Five Rational Counterarguments
David Heinemeier Hansson of 37signals has five rational arguments against Apple’s 3.3.1 policy — the policy that prohibits apps from the iPhone/iPad App Store that are cross-compiled from other languages to iPhone/iPad executables. My comments on each:
“1. The App Store is not a carefully curated gallery”
I.e. there are lots of low-quality apps on the App Store already, and if cross-platform-compiled apps aren’t very good too, so what? Right?
But if they’re low-quality, why would iPhone users want them? Maybe Apple should ban low-quality apps written in Xcode too — if there was any efficient way to do that. Banning cross-compiled apps is very efficient.
And what if some of those cross-compiled apps aren’t that low-quality? Perhaps they’re valuable to some users? Well, then wouldn’t it be better for them to be written in Xcode, so they can keep working as Apple updates its system? (See item 3 below for more on this subject.)
“2. Changing your license in-flight makes developers nervous”
It can. But changing your license in-flight in ways that make the platform stronger makes smart developers confident and enthused.
And if any change is inherently bound to make developers nervous, then repealing the 3.3.1 stipulations (as Hansson apparently wants Apple to do) would be just another change, that would make developers even more nervous — wouldn’t it?
“3. Enforcing public APIs does not make Apple beholden to Adobe”
I.e., Apple is perfectly free to change the API in ways that break cross-compilers, and if the cross-compiler makers want to keep up, that’s their business.
Except — if you think Apple’s catching flak now for officially disallowing cross-compiled apps, just see how much flak they would catch for breaking cross-compilers (and all their apps) with API changes. Better for Apple to take a little heat now than a firestorm later. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
“4. Selective enforcement is unfair and unsettling”
Yes, when you get pulled over for speeding, it seems unfair that some other car you saw speeding wasn’t pulled over. But what’s the alternative — let everybody drive as fast as they want? What happens to the the platform then?
“5. For developers it’s about more than just business”
True. But you don’t get 200,000+ apps, many of them really good, by appealing to pure altruism. Most developers got into developing because they want to develop. But they also want money. Apple’s found a way to deliver both.
© 2012 Darel Rex Finley | design by 