Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 23:12 UTC, submitted by judgen
Features, Office "The LibreOffice media team has passed along some new information about what was revealed at this week's LibreOffice conference. At the Paris conference, experimental versions of LibreOffice for iOS, Android, and for web-browsers were revealed."
Thread beginning with comment 493194
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Apple will never allow it
by kaiwai on Sun 16th Oct 2011 00:46 UTC in reply to "Apple will never allow it"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Then that conspiracy theory makes little or no sense at all give the alternative to iWork for iOS already exist on the platform; the only reason I can't see LibreOffice appearing is if it relies on private API's.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple will never allow it
by Alfman on Sun 16th Oct 2011 07:30 in reply to "RE: Apple will never allow it"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

"Then that conspiracy theory makes little or no sense at all give the alternative to iWork for iOS already exist on the platform; the only reason I can't see LibreOffice appearing is if it relies on private API's."

Really? There were reams of news articles about how applications were being banned by apple because they "duplicated functionality". We all knew it was code for "competes against apple software". I had always figured the news outlets got bored of reporting banned apps and the most significant developers stopped trying to develop competing apps once apple's position was made clear. However if apple actually changed their policy since then, I would like to know.


Unless apple has openly changed their policy, then I'd agree with the OP, an iphone implementation of OO is at risk of being denied.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"Then that conspiracy theory makes little or no sense at all give the alternative to iWork for iOS already exist on the platform; the only reason I can't see LibreOffice appearing is if it relies on private API's."

Really? There were reams of news articles about how applications were being banned by apple because they "duplicated functionality". We all knew it was code for "competes against apple software". I had always figured the news outlets got bored of reporting banned apps and the most significant developers stopped trying to develop competing apps once apple's position was made clear. However if apple actually changed their policy since then, I would like to know.


How about reading EVERY instance rather than lumping it all in the same basket - the issue was about replicating core functionality (applications that are part of the core operating system) that might confuse the end user into believing they're using something but in reality using a third party tool. The rational they have is stupid and makes little sense (read through my past posts on what Apple should do when it comes to allowing one to load on applications without the need for the AppStore) but the reality is that it has nothing to do with 'banning competing applications' because there are a tonne of competing applications on the App Store already but we don't see them getting banned.

If you dislike the iPhone then all power to you but you shouldn't need to create fabrications simply to bolster what essentially is a matter of personal preference rather than something based on empirical and objective hard data.

Unless apple has openly changed their policy, then I'd agree with the OP, an iphone implementation of OO is at risk of being denied.


Again, instead of posting complete and utter crap, how about searching the AppStore through the productivity section - dozens of applications that replicate what iWork does.

Edited 2011-10-16 10:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2