When push comes to shove, Apple can tell those teams to rewrite their code. It can't do that to the authors of, say, Firefox.
They literally do it regularly, public APIs get deprecated then removed and consumers have to rewrite their code.
This article is literally about Apple making 3rd parties rewrite their code just to access the app store.
And before you or someone else points out "Firefox is directly distributed", I say: Exactly. So they can use the internal APIs as they please, then Apple can remove then as they please and break Firrfox and... make Firefox rewrite their code.
Apple is not Microsoft. Apple does not work towards not breaking existing software, they actively break it with each macOS and iOS release, sometimes not even releasing the tools needed to fix them before general releases
Making an internal API people are already using public literally does nothing but optionally allow Apple to give a heads up about deprecation. Apple could literally slap "public" on every internal API, break them every release, and the result would be no different than the current status quo because of the overarching rule of App Store admissions... your app has to work, regardless of if an "internal" or "public" API is changed.
Honestly for most developers that wouldn't seem to different from the current situation: see iOS 13 where basic UILabel stuff was breaking.
And again, apps that don't use the App Store already use internal APIs and can already break all the time.
I work at a development agency and on both macOS and iOS every release is a race to figure out which breaking changes have been sprung by Apple (including crashes caused by silent changes in behavior of existing APIs, people have had apps rejected for breaking on pre-general release OS versions when we didn't even have the tools to test them yet)
Decades ago, when Apple introduced 68040 Macs, a lot of programs broke because they were writing self modifying code and that didn’t work with the 68040 cache. Whose fault was that Apple’s or the developers?
The modal example, it's to support new design language Apple is pushing, straight up breaks modals designed a certain (valid) way.
Catalina removed XML exports used by music apps. There was no deprecation warning.
Apple's recommended fix? Don't update if you need one of those apps.
These are not defects, they are literally breaking changes intentionally made with no warning.
I don't understand why all of you seem to be operating underthe assumption apps using "public APIs" just work with each OS update. It just doesn't work like that. They break and crash not due to defects but due to intentional changes
Apple did in fact provide a method to share music between apps and some apps do take advantage of it. Do you really think that Apple didn't need to do a major overhaul of iTunes?
Of course it's Apple's advice and common sense not to upgrade your OS until the apps you use are updated to support it.
This is all modern software engineering 101.
As a developer there are a few expectations.
- depending on private method may break your code with any point release. The vendor has no obligation not to break code if you depended on a private API.
- If your code breaks calling a public method during a point release, it is a bug and the vendor has an obligation not to break public API's when releasing a point release.
- If the vendor makes a breaking change during a major release (x.0.0). It's the vendor's responsible to communicate the breaking change and give enough notice to developers/users about breaking changes so that either the developer can fix their code, the user can find a replacement app, and/or the user not upgrade.
But lo and behold something useful did come of it, I finally found the fundamental misunderstanding keeping you from understanding what the crux of the issue is.
> If your code breaks calling a public method during a point release, it is a bug and the vendor has an obligation not to break public API's when releasing a point release.
Not when the vendor is Apple.
This whole time you've been operating on the set of rules that apply when your vendor considers you a partner of sorts, maybe in the vaguest sense of the word, but a partner nonetheless.
iOS point releases break things literally all the time. Iirc we actually saw more fires on 13.1 than 13.0
This literally has nothing to do with semantic versioning or whatever else you want to confuse it with. It's a blatant disregard for developers that Apple has carried throughout it's operations, from APIs to app store rejections. If anything the only reason they get the slightest pass is they're not Google, who manages to make talking to a human, no matter how hard they stonewall you, a selling point in mobile developer relations now.
But your argument has nothing to do with this submission - using private APIs.
At least one of your two examples - getting rid of XML exports - wasn’t about Apple breaking a public API during a point release. How is it a straw man refuting one of your major points? It was about Apple changing an API during a major release and letting developers know. This is how a vendor should behave.
Now whether they gave developers enough of a warning is a completely separate argument.
BTW: While it is a major change and no longer automatic. There is a manual workaround...
https://djtechtools.com/2019/10/10/update-to-catalina-heres-...
