4 ms·

The thing is most of the complaining about this was not the constructive "hey, Apple have you considered so-and-so", but rather the whiny "waaaa... Apple are Na

The thing is most of the complaining about this was not the constructive "hey, Apple have you considered so-and-so", but rather the whiny "waaaa... Apple are Nazis" kind. And as you point out there is no evidence that it is the complaining that made Apple reconsider. It could very well be something entirely different, e.g. the FTC probe.

jacquesm 16y ago
Plenty of it was very constructive, it pointed out why the choice of tools should be left to the developer and how not relaxing this restriction would make it easier for people to develop for android than for the Iphone. If the FTC probe (or the rise of android) has anything to do with it then I doubt we'll ever know, but I'm all for taking this on face value and believing them when they publicly admit to listening to their devs. It's a nice thing to be able to hold them to at a future date.
- lurch_mojoff 16y ago
  Well, it looked plenty for very small values of plenty, from where I stand. There were some very well reasoned arguments against the restriction - arguments like the fact that many libraries and game engines require the flexibility that scripting allows; or like the fact that there are languages and environments that are more conducive of tackling certain types of problems. Those, however were drowned in a sea of petty complaints like "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" or "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis", or dramatic pronouncements that Apple have turned their back on the hacker crowd and thus are stifling innovation. And I'm not saying we shouldn't believe Apple when they say they've listened to the developer community. I am saying that such decisions usually factor in a broader spectrum of reasons. At the very least, there are may examples of Apple not budging on issues, regardless of the huge ruckus. I'm also not saying we shouldn't complain. I am saying we should cut on the drama, try to understand Apple's rationale for their decisions, and figure out a way to meet them midway. Or as Apple say in the intro to the App Store Review Guidelines - "If it sounds like we're control freaks, well, maybe it's because we're so committed to our users and making sure they have a quality experience with our products. Just like almost all of you are too."
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Those, however were drowned in a sea of petty complaints like "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" or "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis" Uh, what? These seem like perfectly legitimate complaints to me. Why shouldn't you be allowed to use the tools you already know how to use? Why shouldn't you be allowed to write once and run anywhere?
    - maxjg 16y ago
      I've got nothing against your point on using the tools you know, but I can at least see where Apple is coming from with disallowing write once, run everywhere, especially regarding UI (think Java apps on OS X).
      - Symmetry 16y ago
        But doesn't Apple already have user interface guidelines to let them reject apps that (inappropriately) behave the same way on different platforms?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" That's a very valid complaint imo, except for the 'sucky', was that present in the original? > "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis" Are you sure about the 'them Nazis' bit in this one ? Otherwise, again, that's a valid complaint. > I'm also not saying we shouldn't complain. I am saying we should cut on the drama, Indeed.
    - sprout 16y ago
      >That's a very valid complaint imo, except for the 'sucky', was that present in the original? While 'sucky' isn't up to HN's style standards, and a more reasoned response is always preferable, I personally don't think the prohibition Apple put in place was sufficiently reasonable to merit a reasonable response.
- GavinB 16y ago
  The FTC probe may well have been prompted by all of the complaining. They don't exist in a vacuum, even if it sometimes seems that way.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    It's hard to resist the temptation to follow that line of thinking, but given a complete absence of evidence and a very public acknowledgement that they listened to their developers I think that's the prudent option for now. It certainly looks like they are sincere about it, and if they are not this will hollow out their position in the future quite a bit and they did not have to give any reason at all. Listening to your developers is not such a bad thing, after all.
brlewis 16y ago
I think you mean "as you point out there is no proof...". He points out that there is evidence in his "They mention it in their release" sentence.
mquander 16y ago
What kind of constructive arguments, exactly, need to be marshaled against it? "Hey, Apple, have you considered that a blanket ban on third-party development tools fucks over developers who use third-party tools?" Why, yes, I suspect that they did consider that. It's not like there is some equal subtle list of pros and cons that need to be weighed, here.
ams6110 16y ago
My guess is that Apple thought they saw a problem on the horizon, threw out some very restrictive language to be sure they had as many known AND UNKNOWN bases covered, then after some more thoughtful consideration decided that they didn't need to be so strict after all, and relaxed the terms. This sort of pattern happens a lot: go overboard at first, then pull back as you get more comfortable with things.
mkramlich 16y ago
Complaining is always useful. It conveys information. It's even better if you convey a suggestion on how specifically to improve things. But often the complaint itself contains that, implied. For example, a what-you-would-call whiny complaint of "waaaaa... don't touch my arm with that torch, it burns!" contains the rather useful suggestion (implied) to stop touching my arm with that torch. To be more relevant, if Apple suddenly says you can't use any language but XYZ, and we go "waaaa...." what we are saying is "let us use XYZ". I hope that is obvious and implicit in all such cases. :)

jacquesm 16y ago

Plenty of it was very constructive, it pointed out why the choice of tools should be left to the developer and how not relaxing this restriction would make it easier for people to develop for android than for the Iphone. If the FTC probe (or the rise of android) has anything to do with it then I doubt we'll ever know, but I'm all for taking this on face value and believing them when they publicly admit to listening to their devs. It's a nice thing to be able to hold them to at a future date.

