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 <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>:
> 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 <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2010/12/16 Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu>:
>>> 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.
>>
>
>