Yes, it's stupid. But with Apple, I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording. The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms. The wording is overly broad and stupid, but I'm no longer as afraid of it.
If they were intent on getting rid of everything under the sun that isn't straight C, Obj-C or C++, there would already be an App-ocalypse underway.
(I was going to say "App Holocaust" first, but that seemed even less tasteful.)
I feel I only need to fear their intention, not their wording
I'm leery of their capriciousness. They obviously have no qualms about changing their terms of service on a whim, giving folks only weeks to comply, and not accepting any compromise. That is simply not the type of folk I like to do business with.
The intent here, it seems to me, is to stop Adobe from making crappy commercial middleware for Apple's platforms.
This is actually the biggest part of Job's argument that I don't buy. If their intent was actually to stop crap from being produced, they would just reject apps that are crap from the App Store as they do now.
It's a question of technical vs. subjective evaluation. A lot of apps on the app store are technically acceptable (i.e. they do things right), but do useless or stupid shit (i.e. they're junk). Apple's only lately started to police the actual purpose of apps, rather than their technical merit (or compliance with the HIG).
I suppose making this rule more explicit was the goal. The #1 complaint about the app store rejection system is that it is not transparent or explicit.
Still, 3.3.1 is poorly worded, so it's not a great solution.
If they were intent on getting rid of everything under the sun that isn't straight C, Obj-C or C++, there would already be an App-ocalypse underway.
(I was going to say "App Holocaust" first, but that seemed even less tasteful.)