Beta
×

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!

Apple Eases Restrictions On iPhone Developers

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ok-but-you're-on-thin-ice dept.

Iphone 195

WrongSizeGlass writes "MacRumors has a story on a report by Apple Outsider's Matt Drance that Apple is easing their restrictions on interpreted code used in iPhone development, a change which allows game developers in particular to continue to use interpreted languages such as Lua in their App Store applications. The change comes alongside Apple's further modifications of its iOS developer terms that again allow for limited analytics data collection to aid advertisers and developers, but appear to shut out non-independent companies such as Google's AdMob from receiving the data. It's not enough of an 'about face' to let Adobe or Google back in the picture but they've backpedaled enough to let the little guys squeeze through."

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The beginning of ther end (0, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548724)

Steve Jobs will to give all of us viruses from the Apple Store now, and the world will end in seven days and only rackouns and cock roches will survive!!!!!!! (They do not use mobille smart telephones.)

Re:The beginning of ther end (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548804)

A couple weeks ago, while taking my asian girlfriend shopping at the local mall, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Steve Jobs -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the security guards wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal thinker and had been an Apple customer since 1984. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting Jobs, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Steve Jobs, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman, and thrusting my pink iPod Shuffle into my ass. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Steve Jobs wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than reading an Apple press release!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Steve Jobs dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful Apple customer.

Re:The beginning of ther end (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549586)

I too find it disgusting that /. is echoing some apple rumors. I thought it was supposed to be about things that matter. And to nerds, no less.

Fucking /.

Common sense prevails (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548746)

Good to see a little common sense prevailing. I use Lua in my game engine, and it is a very good language for embedding in an application. It is much more efficient to call into than Javascript, for example. This is more about the logical segregation between engine developers and game designers. Scripting (especially event-driven) better suites game designers, who often are not hardcore developers that have a firm understanding of Objective C, C++ or C.
It's not even about portability - pure C and C++ (not dependent on any external APIs besides that of the game engine) is even more portable. It's about using the proper language for the job.

Handouts from thy lord (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548866)

Keep working, peasant!

Re:Common sense prevails (3, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548906)

Doesnt seem like common sense really prevailed to me. You could expand your argument to include game designers who prefer ActionScript, but they are still SOL.

The way I read this (minor) language change is that interpreted code is still generally prohibited, but you may ask for Apple's written consent to have an exception made for your app. Not what I would call a huge "easing of restrictions"

Sounds like they just realized they shut out half of the game devs already on their platform and are only halfway back pedaling to a point where those that were shut out now have to ask politely (and hope) to be let back in.

Re:Common sense prevails (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550364)

you may ask for Apple's written consent to have an exception made for your app.

You need to ask for Apple's written consent to get a game onto the App Store in the first place anyway.

Re:Common sense prevails (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548938)

The restriction made no sense. If you're not allowed to embed lua, you'd probably write a small DSL for your app.

And at what point does merely switching on data at runtime become an interpreted language? How about parsing data from a declarative data format (eg: xml/yaml)?

Ruby, python, perl, flash, mono, java... There's valid reasons to not want all this crud on customers devices, there's also valid reasons for specialist apps to bundle runtimes. Nobody is served by the dimwit developer who bundles a language runtime and several libraries for the appstore equivalent of hello world. One suspects this is what Apple really wanted to avoid.

Re:Common sense prevails (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548986)

Nobody is served by the dimwit developer who bundles a language runtime and several libraries for the appstore equivalent of hello world. One suspects this is what Apple really wanted to avoid.

Except they already have full control over app approval, and thus quality control. With the current abundance of Hello Fart World apps out there, I can't see how this is a valid issue. Like most of Steve's reason's, it has no basis outside the Reality Distortion Field. There are some valid reasons like you said, but this for sure isn't one of them.

Re:Common sense prevails (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549016)

Ruby, python, perl, flash, mono, java... There's valid reasons to not want all this crud on customers devices, there's also valid reasons for specialist apps to bundle runtimes.

Since when are Ruby and Python crud?

Re:Common sense prevails (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549196)

Since when are Ruby and Python crud?

Since people started using them inappropriately, for system tools and general use applications.

Re:Common sense prevails (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549476)

At least Python users generally admit that they're using Python as a prototyping language, just because it allows for quick, but shitty, development. When their idea is somewhat proven, then go back and rewrite it using a real programming language like Java or C++.

Ruby users, on the other hand, are usually quite ignorant of other technologies. It becomes the old when-all-you-have-is-a-hammer scenario. They try to build large systems using Ruby (see Twitter), which then subsequently perform like utter shit (see Twitter), and finally prove to be unusable (see Twitter).

Re:Common sense prevails (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549868)

At least Python users generally admit that they're using Python as a prototyping language, just because it allows for quick, but shitty, development. When their idea is somewhat proven, then go back and rewrite it using a real programming language like Java or C++.

You mean like Youtube?

Python is fast enough for our site and allows us to produce maintainable features in record times, with a minimum of developers.

Or like EVE Online?

Python enabled us to create EVE Online, a massive multiplayer game, in record time. The EVE Online server cluster runs over 50,000 simultaneous players in a shared space simulation, most of which is created in Python.

More: http://www.python.org/about/quotes/ [python.org]

I don't know about Ruby, but I disagree with your opinion on "shitty development" of Python.

Re:Common sense prevails (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550288)

Ruby users, on the other hand, are usually quite ignorant of other technologies. It becomes the old when-all-you-have-is-a-hammer scenario. They try to build large systems using Ruby (see Twitter), which then subsequently perform like utter shit (see Twitter), and finally prove to be unusable (see Twitter).

