×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Steve Jobs Weighs In On iPhone Programming Language Mandate

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the he's-in-favor dept.

Iphone 711

Dotnaught writes "Greg Slepak, founder of software company Tao Effect, wrote Apple CEO Steve Jobs to complain about Apple's mandate that iPhone applications be originally written in C/C++/Objective-C. Job's response was to endorse a post by John Gruber on the Daring Fireball blog. Jobs called it 'very insightful,' suggesting Gruber's prediction that third-party iPhone development tools are out might be right. Jobs sent a second reply that also doesn't bode well for third-party iPhone development tools: 'We've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

711 comments

Wooo first!!11!one!!eleven!!!eleventy-one!!!!1!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31806930)

>_>;

Re:Wooo first!!11!one!!eleven!!!eleventy-one!!!!1! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31806968)

First what?

They want devs to choose (5, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | about 4 years ago | (#31806934)

By restricting the use of abstraction layers, they want to make devs choose between writing their app for the iPhone or for Android, it would seem (or, of course, writing it twice).

Of course, the real choice is "write for iPhone, or write for every other platform". I hope developers are bright enough to see where this is going.

Re:They want devs to choose (3, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31807010)

the real choice is "write for iPhone, or write for every other platform".

Unfortunately, this is result of Apple's decision (whether it was their intent or not). Until the Apple App Store isn't the "biggest market available to the mobile developers"* they will have to make a decision: iPhone first, iPhone only or everything else.

I still think Apple will blink on this issue (a very small 'blink') and give up a little bit of this ridiculous effort. Small dev tools will still be allowed but Adobe will still be out.


* the largest market place to sell their apps, not the largest mobile platform

Re:They want devs to choose (0, Troll)

hitmark (640295) | about 4 years ago | (#31807080)

if google cleans up the requirements for the google app bundle, things may change very quickly.

the problem with android right now is that google only allows their app bundle on devices that seems to have a 3G connection (that at least is the most obvious requirement, but the list is apparently under NDA). Heck, the whole management of android reeks of attempting to merge open source with apple marketing.

Blink on this issue? (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31807146)

Don't Blink. Blink and you're dead. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't Blink. Good Luck.

Re:Blink on this issue? (1)

Goodl (518602) | about 4 years ago | (#31807304)

great episode, in fact probably my favourite ever

Re:Blink on this issue? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31807348)

Of all the time-travel/paradoxes stories I have ever seen, it's the best one. The angels are back too, so I can't wait to see if they do a similar (yet different enough) story again.

Re:They want devs to choose (2, Interesting)

bcmm (768152) | about 4 years ago | (#31807216)

It doesn't need to become "not the largest single marketplace", it only needs to become "not more than 50% of the app market". At that point, it would become more effective to use cross-platform tools to target everything else at the same time.

Re:They want devs to choose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807056)

Does this mean that MonoTouch is now obsolete?

Re:They want devs to choose (5, Insightful)

cfulmer (3166) | about 4 years ago | (#31807204)

It seems to me that this is anti-competitive. They're using the iPhone's market dominance to increase the costs of producing applications on other platforms. And, that's likely to raise an antitrust lawsuit. If Apple is so concerned about quality of software being produced, they already have a mechanism to deal with it -- the app store review process.

Re:They want devs to choose (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 4 years ago | (#31807228)

they already have a mechanism to deal with it -- the app store review process.

Magic 8 balls need a holiday every now and again too you know.

Re:They want devs to choose (-1, Troll)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807250)

Furthermore, they're requiring that you buy an Apple Macintosh in order to be able to code for the iPhone. Which is further anti-competitive.

Re:They want devs to choose (5, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807264)

How's that anti-competitive? I have to buy a Windows PC to develop for the XBox too... It's just common sense that you have to have the platform your tools run on to use the tools.

Re:They want devs to choose (5, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | about 4 years ago | (#31807208)

(or, of course, writing it twice)

This is the one. He wants apps written for the iPhone, not apps that try to shoehorn some kind of cross-platform abstraction on top of the iPhone, because that usually sucks, and (at least in his eyes) it makes the iPhone look bad if the apps look bad.