You ignored my perfectly good example of Apple breaking an API because you have nothing to say about it.
You ignored my comment you just replied to pointing out how irrelevant sem-ver is when your "vendor" doesn't care about you.
You are fixated on trying to nitpick the one tiny foothold you've found for your screed, one which only exists because you're ignoring the initial point I, not the article brought up, that this is an issue with Apple not caring about developers literally in the first comment you replied to.
Maybe spend more time reading and less time replying.
The electron rejection is not a symptom of Apple breaking a public API. It’s just the opposite. An API change didn’t break Electron apps - it was rejected for using a private API.
It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that your examples are completely irrelevant to the submitted article - Apple rejected an app that used private APIs. None of your examples have anything to do with the submitted post.
Would you also complain if you wrote a C program that depended on documented “undefined behavior”...
int b= a++ + ++a;
I said this internal API rejection situation of Apple not treating developers like partners
Like it's literally right there in the comment you replied to clear as day and yet you manage to muck it up then spend several more paragraphs on a new screed nitpicking your wrongly quoted text.
I'm done replying to this.
It’s dumb to use “internal”, private APIs. It always has been. It hurts your products stability, it hurts your customers, and it keeps the platform vendor from making rapid changes.
Microsoft never cared about you as a developer - they would just as easily run over you if it met their business objectives.
Microsoft has a history from the earliest days of existence of bending over for developers.
Going as far as to literally to add a special case to their memory allocator to support explicit undefined behavior (reading memory after free) for when a specific game, Sim City.
They avoided writing more than 80 characters on any given line in system.ini, because one specific program would fail to read those lines correctly, then delete the system.ini when attempting to write it back
Microsoft is literally still packaging 16-bit subsystems with Windows 10
Anyone actually interested in learning more about it should read Raymond Chen's blog and learn about the truly insane lengths Microsoft goes to make sure they don't break what developers have done, no matter how wrong it is:
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/author/oldnewthin...
Honestly anyone who doesn't know the lengths Microsoft goes to treat developers as partners doesn't have the base knowledge for the conversation this thread has been about, but I digress.
[0] https://blog.dripstat.com/removal-of-sun-misc-unsafe-a-disas...
There was no other way to do what Unsafe did, so people used it for years.
A lot of people used it to do useful things in Java. So much stuff that this article is saying it literally became indispensable for much of what Java is used for. The ecosystem was better for it.
Sun says we want to remove it.
So Sun can provide alternatives that do the same job, or find that it generates so much value that it shouldn't be removed, or remove it and leave people literally exactly where they'd be if it never existed if there's no other way to do what it does. People would gnash their teeth, but the message sent is "Java was never the right tool for the job so we don't want you as a user."
And the article rightly points out, Sun was removing it for the sake of removing it. Having a bad engineering structure where that handwavy rant about Unsafe can justify removing a useful feature has nothing to do with internal vs public APIs.
Yes, I agree that the problem was that Sun didn't provide a public API for it, at the same time developers breaking the contract (instead of pushing for it to be moved to a `java.` namespace) shouldn't be excused and embraced, it causes bigger issues to the overall design of the platform when then you have to be maintaining an API for the sake of usage, the same cruft that Win32 suffers for its whole existence, and which made developing on Win32 a pain in the ass for a lot of people, for the sake of not breaking some twisted way that a major application used it.
Some of the private APIs being used have been stable for generations and are clear improvements in one way or another over the publicly available APIs (like CAContext stuff). I mean a modern OS is not like a library you stick up on NPM and hope no one tries to use internal methods that you'll end up having to support. There are so many desperate teams working on OSX and the applications from Apple that use these APIs, it's not like backwards compatibility, documentation, and most of the issues public APIs face aren't already an issue that has to be tackled.
Apple uses these APIs to make features no one can fairly compete with, which is detrimental to you, as a user, and to external developers. Imagine if any app could use APIs like the ones that Apple Music uses to have tight integration with Siri, or that Apple Maps uses to show on your lockscreen.