I disagree. I think a better example of your scenario would be Twitter.

Re:Common sense prevails (3, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549374)

Since they started requiring bundling large amounts of runtime, interpreters and library code with every program written in them. That may be ok for a desktop system where you can either use the system Python/Ruby (on linux) or bundle Python/Ruby (on Windows) but its not OK for a mobile app to be shipping large amounts of runtime and library code.

Re:Common sense prevails (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550968)

Which is why they should've included Python, Ruby and Lua interpreters *with* the system so that app developers can use them without needing to redistribute them with every copy of their apps. You know, like OSX does on desktops?

And before you complain about 'size' and 'bloat' I'll remind you the Lua runtime is 130k on my Debian system, and while typical Python and Ruby installs weigh far more, you can strip a lot of libraries from them and get something that's much smaller while still being useful to the average developer.

Re:Common sense prevails (2, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551034)

In fairness, MonoTouch's interfaces are a pretty tight mapping to the SDK, which makes sense, considering it compiles to native. As does the Unity toolset etc, and even Flash, as it were. The entire runtime isn't bundled in, just what's needed for the cross compiled app o run. Which is still build on Macs, and in the end still compiled with XCode & via Obj-C.

I'd been considering MonoTouch as a path to the iPhone, but now, I'm just sticking with Android.

Not "common sense" at all! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548996)

This isn't an example of "common sense" behavior in any way. In fact, Apple's behavior has been so fucking crazy lately that even this crazy-but-not-super-crazy behavior ends up looking like "common sense".

True "Common sense" behavior in this case would be for them to drop all restrictions on what programming languages developers can use to develop apps for their platforms. This should be a choice that's 100% up to application developers, 100% of the time. Anything short of that is craziness, not "common sense".

Re:Common sense prevails (1, Insightful)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549130)

FTC is on Job's ass ... now he's scared .... there joined the dots for ya.

Re:Common sense prevails (1)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549284)

Sounds more like a response to the Antitrust threat.

Re:Common sense prevails (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549782)

Scripting (especially event-driven) better suites game designers, who often are not hardcore developers that have a firm understanding of Objective C, C++ or C.

Scripting better suits game developers who are hardcore programmers as well. You don't need to recompile when you change a value. You just need to reload the lua. Really helps a lot when you;re using trial and error to get a value correct.

big nothing (5, Insightful)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548776)

So.. interpreted is not ok atm, but might be ok next week.
Cross compiled flash is not ok now, but might be ok if server side translated to be displayed.
Showing too much on a desktop picture frame still gets your app removed.
Flash (that'd allow more apps to run, just no totalitarian control of the app market) will never be allowed.
Gotcha.

Stuff even attempting to develop on this platform.

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548796)

The iPlatform is not really for people who develop for the sake of development - they'd never consider such a stifling platform. It's more a financial investment risk: things could pay off and you could end up very rich, or you might just find you've just poured time and money down the drain.

It's like asking why companies go into China: is it because business there is fair and open, and everyone has the free opportunity to exchange values and end up richer? Or is it because, if you dance the right dance, you might just be able to take advantage of a restrictive environment rather than having that environment take advantage of you?

Re:big nothing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548858)

Personally, while "officially" China is a very restrictive country, I think the Chinese are much more relaxed and flexible than Americans (U.S. Americans and Canadians both - I had the doubtful pleasure of dealing with both as manufacturers).

In China, there's much less sense of entitlement. This means that:

  A) Your project matters to them. If you take enough time and attention to talk to their engineers, you'll see that they are often (not always, of course) both smart and resourceful, and will generally want to work with you.

  B) They will not apply rules like automatons would, just to get out of work. Typical US excuse: "we are not allowed to change the production process without a written ECO and a re-quote" - never mind that basically adds a week of downtime to any "experimental" change, and allows the manufacturer to sit on their ass for a week. Or, "well, I guess we'll have to wait until we have the intermediate product before we start making tooling for the next step, you know you can't trust those thar CAD drawings of yours."

  C) Unions. It's very "amusing" when you move a piece of equipment from one room to the other (on casters no less), just to get written up for not requesting a union employee. This usually takes at least 4 hours to get sorted, usually a day. The problem with unions is not that they don't want to do any work, but that they don't want anybody to do any work that they are also not doing.

As an engineer, who has absolutely no financial interest in the cost/profit from my designs, I would still very much prefer to manufacture in China.

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548964)

Your project matters to [the Chinese].

As opposed to Western businessmen, who... tell you that your money is no good to them? What are your experiences with Western businessmen?

you'll see that [Chinese engineers] are often (not always, of course) both smart and resourceful, and will generally want to work with you.

As opposed to Western engineers, who are... what, exactly? Stupid? Unable to apply resources? Refuse to work with you? What are your experiences with Western engineers?

They will not apply rules like automatons would, just to get out of work. Typical US excuse: "we are not allowed to change the production process without a written ECO and a re-quote"

Sounds like the problem is that you agreed to stupid rules and are annoyed that US engineers adhere to them while Chinese engineers don't.

never mind that basically adds a week of downtime to any "experimental" change,

Fix your processes.

"well, I guess we'll have to wait until we have the intermediate product before we start making tooling for the next step, you know you can't trust those thar CAD drawings of yours."

Sorry, what? Did you actually say "I'll pay you to do this, and if our CAD designs are fucked then that's our problem and you'll still get paid"? Or are you annoyed again because you agreed to a particular process and found that it didn't fit with your requirements, but you weren't prepared to change it?