How many times do you hear gamers complain that a game is a crappy port because it is not properly written for the platform it is on, but instead tries squeeze in the functionality of some other platform? That is the exact thing he doesn't want on his platform.

Re:They want devs to choose (3, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807256)

A little less than you hear gamers whine (or brag) that a game is only available on one platform.

None of this would've happened... (0)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 4 years ago | (#31806938)

...if it hadn't been for Flash being such an inefficient, CPU hogging slob of software.

Re:None of this would've happened... (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#31806948)

That's only because Flash is strapped with new features that really don't fit well with the medium, although it has helped bring streaming video to the net (still doesn't make it a proper fit). Stuff like Neurotically Yours and badgers, otoh, are a perfect fit for the medium.

(Semi)Complex games and full streaming HD video? Not so much.

Re:None of this would've happened... (3, Informative)

gaspyy (514539) | about 4 years ago | (#31807002)

I read you post three times but I could see no facts, examples, anecdotes, anything. Just words.

Flash supports multitouch and has access to accelerometer data, GPS info and so on, so what "new features" don't fit well with the medium?
Semicomplex games not good? There are so many games in flash, some of them excellent, that isn't even funny. Quake has been ported to Flash, as well as Prince of Persia, just to name two classics, I could give many more examples.

HD Fullscreen video works great in Flash 10.1 RC

Re:None of this would've happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807092)

Just words.

Well, he was also projecting his ideas psychically, but I guess you weren't listening.

Re:None of this would've happened... (3, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#31807098)

And none of that was meant for flash. It was meant to be a way to provide animated effects to a website. It wasn't meant to be the entire website (many, many issues there to include no ability to deep link). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Phones aren't gaming consoles. Yet they are used as one now. Does that make games a good fit for phones? No, it just means you can do it. I didn't say the games weren't good. I said they aren't a good fit for the medium (which is poorly supported on any non-Windows platform).

All I see is you making my point for me. "Flash supports this and flash supports that." Big whoop. That's like my above example of the phone as a gaming platform. Sure you can play games on it, but seriously. Why would you? Controls are a pain (and really not any better with full qwerty keyboards) and the screen size, even for something like the iPhone or Android, is TINY. What is a phone good for? Making phone calls and storing numbers. Period. Just because phones have tried to expand past that doesn't make that a good decision, just a popular one.

I'm all about expanding and moving beyond limitations, but Flash, at it's base, is an over-glorified animation program just like the modern cell phone is at it's base an over-glorified communications device.

You want HD video? Use a proper video codec. You want to play games? Use a proper platform (PC or dedicated console). You want some cute animations that turn into viral memes? Use Flash all you want. Want to make phone calls from anywhere? Get a cell phone.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807284)

Flash has long ceased to be just an over-glofiried animation program. Maybe you should take a look at ActionScript 3.

Oh and NONE OF THIS is about Flash. Adobe wasn't going to be loading Flash on the iPhone. It was going to use the Flash IDE to create iPhone apps.

In fact, I think they expected that they would gain a lot of new sales just for iPhone development.

Re:None of this would've happened... (2, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807172)

Have you ever used flash? It's slow as hell, shutters on pal resolution movies even, and often uses 100% of the CPU Time of one of my cores in my 8 Core Mac Pro. WHEN IDLE! The flash platform is a pile of CPU eating crap, I can't imagine how anyone would use that voluntarily. On an iPhone it'd probably eat away all battery power within less than an hour.

Re:None of this would've happened... (5, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 4 years ago | (#31807034)

well that's the crux of what Gruber sees as the benefit of Apple's policy for iphone users:

iPhone users: I can see two arguments here. On the one side, this rule should be good for quality. Cross-platform software toolkits have never -- ever -- produced top-notch native apps for Apple platforms. Not for the classic Mac OS, not for Mac OS X, and not for iPhone OS. Such apps generally have been downright crummy. On the other hand, perhaps iPhone users will be missing out on good apps that would have been released if not for this rule, but won't now. I don't think iPhone OS users are going to miss the sort of apps these cross-platform toolkits produce, though.

