Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

1235729

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Except that you lose price competition COMPLETELY.

    How so, exactly?

    Other companies are free to develop cheaper apps and undercut competitors selling similar products.

    The competition you're describing is the competition between distributors, not developers. Personally, I don't give two shits what happens to third-party distributors. They don't develop a thing. The App Store skips the chintziest and most irrelevant part of the supply chain: the end-market middleman.

    And you know what? Fuck those guys. If a developer can't make a product at a market-viable price, that's their problem. But when a product's success is left to the business model of a third party?

    Bah.

  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Because it only applies if you want to use their store.

    So a developer can create apps and I can load them easily (no jailbreaking or anything) onto my iPhone without going through the store?

    Or what are you saying here?

    Why is that an expectation?

    If I want to play a game on my 360, a developer has to make the game within Microsoft's restrictions and put it up for sale where I can buy it. The iPhone is a platform, not a computer.

    I was responding more to "if you want to use their store" which implied to me that there is a way to not use their store.

    Edit: Maybe I'm misunderstanding what people are saying?

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Except that you lose price competition COMPLETELY.

    How so, exactly?

    Other companies are free to develop cheaper apps and undercut competitors selling similar products.

    The competition you're describing is the competition between distributors, not developers. Personally, I don't give two shits what happens to third-party distributors. They don't develop a thing. The App Store skips the chintziest and most irrelevant part of the supply chain: the end-market middleman.

    And you know what? Fuck those guys. If a developer can't make a product at a market-viable price, that's their problem. But when a product's success is left to the business model of a third party?

    Bah.

    Price competition FOR THE SAME APP, you goose.

    What you have now is defacto price fixing.

    the end market middleman is an INCREDIBLY important piece of the supply chain for the consumers. he is the guy who doesn't have any sort of emotional attatment to the product, he just wants o get it in to as many users hands as he can. this is ften done through price lowering

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mrflippy wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Because it only applies if you want to use their store.

    So a developer can create apps and I can load them easily (no jailbreaking or anything) onto my iPhone without going through the store?

    Or what are you saying here?

    Why is that an expectation?

    If I want to play a game on my 360, a developer has to make the game within Microsoft's restrictions and put it up for sale where I can buy it. The iPhone is a platform, not a computer.

    I was responding more to "if you want to use their store" which implied to me that there is a way to not use their store.

    Edit: Maybe I'm misunderstanding what people are saying?

    on android, you can buy the file anywhere and install it, not just the marketplace

    georgersig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know what is really god damn annoying? Why does Apple feel compelled to deliberately break the jailbreak code in every, single, OS update?

    Of course sadly I know the answer: they break it because AT&T compels them to since the jailbreak has been used to unlock the carrier-lock on the phone.

    But what get's me is this: eventually every OS is rejailbroken, and the baseband hacked as well. Has it occurred to them that if they made the jailbreak really really easy, or officially supported it or something, that it would vastly reduce the interest and commitment of people in going on to hack the baseband?

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    What you have now is defacto price fixing.

    Price fixing is the practice of multi-party collusion to artificially equalize prices across points of competition, typically when dealing in non-proprietary goods or services. For example, oil can be price fixed, because oil is a natural resource, and the acquisition and refinement of it are very equilateral costs between each competing company.

    A proprietary product whose price is determined by the developer cannot be accused of price fixing since no one else makes an equal product. Two companies might both be selling a GPS application, but each company has a different application. Proprietary products are basically legal monopolies, since a company can't be forced to publicize its patents.


    Or to make a different argument, you're basically arguing that Nintendo should remove their development restrictions so I can play WiiWare on my Playstation.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Because it only applies if you want to use their store.

    So a developer can create apps and I can load them easily (no jailbreaking or anything) onto my iPhone without going through the store?

    Or what are you saying here?

    Why is that an expectation?

    If I want to play a game on my 360, a developer has to make the game within Microsoft's restrictions and put it up for sale where I can buy it. The iPhone is a platform, not a computer.

    But you can buy that 360 game anywhere, not just at the Microsoft store.

    Android allows you to buy and install apps from other sources. I've seen a bit of price differentiation come out of this. That is GOOD for the consumer.