Unions. It's very "amusing" when you move a piece of equipment from one room to the other (on casters no less), just to get written up for not requesting a union employee.

So renegotiate terms with your union. Or join the union and improve it from within. American workers have rights unimaginable in China, but with any collective bargaining there will be some stupid rules - focus on fixing these rules rather than jumping somewhere the worker does what he says because he has no alternative.

As an engineer, who has absolutely no financial interest in the cost/profit from my designs

Then you're not an engineer. An engineer's job is compromise to complete some task with the tools available, and what determines the available tools is cost/profit.

Re:big nothing (0, Troll)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549098)

I can only imagine the parent saying "QED".

Bert

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549210)

Perhaps you haven't compared classical Western to Chinese engineering. Perhaps you are too young to have even experienced Western-engineered technology, and everything on your desk was Made in China. Perhaps you don't know what it's like to have a 20 year old calculator with buttons as comfortable as they were the day you bought it; perhaps you're cool with a disposable printer rather than something churning out smudge-free printouts as well as it did in '95; perhaps all your capacitors are lucky enough to retain their sleek and slender shape. Or perhaps you like the upgrade treadmill and think that repairing rather than discarding is something people should only have to do during wartime.

The Chinese approach is simple: make something which works well enough to be sold now and hopefully won't break down in the next couple of years. Interfacing and reliability aren't problems because you want your clients to be locked into your system and to upgrade before things start going wrong. Decent documentation for interoperability and long-term maintenance is a pipedream, and wouldn't be worth requesting anyway because processes are so lax: see post above.

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550014)

I can't entirely disagree with what you are saying here, but there are two points to note: if you specify expensive parts and decent quality control in China, they will go your way. Just look at Apple - their products are widely considered to be better quality than for instance MSI, and they are both made in China. You will, of course, pay a premium for this - and most companies do not want this. So as an end-user, you are most familiar with crap quality from China.

The other point is that United States manufacturing is almost non-existent now. Trying to have a device manufactured in the US is hard - most of the remaining manufacturers are actually set up for military contracts with high margins and fairly old tech.

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550160)

Wait a minute. That's not necessarily the Chinese approach. That's just the approach of foreign companies trying to save a few cents. Chinese manufacturers can and do make quality and long lasting products. The problem is that their foreign customers (with a handful of exceptions) generally don't want to pay for the testing necessary to do that.

What about the economy? (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550754)

First of all, IANAE (economist), but the way I see it....

I do believe in buying reliable products that last. Really, I do. I think it's a ridiculous waste when we buy shoddy products that we end up tossing in landfills a few years down the road when they break down.

However, as a thought experiment, have you ever considered what would happen if all American made products became more reliable? Eventually sales for these products would slow (since we're replacing them less often), which eventually would lead to having to cut back on on these companies. They'd probably have to cut back on production (and employees) to meet the reduced rate of consumption. As sales slow, investment in the company begins to slow and pull out. The loss of sales, investments, and jobs is going to adversely affect the economy.

As for the consumer, not having to re-buy their appliances and systems helps relieve costs for them. It's hard to say where that extra money will go. They might save it, which increases their personal financial security )but everyone saving more money also adversely affects the economy). The might just spend it on more goods, but there are only so many durable goods one can practically buy. They might spend more on more services (but I think they'd spend less than what they are saving on goods. Then again, by this point, they might be one of the unfortunate people who have been affected by the earlier job reductions and there is no extra money.

In the end, we are living in a system that works best when we have more consumption, waste, insecurity, and low reliability of goods. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it works out.

Re:What about the economy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551054)

See: the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org] . I think it is pretty similar to the argument you are using except instead of breaking windows, you want to more subtly reduce the quality of manufactured goods.

Re:big nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550366)

> As opposed to Western businessmen, who... tell you that your money is no good to them? What are your experiences with Western businessmen?

As I have said, I am an engineer. I'm sure the businessmen love my employer's money, but this is not about businessmen.

> As opposed to Western engineers, who are... what, exactly? Stupid? Unable to apply resources? Refuse to work with you? What are your experiences with Western engineers?

Neither stupid, nor unable. Just unmotivated - they know they deserve retirement anyway, and whatever they do is OK, because Uncle Sam will keep the ITAR defense contracts rollin' and there's nothing I can do about it.

> Sounds like the problem is that you agreed to stupid rules and are annoyed that US engineers adhere to them while Chinese engineers don't.

I don't agree to rules, this is done by the Legal Department. Anyone who has worked at a company with more than 5 employees would know that engineers are not allowed to set contracts.

> Fix your processes.

Fixing bugs is a natural process, and any complex-enough piece of hardware has them. My process (tell the manufacturer what to try on a small batch) has nothing to do with it; if fixing a bug in China takes 2 days and in the US 2 weeks, I prefer China.

> Sorry, what? Did you actually say "I'll pay you to do this, and if our CAD designs are fucked then that's our problem and you'll still get paid"? Or are you annoyed again because you agreed to a particular process and found that it didn't fit with your requirements, but you weren't prepared to change it?

It was a new product - nothing about changes. We pay for and own the tooling so it's your first case - we had to pressure the manufacturer to do what we wanted at our own cost.

> So renegotiate terms with your union. Or join the union and improve it from within. American workers have rights unimaginable in China, but with any collective bargaining there will be some stupid rules - focus on fixing these rules rather than jumping somewhere the worker does what he says because he has no alternative.

I am not in a position to negotiate terms with unions and, I am certain, neither are you. Unions in the US have bargaining power that exceeds almost any single employer, much less a single engineer. Plus as an EE it'd be rather odd for me to join a carpenters' union.