Speaking as someone who has to deal with 64 bit flash on linux and has had to deal with all manner of MS enforced formats on the the mac, I completely and utterly agree with this part. Apps running using native platform tools do fairly well, cross-platform apps suck a lot of the time. You windows users have seen this too -- itunes, quicktime and safari are dogs on windows because they had to import all their own libraries. On Apple machines these are lighweight apps that are fast. On windows it just doesn't work as well. And let's face it, as nice as open software is, working well is what sells units, ideology is secondary.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#31807122)

Agreed, but that decision should be left to both developers and end users. If I want to use a piece of software that may or may not be top-notch, I should have that choice. I won't touch an Apple anything anymore just because Jobs is being a jerk about the whole issue. He's acting, in essence, like the government. "Trust me, I know what's best for you." No, you don't.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

Wingsy (761354) | about 4 years ago | (#31807222)

I agree with you. He doesn't know (or care) what's best for you. But it does seem he knows what's best for the average consumer. Check the sales figures.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807290)

"On the one side, this rule should be good for quality"

Really, well that sure explains why so many applications in Apple's iTunes store are crap, crash a lot. Clearly the natively written apps eliminates crashes.

Heck, it's quite possible that Adobe's IDE could help improve matters, by allowing for a bit more uniformity.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | about 4 years ago | (#31807194)

Stuff like Neurotically Yours and badgers, otoh, are a perfect fit for the medium.

(Semi)Complex games and full streaming HD video? Not so much.

Badgers are terrible for gaming and HD video. Plus they bite.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 4 years ago | (#31807202)

The problem isn't features. A feature shouldn't be in the way or consume resources when it is not used. The exact stuff you mention - vector graphics and basic composition, coupled with audio playback - doesn't require 50% of what a single 2ghz core in a Core 2 CPU has to offer. It didn't 10 years ago, but it does today, when doing the exact same job that Flash needed not even a 600mhz P3 to perform 10 years ago.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807298)

I believe some of the issues in performance is access to core areas of the OS. There is a lot more control, checks, and what not in OS' today than in yesteryear.

Re:None of this would've happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807238)

i've worked with flash since around 1998 before it became grande and popular on the net. back then flash could do the exact same things in terms of 2d graphics (games and funny animations as you mention) on a computer that had well under a tenth of the cpu power today's normal desktop machines and laptops. today i do the very same jobs (basic and advanced flash ad banners, varying interactive creations etc.) and though none of the work or the "features and functions" i use have changed, the result today requires more than ten times the processor power. is that a feature? or is it an absolutely shameful, terrible programming job? i say it's the latter. personally, i can't wait to see flash dead. i fully understand why apple made this decision.

Re:None of this would've happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31806972)

Yeah, if she wasn't so fat Jobs wouldn't have had to sleep with other women and refuse to admit the kid was his... oh, yeah, that happened didn't it? sorry.

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807268)

BS

This has nothing to do with Flash apps moron. The apps that were to be written by CS5 were going to be iPhone apps. Just developed in another IDE.

So what we're really saying is "How would you like it if you could only write for the web using Java?"

Re:None of this would've happened... (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 4 years ago | (#31807346)

Not exactly true. The Flash apps would be compiled down to run on the iPhone platform, with the Flash VM statically linked in. So they wouldn't use native libraries or calls for most things, and would have an additional layer of cruft between the app and the OS. If a tool makes source code compiled to the iPhone using native libs, rather than an app bundle, I suspect the tool won't be disapproved for use on the platform.

Good Stuff (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#31806942)

As Jobs can do no wrong, I suggest that he load some more requirements and restrictions on iPhone developers.. oh, and maybe someone can let me know, can Apple remotely delete apps off iPhones? If not, they should get on that. Customers *love* that.

Re:Good Stuff (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31807036)

oh, and maybe someone can let me know, can Apple remotely delete apps off iPhones? If not, they should get on that. Customers *love* that.

That's a great idea! You can use this link [apple.com]. But please remember remember Mr. Job's sarcasm detector isn't working (I think it will be fixed in iPhone OS 4.0) so please be careful how you word it or he just might take it seriously ;-)

And this is why I don't buy Apple (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | about 4 years ago | (#31806950)

I honestly don't understand why Geeks put up with this and fall for the marketing propaganda. If all the world were Apple we'd not be able to hack a thing.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#31806986)

Because a pretty exterior is usually enough for most people...what's going on under the hood doesn't usually matter so long as the outside is pleasant to look at.

