I'm sorry, but I really don't give a damn. There's a lot of speculation here (and elsewhere), and until I hear anything official from Apple I refuse to get too wound up.
Well, that's sort of what I'm driving at. Apple clearly has an agenda with this clause and its not 100% clear to the developer community what that agenda is. Do they mean things like PhoneGap are dead, or simply things that provide an alternative API (e.g. running apps via the Adobe Air runtimes). How about cross compilers? Does Apple really give a damn if you write something in Scheme and then have it transcoded into Obj-C? I highly doubt.
My point is that their agenda, while useful to know, mean nothing in the long run, because as long as that clause is active, Apple has the ability to enforce it capriciously.
Whether or not they "mean" things like PhoneGap are dead, etc., is irrelevant. The ability to kill any app because of its original source language is the important thing.
You do realize that "ability" was already there? They've always had full control of what they allow in the store, so this latest change is only significant in intent, not ability.
We have something official, more official than any press release: the developer contract
We have Gruber's interpretation of a complex legal document, taken completely out of the context in which "Application" is defined. Lawyers don't get paid big bucks to interpret this stuff for nothing.
They get paid to try and convince a judge or jury that their client's interpretation of the document is the correct one. You think it's a mistake the text is a bit vague and not everything properly defined ?
Legal texts aren't software; it's actually in the best interest of Apple to define things as broad and vaguely as possible so they cover a large spectrum.
I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person reading the document will have.
That was actually an interesting approach, but still doesn't seem logic. You can't actually develop a Flash app without using the iPhone OS so then you have to follow the C/C++/ObjC rule.
But if the author is counting on "not using the SDK" altogether then basically your whole developer agreement with Apple is void since the whole purpose was to develop "applications". And if the agreement is void there is no reason for Apple to accept your stuff on AppStore.
I think what he was looking for was the link between the rules Apple uses to accept/reject things from the store and the SDK agreement... but yeah, it seems to be a moot point.
IAAL. Contracts only matter to the extent and in the manner that they are ENFORCED by the parties to the contract. Everything else is pure speculation and intellectual masturbation...or, in this case, pursuit of an agenda.
As far as I know, the last time Apple formally responding to the internet debates was when the FCC forced a statement about Google Voice: "HTML5 is open and free enough for anything you want. Google is more than free to create an HTML5 app." We might see something like the rare Phil Schiller emailing John Gruber at Daring Fireball, but I'd highly doubt that.
Unless it highly affects sales (which I doubt the average consumer cares about developers), or a very well known App developer pulls their apps completely (and by well known, I mean well known by the public like Facebook or EA), there'll be no formal or informal response.
You seriously think that if this were just a misunderstanding, they would let all of this Apple hate grow and grow for over 24 hours? They would have issued a statement clarifying things by the end of business hours yesterday if this "speculation" were wrong.
