Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by mrcharles on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:23PM (#1259929)

It seems to me that part of number 3 (about private APIs) is bogus -- it's pretty easy to compare an executable against private API addresses to make sure it isn't linked to any of them. They likely have a tool and it likely results in an instant fail and I doubt there are any approved apps that use private APIs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by minalecs on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:47PM (#1259975)

this is not completely true.. when google first released their search application, they were allowed to use an undocumented api (at the time), that detected when you moved your phone from your ear, and was allowed. Not sure if this is the same as a private api, but in general they do reject the use of private api's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by mrcharles on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:48PM (#1259978)

Special exceptions aside, of course. That follows with his other point about big players, which I agree with. They get to do things the little guys don't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by MWinther on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @04:21AM (#1261388)

They did start this checking relatively late in the game however, and I seem to remember it giving rise to a number of outraged developer stories on the web.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by reitzensteinm on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:34PM (#1259945)

I think you mean #3.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy by mrcharles on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:45PM (#1259969)

Curse that 2 key, always next to the 3.

[ Parent | on HN ]