> Then you're not an engineer. An engineer's job is compromise to complete some task with the tools available, and what determines the available tools is cost/profit.

My tools available are: US, Canada or China. I choose China, but not just because of profit - they are simply a lot easier to work with.

Re:big nothing (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550374)

The iPlatform is not really for people who develop for the sake of development - they'd never consider such a stifling platform. It's more a financial investment risk: things could pay off and you could end up very rich, or you might just find you've just poured time and money down the drain.

Help me, who did ever get rich through a iPhone App? And how does that compare to playing lotto [app fee]?

Re:big nothing (1)

Matthew M. McClinch (1606791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548862)

Stuff even attempting to develop on this platform.

You're forgetting that 95% of applications submitted to the App Store are approved within 7 days.

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548904)

You're forgetting that 95% of applications submitted to the App Store were developed in a couple of weeks, cost a couple of dollars (yes, yes, $3.87) and are worth maybe half as much.

A platform is interesting when risky, groundbreaking development occurs, the result of teams taking months to perfect something new and useful. A 1 in 20 chance of delay/rejection due to bureaucracy is then not worth the risk - but the 1 in 20 is a best case figure, and for a significant app the chance of problems, including outright rejection because you're competing with Apple, is much greater.

Re:big nothing (4, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548920)

Jebus Crust! You mean for any application there is a 5% risk you'll end up sitting in limbo, and the weeks of time and money you spent developing the application could be wasted?

That's a service level availability of "one nine". No business would tolerate that, but fanboys think it is great.

Re:big nothing (4, Insightful)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549052)

Well, according to Apple the top three reasons why those 5% of apps were rejected are:
1) they crash (apple doesn't want rotten fruit in its shop)
2) because they don't do what the developer says they do (lemons instead of peaches)
3) third I forgot (perhaps the use of non-public APIs. If Apple changes those, the third party apps relying on them wouldn't work; see #1)

It is not as if the developer isn't in control of any of the above.

Bert

Re:big nothing (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549206)

1) they crash (apple doesn't want rotten fruit in its shop)

Okay... it's a good policy for most users, but there's only one shop! So if for example my tastes don't quite match Steves, I'm out of luck?

Also, as a developer (if I was one!), I have to hope that the rules don't change in the future? And lets be honest, they aren't all about creating solid applications -- there's a *HUGE* element of Apple not wanting any cross-platform development kits. Yes, Apple say this is to ensure applications have a UI consistent with other iOS apps, but lets be honest -- it's mostly because Apple doesn't want to compete with Android.

It's the little things, like not mentioning "Android" that kinda give the game away! :D

Re:big nothing (3, Interesting)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549248)

Those are the top three reasons because few people even bother writing the interesting apps anymore; just to name a few that ought to be there:

- Bluetooth DUN

- USB 3G modem driver

- custom touch keyboards

- non-Apple music and video stores

- in-device software development

- WiFi music sync

- on-device file management

- full synchronization and backup with box.net

Re:big nothing (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549726)

Those are the top three reasons because few people even bother writing the interesting apps anymore; just to name a few that ought to be there:

- Bluetooth DUN

- USB 3G modem driver

To what end, exactly? To tether your device? That's a part of the OS. If you can't do it, it probably means that you're in the US, where AT&T didn't allow Apple to enable it on the devices.

- custom touch keyboards

This would be nice, but it wouldn't exactly be an app. It would be replacing driver-level components. There are serious pros and cons to allowing this no a platform.

- non-Apple music and video stores

Has any music store tried to write apps? I mean, you have alternate music options with Pandora and Rhapsody on the iPhone, and Rhapsody is very much like a store--you can download the music and then play it offline.

- in-device software development

Why would you want this, out of curiosity? It seems like developing with a touchscreen device would be annoying.

- WiFi music sync

This would be very nice. If you Jailbreak your phone, you can buy an app that does this. There's no damned good reason for Apple to not develop this officially.

- on-device file management

Files? What are files?

With iOS, Apple is trying to make a simple, yet powerful device. They are trying to abstract away the concept of files. Any app can let you manage its own data files however the developer wishes.

- full synchronization and backup with box.net

What does this mean exactly? Full backup? Of what? Apps and app data?

box.net, from my glance at the website, looks like just a file dump. Kinda like dropbox. Is it more than that?

Besides, an app wanting to do that would have to have access to lots of things outside of its sandbox. One of the nice things about the iOS platform is the segregation of apps, meaning it's much harder for one app to compromise you. Again, this is a situation which has pros and cons. The major pro is security. The major con is flexibility. It's a design choice where there is no right answer.

Re:big nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550074)

That's what Apple claims, but then again they claimed to the FTC that Google Voice isn't rejected, it's merely still being considered. Obviously anything Apple says about the app store isn't worth the bits used to transfer it.

Re:big nothing (1)

contrapunctus (907549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550072)

yeah but the one application i care about (google voice) was not approved so i switched to an android phone.

Re:big nothing (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550340)

Stuff even attempting to develop on this platform.

Just more room on the App Store for everyone else!

NOW who's the REAL loser?

And the 10k$ question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548784)

when Apple will lift the other embarrasing restrictions, like how iphone and ipad apps arent allowed to access the individual fiels in the ipod music library.

Theres just about a gazillion developers out there wanting to make a DJ hero app, or just a plain DJ application where you dont have to access music files via Wifi or 3G connection...

Handouts from thy lord (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548788)

Keep working, peasant!

Lua flash player (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548812)

Or Steve Jobs getting to "interpret" your ass with his "oh jeez" cock.

Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbidden (4, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548878)

Apple is acting worse than Microsoft has ever done. The have developers jumping through hoops.

"No we won't allow non-objective C so your investments in your app are worthless."
"Oh we're getting bad press now? well we'll allow it then for a while."
"Storm settled? let's forbid it again."
"Antitrust investigation? Hmm let's allow some for a while again"

My business has decided against investing in the iPad/iPhone development platforms. The uncertainty and unreliability of Apple management are too great a risk.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549170)

Right.

I would wager your business model has little need or use of such an investment. Ignoring the most popular mobile application platform because it has issues is the biggest risk.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1, Troll)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549228)

You're ignoring a 100 million installed base because you're worried about losing development resources if you do something against the terms of the dev agreement?

I guess your company's website only works in IE too, right?

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (4, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549382)

Guess what?

Anyone writing an app that takes more than 1 person two weeks to create, like those real, groundbreaking apps that aren't rehashes of another app that's already been done, aren't going to waste their time with a company as inconsistent as Apple when they have other platforms to develop for.

Especially when there's reason to believe that Android is beginning to exceed the iPhone. [businesswire.com]

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (4, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549506)

Ah, yes, the padded numbers from the 2 for 1 Verizon promotion, and the slump in numbers because the iPhone 4 release is very soon...

Numbers for 1 quarter don't tell the whole picture, although I am glad Android is doing well - competition is good for all.

This has come up in discussion before - 95% of the apps submitted to the store get approved, and any company that is serious about making a living from mobile development is *crazy* to ignore a 100 million user base just because they think it might possibly cost them a little bit extra in development. If your company cannot afford to "take the risk" (ie, developing an iPhone app that is rejected would cause the company to fold) then it has bigger issues than a potentially "inconsistent" company.

"Wasting their time" developing for an app that (for conservative estimates, ignoring older phones), is available to 50 million customers... right.

If you are serious about development in the mobile market you are crazy to ignore the iPhone - the user base is enormous, the app store is centralised and it continues to grow.

It would be the equivalent of being a scissors manufacturer, or a can opener maker and not making a left handed version for the cost of development. Even if the left handed population is small, relative to the whole (10% approx), it is still a market that is worth developing for. The iPhone is a significantly larger portion of the smartphone market than 10%. Ignoring it because you are worried about a serious minority of app rejections is just not good business sense.

By all means, develop for Android (especially with the rise in handsets and users - it's a clear emerging market), but any sensible business will also be "risking" iPhone development.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550082)

If Apple only rejected apps that violated a simple and clear developer agreement that'd be one thing. The problem is that they don't. I'm not sure what part of this is hard to understand.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550756)

it's not hard to understand at all, but the key thing is that the vast, vast majority of apps are approved, and ignoring a potential 50+ million user base because a small minority of apps get rejected (and you can resubmit for approval) is just not good business sense.

I'm not sure what part of "maybe get rejected so DON'T EVEN TRY" vs "50 million potential customers can buy my app" is hard to understand.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549232)

It sounds like through risk-benefit analysis you figured out Obj-C is the safest (but not foolproof) way to develop for the iPhone platform. From the tone, I would guess that you have no money invested in Obj-C developers, so the safest way out of this mess is to avoid it all together. At least, that is how I interpreted your post.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (3, Insightful)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549316)

No, it sounds like to me he came to the same conclusions as I did -- If I buy some more hardware, developer SDKs, and invest a few man-months in bringing a team up to speed on iPhone development and build an app -- there is very real possibility that I will not be permitted to sell the resultant software. Worse yet, there is no fixed set of rules which I can follow which will guarantee that I will be allowed to do so.

What this means, then, is that there is a non-zero chance I will piss all that money down the drain and have little to show for it except some toys. That is completely unacceptable from a business perspective; unfortunately, I am prohibited from gambling with company money, which is exactly what this is -- a poor draw of the cards can result in a total loss before the sales chain even enters the equation.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549574)

Good points; the iOS (hate the name!) development seems to favor the startup mentality rather than a corporate cycle. But, all this really means is you start with fewer monolithic projects, and chase larger projects as you gain experience with the process.

$1B in developer income to-date isn't enough for a $1MM project, but a $10k project can be viable, even with the extra 5% rejection risk.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (3, Insightful)

xero314 (722674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550188)

How is this any different than any other new product? Ever new product has risks, and that risk is that your consumer will not be interested in your product. In the case of consumer products this often means that distributors have to take interest in your product as distributors are the real consumer of the manufacturer. In this case Apple has to take interest in your product since they are the only consumer for developers of iPhone applications. If you wrote an application and neither walmart or best by would distribute it, you would be in a very similar position. If you wrote a Console game and the console licensor would not accept it (as is the case with all adult rated games in the US) then you would be in the exact same position.

Creating new products is a risk. If you don't want to take that risk, then stay out of the business of creating new products and leave that to people that are a little less risk adverse.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550732)

That is completely unacceptable from a business perspective; unfortunately, I am prohibited from gambling with company money, which is exactly what this is -- a poor draw of the cards can result in a total loss before the sales chain even enters the equation.

I guess you haven't done any real product R&D. ALL new product development (even contract development where the customer has given you the specs for 'exactly what they want') is a "gamble with the company's money". It OFTEN requires "buying new equipment, purchasing SDKs (Apple SDKs are free, after the $99 dev. license, btw)", and "bringing the team up to speed". And sometimes, even on a "sure fire" project, things just don't pan out. This happens to big companies and small alike. This is one of the reasons why everyone isn't walking around as a millionaire, and every business isn't as successful as Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.

