 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Alex Queiroz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:They aren't specifically allowing anything. They just advise people who would otherwise be breaking the rules to ask for permission for exception. Making Lua applications is still walking a dangerously fine line.Apple doesn't need that you application uses Lua to ban it. The new clause is to shut up people crying "hypocrites!".
Oh, goody! An extended thread... ;-)Now, the new wording of the legal section still downplay in its peculiar reality-distorting manner the fact that Lua and other tools are used for many very good reasons. So developers are still left coping in a surreal climate that has an "approved reality" and an "actual reality", much like that practiced by dysfunctional countries of yesterday and today.
The economics of developing what is basically throwaway low-perceived-value over-abundant software naturally leads to the use of scripting languages like Lua and other productivity tools, I doubt Lua and other tools or methods of software development can be reality-distorted away by mere propaganda or stemmed by barriers like the need to get written approval. If they want lock-in, then they can't really enforce that without risking a lot of backlash.
Methinks they should just pay or deal in selected top-tier apps for exclusivity. A market for trinkets cannot be changed into a market for jewelery. Or Apple should create a top-tier product section for jewelery and accept that, well, trinkets will be trinkets and there is a big market for trinkets. Nothing wrong with trinkets if we know they are not jewelery.
Sucks when you have an ecosystem run by too many control freaks, and using up too much of goodwill lately. One of these days, there will be a significant blowback. Good entertainment. :-)
P.S. sorry for extending this thread, just shootin' the breeze... -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia