So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other cautions suggestions anybody?
best Eliot
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Apple Developer <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Eliot Miranda wrote:
> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the > Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead > and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other > cautions suggestions anybody? I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 These parts might be a problem: # 2.16 # # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected # 2.21 # # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac compatible): # 6.3 # # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human # Interface Guidelines will be rejected # 6.4 # # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex # or less than very good it may be rejected At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App Store. -- Jecel |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
Well, as a first step, just push the current versions of pharo, squeak, etoys, etc. will be fine. In the future, I would like to push some "ready to use" vm + [the distribution you like], some kind the one clicks distributions (but without the other platforms stuff, of course : ). Also, I think there are some guideliness to follow for the applications to be on the app store. I can't say if we already fulfill the requirements, because my developers program for mac expired last month and I forgot to renew it -I'm doing it now, but as I'm at the **s of the world, it is not so automatic :) ) cheers, Esteban El 16/12/2010, a las 4:31p.m., Eliot Miranda escribió: So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other cautions suggestions anybody? |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> Eliot Miranda wrote: >> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >> cautions suggestions anybody? > > I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this > leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: > > http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 > > These parts might be a problem: > > # 2.16 > # > # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add > # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected > > # 2.21 > # > # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store > > And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the > window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac > compatible): > > # 6.3 > # > # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and > # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human > # Interface Guidelines will be rejected > > # 6.4 > # > # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, > # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but > # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex > # or less than very good it may be rejected > > At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App > Store. according to these terms. Levente > > -- Jecel > > > |
2010/12/16 Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > >> Eliot Miranda wrote: >>> >>> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >>> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >>> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >>> cautions suggestions anybody? >> >> I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this >> leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: >> >> http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 >> >> These parts might be a problem: >> >> # 2.16 >> # >> # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add >> # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected >> >> # 2.21 >> # >> # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store >> >> And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the >> window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac >> compatible): >> >> # 6.3 >> # >> # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and >> # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human >> # Interface Guidelines will be rejected >> >> # 6.4 >> # >> # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, >> # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but >> # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex >> # or less than very good it may be rejected >> >> At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App >> Store. > > Most web browsers and all virtualization software would be rejected > according to these terms. > Yep, Apple bar seems to high for professionally made software. Btw, XCode neither having good interface nor easy one. So ban it. :) It is adequate only for casual software like Pocket Heat (http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/iphone-app-overworks-components-to-warm-hands.html) I don't understand, why we need to jump into this bandwagon of bigots? Will presence on App Store change anything for Squeak? I don't think so. > > Levente > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> 2010/12/16 Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>: >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: >> >>> Eliot Miranda wrote: >>>> >>>> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >>>> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >>>> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >>>> cautions suggestions anybody? >>> >>> I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this >>> leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: >>> >>> http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 >>> >>> These parts might be a problem: >>> >>> # 2.16 >>> # >>> # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add >>> # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected >>> >>> # 2.21 >>> # >>> # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store >>> >>> And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the >>> window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac >>> compatible): >>> >>> # 6.3 >>> # >>> # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and >>> # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human >>> # Interface Guidelines will be rejected >>> >>> # 6.4 >>> # >>> # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, >>> # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but >>> # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex >>> # or less than very good it may be rejected >>> >>> At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App >>> Store. >> >> Most web browsers and all virtualization software would be rejected >> according to these terms. >> > > Yep, Apple bar seems to high for professionally made software. > Btw, XCode neither having good interface nor easy one. So ban it. :) > > It is adequate only for casual software like Pocket Heat > (http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/iphone-app-overworks-components-to-warm-hands.html) > > I don't understand, why we need to jump into this bandwagon of bigots? > Will presence on App Store change anything for Squeak? I don't think so. to install stuff if they can do it easily or in the way they used to do it. Btw it's pretty much the same as adding the VM to various Linux/BSD distributions. Just remember how hard it was for Debian/Ubuntu. Levente > >> >> Levente >> > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > |
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Boycott from such a small community won't change anything. Absence probably only hurts. It's a rock and a hard place.