    Except it still has to be licensced by MS before it can go to market.

    Not to mention XBLA. Or WiiWare. or PSN.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know what is really god damn annoying? Why does Apple feel compelled to deliberately break the jailbreak code in every, single, OS update?

    Of course sadly I know the answer: they break it because AT&T compels them to since the jailbreak has been used to unlock the carrier-lock on the phone.

    But what get's me is this: eventually every OS is rejailbroken, and the baseband hacked as well. Has it occurred to them that if they made the jailbreak really really easy, or officially supported it or something, that it would vastly reduce the interest and commitment of people in going on to hack the baseband?

    Why do Nintendo and Sony do their damndest to break homebrew on the Wii and PSP with every firmware update?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Each store has the ability to have different prices. Competition is good for the consumer, because it drives prices down.

    Except in this case price competition is utterly unnecessary since the vast majority of apps on the Apple Store are either free, or cost 99 cents.

    This will be even more true when iAds come out, since they will provide an additional revenue stream for developers and push prices down even more.

  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Warning: Donkey Kong is not a real doctor Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know what is really god damn annoying? Why does Apple feel compelled to deliberately break the jailbreak code in every, single, OS update?

    Of course sadly I know the answer: they break it because AT&T compels them to since the jailbreak has been used to unlock the carrier-lock on the phone.

    But what get's me is this: eventually every OS is rejailbroken, and the baseband hacked as well. Has it occurred to them that if they made the jailbreak really really easy, or officially supported it or something, that it would vastly reduce the interest and commitment of people in going on to hack the baseband?

    They actually don't. Lots of jailbreaks have been directly portable from one firmware to the next. Typically they look at how the jailbreak was done and close the security hole that allowed it because to not do so would be neglectful. You don't want viruses doing the same shit.

    My phone is jailbroken. Skype alerts me every time I update it that performance might not be perfect because my phone is running a "modified OS". So obviously, Apple could detect that too if they wanted and refuse to let stuff run. They could be a lot worse. So far they seem to be doing just the bare minimum, sealing up the security flaws used to as attack vectors for the jailbreak.

    easy_tetris_sig.gifbubbulon3_sig.png
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, Apple is surprisingly tolerant of jailbreaking.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This commentary placates by disdain, actually.

    To Lanz's point: the iPhone's market model doesn't depend on people buying software for it. The device is fully paid for and profitable just by virtue of being sold.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Each store has the ability to have different prices. Competition is good for the consumer, because it drives prices down.

    Except in this case price competition is utterly unnecessary since the vast majority of apps on the Apple Store are either free, or cost 99 cents.

    This will be even more true when iAds come out, since they will provide an additional revenue stream for developers and push prices down even more.

    Except that perhaps those 99 cent apps would cost 79 cents instead. Or go on sale for 69 cents. What is Apple's cut of app sales? Would another competing storefront be willing to accept a smaller margin?

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Except that perhaps those 99 cent apps would cost 79 cents instead. Or go on sale for 69 cents. What is Apple's cut of app sales? Would another competing storefront be willing to accept a smaller margin?

    I agree with your arguement, but the fact is that we're talking about personal consumption options that have a varying value of literally no more than $.99. I don't know how much the Apple licensing agreement takes as a cut, but I had a hard time imagining a company could do as well selling their product through a third party at a 30-40% reduction.

    Maybe they could, maybe I'm wrong. The makers of Doodle Jump, Apple's most-downloaded paid app, sell their app for 99 cents, have sold nearly 2 million downloads, and are claiming a revenue of $2.7 million dollars. As long as that figure is accurate, it doesn't appear that Apple is taking too big of a piece of the pie.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some quick Googling shows that Apple takes a 30% flat cut on their paid apps.

    That same Googling shows that Apple owns over 99% of the app market as of the start of Q1 2010.


    So yes, developers could go elsewhere, but why would they?

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some quick Googling shows that Apple takes a 30% flat cut on their paid apps.

    That same Googling shows that Apple owns over 99% of the app market as of the start of Q1 2010.


    So yes, developers could go elsewhere, but why would they?