Even if your hypothetical app is approved, or even if you develop for a platform without any restrictions, there is ZERO GUARANTEE that you won't "result in a total loss".

So, where is this ideal world you live in, where "If you build it, they will come"?

Seems to me that you want a guarantee. Sorry, life (and business!) just don't work that way.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (0)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549348)

Good. More room for us.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (0, Redundant)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549420)

Pathetic!

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550476)

Pathetic!

Exactly my point. If you don't like the terms then go do something else. It seems massively stupid to pass up such an opportunity, but really we don't need you if you don't want to play. Got it? So don't stand here complaining all day, you get nothing done and we're getting tired of all the whining.

Or do you really believe a post on Slashdot will change everything? Boy have I got some unicorns to sell you!

Not worse then microsoft (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549358)

Apple is acting worse than Microsoft has ever done. The have developers jumping through hoops.

/p>

Try developing for a windows mobile and you will find its not all that much different. Remember this is not the desktop world we are talking about which is totally open.. This is the cellphone market, traditionally somewhat closed, for good reasons.

Re:Not worse then microsoft (3, Informative)

FreelanceWizard (889712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549860)

Actually, for Windows Mobile 6.x, you can quite literally write whatever you want and your users can install it. Yes, it is possible to restrict installations only to code signed by specific certificates and this is a relatively common practice on Windows Mobile 6.x Standard, but I've yet to encounter a single WM Professional phone that had such restrictions in place out of the box. This is why you can download software such as GSPlayer, GPSTestTool, and the like for free, or hop over to Handango and buy and install whatever you want. If you're up to it, you can even download the SDK and write your own software without having to pay Microsoft a single cent.

Now, Windows Phone 7 is substantially more restrictive in what it can run, but Microsoft doesn't:
* Restrict what ad systems you can use
* Arbitrarily deny specific development languages (the only restriction is that the code run on the Silverlight version of the CLR; this means you can use F#, C#, VB, Python, and even COBOL)
* Ban the use of interpreted code, so you can write emulators in the CLR language of your choice

Microsoft has also said that its final app requirements won't include any wiggle room for random app denials, and they've also strongly implied that the testing process for app approval will be at least partially automated to remove the possibility of an angry or prudish tester zapping your app. They've also said that they're working on parental controls and intend to allow mature content once that's in place.

So, how again is Windows Mobile or Windows Phone development substantially similar to i-device development?

Re:Not worse then microsoft (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550376)

Actually, for Windows Mobile 6.x, you can quite literally write whatever you want and your users can install it.

How is that different then droid for instance? I guess if your target market is a couple of hand sets you would be in business.

Re:Not worse then microsoft (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550896)

testing process for app approval will be at least partially automated

Yeah, because that process has proven to produce bug-free OS code for Windows. BTW, Vista's testing was an exercise in Automated Testing...

And, BTW, who says that "Automated" testing "remove[s] the POSSIBILITY for an angry or prudish" rule-set? The testing is only as good (and as open-minded) as those writing the test-vector scripts. Over time, those scripts would naturally begin to resemble the re-flash of Robocop's "Rule-set" in Robocop 2, where he went from about 3 simple "Rules" to dozens of overlapping and even self-conflicting rules. Systems NEVER get more simple over time.

Re:Not worse then microsoft (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550100)

How so? Are you forbidden from installing Windows Mobile software from other sources besides Microsoft's store?

Re:Not worse then microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550276)

Yes. You can only install apps from Microsoft's store. Developers must pay an annual fee as well as $99 per app submitted.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (0, Redundant)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549478)

Microsoft is just as evil, if not more, just in other ways.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550864)

Apple is acting worse than Microsoft has ever done. The have developers jumping through hoops.

Really? You mean anybody could write stuff for the XBOX and have it published?

Good! (1)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550996)

Good.

As long as Apple's actions continue to improve (or at least don't diminish) the user's experience, then F' em. The developers are there to serve the user (as is Apple itself) and having a gatekeeper to ensure that happens is a fine thing.

It may be a walled garden but if it's well tended then that's ok. If you want to live in the jungle you have that as an option elsewhere.

Eases nothing (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548934)

Apple could give you permission to ignore the restriction document before, simply stating this in the restriction document is meaningless.

Result of investigations? (2, Insightful)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32548952)

Is this, by any chance, a result of the FTC probe on Apple's business practices?

I wouldn't say backpedaling (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548954)

Since the terms were in the Beta SDK, they too were subject to change. There was an immediate cry from developers that disallowing ingame scripting would be tantamount to killing off entire platforms with shipping products.

I just wish it would be enough to allow the SCUMMVM engine.

Re:I wouldn't say backpedaling (1)

Carthag (643047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549174)

there are standalone games in the appstore that use the scummvm engine, flight of the amazon queen for instance

not in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548966)

They might reduce the restrictions today, but nothing stops them from going the other direction tomorrow.

The better tactic is not to allow them this control in the first place, which is why I bought no iDevices and recommend to my non-tech friends that they do the same. Whatever excessive control any large organization (govt, big company) has over your own property *will* eventually be abused. It is only a matter of when, not if.

All these problems go away when you have freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32548990)

There's a really simple solution to this problem: freedom.

Apple shouldn't have any yay or nay in what you do to your own phone and what developers sell or distribute for the phone.