Inexplicably, for many guys, this applies to women as well...I'll personally take an average (or even ugly) highly intelligent woman over a dumb knockout any day.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (1)

hitmark (640295) | about 4 years ago | (#31807100)

animal instincts. We are "programmed" to evaluate a potential partner based on looks, as thats supposedly a indication of genetic fitness.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 4 years ago | (#31807270)

Too bad if those great genes have been programmed to randomly walk into walls.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (-1, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#31807178)

Life is just to short to dance with ugly women. Wallflowers are alright though - a lot of them are really great people once you get past their bashfulness.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (4, Insightful)

mc moss (1163007) | about 4 years ago | (#31807030)

Most geeks don't, at least when it comes to the iphone. However, for most of the population, the requirements are different. They are not worried about "openness" (or Linux would have a much larger market share) but want something with a slick UI and is easy to use.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807272)

Correction -- they're looking to be in the in crowd by having "sent from my iPhone" attached to all their correspondence. (Captcha for this was "elitist.")

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31807072)

I honestly don't understand why Geeks put up with this and fall for the marketing propaganda.

It's not really the 'geeks' Apple is after, they're after the mobile developers, and the developers are after profits. The App store is the easiest way for these mobile developers to sell their wares so they will put up with Apple's rules until there is a more viable consumer market for their products.

If all the world were Apple we'd not be able to hack a thing.

Fortunately there are plenty of other hardware platforms to 'hack'. Keep in mind that not everyone (consumers or manufacturers) wants their products "repurposed". There's just a tiny percentage of users who want to tinker with things.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807136)

Because Geeks desperately want to be cool, and they think that Apple is the new cool.

Re:And this is why I don't buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807328)

Because Jobs is right. Flash, Java, and all the other imitators produce sub-standard applications.

Old trick (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31806952)

And how about the old trick of a meta-language that generate C source code?

Re:Old trick (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807004)

Compile to C is banned. The policy is not a technical requirement, it's a contract. You can't get access to the Apple App Store without agreeing not to use intermediate layers. If your code is created in something other than Objective C, C or C++, you're in violation of that agreement, even if at some point all of it is represented in C code. Steve Jobs is a benevolent dictator and he has just extended his reach into your toolkit. (Captcha: soviet, how fitting)

Transcompilers? (2, Informative)

drolli (522659) | about 4 years ago | (#31806962)

How about transcompilers? They do not necessarily introduce new layers. Anyway i think its up to the users to evalute which applications are the best.

Does Apple just want the best for the platform? (2, Interesting)

verucabong (1008319) | about 4 years ago | (#31806970)

With decisions like this, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt and assume good intent. Given that, is it possible that Apple just wants the best thing for their platform? Yes, some of the AppStore policies are draconian and not so dev-friendly, so it's hard to assume that here. But, it could be said that the iPhone got so far ahead because of its intuitive interface, stable apps, and overall good quality. Given that, wouldn't ratcheting the list of app frameworks down to the native ones be the best way to start with great apps and that consistent iPhone experience?

Re:Does Apple just want the best for the platform? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807322)

BULLSH|T

Apple wants the best thing for it's shareholders. There is so much crap that Apple doesn't give two hoots about. Look at iTunes. You want to talk about bloatware. You want to talk about a nightmare POS software product.

I am lucky if I can go through a single sync without a problem. DRM issue. What not....

No this is all about control. Namely, to funnel all sales through it's market place, and to use the portables market to push it's PC sales.

Welcome to the new world! (3, Insightful)

WhipItGood (679579) | about 4 years ago | (#31806974)

As if the Microsoft monopoly wasn't bad enough in the 90's, now we get a modern-day Apple one that makes Microsoft pale in comparison. As Apple gains market share (and they are), this type of attitude is 180 degrees away from where development should be heading.

Re:Welcome to the new world! (1)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807106)

Until Apple is as big as Microsoft, it will take a long time.

