Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Welcome to Hell... iHell that is...
Renegade:
And finally, did you know the review guidelines for Apple's new App Store reject (among others) Java apps?
-Lashiec (October 23, 2010, 05:24 PM)
--- End quote ---
Huh? Really? :'( :( I didn't see any guidelines so I didn't know.
They're excluding Java software? :huh:
Sigh...
Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.
I don't program in Java, but I certainly can't see excluding a major language as a good thing. Choice is good.
This is really what I'm worried about. I'm worried that Apple has gotten too powerful and their control-freakishness may infect other companies. I'm worried that down the road we may have our desktops, phones, laptops, TVs, cameras, and eventually homes all locked down into someone else's vision of what's good for us. (I include homes because home automation and the "digital home" is coming.)
Computers are being integrated into everything, and locking down and excluding people is simply NOT a good thing. This is what the FSF is all about. This is why there's a GPL. This is in part why organizations like the EFF exist.
But it doesn't matter... We are all throwing our money at the slavers, begging for bigger, better shackles.
If I'm guilty of starting a witch-hunt, I think it's for good reason. There are metaphorical witches out there, and they're not like Wendy.
Apple is pretty much THE leader out there. Asking which direction they are leading us in is, well... I suppose people have different opinions on that.
Lashiec:
Huh? Really? :'( :( I didn't see any guidelines so I didn't know.
They're excluding Java software? :huh:
Sigh...
Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.
-Renegade (October 23, 2010, 07:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
And it gets much worse. I tell you, long-time OS X developers are not happy about it, for this and a myriad of other reasons.
On the other side, the sizable group of Java developers who settled on a Mac to set up their development environment are not only unhappy, but also a bit afraid with the Java decision, even though most, if not all of them, work on server-side Java products, not client applications. According to John Gruber even Apple uses Java for their web services.
This is really what I'm worried about. I'm worried that Apple has gotten too powerful and their control-freakishness may infect other companies. I'm worried that down the road we may have our desktops, phones, laptops, TVs, cameras, and eventually homes all locked down into someone else's vision of what's good for us. (I include homes because home automation and the "digital home" is coming.)
--- End quote ---
Oh, but we have been going down that road for a while. The thing is, one way or another, we will not reach the destination, as the market does not accept dumb boxes. What we don't know is how many locks it will accept.
Renegade:
You're right.
But to be honest, I never thought Apple would be going this far.
Basically, if you want to develop for the Mac, you're nothing more than an unpaid employee a slave.
You cannot have copy protection.
You cannot use license keys.
You cannot use installer software, except for theirs.
You cannot have bugs. (All software has bugs.)
You cannot have placeholder text. (This is common to setup for future upgrades.)
WTF?
Here's some from the horse's mouth. I'm highlighting some ridiculous ones:
2.1 Apps that crash will be rejected
2.2 Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected
2.3 Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected
2.4 Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected
2.5 Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected
2.6 Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected
2.7 Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them
2.8 Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected
2.9 Apps that are primarily marketing materials or advertisements will be rejected
2.10 Apps that are intended to provide trick or fake functionality that are not clearly marked as such will be rejected
2.11 Apps that encourage excessive consumption of alcohol or illegal substances, or encourage minors to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes, will be rejected
2.12 Apps that provide incorrect diagnostic or other inaccurate device data will be rejected
2.13 Developers "spamming" the App Store with many versions of similar apps will be removed from the Mac Developer Program
2.14 Apps must be packaged and submitted using Apple's packaging technologies included in Xcode - no third party installers allowed
2.15 Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and cannot install code or resources in shared locations
2.16 Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected
2.17 Apps that download other standalone apps will be rejected
2.18 Apps that install kexts will be rejected
2.19 Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected
2.20 Apps that present a license screen at launch will be rejected
2.21 Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store
2.22 Apps must contain all language support in a single app bundle (single binary multiple language)
2.23 Apps that spawn processes that continue to run after a user has quit the app without user consent will be rejected
2.24 Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
2.25 Apps that do not run on the currently shipping OS will be rejected
2.26 Apps that are set to auto-launch or to have other code automatically run at startup or login without user consent will be rejected
2.27 Apps that request escalation to root privileges or use setuid attributes will be rejected
2.28 Apps that add their icons to the Dock or leave short cuts on the user desktop will be rejected
2.29 Apps that do not use the appropriate Mac OS X APIs for modifying user data stored by other apps (e.g bookmarks, Address Book or Calendar entries) will be rejected
2.30 Apps that do not comply with the Mac OS X File System documentation will be rejected
Some are reasonable.
Most are not.
I think 2.5 is idiotic, but it's not "pure evil". There are legitimate reasons for that, though I doubt those are Apple's motivations. Microsoft discourages this, but doesn't ban it. The Microsoft reason is because their private APIs are basically ones that they've not completely made up their minds on, and they want to reserve it for later when they finalize details enough to make it public. This is nothing surprising if you've ever dealt with developing platforms.
Their use of "without user consent" is simply wrong. Take 2.26 for example. It's logical for some software to automatically launch at startup, and this would be the default correct behavior. Apple wants to stop that? It basically stops software from becoming useful.
2.15 is simply ridiculous. WTF are they thinking?
2.24 Yet another WTF moment. This is really very, very sinister. That list is massive. The implications are immense.
2.27 So, in other words, no system utility software? Right.
2.29 "Appropriate" APIs from Apple? Ahem... And what about hiring leprechauns to do our coding too? For those that are unaware, Apple APIs are extremely restrictive. They do not present ways to let you do things as other platforms do; they present ways to stop you from doing things. I cannot begin to express just how piss poor Apple is here. ----- On another note, this essentially stops having multiple applications that work together.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
There are simply too many cases for legitimate software that they have ruled out.
I'm simply stunned. This is far worse than the iOS 3.3.1 debacle.
Evil. Simply evil.
Darwin:
Hmm... interesting points, app. My understanding of the brouhaha over Apple and Flash was that Apple devices like the iPad and iPhone not only do not ship with Flash but their OS's don't support Flash, rendering the choice over whether to install it or not, moot?
-Darwin (October 23, 2010, 04:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
This doesn't refer to iPhone/iPad...it's about OSX, their desktop OS.
-app103 (October 23, 2010, 04:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, I understood that. My point was that some posters here seemed to be under the impression that this would apply to the new version of OSX (Lion); I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to point out that this issue relates to the iPad/iPhone, not OSX.
f0dder:
IMHO 2.14 isn't bad, as long as the Xcode packaging technology is sensible; after all, that's what enables a streamlined experience for all apps.
2.18 is probably sensible; most normal stuff really shouldn't be doing this - and the AppStore isn't intended for specialized stuff? of course once the AppStore becomes the only place to install software from, it's a problem.
2.21 is sensible - one of the things I hate about Windows is that apps have their individual update mechanisms, some requiring always-running crap.
2.25 is sensible, even if I'm not sure I entirely like it.
2.26 is sensible, since it includes the "without user consent".
2.27 is debatable, but most apps shouldn't be doing this. There are legitimate reasons, though, like doing full-system backups.
2.29 makes sense, as it keeps apps working even if underlying details are changed. Don't you hate Windows developers who think that "C:\Progra~1" will always refer to the user's program files folder?
2.30 makes sense as well. Don't you hate Windows apps that think they can write to wherever they want?
But there's a whole boatload of WTF in there.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version