I understand applying path filters in URLS and search strings, but I find it odd that they would apply the same rules to request body content, especially content encoded as valid JSON, and especially for a BLOG platform where the content would be anything.
The Google style guide is worth a read through, as the subsequent point recognizes the difficulties around package size. It can make sense to have a package with a single function, and it can almost make sense to stuff your entire program/library in a single package.
The two rules work that exacerbate this tension are precisely visibility and no cyclic dependencies.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Forbidding cyclic dependencies is one such case, IMO.
Clearly not ALL users are happy because users of non-Apple watches are unhappy that their watch can do things with Android it's not allowed to do on iOS.
It's not reasonable to make a blanket absolutist statement like that.
And yet Apple has shown many times a willingness to use vague language of their rules to block apps they don't want. Past behavior can't predict future behavior.
Really? Did you have to pair your Apple watch? Did Apple sign the software on the watch? Did Apple build special APIs and tools into iOS to support certain features of the Apple Watch?
Apple is demonstrating here that they can control every aspect of what you can do with your phone, including not allowing Pebble to work.
Apple doesn't even allow you to replace broken parts in your phone unless it has an Apple approved signature that can be validated.
Yeah, and I have a microwave. Despite being vegetarian myself I don't complain that it has a button for "chicken" on it. I don't even really know what it does. I don't really care.
Microsoft absolutely got in trouble for purposefully making other Office suites not work correctly on Windows, for using private Windows APIs in Office that other companies didn't have access to, etc.
If Apple makes a watch that can receive and send iMessages then there is no reason any other device shouldn't be able to use the same APIs that Apple uses.
It absolutely creates a system where competitors literally cannot compete with the same features.
They got in trouble for doing that stuff while having a monopoly on PC OSes. Using private stuff to give your own products an advantage is (legally) fine if you're not leveraging a monopoly to do it.
