Comments on: Apple Dev Program takes stand on nature of consciousness

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:30:47 +0000

I’m a bit surprised, by reading the comments it seems there are not many programmers here. So every app that uses a cross-platform library is crap, huh? Every game made in Unity or that uses say Box2D or OpenGL is crap, cause they are cross-platform? Cause You don’t even NEED to write a CP app to use CP libraries. As a programmer I learned early to not reinvent the wheel, and that code reuse is good. Apple is basically saying that if I wrote an awsome library originally in say Java, and I want to port it to C to use on my iPhone app I can’t and that’s a “GOOD THING”? How does that make any sense?

By the way, great article, even though you dont “write” in your mind, you could just write a mockup of your thoughts on paper in pseudo code, and that would be the “original” language you wrote your programm, so that clause doesn’t hold up at all anyway.

By: Ira Hochman

Ira Hochman — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:38:42 +0000

CORRECTION: In my argument above, I should have said that Apple’s agreement clearly states that your code is your own & the relationship is one of independent contractor.

By: Ira Hochman

Ira Hochman — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:33:37 +0000

Joe-

Thanks for the clever writeup. The metaphysical aspect is part of the underlying argument that I make on my blog that the use of “original” in 3.3.1 does not have true legal meaning. If I decide to prototype my program with carrot sticks and olives on a yellow legal pad am I disqualified from the App Store? If I eat the evidence, who will know? ;-)

Combine your argument with the fact that Apple’s agreement clearly states that your code is entirely your own property and you have Apple attempting to modify property law with ill-defined terms. I also agree that cross-platform and other transformation tools do not automatically equate to “bad” software and in certain situations, such as Chris Allen presents, it improves the end result.

But we can toss all these arguments aside as everyone who has signed on as an iPhone Developer accepted Apple as the final arbiter, for any reason or none at all, on whether an app gets into the store. People were hoping Apple would be gentle in this regard, but with this clause Apple is broadcasting the message that you can drop the adjective from benevolent dictator.

By: The Great Section 3.3.1 Debate at Under The Bridge

The Great Section 3.3.1 Debate at Under The Bridge — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:25:24 +0000

[...] with reactions from the profane to the pedantic to the metaphysical to the insightful to the whoa, [...]

By: Jason Catena

Jason Catena — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:51:23 +0000

They accept C, but you can use tools like lex and yacc to generate C source code. Would this also invalidate the clause? If not, let’s all use translators from our languages of choice to one of their approved ones. Or will they draw a distinction of degree between program generators and language translators?

This is one of those times I’m glad I never have anything to do with Apple’s closed platforms. I’m happy to let them paint themselves into an expensive corner of irrelevancy.

By: John Sundman

John Sundman — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:54:32 +0000

Somewhat in response to this post, Howard Stearns has written a very language-geeky, philosophy-of-software article on Wetmachine that kinda-sorta comes down on Apple’s side — but not really.

http://www.wetmachine.com/item/1988

By: Matt W

Matt W — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:26:58 +0000

@Rico
Don’t forget you need a display and to pay the SDK License fee ;)

By: crankycoder.com » Links for April 11th

crankycoder.com » Links for April 11th — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:04:17 +0000

[...] joeberkovitz.com » Apple Dev Program takes stand on nature of consciousness – Is the iPhone SDK really just a turing test in disguise? You decide. [...]

By: joe

joe — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:18:03 +0000

@Lawrence I agree with your statement, Programs, like businesses, are built by progressively interacting with the world, the compiler, and the customers. But this statement applies just as much to code in C as it does to code in some declarative mini-language to be translated to C (now outlawed by 3.3.1), and as it does to the mental constructs that precede coding. Any representation of a program is incomplete and in a state of evolution. For me, programming is very much about putting together something in my head and then turning that into code. It is not a waterfall process, though: it is iterative.

But that’s not the main point. Where we truly disagree is on your opinion (and Gruber’s) that 3.3.1 helps Apple. Sure, I understand that cross-platform tools sometimes produce shabby results, and for all I know iPhone Packager could be one (I personally haven’t tried it). But 3.3.1 throws every single baby out with the presumed bathwater. There are many ways to use translators that are incredibly practical and lightweight — see Chris Allen’s insightful comment above on 3D games — and Steve Jobs is hurting his platform by using a shotgun approach to control this problem, not helping it.

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:05:07 +0000

Apple are in fact evil. They also happen to control access to the gushing torrents of money from their mindless thralls to your pockets.

What’s stopping iPhone developers rebelling en masse against these ridiculous restrictions? I’d suggest it’s the prospect of enough money that they’d eat a bug on video if the Apple agreement required them to. Android doesn’t quite offer that yet. Munch munch munch.