8 ms·

This summarizes Apple's attitude to developers. Eventually, you'll run foul of some obscure nonsensical Apple policy, and Apple will not hesitate to show you th

This summarizes Apple's attitude to developers. Eventually, you'll run foul of some obscure nonsensical Apple policy, and Apple will not hesitate to show you the finger. And Shame you for your dev choices.

partiallypro 7y ago
Apple just rebuilds any popular app and makes it first party anyhow. At some point most developers will stop bothering just for that.
- kick 7y ago
  Really? Can you link their Sketch and Photoshop replacements? I know some designers who could use those.
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    Apple doesn't rebuild apps that require massive features, but they do often build things into the OS or as base apps that negates the need for apps, some of them wildly popular.
saagarjha 7y ago
Calling private API is not nonsensical Apple policy, and you're reducing the instances in which rejection is nonsensical Apple policy.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  The post shot to #1 on HN in no time, because the developer community thinks this rejection, and it's backing policy to be nonsensical.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > because the developer community Which is not a homogenous group, both in ideals and for why they'd upvote a submission like this. > this rejection, and it's backing policy to be nonsensical They're different things. I personally think the rejection is perfectly sensical in the context of the backing policy, with which I don't fully agree.
    - throwGuardian 7y ago
      You must be chugging the koolaid to believe developers LOVE Apple's policies, or enjoy getting their hard-work rejected by a bot, or getting shamed by an overzealous Apple employee on HN. Developers are homogeneously unappreciative of Apple's treatment of them. They just don't have any leverage, or opportunity to negotiate
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        …you're replying to a comment where I state that I don't fully agree with Apple's policies.
      - arvinsim 7y ago
        Doesn't help that developers still buy their machines. Apple will only listen if it hits their bottom line.
        simonh 7y ago
        The problem is that flakey software on their platform, that breaks on OS updates and bug fixes annoys users, and thus also hits Apple's bottom line.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Who are you going to blame when applications start breaking because Apple removes or changes the functionality of a private function? [1] without warning? When you are writing any software that has a public API you should feel no obligation to change the functionality or completely remove a private method without warning. [1] I refuse to call it a private API. An API is public documentation of the inputs and expected behavior of a dependency. It should be a completely black box how that functionality is implemented.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    The post shot to #1 because there are a lot of Javascript developers that see Electron as a gateway into apps they would otherwise be unable to develop. There's a lot of interest in whether or not that door closes. Apple's policy towards private APIs has been known for years.
    - throwGuardian 7y ago
      In which universe is it good for Apple to roadblock JavaScript (or any other language) developers?
      - bdcravens 7y ago
        You misinterpreted my comment. Apple is roadblocking the use of private APIs, not languages. Or interpreted another way, they're roadblocking frameworks, not languages. This is true whether you're using Javascript, Swift, or C. This rule has been in place for years.
  - biggestdecision 7y ago
    The rejection is legitimate, but it's still a big issue for developers of Electron apps. The fix should happen in Electron if at all possible.
jaimex2 7y ago
Yep. If you can't avoid Apple's stores then make damn sure you fall in line as they effectively own you.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  You can choose to distribute outside of the Mac App Store on macOS.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    What about on iOS? And what about the fact that on MacOs notarization is more expensive than publishing to the store? I don't believe that to be a coincidence
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Notarization is free.
      - LeoNatan25 7y ago
        Creating a Developer ID certificate requires a paid Apple account. Hardly free.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        I think only a distribution certificate requires a paid account.
        LeoNatan25 7y ago
        Now you've thrown me a curveball. I will have to test. I think last time I looked, Developer ID is considered a distribution certificate and requires payment.
        7y ago
spsrich2 7y ago
People should start showing Apple the finger back

partiallypro 7y ago

Apple just rebuilds any popular app and makes it first party anyhow. At some point most developers will stop bothering just for that.

kick 7y ago
Really? Can you link their Sketch and Photoshop replacements? I know some designers who could use those.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Apple doesn't rebuild apps that require massive features, but they do often build things into the OS or as base apps that negates the need for apps, some of them wildly popular.

saagarjha 7y ago

Calling private API is not nonsensical Apple policy, and you're reducing the instances in which rejection is nonsensical Apple policy.

throwGuardian 7y ago
The post shot to #1 on HN in no time, because the developer community thinks this rejection, and it's backing policy to be nonsensical.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > because the developer community Which is not a homogenous group, both in ideals and for why they'd upvote a submission like this. > this rejection, and it's backing policy to be nonsensical They're different things. I personally think the rejection is perfectly sensical in the context of the backing policy, with which I don't fully agree.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    You must be chugging the koolaid to believe developers LOVE Apple's policies, or enjoy getting their hard-work rejected by a bot, or getting shamed by an overzealous Apple employee on HN. Developers are homogeneously unappreciative of Apple's treatment of them. They just don't have any leverage, or opportunity to negotiate
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      …you're replying to a comment where I state that I don't fully agree with Apple's policies.
    - arvinsim 7y ago
      Doesn't help that developers still buy their machines. Apple will only listen if it hits their bottom line.
      - simonh 7y ago
        The problem is that flakey software on their platform, that breaks on OS updates and bug fixes annoys users, and thus also hits Apple's bottom line.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Who are you going to blame when applications start breaking because Apple removes or changes the functionality of a private function? [1] without warning? When you are writing any software that has a public API you should feel no obligation to change the functionality or completely remove a private method without warning. [1] I refuse to call it a private API. An API is public documentation of the inputs and expected behavior of a dependency. It should be a completely black box how that functionality is implemented.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  The post shot to #1 because there are a lot of Javascript developers that see Electron as a gateway into apps they would otherwise be unable to develop. There's a lot of interest in whether or not that door closes. Apple's policy towards private APIs has been known for years.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    In which universe is it good for Apple to roadblock JavaScript (or any other language) developers?
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      You misinterpreted my comment. Apple is roadblocking the use of private APIs, not languages. Or interpreted another way, they're roadblocking frameworks, not languages. This is true whether you're using Javascript, Swift, or C. This rule has been in place for years.
- biggestdecision 7y ago
  The rejection is legitimate, but it's still a big issue for developers of Electron apps. The fix should happen in Electron if at all possible.

jaimex2 7y ago

Yep. If you can't avoid Apple's stores then make damn sure you fall in line as they effectively own you.

saagarjha 7y ago
You can choose to distribute outside of the Mac App Store on macOS.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  What about on iOS? And what about the fact that on MacOs notarization is more expensive than publishing to the store? I don't believe that to be a coincidence
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Notarization is free.
    - LeoNatan25 7y ago
      Creating a Developer ID certificate requires a paid Apple account. Hardly free.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        I think only a distribution certificate requires a paid account.
        LeoNatan25 7y ago
        Now you've thrown me a curveball. I will have to test. I think last time I looked, Developer ID is considered a distribution certificate and requires payment.
        7y ago

spsrich2 7y ago

People should start showing Apple the finger back