
        Conceivably, yes, but that's beside the point. My point is that comparing a Visual Studio Ultimate requirement to an XCode requirement is misrepresenting the weight of the XCode requirement. XCode is free and included with every copy of OSX, while Visual Studio Ultimate will set you back $3,800 (the cost of a well equipped Mac Pro). Requiring VS Ultimate would no doubt cause angry mobs to storm One Microsoft Way, but it is not a fair comparison by any means. A more realistic comparison is that if Zune/XBox development required Visual Studio Express[1], which is a free download. And really, I can't imagine there being much backlash out of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was currently the case. [1] That's still a bit off since there is no up-sell from XCode, but for the sake of argument, say they are equivalent.
  - jasongullickson 17y ago
    OS X is less expensive than Visual Studio, in fact you could probably get the operating system and a mac mini to go along with it for less than Visual Studio Ultimate...
tptacek 17y ago
As far as I can tell, there's no way to deploy an XNA game to the 360 that hasn't been built with Microsoft's toolchain. I think it's a bit early to speculate about the differences between the two platforms (iPhone OS and X360).

by ergo98 17y ago

roc 17y ago

The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected thousands of apps, they would. To deny that is to refuse to learn from all the intentionally-protected bugs and legacy behaviors in modern desktop operating systems, that linger solely because the platform provider doesn't want to break large swaths of legacy apps.

ergo98 17y ago
This justification is one of the most astonishingly vapid ones around. I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. The distinction Apple is making is that they have a temporary mindspace monopoly of the smartphone markets and they want to cement it in by forcing developers to help the Apple cause.
- roc 17y ago
  > I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. So you've never encountered a standard/API/platform that perpetuates bugs, support for bad practices or misuse of old interfaces to avoid breaking legacy apps?
  - bad_user 17y ago
    Good platforms get updated instantly and aren't using too many unofficial APIs. If something so awful happens on an upgrade that it breaks such a middle layer, it will also break many native apps which will also need upgrades. Also, applications written for cross-platform development tools are higher-level and for complying with any new interfaces you may have it's just a matter of rewriting some bindings. In case the change is so radical that it needs architectural changes (like from Carbon to Cocoa), you can always force tool vendors to update their platforms by pulling out Carbon completely (how could they do that if some of their own apps are still on Carbon?) In fact I would bet that applications on stuff like MonoTouch would've gotten upgraded from Carbon to Cocoa a lot faster than native apps were. Really, you're setting up a strawman argument.
    - roc 17y ago
      It's hardly a strawman. The history of personal computing is littered with examples of this, many of which have been covered ad nauseum during this 3.3.1 debate. Your argument, in contrast, is alternately "that doesn't/won't happen" or "that's no big deal". Which is an assertion that stands against the piles of evidence that it does and is, and an assertion you don't back up at all. Why should middle-ware be different this time? For the record, I don't think middle-ware decay is a reasonable argument for Apple disallowing it. (I do think it's the argument against developers relying on it.) I'm just getting rather tired of people either misrepresenting or ignoring the other side of an argument. There's plenty there to disagree with. It makes no sense to pretend that middle-ware decay doesn't or --for unspecified reasons-- simply won't happen this time.
- wtallis 17y ago
stanleydrew 17y ago
The problem I see is that Apple feels poor apps (whatever that means) reflect poorly on it rather than just on the app makers themselves. This is new. On OS X a crappy app is just a crappy app. Nobody blames Apple, people blame the application developer. There has to be some argument made that on a small mobile device this distinction is warranted, but I haven't heard it yet.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Actually, it isn't a new behavior. Look at the history of Nintendo and the Atari 2600. Bad apps reflect on Apple, just as bad games reflected on Atari.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    I meant it's new for Apple in relation to, say, OS X.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      Despite all the Adobe advocacy, people blame Safari and Apple for crashing when the trace shows it was the Flash plugin. Most people don't know what did it and blame Apple. I think they are tired of it.
zacharypinter 17y ago
Wouldn't that apply to C/C++/Objective C libraries as well? Let's say everybody is using some popular Objective C library from github and it has a bug with a new iPhone OS. Apple would then be in a position of getting that library patched and getting potentially hundreds of apps to update to the latest version of the library. Should Apple outlaw 3rd-party Objective C libraries as well?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The key difference is that if the bug is in your own code, you can fix it. This could be trivial or it could not be, but it's within your sphere of control. If the bug were in (say) Adobe's code, you could not, nor could Apple.
  - carussell 17y ago
    Fun excuse, but section 3.3.1 forbids even intermediary translation or compatibility layers under your control. So that's a line of bullshit.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      I said nothing about "intermediary translation or compatibility layers", nor did the post I was replying to. Please read the thread for context before posting.
      - carussell 17y ago
        "[I]ntermediary translation or compatibility layers" is directly from section 3.3.1 and the entire reason this thread exists. Please read the primary sources for context before condescending.

archgrove 17y ago

The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that too. I also don't know what the requirements of their commercial licence are (and unless you're an XBox developer, neither do you), but it's almost certainly more than just revenue sharing (they would never allow the publication of a "Crash a plane into the twin towers" game, for example). Moreover, I do know that Nintendo certain did (and I think still do) have strict policies on types of violence in games for their platforms. Regardless, the general point stands. They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose. This is how the free market is supposed to work. It breaks down when there are entrenched monopolies, or when other external factors prevent people from exercising their right to buy an alternative, or start a competitor - but that is demonstrably not the case here. So why not let the market decide?

ergo98 17y ago
"They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose." The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it. Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplished the same goal more subtly, but, probably due to Jobs universe-sized ego, they had to bring this upon themselves. "This is how the free market is supposed to work." No, it isn't at all how the free market is supposed to work. 3.3.1 is the exact opposite of a free market.
- ptomato 17y ago
  You're missing the bit where Apple isn't by any means the only phone manufacturer around.
  - 17y ago

tvon 17y ago

> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.

ebiester 17y ago
OS X isn't.
- tvon 17y ago
  Neither is Windows.
  - ebiester 17y ago
    Couldn't you concievably develop with Mono, though?
    - tvon 17y ago
      Conceivably, yes, but that's beside the point. My point is that comparing a Visual Studio Ultimate requirement to an XCode requirement is misrepresenting the weight of the XCode requirement. XCode is free and included with every copy of OSX, while Visual Studio Ultimate will set you back $3,800 (the cost of a well equipped Mac Pro). Requiring VS Ultimate would no doubt cause angry mobs to storm One Microsoft Way, but it is not a fair comparison by any means. A more realistic comparison is that if Zune/XBox development required Visual Studio Express[1], which is a free download. And really, I can't imagine there being much backlash out of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was currently the case. [1] That's still a bit off since there is no up-sell from XCode, but for the sake of argument, say they are equivalent.
- jasongullickson 17y ago
  OS X is less expensive than Visual Studio, in fact you could probably get the operating system and a mac mini to go along with it for less than Visual Studio Ultimate...

tptacek 17y ago

As far as I can tell, there's no way to deploy an XNA game to the 360 that hasn't been built with Microsoft's toolchain. I think it's a bit early to speculate about the differences between the two platforms (iPhone OS and X360).