lurch_mojoff 16y ago
Well, it looked plenty for very small values of plenty, from where I stand. There were some very well reasoned arguments against the restriction - arguments like the fact that many libraries and game engines require the flexibility that scripting allows; or like the fact that there are languages and environments that are more conducive of tackling certain types of problems. Those, however were drowned in a sea of petty complaints like "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" or "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis", or dramatic pronouncements that Apple have turned their back on the hacker crowd and thus are stifling innovation. And I'm not saying we shouldn't believe Apple when they say they've listened to the developer community. I am saying that such decisions usually factor in a broader spectrum of reasons. At the very least, there are may examples of Apple not budging on issues, regardless of the huge ruckus. I'm also not saying we shouldn't complain. I am saying we should cut on the drama, try to understand Apple's rationale for their decisions, and figure out a way to meet them midway. Or as Apple say in the intro to the App Store Review Guidelines - "If it sounds like we're control freaks, well, maybe it's because we're so committed to our users and making sure they have a quality experience with our products. Just like almost all of you are too."
- jrockway 16y ago
  Those, however were drowned in a sea of petty complaints like "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" or "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis" Uh, what? These seem like perfectly legitimate complaints to me. Why shouldn't you be allowed to use the tools you already know how to use? Why shouldn't you be allowed to write once and run anywhere?
  - maxjg 16y ago
    I've got nothing against your point on using the tools you know, but I can at least see where Apple is coming from with disallowing write once, run everywhere, especially regarding UI (think Java apps on OS X).
    - Symmetry 16y ago
      But doesn't Apple already have user interface guidelines to let them reject apps that (inappropriately) behave the same way on different platforms?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" That's a very valid complaint imo, except for the 'sucky', was that present in the original? > "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis" Are you sure about the 'them Nazis' bit in this one ? Otherwise, again, that's a valid complaint. > I'm also not saying we shouldn't complain. I am saying we should cut on the drama, Indeed.
  - sprout 16y ago
    >That's a very valid complaint imo, except for the 'sucky', was that present in the original? While 'sucky' isn't up to HN's style standards, and a more reasoned response is always preferable, I personally don't think the prohibition Apple put in place was sufficiently reasonable to merit a reasonable response.
GavinB 16y ago
The FTC probe may well have been prompted by all of the complaining. They don't exist in a vacuum, even if it sometimes seems that way.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  It's hard to resist the temptation to follow that line of thinking, but given a complete absence of evidence and a very public acknowledgement that they listened to their developers I think that's the prudent option for now. It certainly looks like they are sincere about it, and if they are not this will hollow out their position in the future quite a bit and they did not have to give any reason at all. Listening to your developers is not such a bad thing, after all.

brlewis 16y ago

I think you mean "as you point out there is no proof...". He points out that there is evidence in his "They mention it in their release" sentence.

mquander 16y ago

What kind of constructive arguments, exactly, need to be marshaled against it? "Hey, Apple, have you considered that a blanket ban on third-party development tools fucks over developers who use third-party tools?" Why, yes, I suspect that they did consider that. It's not like there is some equal subtle list of pros and cons that need to be weighed, here.

ams6110 16y ago

My guess is that Apple thought they saw a problem on the horizon, threw out some very restrictive language to be sure they had as many known AND UNKNOWN bases covered, then after some more thoughtful consideration decided that they didn't need to be so strict after all, and relaxed the terms. This sort of pattern happens a lot: go overboard at first, then pull back as you get more comfortable with things.

mkramlich 16y ago

Complaining is always useful. It conveys information. It's even better if you convey a suggestion on how specifically to improve things. But often the complaint itself contains that, implied. For example, a what-you-would-call whiny complaint of "waaaaa... don't touch my arm with that torch, it burns!" contains the rather useful suggestion (implied) to stop touching my arm with that torch. To be more relevant, if Apple suddenly says you can't use any language but XYZ, and we go "waaaa...." what we are saying is "let us use XYZ". I hope that is obvious and implicit in all such cases. :)