4 ms·

Really? How do they know what the representation of the object code was before compilation? Seems like if they had a whitelist it would be difficult to enforc

Really? How do they know what the representation of the object code was before compilation? Seems like if they had a whitelist it would be difficult to enforce.

kibwen 10y ago
Note that I've obviously never written an iOS app, but I figured that Apple required you to submit the source of your app for their auditing process. Which sounds extreme, but this is Apple we're talking about. :)
- adrianmalacoda 10y ago
  There was indeed a rule at one point that apps had to be written in C, C++, or Objective-C. This was allegedly implemented in order to ban cross-compilers such as Flash compiler[0]. Presumably they would either require the source code to verify this, or inspect the compiled binary for some identifying feature. However, these rules don't exist in the current version of the guidelines[1]. [0] http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flas... [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - Impossible 10y ago
    This rule got so much press 7 years ago that it will be one of those "truths" about a platform that never dies on internet forums, that and the Playstation platforms using OpenGL as their primary API...
- jhasse 10y ago
  I have submitted an app in the past and no, you don't have to submit the code.
bluejekyll 10y ago
The biggest problem I faced with Rust and macOS/iOS is related to Apple's requirement for bitcode on all submitted code to the App Store for Watch and appleTV applications. This internal Rust discussion focuses on it for more details: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968 This gist is that Apple is requiring bitcode, but isn't giving easy access to the LLVM version they use for their own tools. This means there's not a path forward to support bitcode generation from Rust that would align with Apple's requirements. This currently only effects iOS on Watch and TV, meaning you can easily target macOS and iPhone without issue, but I fear that the writing is on the wall.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  I continue to be amazed that apple is not considered as having a monopoly on "stores for apple devices". These are exactly the kind of archaic requirements that would be a nonstarter or otherwise kill market support for a store given any actual competition. Instead, they are able to leverage it to try and push their 'approved' languages and developer environments - furthering anticompetitive lock-in. Apple making money from selling devices (or even distributing "at a loss" devices which they benefit from having exist so they can better act as software vendors) and them making money from their store are two separate revenue streams, after all.
  - self-diversity 10y ago
    I imagine it would be easier to accept your assertion of anti-competitive behavior if it weren't trivial to completely ignore Apple for your phone needs, or if there were some sort of Constitutional right guaranteeing you the Apple phone of your dreams
  - eridius 10y ago
    "products made by one brand" isn't a category of products. If they're the only brand that makes products for a particular category, then they're a monopoly, but you cannot simply define a category as "stuff made by that company", because by that logic, every company is a monopoly on stuff made by them.

Really? How do they know what the representation of the object code was before compilation? Seems like if they had a whitelist it would be difficult to enforce.

kibwen 10y ago

Note that I've obviously never written an iOS app, but I figured that Apple required you to submit the source of your app for their auditing process. Which sounds extreme, but this is Apple we're talking about. :)

adrianmalacoda 10y ago
There was indeed a rule at one point that apps had to be written in C, C++, or Objective-C. This was allegedly implemented in order to ban cross-compilers such as Flash compiler[0]. Presumably they would either require the source code to verify this, or inspect the compiled binary for some identifying feature. However, these rules don't exist in the current version of the guidelines[1]. [0] http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flas... [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- Impossible 10y ago
  This rule got so much press 7 years ago that it will be one of those "truths" about a platform that never dies on internet forums, that and the Playstation platforms using OpenGL as their primary API...
jhasse 10y ago
I have submitted an app in the past and no, you don't have to submit the code.

bluejekyll 10y ago

The biggest problem I faced with Rust and macOS/iOS is related to Apple's requirement for bitcode on all submitted code to the App Store for Watch and appleTV applications. This internal Rust discussion focuses on it for more details: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968 This gist is that Apple is requiring bitcode, but isn't giving easy access to the LLVM version they use for their own tools. This means there's not a path forward to support bitcode generation from Rust that would align with Apple's requirements. This currently only effects iOS on Watch and TV, meaning you can easily target macOS and iPhone without issue, but I fear that the writing is on the wall.

nebabyte 10y ago
I continue to be amazed that apple is not considered as having a monopoly on "stores for apple devices". These are exactly the kind of archaic requirements that would be a nonstarter or otherwise kill market support for a store given any actual competition. Instead, they are able to leverage it to try and push their 'approved' languages and developer environments - furthering anticompetitive lock-in. Apple making money from selling devices (or even distributing "at a loss" devices which they benefit from having exist so they can better act as software vendors) and them making money from their store are two separate revenue streams, after all.
- self-diversity 10y ago
  I imagine it would be easier to accept your assertion of anti-competitive behavior if it weren't trivial to completely ignore Apple for your phone needs, or if there were some sort of Constitutional right guaranteeing you the Apple phone of your dreams
- eridius 10y ago
  "products made by one brand" isn't a category of products. If they're the only brand that makes products for a particular category, then they're a monopoly, but you cannot simply define a category as "stuff made by that company", because by that logic, every company is a monopoly on stuff made by them.