With software freedom you don't have to beg in such a pathetic manner.

parsers and RPN (1, Interesting)

pruss (246395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549186)

It's just hit me: The prohibition on interpreted code taken literally might prevent someone making a graphing calculator app and implementing the graphing functionality by translating the equation into RPN code for a very simple stack-based virtual machine, and then interpreting that for each point. I assume that's the standard way to implement graphing, since it's a waste of CPU time to parse infix notation for every point (when I wrote a graphing calculator app for the Z80-based Sharp Wizard 7xx, that's what I did). It might also prohibit someone from implementing a Boolean text search by parsing the search expression into RPN code (that's how I implemented the Boolean search in Bible+ for PalmOS).

Now, it's true that they allow the use of interpreted code with Apple's written permission, but only "for providing minor features or functionality". In the case of a graphing calculator app, the interpreted code is used to implement the primary functionality. And in the case of a Boolean text search, depending on the app, that might well be a major feature.

Maybe this doesn't count as really interpreted code because one doesn't have Turing completeness in the interpreter--it's too simple. But with finite memory, one never really has Turing completeness. And anyway, if Turing completeness is the defining feature of an interpreter, then one could get around the restriction by setting a big arbitrary limit on the number of times a conditional can be interpreted (maybe, 2^100).

Re:parsers and RPN (1)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549222)

The prohibition on interpreted code taken literally

You don't have to "take it literally"; Apple doesn't have to stick by their own rules, they can approve and disapprove whatever they like.

Re:parsers and RPN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549648)

Awesome! Now I know how to get a positively moderated comment on Slashdot - throw around a bunch of academic words and act like I know what I'm talking about when I'm really full of shit. Thanks!

Re:parsers and RPN (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550000)

Postfix/RPN is much harder to visually understand than typical infix expressions. The fact is that a standard infix calculator is much less intensive to create for the developer.

With RPN you would need direct access to the device stack or some sort of manually-implemented stack-based architecture. I find using the standard architecture to be much easier in all regards, unless you happen to be writing iPhone apps in Assembly.

PR drivel (5, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549218)

against Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone compiler as part of Apple's broader effort to keep third-party meta-platforms from eroding the user experience and stifling innovation as developers become reliant upon them to roll out support for new features introduced by Apple

Translation: "... Apple's broader effort against a fair and competitive market place, and their attempts to translate their early lead into a monopoly".

What they are afraid of is people using non-Apple music and video stores and people creating applications that also work on Android. And in doing so, Apple stifles innovation and manages to extract more money out of people's pockets.

Re:PR drivel (2, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549460)

Couldn't agree more.

What dumbfounds me is that anyone believes Apple's PR in this regard.

Re:PR drivel (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550602)

After listening to an Apple fanboy explain to me why pressing a green plus symbol makes perfect sense for shrinking a window, and how it makes total sense that pressing a red X closes some programs, and leaves others running, I am no longer surprised at anything that gets accepted by some people.

Re:PR drivel (4, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549672)

What they are afraid of is people using non-Apple music and video stores and people creating applications that also work on Android.

Apple allow non-Apple music and video solutions - they allow e.g. spotify, wimp, netflix and many more. The latter is definitely one of their targets - not because they don't want things to work on Android, even though not being able to share the costs might be a fringe benefit now that the iPhone app market is so dominant. Their real goal is to avoid development environments that abstracts away their platform - and target the lowest common denominator, and won't give access to new iOS features when available.

As an iphone user, I really hate and love their approach. I dislike that I can't develop what I want. On the other side, the quality of the apps is higher - and I prefer a phone experience with no flash. Probably without iAd too, I don't want rich, intrusive ads.

What scares me more than their technical requirements, is their content censoring [gizmodo.com] . I don't want a walled, Disney-like "think of the children!" world.

Re:PR drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549856)

Nothing is stopping anyone from using non-Apple music and video stores. The media player software does not care where the video is from, although it doesn't natively support other store's DRM. Further more, Netflix already exists on iOS, so not only can other media distributers compete, but they already are. There's also nothing stopping anyone from writing their apps for both iOS and Android (or any other platform). Aside from standard cross platform development, which uses native APIs for the UI, portable C/C++ for core logic, and Lua or another scripting language for any scripting, there's nothing stopping anyone from either extending GNUStep to support UIKit and run on competing phone platforms, or doing what Adobe did and writing an Objective-C compiler for Android, Windows Phone 7, Bada, or any other platform.

While I dislike the way Apple's been acting recently, especially regarding iOS, you, and many others are being intellectually dishonest over the language restrictions. If you really want to make iOS apps, pick up a damn book and learn Objective-C. It's a relatively simple language, and although the syntax isn't the most readable (it's based on C, what did you expect), any programmer worth their salt should be able to pick it up in a few days. If that's not an option for you, or anyone else, then simply spend your resources elsewhere.

One can't always have it his way, and it's not a travesty if one's own decision prevents him from developing iOS apps. Apple will simply have fewer developers for iOS because of it. Whether iOS becomes a dominant platform in the future and makes it more difficult for some people to find employment is something they'll just have to deal with if it comes to pass; if it doesn't, let Apple deal with that future. No one is entitled to extract revenue from all platforms. If one wants that, one has to make effort to support them in whatever way possible. This is no different from the situation now, where every day, with the exception of actual cross platform developers, Windows and Mac developers each pass up the other's markets. This situation will only become more pronounced as each platform shifts away from C-based languages for apps: Windows is moving to .NET and OSX is potentially moving to MacRuby.

There are a lot of reasons to be pissed off with Apple for their policies surrounding iOS. The random rejections and removals from the App Store for no apparent reason and prohibition of adult oriented apps, even ones which aren't pornographic, except from established producers are very good reasons. Programming language choice, especially with the latest amendment, is not one of them.

