If they already review every single app before allowing it to be distributed via the store, then what is the benefit of this arbitrary language restriction? I can't see it having any benefit other than as a dick-wave at Adobe.
If they already review every single app before allowing it to be distributed via the store, then what is the benefit of this arbitrary language restriction? I can't see it having any benefit other than as a dick-wave at Adobe.
Well, by getting rid of other, cross-platform frameworks, it makes it harder to develop cross-platform.
If they already review every single app before allowing it to be distributed via the store, then what is the benefit of this arbitrary language restriction? I can't see it having any benefit other than as a dick-wave at Adobe.
My guess is that this will also make it less painful to review apps, reducing costs for Apple.
If they already review every single app before allowing it to be distributed via the store, then what is the benefit of this arbitrary language restriction? I can't see it having any benefit other than as a dick-wave at Adobe.
My guess is that this will also make it less painful to review apps, reducing costs for Apple.
Apple only gets a binary to review and they most certainly aren't checking for anything other than private API use, stability, content visible to the user, and, everyone's favorite, features that might subvert Apple or AT&T's business models.
All of those are done the same way no matter how the binaries were put together. Anything beyond that more would require source code submission. Now that would REALLY run afoul of developers.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
I'm confused. Linux crashes computers and is full of security vulnerabilities?
No, but Flash is.
You're thinking of Flash the browser plugin. That's entirely different from the Flash that Apple's new policy just banned. Adobe was working on a way to take a flash file and compile it ahead of time into an iPhone binary. Essentially a very limited .swf -> .app conversion that a flash developer could submit to the app store for approval using a valid ADC account.
If the result was crashy, it would get rejected from the store for crashing (a concern with all development methods). Security vulnerabilities would be a non-issue because the only code executing would be that of a single precompiled flash file, sitting in its own one-app sandbox.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
As soon as HTML5 takes Flash's place it will become Flash.
EDIT:Oh, apple hates sandboxes, that's the issue. Fuck.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Things that we always banned:
Static and dynamic recompilers, JIT compilers, and interpreters
Things that are now banned:
Static cross-compilers
Which is odd because the first category involves code that sits on the iPhone, which Apple has control over. And the second category involves the software the developer uses on his personal machine, which you'd think Apple wouldn't attempt to extend their jurisdiction to.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Not a day goes by I don't regret getting an iPhone, instead of waiting for an Android or WinMo7 device.
It looks great on the surface, but then you realize that it's effectively all smoke and mirrors - sure, it's a phone. That's pretty much all it's good at, and the inane developer restrictions are essentially the problem.
late but: Last I heard, wasn't something similar happening with Windows Phone 7?
I'm confused. Linux crashes computers and is full of security vulnerabilities?
No, but Flash is.
You're thinking of Flash the browser plugin.
Maybe so, but if Adobe can't get up off their asses and fucking fix their shitty software I wouldn't want them on my platform if I could avoid it. I don't think a month goes by that I don't hear about the latest Flash vulnerability, and it is typically 2-3 months later that shit is patched. I despise Apple and their desire to control and limit content in such a draconian manner, but seriously, fuck Adobe.
Not a day goes by I don't regret getting an iPhone, instead of waiting for an Android or WinMo7 device.
It looks great on the surface, but then you realize that it's effectively all smoke and mirrors - sure, it's a phone. That's pretty much all it's good at, and the inane developer restrictions are essentially the problem.
late but: Last I heard, wasn't something similar happening with Windows Phone 7?
Ironically enough I have some faith that MS won't gimp it entirely. I just miss the days of having a Visual Basic analog for my PDA that let me whip up customized apps.
I'm confused. Linux crashes computers and is full of security vulnerabilities?
No, but Flash is.
You're thinking of Flash the browser plugin.
Maybe so, but if Adobe can't get up off their asses and fucking fix their shitty software I wouldn't want them on my platform if I could avoid it. I don't think a month goes by that I don't hear about the latest Flash vulnerability, and it is typically 2-3 months later that shit is patched. I despise Apple and their desire to control and limit content in such a draconian manner, but seriously, fuck Adobe.
In one case it took them more than a year to fix a vulnerability.
It would be interesting if those developers affected by this to test out the popularity of Cydia and actively court or evangelize the Jailbreak community. Opera should give it a go too, or some other high profile third party dev. That might be a proactive avenue to give Apple some push back.
I'm confused. Linux crashes computers and is full of security vulnerabilities?
No, but Flash is.
You're thinking of Flash the browser plugin.
