> We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.
The proper quote, from Justice Potter Stevens, was:
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Today, he doesn't comment on 3.1.1 but says "The existence of this document is a very welcome change" regarding the rules document. I'd like to see some comments on 3.1.1 as well.
I disagree with that, and I was very solidly on the other side when they had their previous set of rules.
The list given here shows 'intent'. Now you can go and interpret it to the letter as if it is a kind of legal document, but that's not the right way to approach this, just as it isn't very clever to try to live by the letter of the law but to ignore the spirit of it.
Apple has clearly set a bunch of rules here that indicate what is the desired way you should develop your app and how you interpret these rules is up to you. If you're going to do your best to squeak by the guidelines they're warning you up front that they may amend the guidelines and ban your app anyway, just in case you decide to go 'legal' on them.
Is's a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do.
I'm surprised at the magnitude of this about-face, anybody with a clear conscience can take this list, self-validate their app and have a very good idea of whether or not it is going to pass.
No doubt there will be smart asses that will try to abuse the fact that the list is now published to find loopholes and Apple has pre-emptively closed those.
All (or as far as I can see it) of the dealbreakers are gone and I would imagine they're gone for good.
I think DF was right in its analysis: These changes are likely coming straight from Jobs. Perhaps it was Apple Legal dictating the rules and it just didn't seem "human" enough. Perhaps Jobs wanted to unify the left and right hand to know what both were doing. Maybe they're scared of the Probe.
Apple is showing here that it is one of the biggest small companies around. The wording in the App store review guidelines reads like something out of an up-and-coming Webapp startup run by a 20-something ne'er-do-well.
It's clear that Apple wants to get back to its "Designed by Apple in California" jeans and mock-turtleneck 'tude. The draconian rules and BS were antithetical to that. Hey, maybe the gyrating silhouettes will make their comeback to replace disembodied hands in their commercials.
Agreed, I'm very impressed with the changes to both the content and tone. For me the annual charge to run my own code on my own hardware and the prohibition on non-appstore distribution are still dealbreakers, but this will undoubtedly keep many developers around who otherwise would have jumped ship. It will also allow more apps to be ported to and from iOS, which is beneficial for everyone.
Hey, don't knock the annual charge. If we have garbage in the App Store right now, imagine the crap we'd see if Apple removed that particular bozo filter.
Still, it would not be out of line for a developer account to permit the creation of only developer certificates/provisioning profiles, limited to five devices a year or something, to suit personal noodling not destined for the App Store.
The Eucalyptus app could still be banned under the current rules because it makes it possible to download sex books of project gutenberg.
It isn't mentioned directly, but combine the protect the children with no obscenity (which I personally find Obscene) clauses and you can ban anything.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Unacceptable to whom? And for what purpose? Your words imply that Apple has submitted this document to some party or group of parties for review. I don't think that's the case, but I'm open to education.
I understand. I was thrown off by the word "unacceptable," because it often implies the existence of a mutual negotiation that may not be the case.
But moving along briskly, developing for a proprietary platform carries with it a huge risk of getting burned some day, but perhaps the question is whether you will make enough money beforehand to make the eventual burn worthwhile.
I would be surprised if there's ANYTHING Apple would put in that document that would get a lot of developers to change their minds. Many developers won't sharecrop the Apple orchard under any circumstances consistent with Apple's business plan, and many developers will take their chances and try to make money.
I take it you think there are some policies Apple could adopt that would sway you? And you think these policies are consistent with APple's direction but they haven't done it yet??
I was tempted to start developing for their platform, but the start-up costs are huge (get a mac, I doubt learning objective c would be that bad since I can already program both in c and c++) and it allows me to do less than I can with Android (no background tasks, no way to replace and augment the existing software).
Apple could solve both of these issues, and at least the first point wouldn't go against their business plan (very few people buy a mac just so they can create apple apps) nor would background tasks be much in the way (for some reason they are currently only allowed for music).
The upside is that the store works much better and makes developers more money than the android market (which is broken beyond belief if you don't live in the US) which would be enough to sway me.
As it is, I will properly get an Android soon and then I will have to find some way to sell my apps. But hey, at least they wont be just another game.
The proper quote, from Justice Potter Stevens, was:
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
How do I know? Because by wild coincidence, I quote it on the first page of a free book I wrote (http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/book/metaheuristics/).