4 ms·

Welcome, but long overdue.

city41 16y ago
It still doesn't really matter. They can revoke this stance whenever they want. It still remains risky to base your livelihood on a format completely controlled by someone else who ultimately couldn't care less about your needs.
- mcav 16y ago
  There's no way they could go back on this now. The outcry would be ten times larger than it was when they first restricted it.
  - hswolff 16y ago
    Agreed. You give a mouse a cookie, and then he'll want a glass of water. By giving up this ground it would be near impossible and close to PR-suicide to commit any future retraction. About time for sure.
  - points 16y ago
    10 * 0.00001 is still pretty miniscule. Uproar from developers is meh. End users don't care. Apple can do what they want with the app store. If a few whiney devs decide to not play any more, there's an infinite supply of other devs who will.
    - mcav 16y ago
      It's more than whiney developers now. It was one thing when Apple never made clear the guidelines and chose to reject apps; now that they've made guidelines very explicit, going back on them would very publicly damage other companies: Large companies, like Adobe and Oracle, who would be very upset as well if Apple reneged on this change of policy. They won't go back on it. Not now.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Who do you develop for? Don't say Android unless you mean rooted Android. In which case you could also develop for jail-broken iOS. EDIT: As explained below, my point isn't that Android isn't open today but that it's their (or the carrier's) platform.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    What are you talking about? Target the Dalvik VM and Google doesn't care what you do, what language you do it in, or what tools you use to build it. Sure there are some parts of the system that you can't access without root privileges, but that's an entirely different issue.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      But it's their platform. Maybe they don't care today but how do you know they, or the carriers wont care tomorrow? That risk seems at least as big as Apple going back on today's announcement (for the record, I would view both small).
      - jrockway 16y ago
        What if the world ends tomorrow and you spent your last hours doing nothing but debating hypotheticals? That would be a shame, so you should just stop now.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        Your reply would fit even better to the person I originally responded to.
      - nlogn 16y ago
        The difference is that Apple has enacted many policies that limit developers while Google has, to my knowledge, never done anything of the sort. In fact, it seems like they go out of their way to be fair to developers (for instance: every app they built for Android uses only the APIs that are available to everyone). Edit: My point is that Google has never shown an inclination towards policies like these, and I think it's reasonable to expect that not to change.
napierzaza 16y ago
What's the point of such a comment. It reminds me of the pundits talking about how it was "About time" copy & paste was devised. Be glad that Apple isn't so prideful that they aren't able to make changes like this. A lot of people and companies wouldn't be able to admit things like thing to make the right decision. Whether it was fast enough for you is entirely besides the point. They couldn't have just opened up the whole deal could they? They make careful decisions. They started out with high restrictions and have become continually more open. How often is the opposite the case? Every "death knell" for the App Store and the iPhone is being chipped away; not by Android, but Apple itself.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  The point was that Apple could have avoided much pain and suffering for all concerned if they had done the right thing in the first place. Now we just need to be able to run programs not purchased through the Apple store and access my iPod without having to use Windows, and I will have to take Apple of my "somewhat evil" list.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    I disagree. Apple's stubbornness has its problems, and sometimes it's a pain. At the same time this uncompromising stances are common among those with strong believes and vision. And Apple has those (if you agree with their believes and vision is another story though ;) ). Case in point: the original Mac had no arrow keys to FORCE the developers and the users to change their frame of mind and make heavier use of the mouse. Had they compromised maybe people would have gone for the path of lowest resistance, and people wouldn't have accepted the advantages. Other cases: - USB (how long did it take in the PC world to get rid of serial ports?) - 64-bit cocoa (or rather 64-bit carbon) etc... It may seem madness, but there is logic in the madness. And usually if after many months if not year they are still proved wrong, Apple relents (e.g. fat Nano, Cube, DVD>CD-RW, tabs on top in Safari, etc...).
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      Hmm, I just don't believe in people telling me what to do - if it really is better, I will come around to it eventually (emacs, dvorak) but except for getting more usb ports, I don't really see any of the things you listed as being a good thing. Which just goes to prove my point - I don't fit very well into the Apple box.