Doesn't matter (4, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549252)

Apps have been rejected for no good reason whatever. Even apps that have been approved at a certain version, their updates have been rejected. For no good reason. The process is absolutely capricious and you can never, ever be sure your app will be approved in the Apple store.

Just name the companies already (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549304)

Why don't they fucking come out and say it like it is: "We don't want Adobe or Google (at the moment). Anything else is okay - until we feel threatened or pissed off at that company"

cherry picking hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549332)

Sonic the hedgehog on iPhone is a megadrive emulator.

interpreted languages such as Lua .. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549342)

So does this mean Python is in our future?

Re:interpreted languages such as Lua .. (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549820)

Probably not.

No they don't (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549578)

All the restrictions are still in place, with the added restriction that your competitors may have the restrictions waived if Apple fancy it. Like for the "Boobs" restriction, this probably means small independent developer can't do scripts (and can't do boos), but big-money conglomerates can. And even if you manage to snag an exemption, it may be cancelled at any time... but then again, so may your Appstore listing in any case anyway.

I'm glad that I'm not a developer and that, as a consumer, I can tell Apple to go f*** themselves.

Isn't this a step backwards? (3, Insightful)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549584)

Before we had a straight-forward, written, rule. Now we are back to the usual app-store situation where we have a rough idea of what will get blocked, but Apple reserves the right to block things for whatever reason it wants.

Re:Isn't this a step backwards? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549858)

Apple has always blocked things for no reason at all. Nothing has changed.

tits Apple's Party but let Google Cry anyways!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32549626)

Nobody knows where my Adobe has gone
Google left the same time
Why was he holding her hand
When he's supposed to be mine

It's not my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you

Playin' my records, keep dancin' all night
Leave me alone for a while
'til Apple's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's mnot my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you

Apple and Steve just walked through the door
Like a queen with her king
Oh what a birthday surprise
Somebody is wearin' Apple's ring
It doesn't have to make sense it's REAL

It's not my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you

Jobs is on the run! Shoe him! (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549798)

I feel a sudden disturbance in the reality distortion field - as if a thousand turtleneck wearing ponces just shat their chinos, and then went "euuuuw!".

It is my device or not? (1, Redundant)

virtualflesh (1438407) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549916)

If I bought the device, then I should be able to do whatever the bl#^p I want on it. Of course I must take responsibility for my own actions. That's the point. Feels like I'm renting the device from Apple and they still own it. So, despite my best efforts, I will never own (nor be able to own) one of these devices.

FLASH! (0, Offtopic)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32549930)

Until Apple wakes up and realizes that they need to allow Flash in some form, their stock is constantly falling in my opinion.

I never use iPhones, I'm an Android guy, but as far as writing software for the iPhone I don't bother anymore because of the overly draconian approval process(one of my apps was rejected, as best as I can tell, because I misspelled a word) and lockdowns like "Can't use AdMob".

I don't want to sign up for some independent advertising company that probably sends kickbacks to Apple! I have an AdMob account and I've got it set how I want it. What the hell is wrong with you, Jobs?

we had a deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32550314)

I'm altering the agreement; pray I do not alter it any further

In other words (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550554)

No significant competitor is allowed. From an anti-trust perspective Apple's change is a NOP.

iOS Development (4, Informative)

awhite (179035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32550984)

Many people on this thread have a very skewed picture of iOS development. I have released three fairly large iOS projects (i.e. months to years of development rather than a few days or weeks like so many toy apps). The first was a smashing success and our 3-person development company was acquired for it. The acquiring company is now my employer so I won't name specifics in this case. The second was an independent iPhone app I wrote that was a total flop. The third is my new independent iPad project called Stash that's doing pretty well so far: http://stash.hedonicsoftware.com/ [hedonicsoftware.com]

Just the existence of Stash on the App Store - basically an app for porn, though it doesn't provide the explicit content - is evidence that Apple isn't nearly as draconian and capricious as many in this thread are portraying them to be. If you create a high-quality app (or hell, even a low-quality one so long as it doesn't crash) that follows their general guidelines and doesn't try to take over basic functions of the iPhone, you won't generally have a problem. Sure, there are famous counter-examples, and I really feel for those developers. I can't imagine a more frustrating experience then pouring your time into something that's rejected outright. But it doesn't change the fact that these are the few exceptions in a vast sea of approvals or justified rejections (based on the three points that Jobs outlined). Moreover, in my experience Apple is getting much better about working with developers to get apps their approved. It's still a slow process - the last release of Stash was delayed without feedback for over 2 weeks, which felt interminable - but they eventually call and tell you about any solvable issues and give you a chance to correct them.

I'd also like to point out that outside the pain of dealing with the review process, iOS development is a lot of fun. Someone on this thread said no one is in the App Store simply for the love of programming, but I strongly disagree. Apple provides some really nice APIs, and it's relatively easy to create something that looks and feels smooth and professional. I'm currently working on an Android project for my employer, and it's a real chore compared to iOS dev. I don't care how "open" the market is or even how powerful the SDK is if I hate coding for it and need a graphic design team to make it look decent. People forget that Apple/NeXT has been in the GUI framework business for a long time. They know what they're doing. They also seem to be good at letting their internal APIs fully bake before including them in the SDK, which results in a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than in Android, where everything feels over-engineered. I recently read an article by another iOS developer that sums up my feelings pretty much exactly: http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/03/android-sdk-from-iphone-developer.html [blogspot.com]

That's my 2 cents. YMMV. But if you're interested in mobile development at all, you owe it to yourself to give iOS development a shot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?