    Exposure. It's a common complaint that unless you somehow get your app onto those Top 25 lists, you're not going to make any money.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some quick Googling shows that Apple takes a 30% flat cut on their paid apps.

    That same Googling shows that Apple owns over 99% of the app market as of the start of Q1 2010.


    So yes, developers could go elsewhere, but why would they?

    Exposure. It's a common complaint that unless you somehow get your app onto those Top 25 lists, you're not going to make any money.

    Shit, even if you are LOOKING for a certain app it's hard to find unless it's on one of the Top whatever Lists.

    My GF just bought an iPod Touch and we went looking for apps. The App Store is horribly set up for finding anything.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    The App Store is horribly set up for finding anything.

    As the owner of a iPod Touch myself, I have to agree. The iTunes store for Windows or OSX is capable enough, but you have to be very specific in your search criteria to get what you're looking for otherwise.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some quick Googling shows that Apple takes a 30% flat cut on their paid apps.

    That same Googling shows that Apple owns over 99% of the app market as of the start of Q1 2010.


    So yes, developers could go elsewhere, but why would they?

    Um...who's to say that Apple would own over 99% of the app market if they didn't exclude all others from selling iPhone (and iPod Touch) apps?

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    What you have now is defacto price fixing.

    Price fixing is the practice of multi-party collusion to artificially equalize prices across points of competition, typically when dealing in non-proprietary goods or services. For example, oil can be price fixed, because oil is a natural resource, and the acquisition and refinement of it are very equilateral costs between each competing company.

    A proprietary product whose price is determined by the developer cannot be accused of price fixing since no one else makes an equal product. Two companies might both be selling a GPS application, but each company has a different application. Proprietary products are basically legal monopolies, since a company can't be forced to publicize its patents.


    Or to make a different argument, you're basically arguing that Nintendo should remove their development restrictions so I can play WiiWare on my Playstation.

    There's a reason I used the qualifier "defacto"

    And no, what I'm arguing is that Nintendo should allow you buy wiiware games from multiple sources, not just the wiiware shop.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Except that perhaps those 99 cent apps would cost 79 cents instead. Or go on sale for 69 cents. What is Apple's cut of app sales? Would another competing storefront be willing to accept a smaller margin?

    I agree with your arguement, but the fact is that we're talking about personal consumption options that have a varying value of literally no more than $.99. I don't know how much the Apple licensing agreement takes as a cut, but I had a hard time imagining a company could do as well selling their product through a third party at a 30-40% reduction.

    Maybe they could, maybe I'm wrong. The makers of Doodle Jump, Apple's most-downloaded paid app, sell their app for 99 cents, have sold nearly 2 million downloads, and are claiming a revenue of $2.7 million dollars. As long as that figure is accurate, it doesn't appear that Apple is taking too big of a piece of the pie.

    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    georgersig.jpg
  • ColanutColanut Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    The transaction cost on those 60 cent sales would not be worth it. I think part of the value the App store is that all the sales overhead is covered by Apple. I don't know what the cut off for making it worth your time would be for hosting your own sales- $10, $15?

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Some quick Googling shows that Apple takes a 30% flat cut on their paid apps.

    That same Googling shows that Apple owns over 99% of the app market as of the start of Q1 2010.


    So yes, developers could go elsewhere, but why would they?

    Exposure. It's a common complaint that unless you somehow get your app onto those Top 25 lists, you're not going to make any money.

    That's a problem with the app store interface, which results in the inability to find things unless you are very specific about the keyword search you use.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Colanut wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    The transaction cost on those 60 cent sales would not be worth it. I think part of the value the App store is that all the sales overhead is covered by Apple. I don't know what the cut off for making it worth your time would be for hosting your own sales- $10, $15?

    transaction cost is pretty minimal on the web.

    I'm not saying that you are going to see large scale competition to the app store. What you will see are specialty niches. Small developers teaming up and just selling their combined apps through a website, in order to gain better exposure. That sort of thing.

    As I said, it already exists on android.

    georgersig.jpg
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Colanut wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    The transaction cost on those 60 cent sales would not be worth it. I think part of the value the App store is that all the sales overhead is covered by Apple. I don't know what the cut off for making it worth your time would be for hosting your own sales- $10, $15?

    transaction cost is pretty minimal on the web.