It still doesn't really matter. They can revoke this stance whenever they want. It still remains risky to base your livelihood on a format completely controlled by someone else who ultimately couldn't care less about your needs.

mcav 16y ago
There's no way they could go back on this now. The outcry would be ten times larger than it was when they first restricted it.
- hswolff 16y ago
  Agreed. You give a mouse a cookie, and then he'll want a glass of water. By giving up this ground it would be near impossible and close to PR-suicide to commit any future retraction. About time for sure.
- points 16y ago
  10 * 0.00001 is still pretty miniscule. Uproar from developers is meh. End users don't care. Apple can do what they want with the app store. If a few whiney devs decide to not play any more, there's an infinite supply of other devs who will.
  - mcav 16y ago
    It's more than whiney developers now. It was one thing when Apple never made clear the guidelines and chose to reject apps; now that they've made guidelines very explicit, going back on them would very publicly damage other companies: Large companies, like Adobe and Oracle, who would be very upset as well if Apple reneged on this change of policy. They won't go back on it. Not now.
loewenskind 16y ago
Who do you develop for? Don't say Android unless you mean rooted Android. In which case you could also develop for jail-broken iOS. EDIT: As explained below, my point isn't that Android isn't open today but that it's their (or the carrier's) platform.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  What are you talking about? Target the Dalvik VM and Google doesn't care what you do, what language you do it in, or what tools you use to build it. Sure there are some parts of the system that you can't access without root privileges, but that's an entirely different issue.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    But it's their platform. Maybe they don't care today but how do you know they, or the carriers wont care tomorrow? That risk seems at least as big as Apple going back on today's announcement (for the record, I would view both small).
    - jrockway 16y ago
      What if the world ends tomorrow and you spent your last hours doing nothing but debating hypotheticals? That would be a shame, so you should just stop now.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        Your reply would fit even better to the person I originally responded to.
    - nlogn 16y ago
      The difference is that Apple has enacted many policies that limit developers while Google has, to my knowledge, never done anything of the sort. In fact, it seems like they go out of their way to be fair to developers (for instance: every app they built for Android uses only the APIs that are available to everyone). Edit: My point is that Google has never shown an inclination towards policies like these, and I think it's reasonable to expect that not to change.

napierzaza 16y ago

What's the point of such a comment. It reminds me of the pundits talking about how it was "About time" copy & paste was devised. Be glad that Apple isn't so prideful that they aren't able to make changes like this. A lot of people and companies wouldn't be able to admit things like thing to make the right decision. Whether it was fast enough for you is entirely besides the point. They couldn't have just opened up the whole deal could they? They make careful decisions. They started out with high restrictions and have become continually more open. How often is the opposite the case? Every "death knell" for the App Store and the iPhone is being chipped away; not by Android, but Apple itself.

tomjen3 16y ago
The point was that Apple could have avoided much pain and suffering for all concerned if they had done the right thing in the first place. Now we just need to be able to run programs not purchased through the Apple store and access my iPod without having to use Windows, and I will have to take Apple of my "somewhat evil" list.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I disagree. Apple's stubbornness has its problems, and sometimes it's a pain. At the same time this uncompromising stances are common among those with strong believes and vision. And Apple has those (if you agree with their believes and vision is another story though ;) ). Case in point: the original Mac had no arrow keys to FORCE the developers and the users to change their frame of mind and make heavier use of the mouse. Had they compromised maybe people would have gone for the path of lowest resistance, and people wouldn't have accepted the advantages. Other cases: - USB (how long did it take in the PC world to get rid of serial ports?) - 64-bit cocoa (or rather 64-bit carbon) etc... It may seem madness, but there is logic in the madness. And usually if after many months if not year they are still proved wrong, Apple relents (e.g. fat Nano, Cube, DVD>CD-RW, tabs on top in Safari, etc...).
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Hmm, I just don't believe in people telling me what to do - if it really is better, I will come around to it eventually (emacs, dvorak) but except for getting more usb ports, I don't really see any of the things you listed as being a good thing. Which just goes to prove my point - I don't fit very well into the Apple box.