Maybe so, but if Adobe can't get up off their asses and fucking fix their shitty software I wouldn't want them on my platform if I could avoid it. I don't think a month goes by that I don't hear about the latest Flash vulnerability, and it is typically 2-3 months later that shit is patched. I despise Apple and their desire to control and limit content in such a draconian manner, but seriously, fuck Adobe.
In one case it took them more than a year to fix a vulnerability.
Seriously, what the fuck.
But this isn't putting Adobe on your platform. This is literally Flash using a compiler to convert an AS3 app into an Apple approved app. You can perhaps assume that the compiler may have problems, etc. But this isn't about Flash suddenly being on your iPhone. This is about developers using different tools to create the same approved product, and Apple telling them they can't.
I'm not an Apple apologist, nor am I a programmer much, but I didn't know C/C++/Obj.C was so limiting. I mean, if this is essentially eliminating Flash and some other "prebuilt iPhone apps," I don't know if I'm bothered by the App Store being for programmers.
Look, I'm not a developer, but I am a consumer and an economist, and I can't quite grasp what everyone has their panties in a wad over.
Apple is a proprietary developer, which basically means that they control not only the hardware in their products, but the parameters and restrictions in their software development. Every company wants to make the best presentations of optimized products, and if you aren't in charge of the factors that can alter that optimization, you have a much harder time presenting and touting that optimism. Basically, it's a lot like Chrysler letting customers choose their engine specifications from a third-party source; they can't promise you 30mpg if you want to buy a 10-cylinder turbocharger.
It's an Apple product. Apple takes these risks (if they can be called that) at their own peril, and if their developmental restrictions drive engineers and creators away from the medium, they'll reap the rewards in the form of decreased sales and lowered stock value. I get pissed about the way Apple forces the market to accommodate their technology instead of vice-versa (can I please get some fucking Blu-Ray support?!), but Apple isn't doing this at gunpoint, and they usually have pretty good reasons for doing the things they do. Yes, they make questionable choices at times, but it's their products and consumption isn't compulsory.
I'm not really here to defend Apple. I'm by no means a fanboy, and the only product of theirs I own is an iPod touch. But all this hand-wringing seems a lot like yelling at the bouncer when he keeps you out of the club because you're wearing flip-flops and Ed Hardy; the provider sets the rules of exchange, you as a consumer only ever have the option of agreeing to or refusing the exchange. This is the same for everything.
The problem is a sort of fundamental one that we're running into more and more with companies other than Apple; they're just one of the more egregious offenders and so they end up as the whipping boy for it.
From the consumer's point of view, rather than the developer's point of view it's like this: when you buy a device, who really owns the device? If I buy an iPhone, but I can only run software on it that Apple approves of, and Apple puts all kinds of technical hurdles in the way of running anything they don't approve of, then do I really own it?
I think that people have largely accepted this kind of manufacturer-controlled environment for video game consoles, but frankly, video game consoles are basically toys. For actual application software on your computer, if the industry had grown up with this kind of centralized control, the platform would be nowhere near as advanced as it is today. Hell, here's a good example: Microsoft had every intention of leaving Internet Explorer 6 as the web browser for the forseeable future: they'd disbanded the dev team and were going to update the thing about as often as they update, say, Paint, or Notepad. It was only once Firefox started to gain market share that they got off their ass and started adding features. Imagine if they could have just said "No, you can't run Firefox on your Windows computer, because it competes with some of our own software". Where would the Internet be?
The question then is: are modern cellphones like personal computers that fit in your pocket, or are they toys?
The worst part is the arbitrariness of it all. This used to be a major problem for video game consoles as well (Nintendo was a particularly notorious offender back in the SNES days) but they seem to have largely grown out of it. The new Apple iPhone dev rule here is basically just collateral damage in this behind-the-scenes fight between Apple and Adobe, and in the end it's the developers and customers that suffer for it.
I agree with all of this, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that Apple is making proprietary products. Restriction always comes with the risk of market disapproval.
In your Internet Explorer 6 analogy, you ponder what would happen if MS refused to update their product. Well, what would eventually happen is that developers would move to a different OS and market share would shift; people aren't stupid and they don't usually buy a piece of shit if they can help it. Hell, Microsoft's ineptitude alone is basically responsible for Apple's market share in the first place.
Apple's trademark is simple, consistent technology. Yes, proprietary limitations have been the bane of their potential customers for years on end, but I don't really see how this current incident is anything but an extension of that philosophy. As far as smartphone technology goes, the success of Android models is proof enough that Apple doesn't have a stranglehold on anything, and that competition is still amply possible wherein the needs of the market aren't being met.