Re:Welcome to the new world! (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | about 4 years ago | (#31807162)

You must've not been check the stock markets lately, these days AAPL is almost as big as MSFT and gaining fast [yfrog.com].

(via [wolframalpha.com])

Re:Welcome to the new world! (2, Interesting)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807206)

Since when is the size of a company measured on the stock market? That makes no sense at all... User base, number of employees, that would be a reasonable measure.

Re:Welcome to the new world! (2, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 4 years ago | (#31807154)

As Apple gains market share (and they are), this type of attitude is 180 degrees away from where development should be heading.

I highlighted "market" on purpose. Your statement assumes that Apple's target market is the one you think it is... which I assume is general personal computing. But I doubt that's the case. Think of it this way... game consoles have a tradition of being locked down. Many of them through time have allowed developers into their ecosystem only if they follow rules that, even compared with Apple's standards, seem locked down. (I know this isn't true of all... just a generalization.)

Apple has made it clear that they aren't after an expanded role into existing markets. They claim to have entered a new, non-traditional market, and with that the rules have changed; take it or leave it.

(As an aside, I would personally prefer they be more open as well... but I'm not Steve, so what I say doesn't go.)

Re:Welcome to the new world! (1, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#31807224)

Oh, please. If Apple had 90+ % of the market, then your statement might make sense. The fact is, they don't, and they aren't likely to.

I really can't see that the requirement is all that restrictive. How many real programmers are unable to program in one of the three languages? Ahhh - ah - ahhh! I said "real programmers", not some Java hacker, or Flash hacker, or whatever.

Flash for example - it's a resource hog that runs like a two legged dog even on powerful machines. Who the hell really WANTS it on a portable platform like an iPhone? At best, people will accept it because it is so ubiquitous. No one WANTS it!

Re:Welcome to the new world! (1)

Threni (635302) | about 4 years ago | (#31807274)

Development isn't heading that way. Apple got a head start for whatever reason (uninteresting reasons to me, at least), but Android seems to be catching up. Apple has, in the past, impressed people with marketing, temporarily fashionable hardware (it's looking a little stale to me now though), but there's nothing in it currently between the iPhone hardware and, say, the HTC Legend or Desire, so there's no reason for gadget freaks to spurn Android in the way they might have avoided large ugly black PC tower cases or uninspiring IBM/Dell laptops. Gartner has predicted Android overtaking Apple in the near future - without marketshare there's nothing to keep people on the iPhone, and I can't see what would win developers back - certainly not this `Microsoft of the 1990s` crap Apple seems intent on pulling at every opportunity.

Re:Welcome to the new world! (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 years ago | (#31807338)

At least Microsoft never prevented you from putting your product on theirs. They just had the tendency to clone your product and give it away free.

But I don't believe Microsoft ever said you HAVE to use VB in order to write an application for Windows. And they never said you had to buy all your software through their store. Or prevent sale of software if they made a similar product.

In comparison. Microsoft was a dirty player when it came to getting their software pre-loaded on PC makers computers. But after that, they were pretty free.

It's Steve Jobs iPhone; he can pick the language (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#31806988)

Just like the kid in the neighborhood who owns the ball determines the rules of the game.

You don't like it that way? The solution is simple:

Don't play in that game, and . . .

. . . find a different ball and game that has rules that you like.

Re:It's Steve Jobs iPhone; he can pick the languag (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31807116)

Don't play in that game, and . . .

. . . find a different ball and game that has rules that you like.

Exactly [youtube.com].

Re:It's Steve Jobs iPhone; he can pick the languag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807254)

Although I expect Jobs has an iPhone, I'm sure this is supposed to apply to other people's iPhones too. I doubt any one cares what rules he applies to apps on his iPhone.

It is Apple's appstore though and they can choose what they sell in it.

Apple's hindering itself (-1, Troll)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | about 4 years ago | (#31806990)

What will hinder development of the platform is the god-awful language Objective C and the associated framework.
It's horrible. I'd like my framework methods to b less than 30 characters long, please. Sorry to promote MS here, but I happen to like method names like OnInit and OnLoad.
And somebody please give them decent Intellisense. ReSharper, I'm looking at you! Get on it, please.

