Live data from Hacker News

Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

forums.developer.apple.com

451–460 of 498 posts

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#451
post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. If the existing law is interpreted by the courts to apply to digital communications then it does. Congress a has the ability to remove interpretations by specification.

So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?

My original comment said that courts could interpret law... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, including intention. US courts do it all the time. It's called the Constitution.

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#452
post #98

I'm Erez Rusovsky, the CEO of Rollout.io Rollout's mission has always been, and will always be about helping developers create and deploy mobile apps quickly and safely. Our current product has been a life saver for hundreds of apps by allowing them to patch bugs in live apps. We were surprised by Apple's actions today. From what we've been able to gather, they seem to be rejecting any app which utilizes a mechanism…

Sorry to be OT, but since you're the CEO I do hope you found out if Rollout supports swift as well :^) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158046

Yep, and this one: "Great stuff man, I wonder how many apps would suffer from problems when trying to access directly Amazon s3, also how many app updates would get pushed just to update plist"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151755

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#453
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under that reasoning, wiretapping laws and privacy laws should not apply to digital communications, because they were not specifically mentioned.

I've noticed a trend where technology-inclined people take a very strict, autistic approach to the law. They tend to view the law as being analogous to source code in that there is no room for interpretation, intent or spirit behind what's codified. I think this has manifested at its peak with Ethereum.

Laws are funny, they have a certain duality to them. They can be strict, but also fluid.

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.

So it is claimed in civics classes, but that's a rather narrow interpretation of "create law".

I'm not sure what other definition there is...

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.

So it is claimed in civics classes, but that's a rather narrow interpretation of "create law".

[deleted]

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is not the purpose of the court to create law In common law systems it is precisely their job to do so.

In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.

There's one unifying feature of all common law legal systems - judges will publicly almost always proclaim they do not create law, largely because simple prima facie interpretations of most western constitutions say "the legislature makes the laws, the court enforces them", and the existence of judge made law has always had an uneasy relationship with this.

The reality in Common Law legal systems is nothing like this, and judge made law through interpretation and application of precedent is a very real thing, even in the USA. As a particularly blunt example, in some parts of the UK such as Scotland, the traditional common law crimes such as murder/theft etc aren't even defined in primary legislation ("laws"), and exist solely as judge made and applied creations through decades of precedent. Even where there exists primary legislation, the scope of judicial interpretation gives a great deal of freedom to judges to establish precedents that the drafters might not have foreseen or intended.

Heck even the definition of the term "Common Law" is normally interpreted to mean "Case Law" as developed by judges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#457

Understandable, but there is a deeper problem of course - the app store model is broken for apps that need hotfix capabilities (aka enterprise). We've been meeting with Apple on this topic for years and continue to sideload our app as we need to meet SLAs with our customers. They sign the binaries with their dev certificates, which violates Apple's guidelines too. But, alas, once you have critical mass in a vertical…

Isn't that exactly what enterprise distribution does?

No, still goes through a check if it is a globally published app (vs. a custom app for just one company).

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#458

Understandable, but there is a deeper problem of course - the app store model is broken for apps that need hotfix capabilities (aka enterprise). We've been meeting with Apple on this topic for years and continue to sideload our app as we need to meet SLAs with our customers. They sign the binaries with their dev certificates, which violates Apple's guidelines too. But, alas, once you have critical mass in a vertical…

'Enterprise' always needs things, and then when these required things are not available enterprise makes do with what is. In this case it isn't required at all though because Apple allows enterprise to sideload apps outside of the review process.

But not as a vendor.

Right now we get the certificates from out customers, sign the individual binaries. Then distribute through our own infrastructure.

We have our own update mechanism (basically hot code push), cannot have the customer's own IT shop be a barrier to deploy the fix. User sync their apps, if there is an upgrade that gets done inbetween the normal data/content sync.

Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features

#460
post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?

My original comment said that courts could interpret law... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, including intention. US courts do it all the time. It's called the Constitution.

I guess I would look at this:

>evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking)

And argue that electronic privacy vis-a-vis wiretapping laws is creating a new portion of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking. We can quibble about definitions, but that strikes me as very much in the area of "evolution".

Post reply on HN