Re: Mac App Store opens January 6

> 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.
>

> 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.
>

> 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.
>>
>
>

> 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
>
>
>