Also, MVC is a pattern. It's not the be-all and end-all. What if I want MVP? Or something entirely different? It's so locked down, that it is infuriating to work with.

Re:Apple's hindering itself (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | about 4 years ago | (#31807044)

Objective C is so off putting that I didn't even bother looking into frameworks. I just can't see myself programming in the language that feels so 80s (smalltalk loosely glued on top of C with a bunch of macros). And the method call syntax doesn't feel natural to a C programmer.

Projects like MacRuby look promising, but honestly I would never bother developing for the platform. Especially not now.

Re:Apple's hindering itself (4, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | about 4 years ago | (#31807076)

It's horrible. I'd like my framework methods to b less than 30 characters long, please. Sorry to promote MS here, but I happen to like method names like OnInit and OnLoad.

So those reasons (and the MVC pattern) are the strongest you have to think that Cocoa is "god-awful"?

Re:Apple's hindering itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807320)

No. There is also how you invoke methods, and how you define methods. And having to use header files. The IDE is primitive. There's no garbage collection for iPhone apps. The way properties are defined is weird. There are too many modifiers all over the place. The IDE isn't actually all that integrated.

I can imagine liking it if I started out using that technology and I just never saw anything else that was out there, but I didn't start with Cocoa...
 

Re:Apple's hindering itself (2, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807132)

I happen to like Objective-C and the Cocoa framework. It's method names are quite descriptive and don't leave much guesswork on what they do. Incidentally, there are short method names too for things that are easy to describe in short names. You don't have to use the MVC pattern if you don't want to. It's just more convenient to work with API the way it is designed to be used.

Re:Apple's hindering itself (1)

domukun367 (681095) | about 4 years ago | (#31807314)

Hear hear!

xxxxViewController is only a suggestion... you don't really have to use it. Besides, how restrictive is "model and controller" in one class and view in another representation?

c# / monotouch? (1)

nikanth (1066242) | about 4 years ago | (#31807024)

Saw some post from Miguel that monotouch can be used to develop apps for iPhone. So what happens to that now?

Re:c# / monotouch? (1)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807140)

Mono can't even run apps on OS X, how could it possibly run on a platform that is even more different from Windows? Such a claim was borderline ridiculous to begin with...

Re:c# / monotouch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807288)

Except that Mono does run on MacOSX, and there are hundreds of applications already on the App Store that were developed with MonoTouch.

http://monotouch.info/ [monotouch.info]

Re:c# / monotouch? (1)

elnyka (803306) | about 4 years ago | (#31807324)

They are porting the CRL to Objective-C and so far it looks promising. Whether this can go through Apple's hell gates that's another thing.

Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807050)

IMHO the existence of Firefox has significantly impacted vendor support for Safari.

Substandard apps? (5, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 4 years ago | (#31807062)

intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps

Right. That's why all those games built with engines and level editors and scripting tools always suck. C'mon apple. You have to allow unity. You can't want games but require everyone to make them from scratch.

Afraid that cool unity game will show up on pc, wii, xbox, android, Mac, myspace? It'll be just like the 90's when the pc was gaming heaven and mac users got to play marathon for 11 years.

Re:Substandard apps? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 4 years ago | (#31807114)

"Right. That's why all those games built with engines and level editors and scripting tools always suck. C'mon apple. You have to allow unity. You can't want games but require everyone to make them from scratch." Actually, unless the engine is redesigned for the platform, often they DO suck. Think about the hundreds of games that were great on PC but absolutely dogshit on a more powerful gaming system, or going from PC to Mac.

Additional layers have nothing to do with this (5, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | about 4 years ago | (#31807068)

Keep in mind that actual Flash apps written by CS5 beta testers have been approved in Apple's app store in the past as well as many games written with Unity3D, so it's not like performance is a problem.

Since every app is checked against objective (and subjective) criterias, it would have been OK to just reject poorly written applications.

Forcing me to use a specific programming language is insane. Imagine Microsoft demanding all windows apps to be written only in C# and compiled only with Visual Studio. It would be an outrage. But hey, it's Steve Jobs, the Big Brother himself, and he knows what's best for us, right?

