Comments on: iPhone APInsanity: Unity Updates to Avoid Rejections, Compatibility Causing False Positive Dejection http://www.imore.com/2009/12/01/iphone-apinsanity-unity-updates-avoid-rejections-compatibility-causing-false-positive-dejection/ More of everything iPhone and iPad Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:20:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jordan http://www.imore.com/2009/12/01/iphone-apinsanity-unity-updates-avoid-rejections-compatibility-causing-false-positive-dejection/comment-page-1/#comment-97581 Jordan Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:22:12 +0000 http://www.theiphoneblog.com/?p=16035#comment-97581 <p>We're working on an update for our own app which currently supports 2.x with "weak linking" to give 3.x users advanced capability, as recommended by Apple.</p> <p>Note, like Juicy Bits we're not talking about private API here but public API and doing exactly what Apple says we should do to support 2.x OS using "weak linking".</p> <p>It's unfortunate that Apple is applying their policies so inconsistently that they are harming developers that only wish to follow the rules.</p> <p>This also hurts users in the end, for example, if we are rejected for the same reason Juicy Bits was, we will be forced to abandon support for 2.x users of which there are still many.</p> <p>Consider also that iPod Touch users have to pay $10 to upgrade to OS 3.x.</p> <p>How does Apple justify penalizing developers who are following their rules so adherently while at the same time being extra lenient to others that knowingly break these rules?</p> We’re working on an update for our own app which currently supports 2.x with “weak linking” to give 3.x users advanced capability, as recommended by Apple.

Note, like Juicy Bits we’re not talking about private API here but public API and doing exactly what Apple says we should do to support 2.x OS using “weak linking”.

It’s unfortunate that Apple is applying their policies so inconsistently that they are harming developers that only wish to follow the rules.

This also hurts users in the end, for example, if we are rejected for the same reason Juicy Bits was, we will be forced to abandon support for 2.x users of which there are still many.

Consider also that iPod Touch users have to pay $10 to upgrade to OS 3.x.

How does Apple justify penalizing developers who are following their rules so adherently while at the same time being extra lenient to others that knowingly break these rules?

]]> By: Loz http://www.imore.com/2009/12/01/iphone-apinsanity-unity-updates-avoid-rejections-compatibility-causing-false-positive-dejection/comment-page-1/#comment-97569 Loz Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:55:19 +0000 http://www.theiphoneblog.com/?p=16035#comment-97569 <p>I don't agree. I'd rather read comments in order they are written below the articles. Sorry.</p> I don’t agree. I’d rather read comments in order they are written below the articles. Sorry.

]]> By: Tworth23 http://www.imore.com/2009/12/01/iphone-apinsanity-unity-updates-avoid-rejections-compatibility-causing-false-positive-dejection/comment-page-1/#comment-97530 Tworth23 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:18:03 +0000 http://www.theiphoneblog.com/?p=16035#comment-97530 <p>@Renee Ritchie. I've emailed TIPB with no response. Please post new comments up top so we don't have to scroll ALL THE WAY to the bottom to read the new comments. I will email TIPB again now. Kindly respond!!! I Know EVERYONE AGREES.</p> @Renee Ritchie. I’ve emailed TIPB with no response. Please post new comments up top so we don’t have to scroll ALL THE WAY to the bottom to read the new comments. I will email TIPB again now. Kindly respond!!! I Know EVERYONE AGREES.

]]>