> 1) Apple's app review is nigh useless security theater.
It's not useless, it serves the vital purpose of allowing Apple to strong-arm companies when Apple wants to compete with them. :/
It's not useless, it serves the vital purpose of allowing Apple to strong-arm companies when Apple wants to compete with them. :/
Well, since the HN story doesn't rely on the fact that no other apps exist with that capability, and actually uses that fact to make its point, I'm not sure what you're trying to use their existence to prove.
"since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS."
The post said
Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services.
There are literally dozens of cross platform streaming apps on iOS. There has been no policy change. Apple would be more than happy to take a 30% cut on a cross platform streaming service.
So, your argument is that because some apps exist now with this behavior, the claim that some apps do or did experience unwarranted attention and extra requirements for non-policy and technical reasons must be false? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning.
I’m definitely not willing to believe that he was singled out because Apple wants to build thier own streaming app seeing that they will already be competing with dozens of other providers on thier own platform when thier streaming service comes out.
I believe that due to the numerous stories I've heard about the review process arbitrarily holding up some apps and not others, since they very beginning, and the fact that I believe large companies have lots of internal politicking and divisions competing and managers pulling rank to affect outcomes that the app review process is not always purely policy and technically driven, especially since there's essentially no negative consequences to apple for being arbitrary.
I think we just have differing view on the likelihood of certain outcomes and how they combine into a likelihood of the specific outcome in question, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
As a small time dev with limited resources, Apple is my least favorite company to deal with.
or fanboys.
I honestly cannot take seriously any complaints about having to have a Mac to make Mac apps. How on earth are you testing if you don't have the platform you're supposed to be targeting?
I mean, I understand having to have a Mac to develop for a Mac, but having to have a Mac to develop for iPhone is just Apple being Apple.
Useless snark.
> I honestly cannot take seriously any complaints about having to have a Mac to make Mac apps. How on earth are you testing if you don't have the platform you're supposed to be targeting?
The point is that you don't have to buy dedicated hardware for the other two big platforms (Windows, Linux). The fact that this restriction is essentially arbitrary makes cross-platform developers reasonably annoyed.