Also, the timing was devious - on Friday, just before the Monday's official release of Adobe's CS5, effectively giving them no time to react. I was never a big fan of Adobe (especially before the Macromedia acquisition - their corporate culture started to change afterwards) but this is simply Steve Jobs being a big dick.

Finally, I know that many /.-ers are against Flash. Keep in mind however that this move goes well beyond Flash, affecting other tools and frameworks. If successful, this move will lead to more and more closed ecosystems (from other vendors as well). Today's Apple makes Microsoft look like saints.

Re:Additional layers have nothing to do with this (0, Flamebait)

Spazed (1013981) | about 4 years ago | (#31807226)

I would wager that it has to do with the way that it gets compiled, if they aren't using Apple's compiler and profiler they may not be taking advantage of the APIs needed to do all that super neato app backgrounding and such.

You call the timing dubious, I say they are pre-emptively stopping thousands of app rejections on a legit rule.

You are bashing Apple for making a system you aren't forced to buy and complaining that you can't 'hack' it in your language of choice. Apple doesn't care about JailBreaking anymore than the bare minimum for legal reasons, if you want to run any old app you can, no Apple approval required.

Fact of the matter is, Apple is a company that makes more money in an hour than you do in 10 years, they aren't stupid people.

Re:Additional layers have nothing to do with this (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807326)

You Apple supporters amaze me. Is there nothing that Jobs can do that would make you NOT defend him?

You do realise that "I would wager that it has to do with the way that it gets compiled, if they aren't using Apple's compiler and profiler they may not be taking advantage of the APIs needed to do all that super neato app backgrounding and such." - is complete horseshit. It's technically illiterate... and is aimed entirely at the sort of gobby Apple supporters who know nothing about technology, but spout so much shit in defense of Apple's atrocious behaviour.

Re:Additional layers have nothing to do with this (0, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#31807252)

"But hey, it's Steve Jobs, the Big Brother himself, and he knows what's best for us, right?"

No, only YOU know what's best for YOU. Tell me, would it be best for YOU to boycott Apple? If so, do it and move on.

Re:Additional layers have nothing to do with this (1)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | about 4 years ago | (#31807292)

<quote><p> If successful, this move will lead to more and more closed ecosystems </p></quote>

This might be a good thing for all in the end. If Android can pull in any disgruntled developers spooked by this move they may see the positives of OSS.

Re:Additional layers have nothing to do with this (1, Interesting)

linds.r (895980) | about 4 years ago | (#31807344)

Forcing me to use a specific programming language is insane. Imagine Microsoft demanding all windows apps to be written only in C# and compiled only with Visual Studio. It would be an outrage. But hey, it's Steve Jobs, the Big Brother himself, and he knows what's best for us, right?

Is this asinine? You are aware Microsoft is demanding all Windows Phone 7 apps be written in C#/Silverlight, right? I may not agree with their move, but to say it puts them alone on a pillar of evil seems to show your own bias more than any factual opinion.

Basically, they want to kill their dev base. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 4 years ago | (#31807102)

Of course, nto that dev base will die. they will just code for other platforms.

Re:Basically, they want to kill their dev base. (2, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | about 4 years ago | (#31807240)

I doubt there are many people in "dev base" who are affected by that. After all, for a long time, the mandated tools were the only ones that were able to create applications, so most of the developers are already using them.

Which path for Apple, the light or the dark? (2, Insightful)

internet-redstar (552612) | about 4 years ago | (#31807112)

I think the choices Steve is making are very clear: the choice is: MacOS or iPhoneOS. Light or Dark. It is clear he's made the choice for an era of darkness... sadly enough it will only make the Mac platform less popular amongst techies who where the primary adopters after MacOS X.

And the economics of a closed fully controlled platform, have been in Steve's dreams since the seventies. Luckily we all know it will ultimately utterly fail, as so many closed platforms in the past. It will take a while. It might be hard for hackers such as us, but we will prevail! Sad to see Apple go down like this, was a big fan, contributor, promotor, book writer, journalist and so on for years.

I am really disappointed in Steve. At least Google tries a little bit to 'do no evil', Steve makes beautiful things, but with a very bitter taste! Facebook group: iPad is an attack on our freedom [facebook.com]

Re:Which path for Apple, the light or the dark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807232)

Alas, most people simply don't care. Give then shiny shiny and they'll be happy.

