"No surprise that Apple's new Mac App Store has a similar set of rules and regulations as the iPhone App Store, and we just got the full list. There's nothing here that's too different from the iPhone review guidelines, but it all seems terribly odd when applied to a regular computer, and some of the more restrictive policies have already drawn ire from developers like Mozilla's Director of Firefox Mike Beltzner, who says the restriction against beta code won't work well with the Mozilla 'open beta' development process."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-07-26
> Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected.
Does this mean "no runtimes" again? What about Tex? What about Python, Ruby or Perl? And no Flash, I guess.
It looks like Apple consider "Apps are created for the Platform", instead of modest "Platform is created for Apps". It is already bad on iPad, but on a desktop it make it useless.
Member since:2006-11-19
Python, Ruby, and Perl should be fine as they are installed. Even if they were not, it is a very simple mater to put these library file in your app.
Python has really nice Cocoa bindings also, so its really easy to make a native app.
I even work on an app that uses a newer version of python then what is installed in Snow Leopard, so the python lib is simply dropped in the app, and all is good.
If there is one thing that NeXT / Apple did right, it is how apps are packaged: an app is a special directory that contains among other things a manifest, bin and lib and recourse directories. To include additional libraries, simply tell xcode to copy them to your app when you link with them.
Edited 2010-10-22 00:57 UTC
Member since:2007-10-15
Hardly. It might be if Apple mandated the use of the 'Store to distribute Applications. Last I checked, you had a choice; if you don't use the 'store, then there is no problem.
Member since:2005-07-10
Chapter 2.16 states: "Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected."
A runtime exactly does "install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose".
So, as far as I understand that rule: No runtimes.
pica
Member since:2006-11-19
A runtime exactly does "install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose".
So, as far as I understand that rule: No runtimes.
pica
I fail to see your logic here. Look at where the word "their" is in the clause, it clearly refers to the word "app". The implication being that if an application downloads code to change its behavior, i.e. say a word processor app downloads code to change it into a game app, then it will be most likely be rejected. An app that downloads plugins, like eclipse also might be rejected. But I see nothing here that says that an app can not use a runtime, be it a pre-installed runtime, or one that is delivered with the app.
Member since:2010-05-19
Member since:
2005-07-06
who didn't see this coming were the Apple Shills like Andy Inhatko who was making little end runs against Leo Laporte's insistance on MacBreak Weekly that Apple would definitely be "curating" this app store so as to control it.
Steve Jobs is a total control freak, and that extends from him out into his company in ways that are a bit creepy.
I love my Macs, but I think I'll stick to installing my apps the old fashioned way.
Until Apple decide that there will be not other way allowed, that is, and I think we can all see that coming too, right?
Member since:2005-08-02
Member since:2008-06-24
Member since:
2005-07-11
But I don't think Apple is gonna close it's doors and only allow apps via the App store, at least not for OS X.
In the future if Apple move away from OS X as it is now, and into a iOS style environment where everything will have to be recoded for the new platform (just like we do now on the iOS), then yes, I can see Apple controlling that.
But for OS X as it is now (and for all 10.n into the future), we will have a choice.
What does this mean, well, for those of us who want full control of our machines, then we'll need to consider another OS.
I am sure MS will eventually follow suite, and I know I'll be flamed for this, but certain Linux distros will most likely do the same (thankfully only the big players (how will they do that, just the way Apple will, by creating a new platform based on Linux that is super controlled)).
There are certain advantages to a system like this (help control infection for one thing), but certainly big disadvantages too.
Who knows where all this will end up, but I'm sure the consumer will have a big say in it's direction either way...
I hope I'm wrong, but like a lot of others, I see the writing on the wall for most platforms, as usual, Apple is showing the way.
But, I will say this again, OS X (cats) will always allow apps to be installed in a variety of ways...
Member since:2010-03-30
I think we all know that the only motive for this trend towards more control is all contained in one word, you know, the famous one that keep the world spinning around the sun: money. The reason Apple are doing this is the chunk they foresee themselves taking from the app prices. Nothing to blame them for though.
Who knows where all this will end up, but I'm sure the consumer will have a big say in it's direction either way...
I'm not as sure as you. The story of developers being pissed off because of the iphone app store rules doesn't make me think of Apple as that prone to yielding.
True. Now the only question remaining has to do with a qualitative assessment of "the way" Apple is showing.
Member since:2008-06-24
I think both styles can peacefully coexist. In other words, there will always be open systems because some people want open systems (developers, content creators, etc.). Likewise, now that many people have had a taste of "catered" content I'm sure there will always be people that want that, too.
Member since:
2009-08-26
Member since:2006-12-21
Member since:2008-07-12
Member since:
2005-07-10
"Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected"
I for myself may decide wether or not an application is useful to me or has lasting entertainment value. But I cannot decide this for others. For me this is a matter of respect, of ethics.
Or ther other way round: An application which might be very useful for me, might be completely useless for 99.9% of all humans on this planet.
How does Apple do this ?
pica
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-10
... which had been available in the Apple iPhone AppStore. It just displayed a green dot on the background to show it has been installed. A licence was USD 999.
It has been sold 6 times single the day it has been available. Hey, 6 licences sold in the first day is a damn lot.
So maybe a simple "hello world" app is also useful for some people.
pica
Edited 2010-10-22 14:09 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Anything it's fair as long as AppStore won't be the only way to install apps, like on the iPhone/Pad.
Unless that happens, this could be a good way to ensure high-quality application or apps which respect specific requirements/design guidelines.
Of course, some of those requirements seem to be aimed to kick competitors out but until OS is open that would be just a matter of company policy.
Member since:2010-06-08
> his could be a good way to ensure high-quality
> application or apps which respect specific
> requirements/design guidelines.
It has nothing to do with quality control (while being presented as such). It's all about market control and pushing their key competitors out.
Edited 2010-10-22 16:44 UTC
Member since:
2005-11-15
No, it is not. Linux and *bsd had a central repository for decades. And there were a kind of control of what goes on them too. The only "innovation" done by Apple are the draconian rules.
As much as I like OSX (on my damn old iBook) and would like to buy a new system from them, their late steps just make me postponing it. Besides, linux and Windows 7 are really round and smooth now.
I am glad they support some neat projects, like llvm, webkit and cups, but this is not enough to dispel the distrust they are building on me.
Edited 2010-10-22 16:14 UTC
Member since:
2010-06-08
Who cares about it, if so far anyone can install apps on MacOS freely. If Apple will turn MacOS into something like iOS with draconian control policies - it would be a good incentive for users to dump MacOS altogether and to switch to free platforms.
Edited 2010-10-22 16:41 UTC
Member since:
2005-11-02
No auto-updaters? Okay so you can update through the app store, but now my update process is dependent on Apple. Call me nuts but I like the relationship between myself and the company that's selling me software... to be between just us, and not to involve the platform vendor.
No programs that download or load additional code? So basically any program that has plugins is out, including Firefox for its extensions.
These plus lots of places of murky ambiguity will pretty much allow Apple to reject any app they feel like rejecting. "Microsoft Word? Sorry, we don't think it has any lasting usefulness. No, there is no way you can convince us. Next!"