4 ms·

Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.

by yyyk 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
> Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store. This is false. Apple can’t legally use Gatekeeper to ’reject’ apps which violate App Store policies.
- yyyk 6y ago
  What's the 'legal' restriction? I don't see anything preventing them from rejecting anything they pleace.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Getting sued for stealing software from the users, and for interfering with the business of the suppliers, neither of whom have any agreement with Apple to let them ‘reject’ software arbitrarily.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      Apple would not be 'stealing' software. Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility? They just need to time a new policy to a major release (say they make it apply only from that release on), and that would be no different then any other breaking change. It wouldn't be popular on HN, but it's technically possible and legal. I'm sure that the Apple fans here will support it unreservedly.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This is total bullshit. > Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. > Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility? Apple doesn’t force you to install operating system upgrades, and many people don’t upgrade if it will break the software they work with.
        yyyk 6y ago
        >>Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. >In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. So I can sue them for not running Apple II programs? Cool! There were always programs that failed to run for some reason or another, and programs taken out of the Mac store, etc. >Apple doesn’t force you to install operating system upgrades, and many people don’t upgrade if it will break the software they work with. Sure, just apply a new rejection policy after an upgrade, and state it applies from that version on. That's what Apple would normally do anyway. So you're just admitting I'm right.
        zepto 5y ago
        >>In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. > So I can sue them for not running Apple II programs? Cool! There were always programs that failed to run for some reason or another, and programs taken out of the Mac store, etc. No, you just don’t know much about Apple. They haven’t promised to be backward compatible with everything, but they have promised not to stop you from running what you want to run. I.e. they have promised not to do what you are saying they should do. > Sure, just apply a new rejection policy after an upgrade, and state it applies from that version on. That's what Apple would normally do anyway. Apple has never done this. > So you're just admitting I'm right. Obviously not. In fact you have proven yourself completely wrong, by acknowledging that they could not do it under their current license and with their current software and would need to get people to agree to a new contract. Yes, Apple, (or anyone else) could offer a service for the Max that users sign up for to remotely disable software they disapprove of. But that isn’t what you said.

Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.

by yyyk 6y ago

Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.

> Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store. This is false. Apple can’t legally use Gatekeeper to ’reject’ apps which violate App Store policies.

yyyk 6y ago
What's the 'legal' restriction? I don't see anything preventing them from rejecting anything they pleace.
- zepto 6y ago
  Getting sued for stealing software from the users, and for interfering with the business of the suppliers, neither of whom have any agreement with Apple to let them ‘reject’ software arbitrarily.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Apple would not be 'stealing' software. Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility? They just need to time a new policy to a major release (say they make it apply only from that release on), and that would be no different then any other breaking change. It wouldn't be popular on HN, but it's technically possible and legal. I'm sure that the Apple fans here will support it unreservedly.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This is total bullshit. > Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. > Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility? Apple doesn’t force you to install operating system upgrades, and many people don’t upgrade if it will break the software they work with.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        >>Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. >In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. So I can sue them for not running Apple II programs? Cool! There were always programs that failed to run for some reason or another, and programs taken out of the Mac store, etc. >Apple doesn’t force you to install operating system upgrades, and many people don’t upgrade if it will break the software they work with. Sure, just apply a new rejection policy after an upgrade, and state it applies from that version on. That's what Apple would normally do anyway. So you're just admitting I'm right.
        zepto 5y ago
        >>In fact they have said this publicly in interviews. > So I can sue them for not running Apple II programs? Cool! There were always programs that failed to run for some reason or another, and programs taken out of the Mac store, etc. No, you just don’t know much about Apple. They haven’t promised to be backward compatible with everything, but they have promised not to stop you from running what you want to run. I.e. they have promised not to do what you are saying they should do. > Sure, just apply a new rejection policy after an upgrade, and state it applies from that version on. That's what Apple would normally do anyway. Apple has never done this. > So you're just admitting I'm right. Obviously not. In fact you have proven yourself completely wrong, by acknowledging that they could not do it under their current license and with their current software and would need to get people to agree to a new contract. Yes, Apple, (or anyone else) could offer a service for the Max that users sign up for to remotely disable software they disapprove of. But that isn’t what you said.