    I'm not saying that you are going to see large scale competition to the app store. What you will see are specialty niches. Small developers teaming up and just selling their combined apps through a website, in order to gain better exposure. That sort of thing.

    As I said, it already exists on android.

    Guess what? Google charges 30% too.

    http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=112622
    For applications that you choose to sell in Android Market, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the application price. For example, if you sell your application at a price of $10.00, the fee will be $3.00, and you will receive $7.00 in payment.

    So do the other smartphone makers. So do Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

    So... why is it bad that Apple's doing it?

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Because Apple is evil obviously, duh!

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • JHunzJHunz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Because, unlike Apple, Google allows competitive markets to exist?

    bunny.gif Gamertag: JHunz. R.I.P. Mygamercard.net bunny.gif
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Colanut wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    The transaction cost on those 60 cent sales would not be worth it. I think part of the value the App store is that all the sales overhead is covered by Apple. I don't know what the cut off for making it worth your time would be for hosting your own sales- $10, $15?

    transaction cost is pretty minimal on the web.

    I'm not saying that you are going to see large scale competition to the app store. What you will see are specialty niches. Small developers teaming up and just selling their combined apps through a website, in order to gain better exposure. That sort of thing.

    As I said, it already exists on android.

    Guess what? Google charges 30% too.

    http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=112622
    For applications that you choose to sell in Android Market, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the application price. For example, if you sell your application at a price of $10.00, the fee will be $3.00, and you will receive $7.00 in payment.

    So do the other smartphone makers. So do Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

    So... why is it bad that Apple's doing it?

    Where did ANYONE complain about profit margins?

    I'm talking about allowing instalation of apps from external sources?

    georgersig.jpg
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Where did ANYONE complain about profit margins?

    You did, a few minutes ago on this page.
    Evander wrote: »
    What you have now is defacto price fixing.
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    It's fine to bitch about licensing fees, but if you do you should complain about EVERYONE, not just Apple.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Where did ANYONE complain about profit margins?

    You did, a few minutes ago on this page.
    Evander wrote: »
    What you have now is defacto price fixing.
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    It's fine to bitch about licensing fees, but if you do you should complain about EVERYONE, not just Apple.

    Reading comprehension much?

    I'm not complaining that Apple takes too large a cut. I'm pointing out that the prices are set in a way that the free market has very little potential for input.

    Competition is GOOD for the health of a market. Monopolistic price fixing is bad.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    There is nothing monopolistic about it. Apple is not a monopoly.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Where did ANYONE complain about profit margins?

    You did, a few minutes ago on this page.
    Evander wrote: »
    What you have now is defacto price fixing.
    Evander wrote: »
    I've seen apps that are much more expensive than 99 cents. It might be the average, but it isn't the rule.

    And a savvy consumer shouldn't balk at saving 30 cents. Cents add up to dollars.

    It's fine to bitch about licensing fees, but if you do you should complain about EVERYONE, not just Apple.

    Reading comprehension much?

    I'm not complaining that Apple takes too large a cut. I'm pointing out that the prices are set in a way that the free market has very little potential for input.

    Competition is GOOD for the health of a market. Monopolistic price fixing is bad.

    ...how is setting the EXACT same price as Android "monopolistic price fixing?"

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There is nothing monopolistic about it. Apple is not a monopoly.

    monopoly is a VERY relative term. in terms of apps on non-jailbroken iphones, the app store DOES hold a monopoly.

    I'm not using the term judgmentally, I'm using it in the economic sense.

    georgersig.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    There is nothing monopolistic about it. Apple is not a monopoly.

    monopoly is a VERY relative term. in terms of apps on non-jailbroken iphones, the app store DOES hold a monopoly.

    I'm not using the term judgmentally, I'm using it in the economic sense.

    It's an intra-brand monopoly. Just like Wal-Mart has an intra-brand monopoly on sales of Sam's Choice.

    They are however not an inter-brand monopoly, like the USPS or Microsoft. It's inter-brand monopolies that are dangerous. Nobody gives a goose about intra-brand monopolies. Otherwise we should argue that Wal-Mart should be forced to sell Sam's Choice through all retailers, not just their own.