Apple does seem to have an outdated impression of their dominance of the smartphone market and by extention "third platform" between notebooks and pc's. For a while, the iPhone was akin to windows in that it was the only smartphone platform that actually delivered on the conceptual potential of what that kind of device could do. Others had clunky browsers, failed at fundamental things like including an actual headphone port, or had problems implementing an affordable data plan, which stood in the way of allowing for connectivity reliant apps.
The iphone used to be the one device that cut down all these issues in one swoop, but today, HTC and Blackberry have caught up, with the only disadvantage being the lack of apps, due to apple's headstart. This gap is going to shrink and this latest decision doesn't help apple much.
Woo can actually use some knowledge from a Strategic Management project I just handed in on Thursday.
I’m not trying to take anything away from Apple, they have done a tremendous job in penetrating the smartphone market in such a short time. However Apple is not dominating the smartphone industry, they aren’t even close to selling the number of smartphones that RIM does and RIM itself isn’t the market leader. Didn’t really get a chance to look into the extra revenues their apps provide which is probably a good boost but on a handset sold per year basis they still have a long way to go before reaching dominance. Again they are doing really well but not near as well as most people seem to assume (go advertising and media skewing perspectives)
Even though Apple has by far the most apps of any platform, Apple didn’t have a head start with apps and even provides less of the revenue to developers than competitors such as RIM. They were however the first to put some real effort and resources into pushing the importance of third party applications as a competitive advantage.
Apple has two other things that most of their competitors don’t which will be hard for them to duplicate and will help them continue to keep a lead in the number of applications for their device. They have a pretty set standard for their phone so developers don’t have to create multiple versions of an app and they have a customer base for whom apps are very important. Due to this I would expect this new change in policy to at most have a minimal affect.
The iPhone is one phone while RIM has various phones at various pricepoints and is significantly bolstered by companies issuing blackberries to employees.
The iPhone is still the most popular individual phone, imo, even if it doesn't sell the most units. iPhone OS is definitely a very widespread platform since it's used on iPod touches and now iPads, which was the point I was originally getting at.
I'm not an Apple apologist, nor am I a programmer much, but I didn't know C/C++/Obj.C was so limiting. I mean, if this is essentially eliminating Flash and some other "prebuilt iPhone apps," I don't know if I'm bothered by the App Store being for programmers.
C/C++/Obj.C is limited in the sense that the languages their selves (including the standard library) don't have a lot of features that your average programmer will eventually need to make use of (like downloading a file from a URL or threading). The platforms that your application runs on will usually have some libraries that will make this possible (and even easy), but the libraries and implementation can vary from platform to platform and can be a pain to maintain without some help (like Boost).
The goal of Apple's new license seems to be aimed at killing some cross-platform apps. If a developer can target multiple platforms from one codebase (as opposed to spending resources to maintain code unique to each platform, which a small developer likely couldn't afford) that could potentially lead to less popular apps that are unique to the iPhone.
While one huge selling point of the iPhone is the UI, I'd argue that the available apps is about as important. If developers had an easy way to write an app that would run on the iPhone OS, Android, and maybe BlackBerries (given that their graphics hardware is on the weak side it would depend on the app) with little else to do other than design a UI appropriate for each platform I think that would create a situation that Apple would be very unhappy with.
Right now writing an app for the iPhone is practically a no-brainer if you plan on monetizing it because of the size of its customer base. Apple's new license is all about preventing a scenario in which there are less exclusive apps available for their platform.
Barrakketh on
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
Apple knows that if they allowed Flash games or PhoneGap-ish applications on the iPad, no one would ever write an app in ObjectiveC again. They can't stand the idea that everyone isn't writing in their pet language, so they make sure that everybody has to.
At least they're keeping my company's iPhone developers employed. Personally, I'll stick with my Android phone.
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
Opera Mini in its entirety is best described as WTF?
It's really, really not good compared to Safari. I'll keep it around though, for when I go places with terrible reception.
It is pretty terrible. The scrolling is the worst. John Gruber said "scrolling an Opera Mini page feels like sliding a sheet of ice on an oil slick" and I think that describes the experience pretty well. But apparently it is because Apple patented the technology to prevent this from happening (which is explained better here). But I do not see myself using Opera unless I have absolutely horrible reception, which in Toronto doesn't happen too often.
You can patent "point vector in its strongest 90-degree value"? Christ on a pogo stick...
We must safeguard strong intellectual property laws in order to protect the strategic interests of the United States! I will hear none of your libelous dissent!
Opera Mini in its entirety is best described as WTF?
