3 ms·
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 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 agoThere'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 agoAgreed. 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 ago10 * 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 agoIt'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 agoWho 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 agoWhat 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 agoBut 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 agoWhat 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 agoYour reply would fit even better to the person I originally responded to.
- nlogn 16y agoThe 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.
- illumin8 16y agoGoogle doesn't let you release an app that allows wifi tethering without rooting your phone. I'm sure there are other examples. Google/Apple = the same. They all bow before the carrier gods. Edit: I can't reply to the child for some reason (too deep), but I just wanted to let you know that you're wrong: 2.2 as distributed by Verizon does not have tethering unless you use their carrier replaced version which bills your account for additional fees.