  • EndEnd Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is nothing monopolistic about it. Apple is not a monopoly.

    monopoly is a VERY relative term. in terms of apps on non-jailbroken iphones, the app store DOES hold a monopoly.

    I'm not using the term judgmentally, I'm using it in the economic sense.

    It's an intra-brand monopoly. Just like Wal-Mart has an intra-brand monopoly on sales of Sam's Choice.

    They are however not an inter-brand monopoly, like the USPS or Microsoft. It's inter-brand monopolies that are dangerous. Nobody gives a goose about intra-brand monopolies. Otherwise we should argue that Wal-Mart should be forced to sell Sam's Choice through all retailers, not just their own.

    I don't think that's a very accurate analogy.

    Frankly, I can't think of a very good analogy that doesn't actually make the App Store (or Android Market, or PSN, or XBOX Arcade, or etc etc) look completely ridiculous when I don't think it is. After all, Apple is selling third party components, here.

    Furthermore, the only reason it works at all, is because Apple can control distribution to phones. (Although, there's also restriction via the SDK, but that's more a theoretical legal restriction rather than a practical one.)

    so dark and foul I can't disguise
    zaleiria-by-lexxy-sig~medium.jpgsteam~tinythumb.png
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Hi, I just wanted to inform you guys that the reason for Apple doing this has nothing to do with Flash.

    They're banning Apps that are compiled from other tools because Apple is planning to switch architectures soon. If cross compilers became popular it would mean that once this switch occurred developers who compiled apps through other programs like the Flash-to-iPhone compiler would be screwed, as they would now have to wait for flaky companies like Adobe to write a new cross compiler for their apps to be compiled for the new architecture. If you have an Xcode project though then compiling to another architecture is pretty much a matter of just selecting it from a drop down list.

    See, they do care after all.

    Moral: Just fucking use Xcode to compile.

  • EndEnd Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So MonoTouch is okay?

    (Well, according to Apple its not, but it uses XCode to compile C#.)

    so dark and foul I can't disguise
    zaleiria-by-lexxy-sig~medium.jpgsteam~tinythumb.png
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Hi, I just wanted to inform you guys that the reason for Apple doing this has nothing to do with Flash.

    They're banning Apps that are compiled from other tools because Apple is planning to switch architectures soon. If cross compilers became popular it would mean that once this switch occurred developers who compiled apps through other programs like the Flash-to-iPhone compiler would be screwed, as they would now have to wait for flaky companies like Adobe to write a new cross compiler for their apps to be compiled for the new architecture. If you have an Xcode project though then compiling to another architecture is pretty much a matter of just selecting it from a drop down list.

    See, they do care after all.

    Moral: Just fucking use Xcode to compile.
    Do you have anything I can read about this architecture switch? Because that'd be really out of left-field. If they would want people running the current devices to be able to buy and use apps then they'd have to emulate the current architecture, right? Besides, what architecture are they going to move to? They're currently running ARM devices in the iPods and the iPhones and the iPad. They're surely not going to move to frickin' x86_64 in those kinds of devices. Power consumption and heating are still issues I'd think.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Hmmmm. Intriguing if true.

    Then again a summer iPhone hardware update has been as predictable as the sun rising.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Hi, I just wanted to inform you guys that the reason for Apple doing this has nothing to do with Flash.

    They're banning Apps that are compiled from other tools because Apple is planning to switch architectures soon. If cross compilers became popular it would mean that once this switch occurred developers who compiled apps through other programs like the Flash-to-iPhone compiler would be screwed, as they would now have to wait for flaky companies like Adobe to write a new cross compiler for their apps to be compiled for the new architecture. If you have an Xcode project though then compiling to another architecture is pretty much a matter of just selecting it from a drop down list.

    See, they do care after all.

    Moral: Just fucking use Xcode to compile.
    No, if they actually cared, they would do what responsible companies do and provide a roadmap highlightging such shifts. Instead, we get the same old bullshit song and dance about how it actually benefits everyone when Apple keeps its cards close to its chest.

    And compiling to multiple architectures is not that simple, especially when you're talking mobile devices, where you have to code closer to the metal.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.