It's really, really not good compared to Safari. I'll keep it around though, for when I go places with terrible reception.
Im on opera mini right now and have no idea what you guys are talking about. The speed is amazing, and while i do miss being able to zoom properly, it works more than well enough. The sliding isnt hard to control at all. Seriously the only dosadvantage is not being able to frame things exactly the way you want to, but that effectively only means you have to pan horozontally a bit more. The speed more than makes up for this minor issue.
Opera Mini in its entirety is best described as WTF?
It's really, really not good compared to Safari. I'll keep it around though, for when I go places with terrible reception.
Im on opera mini right now and have no idea what you guys are talking about. The speed is amazing, and while i do miss being able to zoom properly, it works more than well enough. The sliding isnt hard to control at all. Seriously the only dosadvantage is not being able to frame things exactly the way you want to, but that effectively only means you have to pan horozontally a bit more. The speed more than makes up for this minor issue.
Safari edit-ok this forum is way better with ole safari. Opera seems to have been designed with centered bodies of text in mind.
Sam on
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Opera Mini in its entirety is best described as WTF?
It's really, really not good compared to Safari. I'll keep it around though, for when I go places with terrible reception.
Im on opera mini right now and have no idea what you guys are talking about. The speed is amazing, and while i do miss being able to zoom properly, it works more than well enough. The sliding isnt hard to control at all. Seriously the only dosadvantage is not being able to frame things exactly the way you want to, but that effectively only means you have to pan horozontally a bit more. The speed more than makes up for this minor issue.
Safari edit-ok this forum is way better with ole safari. Opera seems to have been designed with centered bodies of text in mind.
Yea that's what I found too. For most web pages it works well enough, and is quite peppy, but for forums where framing is more important it kinda sucks.
Yet another reason why apple is trying to become worse while everyone in the general public ignores these details and blindly buys their products.
Why would the public not ignore details that do not affect them?
The products in question are high quality and stylish, and their design is user-centered which results in obscenely high levels of usability.
The only way consumers will notice what's going on is if EVERY app released from now on is significantly shittier. And by "significantly shittier" I don't mean by pissy tech nerd forum whiner standards. I mean going from Shakespeare to Two and a Half Men.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Yeah, nothing Apple is doing is "wrong" legally or morally. We're just complaining because we like their products and dislike the direction in which they are being taken.
I don't understand the perspective where Apple is being evil in any real sense. They're being anti-competitive, but it's on their own little platform to which there are many, many alternatives.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
They're being anti-competitive, but it's on their own little platform to which there are many, many alternatives.
This and I'm mostly annoyed at fan boys who think apple can do no wrong. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why they need to lock down developers even more.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They're being anti-competitive, but it's on their own little platform to which there are many, many alternatives.
This and I'm mostly annoyed at fan boys who think apple can do no wrong. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why they need to lock down developers even more.
Ensuring quality control? Maintaining performance standards? Encouraging development of system-friendly software? A'cause they wanna?
Posts
Well, by getting rid of other, cross-platform frameworks, it makes it harder to develop cross-platform.
My guess is that this will also make it less painful to review apps, reducing costs for Apple.
No, but Flash is.
Apple only gets a binary to review and they most certainly aren't checking for anything other than private API use, stability, content visible to the user, and, everyone's favorite, features that might subvert Apple or AT&T's business models.
All of those are done the same way no matter how the binaries were put together. Anything beyond that more would require source code submission. Now that would REALLY run afoul of developers.
You're thinking of Flash the browser plugin. That's entirely different from the Flash that Apple's new policy just banned. Adobe was working on a way to take a flash file and compile it ahead of time into an iPhone binary. Essentially a very limited .swf -> .app conversion that a flash developer could submit to the app store for approval using a valid ADC account.
If the result was crashy, it would get rejected from the store for crashing (a concern with all development methods). Security vulnerabilities would be a non-issue because the only code executing would be that of a single precompiled flash file, sitting in its own one-app sandbox.
EDIT:Oh, apple hates sandboxes, that's the issue. Fuck.
Static and dynamic recompilers, JIT compilers, and interpreters
Things that are now banned:
Static cross-compilers
Which is odd because the first category involves code that sits on the iPhone, which Apple has control over. And the second category involves the software the developer uses on his personal machine, which you'd think Apple wouldn't attempt to extend their jurisdiction to.
late but: Last I heard, wasn't something similar happening with Windows Phone 7?
