Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#31

Post by astine »

bad_user wrote: post #23
clawrencewenham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking Apple's domination for granted. How did they get it? There were half a dozen smartphone platforms before iPhone OS, but all of the devices had lousy quality, lousy user experience, and a lousy marketplace for third-party apps. If you read the rebuttals to the complaints, you'll see that there are several practical, quality-oriented reasons why 3.3.1 was a smart move. It's just one of hundreds of quality…

I don't know why you're talking in the past test ... like those platforms are dead or something.

They still exist, but the situation is no longer the same as it was when the iPhone was announced. I believe that RiM and Symbian have improved since then.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#33

Post by mrkurt »

raganwald wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git clone rails

So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git cl…

Has anyone really, seriously argued that Apple isn't "entitled" to do as they please? They are, and developers are entitled to be annoyed when their seemingly artificial and arbitrary limitations cause them problems.

And we're all entitled to post our opinions about it, but you should maybe try and give the opposing views a little more respect. :)

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#34

Post by marionogueira »

bad_user wrote: post #29
marionogueira wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Apple is also an "opinionated" vendor, so what? Not happy? Try developing for Android or something else. Really, what are the merits for this guy to complain about it given his own stand regarding Rails?

You're comparing apples vs oranges ... Rails is an open-source web-framework. If you don't like its directions and you'd like to change that, you can always fork it without gettings sued ... and forks/clones in other languages have happened and are thriving. His merits are that he's a contributor to an open-source piece of software that changed people's perceptions and he's also a founder of 37signals, a small busine…

It's a free market... anyone can create their own platform from scratch. Even you and me. But it's hard, right? Anyway, it's not as if Apple had a special license to address this market.

By the way, IP is far from being the only cost involved in building an ecosystem around a platform (as ESR has explained ad nauseum). So the "Rails is OSS" argument doesn't really apply here.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#36

Post by Tichy »

raganwald wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git clone rails

So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git cl…

No, what I mean is that the comparison of DHH and Apple falls flat. While DHH doesn't implement every feature he is requested to implement, everybody can just clone Rails and implement all features they desire (or pay people to do so).

You can't just clone the iPhone and it's OS.

Therefore I don't understand the claim that DHHs comments are hypocritical.

And nobody is disputing that Apple is entitled to do with their iPhone whatever they want. They are just not entitled to people being happy about it.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#37

Post by Perceval »

BudVVeezer wrote: post #21

Apple's focus is and always will be: 1) Apple, 2) Marketers, 3) Users, 4) Developers, and #4 has always been a distant one at best (anyone remember the Rhapsody fiasco?) Keep that ordering in mind, the latest changes make perfect sense.

While I think putting marketers in that list is a bit trollish, I think you've hit on something that's broadly true. Developers reacted with rage to Apple's app screening process and are reacting with rage again to Apple's banning of intermediary layers/languages. Whereas Microsoft's slogan is "developers, developers, developers..." Apple's is decidedly not.

Apple prioritizes the end user experience over the developer's experience and aren't shy about rubbing that in. More than that, Apple prioritizes having control over its own fate, and if developers using intermediary layers have to suffer for Apple to retain its relative autonomy then so be it.

Microsoft's philosophy has the logic: if we have all the developers, then the end users will flock to us, so we're going to cater to the developers. Apple's philosophical logic is: if we make something that 'just works' and that all the end users lust after, the developers will come to us, so we have to retain our ability to push things forward.

I'm not sure which philosophy, if either, is better overall. But it seems pretty clear which one angers developers more.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#38

Post by Nwallins »

raganwald wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git clone rails

So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git cl…

> if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it

Of course you are entitled to do what you please. You may make your product less useful, or even eliminate it. The point is, your customers have no alternative between keep consuming and stop consuming.

To reify the point: Apple should be worried about the latter.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#39

Post by BudVVeezer »

Perceval wrote: post #37
BudVVeezer wrote: post #21

Apple's focus is and always will be: 1) Apple, 2) Marketers, 3) Users, 4) Developers, and #4 has always been a distant one at best (anyone remember the Rhapsody fiasco?) Keep that ordering in mind, the latest changes make perfect sense.

While I think putting marketers in that list is a bit trollish, I think you've hit on something that's broadly true. Developers reacted with rage to Apple's app screening process and are reacting with rage again to Apple's banning of intermediary layers/languages. Whereas Microsoft's slogan is "developers, developers, developers..." Apple's is decidedly not. Apple prioritizes the end user experience over the develope…

The reason I put marketers on that list (and higher than users) is because Apple sometimes goes with "shiny" things which are marketing fodder instead of things which truly improve the user experience.

But you expounded on my point nicely -- Apple and MS have different philosophies about developers.

Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

#40

Post by raganwald »

mrkurt wrote: post #33
raganwald wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour. However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms. Is that what "git cl…

Has anyone really, seriously argued that Apple isn't "entitled" to do as they please? They are, and developers are entitled to be annoyed when their seemingly artificial and arbitrary limitations cause them problems. And we're all entitled to post our opinions about it, but you should maybe try and give the opposing views a little more respect. :)

Well yes, I have read opinions that Apple is abusing some sort of market dominance and/or reneging on expectations it has set by changing its SDK terms. But let's stick with opinions that Apple is either (a) disadvantaging itself, or (b) disadvantaging developers with its current set of choices.

I didn't realize that quoting Giles was considered disrespectful of either of these opinions. It was an interesting take. I like what I know of David, and consider myself an awfully opinionated guy as well. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worth pondering whether this particular bit of criticism is... Um... "interesting," nor do I predict he would be outraged at Giles' comment or my quote of it.

If I thought you, David or anybody else wrote something that they were not entitled to write, I would use the flag feature, not a comment. To me, a comment is intended to provoke thought and debate, not to suggest there is something that should not be said.

Now to clarify what I intended when I quoted Giles. I didn't think of it as a "David shouldn't have said that," rather I thought of it as a "If it's right for Rails it just might be right for iPhone!"

I still think that even though David gives Rails away and Apple does not give iPhone away. iPhone is an opinionated product, and people are correct when they say that Apple is saying "Fuck You!" Apple is saying that in exactly the same sense that David said it, even though no you can't fork iPhone.

Post reply on HN