Obvious mistake (0)

davmoo (63521) | about 4 years ago | (#31807118)

'We've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.'

'We've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces functionality that we do not think you need, we do not want you to have, and hinders our ability to make money off of you in our official app store.'

There, fixed it for you.

What (2, Informative)

jellyfrog (1645619) | about 4 years ago | (#31807126)

intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.

I find that intermediate layers such as Python tend to produce above-standard apps due to the developers (ie. me) not having to implement every little detail manually. Number of Bugs ~ k * Amount of Code, well known fact.

Apple could have chosen a rating system... (1)

master_p (608214) | about 4 years ago | (#31807148)

Since Apple reviews every app that goes into the App Store, Apple could simply rate down apps that are not up to the quality expected for the iPhone platform. This would give more incentive to the developers to improve their apps to Apple's standards.

Make the most speedy apps possible on the iphone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31807156)

For some reason, I feel compelled to provide following link:
http://www.armtutorial.com/

Question (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 years ago | (#31807186)

I know very little about iPhone development, but one question comes to mind when reading this article.

Are their not other languages that do, or other that could be made in the future, that compile directly to iPhone code that are not one of the 3 listed?
and do not use "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer".

If that was their only concern then when also restrict the language?

Next on the list (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31807210)

Cider and all those inefficient Windows-to-Mac converters/emulators that so-called game companies use to "port" their games to Mac OS X.

iPhone developer agreement: Eat a bug on camera (3, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | about 4 years ago | (#31807214)

iPhone developers are up in arms at Apple requiring them to use only Apple toolkits, sacrifice a Windows developer at their local Apple Shop every Sunday and maintain an altar to Steve Jobs in their homes. And eat a bug [newstechnica.com].

Apple is famous for its rigid control over its devices, in its quest to maintain user quality. Developers have worked under increasing restrictions in their attempts to provide quality applications for the iPhone such as I Am Rich, Magic 8 Ball and iFart.

"Not a big deal," said Mr Jobs in a personal email. "Cross-platform development leads to a worse user experience every time. Also, the video of you eating the bug has to be H.264 QuickTime or your app is out. Extra points for cockroaches."

"This clause shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the creative freedom developers need," said iPhone developer Greg Slepak. "Software is an infinitely malleable creation of pure thought. Toolkits, languages and frameworks are only a way to develop something people will want. It's like telling Rembrandt what brand of brushes he's allowed to use."

He paused to chow down on a palmetto bug for his MacBook's camera. "I'll tell you, a lot of iPhone developers are seriously considering Android, just as soon as Google develops a suitably exploitable stream of mindless thralls that will generate us a gushing torrent of money."

"Thanks for the video, Greg," said Mr Jobs, "but we've just added section 3.3.1.a: 'In particular, when Greg Slepak submits an application, the bucket of cockroaches in the video have to be Apple-branded and genetically assembled in Cupertino.' So we've rejected your application, cancelled your membership and zeroed your account.

"Of course, you're free to apply again. Or not, if you don't want a goddamn dumptruck full of money backed up to your house. It's a free country."

Its not the intermediate layers degrading quality (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 years ago | (#31807246)

I expect it is rather the type of programmer that needs intermediate layers that is the issue. Face it, people that can create complex applications (e.g. ones with a GUI) with C/C++/Obj C know what they are doing, because if they do not, they fail pretty quickly. With other languages, it is not so clear cut. The Java crowd, for example, has some good programmers, but a lot of terrible ones. The reason is that you can get an app with terrible structure and design working in Java, while it almost impossible in C/C++/ObjC. On an even higher layer, not admitting the Flash people is really the only sensible thing to do. Closed platform with an atrocious security history, "programmers" that are an insult to the profession and are basically web designers that do not understand the web, etc..

Now admitting only good programmers in more abstract languages would be good too, but how to recognize them? By requiring use of a tool that makes the bad ones obvious, you can actually do it with reasonable reliability and you do not need to admit what is really your agenda. Of course Apple cannot come out and insult large numbers of people, after all quite a few of them are (potential) customers. But I believe that is what is really behind this move.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...