Maybe so, but if Adobe can't get up off their asses and fucking fix their shitty software I wouldn't want them on my platform if I could avoid it. I don't think a month goes by that I don't hear about the latest Flash vulnerability, and it is typically 2-3 months later that shit is patched. I despise Apple and their desire to control and limit content in such a draconian manner, but seriously, fuck Adobe.
Ironically enough I have some faith that MS won't gimp it entirely. I just miss the days of having a Visual Basic analog for my PDA that let me whip up customized apps.
In one case it took them more than a year to fix a vulnerability.
Seriously, what the fuck.
But this isn't putting Adobe on your platform. This is literally Flash using a compiler to convert an AS3 app into an Apple approved app. You can perhaps assume that the compiler may have problems, etc. But this isn't about Flash suddenly being on your iPhone. This is about developers using different tools to create the same approved product, and Apple telling them they can't.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Apple: "No disintegrations!"
I've heard that Opera Mini actually got approved for the iPhone, finally.
I'm surprised, actually.
The iPhone is one phone while RIM has various phones at various pricepoints and is significantly bolstered by companies issuing blackberries to employees.
The iPhone is still the most popular individual phone, imo, even if it doesn't sell the most units. iPhone OS is definitely a very widespread platform since it's used on iPod touches and now iPads, which was the point I was originally getting at.
C/C++/Obj.C is limited in the sense that the languages their selves (including the standard library) don't have a lot of features that your average programmer will eventually need to make use of (like downloading a file from a URL or threading). The platforms that your application runs on will usually have some libraries that will make this possible (and even easy), but the libraries and implementation can vary from platform to platform and can be a pain to maintain without some help (like Boost).
The goal of Apple's new license seems to be aimed at killing some cross-platform apps. If a developer can target multiple platforms from one codebase (as opposed to spending resources to maintain code unique to each platform, which a small developer likely couldn't afford) that could potentially lead to less popular apps that are unique to the iPhone.
While one huge selling point of the iPhone is the UI, I'd argue that the available apps is about as important. If developers had an easy way to write an app that would run on the iPhone OS, Android, and maybe BlackBerries (given that their graphics hardware is on the weak side it would depend on the app) with little else to do other than design a UI appropriate for each platform I think that would create a situation that Apple would be very unhappy with.
Right now writing an app for the iPhone is practically a no-brainer if you plan on monetizing it because of the size of its customer base. Apple's new license is all about preventing a scenario in which there are less exclusive apps available for their platform.
At least they're keeping my company's iPhone developers employed. Personally, I'll stick with my Android phone.
I have it on my 64GB touch
It's neat but the zoom function is best described as "WTF?"
It's really, really not good compared to Safari. I'll keep it around though, for when I go places with terrible reception.
It is pretty terrible. The scrolling is the worst. John Gruber said "scrolling an Opera Mini page feels like sliding a sheet of ice on an oil slick" and I think that describes the experience pretty well. But apparently it is because Apple patented the technology to prevent this from happening (which is explained better here). But I do not see myself using Opera unless I have absolutely horrible reception, which in Toronto doesn't happen too often.
XBL |Steam | PSN | last.fm
We must safeguard strong intellectual property laws in order to protect the strategic interests of the United States! I will hear none of your libelous dissent!
Steve
Sent from my iPad
Im on opera mini right now and have no idea what you guys are talking about. The speed is amazing, and while i do miss being able to zoom properly, it works more than well enough. The sliding isnt hard to control at all. Seriously the only dosadvantage is not being able to frame things exactly the way you want to, but that effectively only means you have to pan horozontally a bit more. The speed more than makes up for this minor issue.
Safari edit-ok this forum is way better with ole safari. Opera seems to have been designed with centered bodies of text in mind.
Yea that's what I found too. For most web pages it works well enough, and is quite peppy, but for forums where framing is more important it kinda sucks.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
This sounds like a lot of silly goosery.
How exactly is Apple "trying to become worse?"
Why would the public not ignore details that do not affect them?
The products in question are high quality and stylish, and their design is user-centered which results in obscenely high levels of usability.
The only way consumers will notice what's going on is if EVERY app released from now on is significantly shittier. And by "significantly shittier" I don't mean by pissy tech nerd forum whiner standards. I mean going from Shakespeare to Two and a Half Men.
I don't understand the perspective where Apple is being evil in any real sense. They're being anti-competitive, but it's on their own little platform to which there are many, many alternatives.
This and I'm mostly annoyed at fan boys who think apple can do no wrong. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why they need to lock down developers even more.
Ensuring quality control? Maintaining performance standards? Encouraging development of system-friendly software? A'cause they wanna?
Take your pick, really.