131–140 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but also irrelevant.
I'm generally curious and somewhat ignorant on this subject. I would appreciate if you could explain why it is irrelevant.
This isn’t sustainable. Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This on top of the App Store's already-onerous restrictions and the fact that it’s the only practical way to get your software on one of the world's largest computing platforms has already engendered a deep antipathy [1] among Apple developers, and there are no signs it’s getting better. Something has to…
They can build on it... developers have been building on it for years and making money doing it. Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule. If your app makes money (directly or indirectly), pay Apple whatever portion of your revenue that Apple demands. I also think that's a pretty clear rule. If there's something that should obviously be regulated out of existe…
There is no point fighting Apple. Companies spend resources on Apple moving goal posts and focus on artificial problems. Once companies stop supporting Apple products, users will switch to better platforms or Apple will change their ways. I made sure everyone I know is informed about Apple shady practices and knows to avoid their products.
You can't fight a duopoly as if it's a competitive market.
This isn’t sustainable. Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This on top of the App Store's already-onerous restrictions and the fact that it’s the only practical way to get your software on one of the world's largest computing platforms has already engendered a deep antipathy [1] among Apple developers, and there are no signs it’s getting better. Something has to…
iOS developers have made over a half a trillion dollars over the last decade on this unsustainable, constantly shifting foundation that they hate so much. Makes you wonder why they bother ? Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing.
This is fairly easily disprovable by the mere existence of Android - which has a healthy app market place, tons of great apps and is for all intents and purposes, just as secure.
Google Play does a fine job of promoting good apps, keeping bad ones out, and I can still go 'off network' and download my IT app or whatever that doesn't conform to Google Play rules.
There are no material negative side effects.
If Apple adjusted their policy to match that of Google, users would have more choice, and be better off.
Apple tolerate app store developers as a necessary evil. If they could develop all of their own apps they would.
As with suppliers, as with stores, as with everything they would gladly prefer to do it all themselves and give zero access or share the slightest collaboration with anybody.
They are utterly ruthless in this regard and will continue to be for as long as they exist. This includes doing bad and nasty things as well as those the apologists can more readily rationalise.
I am a little surprised anybody takes risks in this arena. Of course for $$$ apps that trivially fulfil apple's arbitrary rules (for now) the potential payout justifies it but for free/open source apps why risk the pain?
For a company that happily generates colossal margins by using the effectively slave labour of a totalitarian state which puts people in concentration camps and disappears political opponents them being unethical/inconsistent in the app store seems very unsurprising. Even in western countries they happily bankrupt suppliers after poaching all their staff. Yet there appears to be shock when they do things considerably less evil... Strange to me.
The practice of rigging app store removals as a means of increasing launch-hype is becoming an increasingly utilized marketing technique for apps. The "Hey" e-mail app successfully used this tactic recently. This marketing technique is a form of social engineering and fraud that spurs artificial discourse regarding well-known legal hurdles affecting apps. App developers then re-publish a compliant app that capitalize…
As for hype…I guess you could claim that? But we’re “promoting” and app that won’t be on the store after tomorrow.
To me it appears they admit that iSH allows scripting (ummm, obviously), and that scripting is against Apple’s policy (as we all know). From one of their articles: “Soon after we released iSH without apk, we found users who had figured out a way to get apk back using wget and were posting about this throughout the internet”. They argue that Apple’s policy should be changed to allow scripting: https://saagarjha.com/bl…
My argument is that Apple already allows scripting (as they have already approved dozens of such apps, including their own) and my suggestion is a clarification of the guidelines to make this explicit rather than subject to arbitrary review.
The WebView exception [edit: that used to exist] is from an older version of the agreement, but it helps indicate what they mean: “3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework, provided that such scripts and code do not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as submitted to the App Store.”
If scripting were allowed, how would you or Apple ensure iSH doesn’t break any of the other 2.5.x clauses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can build on it... developers have been building on it for years and making money doing it. Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule. If your app makes money (directly or indirectly), pay Apple whatever portion of your revenue that Apple demands. I also think that's a pretty clear rule. If there's something that should obviously be regulated out of existe…
But its absolutely not true that this is enforced consistently. My iPhone currently contains three full programming language interpreters from the App Store---one for JavaScript, one for Python, and one for Clojurescript. I know one of those can make arbitrary network requests because I've done it, and I think the other two can as well. So how is that different from iSH? Apple has approved a bunch of apps that can go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3) I suspect that the amount of revenue that a company brings through their app also affects how rules are applied It didn't affect Epic. Break the rules, get the boot.
Worked for Amazon and Netflix.