The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store.
Especially note: Free software is allowed.
There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions:
• Things that implement their own copy protection.
• Buggy software.
• Things that need root.
See the whole list: http://pastie.org/1236378 but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin.
I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing.
The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue.
Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell.
But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.
The title was on the basis of this part of the article "If an app even exhibits a bug, it will be rejected -- does Apple know how many apps, open-source or otherwise, have bugs?"
The point that this could make FOSS especially vulnerable, although am open to discussion otherwise.
They can't, by the very nature of software, reject all software containing any bugs. The store would never contain anything.
But if your software contains obvious bugs that impact the user during normal usage (it crashes when you try to save, or the preference pane only stays open for 5 seconds), they're not interested in being associated with your software. That seems fair to me.
This is only "unfair" to FLOSS if you take the position that FLOSS is significantly more likely to contain such significant, user-facing defects.
Now, I'm not saying that's true, but if it were true, that seems to me to be an indictment of FLOSS, not of Apple's rules for being in its store.
Comments
The current HN title is wrong.
The article doesn't address Open Source. It states that the store will not be used for the distribution of beta versions of software. The tweet just says firefox betas won't be in the store.
Especially note: Free software is allowed.
There are classes of software that won't work in the store. The article mentions:
• Things that implement their own copy protection.
• Buggy software.
• Things that need root.
See the whole list: http://pastie.org/1236378 but you will go blind before you finish if your don't have readability plugin.
I would characterize the forbidden stuff as "obnoxious, useless, or malicious" applications. There is some collateral damage along the way, e.g. anything with a kernel extension, and there are some morality/legality driven restrictions e.g. encourge minors to consume alcohol or realistic human killing.
The most alarming exception to me, is that the application can only distribute updates through the store. I would hope Apple doesn't hold up new versions like they have with the iOS stores. As a developer I cringe when I read of customers living with month old defects because the update is stalled in queue.
Customers will have a reasonable belief that stuff from the store isn't tearing through their computer looking for email addresses or credit card numbers to sell.
But that's ok, they have other channels for distribution. It isn't a Apple Store or nothing proposition like the iOS devices.
The title was on the basis of this part of the article "If an app even exhibits a bug, it will be rejected -- does Apple know how many apps, open-source or otherwise, have bugs?"
The point that this could make FOSS especially vulnerable, although am open to discussion otherwise.
They can't, by the very nature of software, reject all software containing any bugs. The store would never contain anything.
But if your software contains obvious bugs that impact the user during normal usage (it crashes when you try to save, or the preference pane only stays open for 5 seconds), they're not interested in being associated with your software. That seems fair to me.
This is only "unfair" to FLOSS if you take the position that FLOSS is significantly more likely to contain such significant, user-facing defects.
Now, I'm not saying that's true, but if it were true, that seems to me to be an indictment of FLOSS, not of Apple's rules for being in its store.