I don't know what to think about it. On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: > 2010/12/16 Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>: >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: >> >>> Eliot Miranda wrote: >>>> >>>> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >>>> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >>>> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >>>> cautions suggestions anybody? >>> >>> I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this >>> leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: >>> >>> http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 >>> >>> These parts might be a problem: >>> >>> # 2.16 >>> # >>> # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add >>> # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected >>> >>> # 2.21 >>> # >>> # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store >>> >>> And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the >>> window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac >>> compatible): >>> >>> # 6.3 >>> # >>> # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and >>> # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human >>> # Interface Guidelines will be rejected >>> >>> # 6.4 >>> # >>> # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, >>> # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but >>> # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex >>> # or less than very good it may be rejected >>> >>> At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App >>> Store. >> >> Most web browsers and all virtualization software would be rejected >> according to these terms. >> > > Yep, Apple bar seems to high for professionally made software. > Btw, XCode neither having good interface nor easy one. So ban it. :) > > It is adequate only for casual software like Pocket Heat > (http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/iphone-app-overworks-components-to-warm-hands.html) > > I don't understand, why we need to jump into this bandwagon of bigots? > Will presence on App Store change anything for Squeak? I don't think so. > >> >> Levente >> > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > |
I don't know much about Apple Store nor Apple itself because here in
Argentina are so expensives, but seems that a lot of people is selling solutions using this way. Is not a bad idea to push our "products" in all the possible places, and the Eliot suggestion make me think about if we could have some own repo of ready to use squeak/pharo solutions were each author can offer their products (free or not, open or not) as a way of concentrate a portfolio of Smalltalk (aka Pharo/Squeak/other dialects?) solutions. A sort of Smalltalk Store..........I know that is not a big difference against any other software repository (as cnet, tucows, etc) only that here we could join forces in some ways to try to sell/offer our solutions......Could work? Cheers. 2010/12/16 Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]>: > Boycott from such a small community won't change anything. Absence probably only hurts. It's a rock and a hard place. > > I don't know what to think about it. > > On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> 2010/12/16 Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>: >>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> Eliot Miranda wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >>>>> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >>>>> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >>>>> cautions suggestions anybody? >>>> >>>> I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this >>>> leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: >>>> >>>> http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 >>>> >>>> These parts might be a problem: >>>> >>>> # 2.16 >>>> # >>>> # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add >>>> # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected >>>> >>>> # 2.21 >>>> # >>>> # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store >>>> >>>> And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the >>>> window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac >>>> compatible): >>>> >>>> # 6.3 >>>> # >>>> # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and >>>> # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human >>>> # Interface Guidelines will be rejected >>>> >>>> # 6.4 >>>> # >>>> # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, >>>> # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but >>>> # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex >>>> # or less than very good it may be rejected >>>> >>>> At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App >>>> Store. >>> >>> Most web browsers and all virtualization software would be rejected >>> according to these terms. >>> >> >> Yep, Apple bar seems to high for professionally made software. >> Btw, XCode neither having good interface nor easy one. So ban it. :) >> >> It is adequate only for casual software like Pocket Heat >> (http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/iphone-app-overworks-components-to-warm-hands.html) >> >> I don't understand, why we need to jump into this bandwagon of bigots? >> Will presence on App Store change anything for Squeak? I don't think so. >> >>> >>> Levente >>> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> > > |
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
Once again, it seems like the Squeak community will need to approach
Steve Jobs concerning these issues, using as many avenues as possible (e.g. Alan Kay letter, etc). The strategy used for the iPhone may or may not work, but it seems the only course of action. Lawson On 12/16/10 3:00 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > Eliot Miranda wrote: >> So we should be ready to provide Squeak, Pharo, Etoys et al on the >> Mac App Store on 6/1/2011. John, any advice or should I just go ahead >> and submit Cog and Squeak 4.1 trunk and see what happens? Other >> cautions suggestions anybody? > I hope it works out! Since I am not a developer, I don't know if this > leaked version of the "terms of use" is true and current: > > http://www.cultofmac.com/apples-mac-app-store-approval-guidelines/65022 > > These parts might be a problem: > > # 2.16 > # > # Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add > # functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected > > # 2.21 > # > # Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store > > And these might or might not be a problem (since the GUI inside the > window is different, but the menus and the window stuff is Mac > compatible): > > # 6.3 > # > # Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and > # icons, correctly and as described in the Apple Macintosh Human > # Interface Guidelines will be rejected > > # 6.4 > # > # Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, > # creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but > # are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex > # or less than very good it may be rejected > > At least there isn't the code generation limitations of the iOS App > Store. > > -- Jecel > > > |
On 7 January 2011 14:24, Lawson English <[hidden email]> wrote:
Once again, it seems like the Squeak community will need to approach Steve Jobs concerning these issues, using as many avenues as possible (e.g. Alan Kay letter, etc). The strategy used for the iPhone may or may not work, but it seems the only course of action. [snip]
I don't think we need to worry about these last two, given the applications that are already getting through: http://readthefuckinghig.tumblr.com/ |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |