iPhone OS 4

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

APPLE: Good, they maintain complete control over native iPhone OS app development.

It's hard to say whether it's good for Apple or not. It may decrease the number of new apps available in the App Store if they start rejecting ones they previously would have approved. It remains to be seen how vigilant they will be about this. I personally don't get the feeling that they will apply this to the letter. I think this is more like a potential excuse for them that to reject apps that they don't like.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

ADOBE AND OTHER PRODUCERS OF CROSS-DEVICE MOBILE META-PLATFORMS: Terrible, because they can’t target today’s leading mobile platform. And they’ve wasted a tremendous amount of effort creating tools to generate iPhone apps.

Yup. I think everyone agrees there.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

WEB DEVELOPERS: No change. The iPhone remains completely open to web apps. The difference between the web, as a competitor to native iPhone apps, from something like Flash is that the web is not controlled by anyone. There is no platform vendor for the web — and Apple has complete control over WebKit, its implementation for the web.

Also true, although the power of a web app is pretty limited compared to the power of an app. Remember Apple's original idea was to have all apps be web apps, but came up the idea for the app store when they realized this was not powerful enough (which was a brilliant idea, imo).

Originally Posted by FanIn80

IPHONE DEVELOPERS: No change. If you’re a developer and you’ve been following Apple’s advice, you will never even notice this rule. You’re already using Xcode, Objective-C, and WebKit. If you’re an iPhone developer and you are not following Apple’s advice, you’re going to get screwed eventually. If you are constitutionally opposed to developing for a platform where you’re expected to follow the advice of the platform vendor, the iPhone OS is not the platform for you. It never was. It never will be.

(And, in one sense, this is good news for existing iPhone developers: their skill set is now in even greater demand.)

FLASH AND C# DEVELOPERS: Bad news, if you were hoping to target the App Store with your products. If you want to write iPhone OS software, follow Apple’s advice, not Adobe’s or Microsoft’s.

True if the developers are using Xcode. I still don't agree they should have to though. If the assumption is that its going to make better apps, I disagree. The skill of the developers (and testers) is what makes a good software product, not the tools they use. To use that house analogy again, what would you care about more? The skill of the builders hired to construct your house or the tools they used to do it?

In some cases, for writing a simple app, using objective-C may be overkill. Something simpler like C# may do the trick faster and since its using modules which have been used thousands of times before and tested very thoroughly, there's an inhert benefit to quality already.

Apple's presumable rationale is that the process of cross-compiling this code will affect the quality, and I can see where they are coming from, but again this is where the skill of the developer comes into play.

I've ported applications to Mac OS before from Linux (nothing to do with smart phones mind you) and a lot of people think "hey great, gcc runs on Mac too all we should have to do is compiling the code and it will work!". This is far from the case. Not everything works exactly the same and there's a lot of tweaking that has to be done along the way. A good developer along with some solid testing will be able to find and correct these issues. The same should apply to iPhone apps as well. It shouldn't matter that the app was originally targeted for another platform or for cross-platform, if the developers are capable they'll still be able to build a quality app. If the developers are crap and won't do any testing, requiring them to build use Xcode isn't going to change any of that. They'll probably still crank something out as quickly as possible and do little to no testing. Is someone that does that really any better than someone that took the time to carefully code and test their cross-compiled app? Apple should review the final product and just it on its own merit not just arbitrarily reject a whole a set of apps based soley on the language used to code them, imo.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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.

My opinion is that iPhone users will be well-served by this rule. The App Store is not lacking for quantity of titles.

Consider, for one example, Amazon’s Kindle clients for iPhone OS and Mac OS X. The iPhone OS Kindle app is excellent, a worthy rival in terms of experience to Apple’s own iBooks. The Mac Kindle app is a turd that doesn’t look, feel, or behave like a real Mac app. The iPhone OS Kindle app is a native iPhone app, written in Cocoa Touch. The Mac Kindle app was produced using the cross-platform Qt toolkit.

I already covered this in my rant about quality above, but the Kindle is just one example, and I think its too simplistic to assume that its nice on iPhone and crap on Mac based solely on the language used to write each respective app. I've used Qt myself and see some very nice stuff done with it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There's no comparison between a Mac app that was built on a Mac, using Apple technologies, vs one that was built on another platform and then just ported over to a Mac afterward.

That's not always true, it's just common because usually the port is an afterthought or they seriously underestimate the amount of work it is to make it good and put out a crappy product instead of taking the extra time.

It works the other way too, iTunes on Mac is awesome, iTunes on PC is slow, klunky, and doesn't even look right.

As BlackEleven said it's more a function of the developers and testers and resources than it is the tools.

If this is such a huge issue, then why hasn't Apple done it long ago for their desktop? Or did it earlier for the iPhone, it's been out for years? Where's the huge outcry from people using apps built with existing platforms for years saying the apps are terrible that has caused Apple to take this step? If Apple was that concerned about quality they'd be assessing each app and getting rid of the poorly coded apps that were coded natively as well.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Here's something interesting. I quoted a different portion of it yesterday, but I'd like to get some comments on this portion. I tend to agree with this assesment, but I'm getting a differing sense from reading the posts this thread.

(Again, from daringfireball.net)

I don't think it's a completely fair or accurate assessment, and basically concludes that Apple is doing it because its good for Apple and that most end users won't be impacted. Well sure, you can say that about a lot of things, government monitoring all phone calls doesn't impact people and is a good thing for the government, so it must be ok?

I'm not comparing the two, but just drawing a parallel to show the reasoning is flawed.

It's taken a decade of bashing against mobile carriers, for example, to get them to release their grip on things.. people forget that it was only a few short years ago that in order to get an application on your phone or even access to a specific website the carrier had to explicitly allow it or you were out of luck (the deck it was called). Developers had to jump through hoops to get on a carrier's deck, and it would change at a whim. Finally carriers have relaxed and allowed more flexibility, but Apple is going the opposite direction, and for no good reason.

Good companies can advance technology and make things better for people while at the same time serving their shareholder interests.. Apple for all its lip service to openness has decided that their own interests are the only ones that matter.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well to chime in here as someone who is just a consumer who likes to keep up with these things.

I use Adobe products. Acrobat is garbage, Dreamweaver is good, and photoshop is also good. I use Acrobat the most though, and I agree that it is bloated and ridiculous. I won't be buying it again.

And yet, I still side with them in this issue.

IMO, Apple has no problem with Adobe. The only reason they're 'banning' Flash is because they're competing with Android and the openness of the Android system. The more you push Apple, the more set in their ways and stubborn they become.

Apple has always had beef with Adobe. There are rumours of an in house Photoshop killer at Apple just waiting for the day when they pull what they did with Premier and we got Final Cut Pro.

They also pissed Apple off by dragging their feet on a Carbon version of all their software forcing OS X users to run them in Classic for almost a year and a half and now they are doing the same thing with 64 bit support and their refusal to use Cocoa.

Flash on Android is not what everyone thinks it is either. It will only run on handsets that use a Snapdragon or equivalent with at least 2.1 and Adobe will have to notify your carrier that there is an update because it is to be delivered OTA. If Adobe or your carrier decides that this isn't for you, you don't get it. So, hooray for openness.

[photon]

http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2010/0...section-3-3-1/

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Steve Jobs

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.

Pretty much the way I've been seeing it. He also pointed to Gruber's take on it.

[photon]

Sure except the guy refutes that with specific examples.

And if it were true then Apple would do the same thing with OSX.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Pretty much the way I've been seeing it. He also pointed to Gruber's take on it.

Personally, I think its more about control than quality. If developers are forced to decide between Apple and everyone else, they'll probably go with Apple since they'll have the most exposure to their app that way.

Of course, Apple has to maintain its about quality and not control or else they could potential get hit with a bunch of anti-trust issues like Microsoft faced.

[Flames0910]

This is business, people put their lives into making things to make money and a living, but Apple continues to arbitrarily change the rules for their own needs and whims without caring about the impacts on others. Someone who'd made a business plan based on how things were two days ago now has nothing. No warning.

You're exactly right. It is business and this kind of happens all the time. Companies go under, contracts fall through, etc, etc.
Apple can get away with this because their target customers are consumers, not techies. As long as the iPhone or iPad works when you tap, nobody will complain. Moreover, they have the necessary bargaining power to strong-arm developers into a relationship on THEIR terms. That's not to say both parties don't benefit from this relationship (dev's are getting a pretty sweet deal out of the iPhone and anybody who says otherwise is clearly a fanboi), but Apple certainly isn't going to help the competition as well. If they want developers to choose sides, that's their call to make and they can live with the rewards or consequences of it.

Clearly they want as much control as possible. That's been said before. But who's to say it's so wrong? This isn't a democracy or free speech issue like some make it out to be. This is a company running their organization on their own terms. Until Steve Jobs starts building a secret police to silence Internet dissenters then we still have choice. Mature companies the world over run their business like this but we don't see it in the news everyday because there are no salad dressing fanbois bickering on the Internet over Kraft's every move.

Then again, maybe there should be.


I wonder about Apple's experience from the early days and how it is playing a role here. Apple has been on the losing side, they know how tough it was to woo developers to the smaller system in the Windows/Macintosh battle.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Personally, I think its more about control than quality. If developers are forced to decide between Apple and everyone else, they'll probably go with Apple since they'll have the most exposure to their app that way.

Exactly. And that's exactly why "non Mac people" have a right to debate this stuff on these threads. Apple's control affects our experience with other operating systems. Just like Microsoft used to prevent other companies from gaining market share through shady means and monopolistic practices.

I can't remember where I saw it, maybe even on this forum, but somewhere I read a thing that really summed it up for me. If you're "winning" by any other means than simply providing the best product out there, that's not a good thing.

[FanIn80]

How does Apple not allowing 3rd party access to their proprietary development platform affect your experience with Windows or Linux or any other OS?

[QuadCityImages]

If they limit the ease of porting apps to and from platforms, they are hurting developers' ability to develop cross-platform apps. Since currently the iPhone has more users than Android (not to mention WinMo and Palm) it makes sense that they'll develop for iPhone first.

However, looking at the graphs of rising Android use, this could backfire if Android overtakes Apple for smartphone OS ubiquity. If devs continue going where the users are, and Apple makes it difficult to develop cross-platform, Apple had better maintain its lead...

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

If they limit the ease of porting apps to and from platforms, they are hurting developers' ability to develop cross-platform apps. Since currently the iPhone has more users than Android (not to mention WinMo and Palm) it makes sense that they'll develop for iPhone first.

However, looking at the graphs of rising Android use, this could backfire if Android overtakes Apple for smartphone OS ubiquity. If devs continue going where the users are, and Apple makes it difficult to develop cross-platform, Apple had better maintain its lead...

Why should Apple as a company give a damn about users who are using other OS's? They have made this choice to increase the quality of the Apps their users have access to. They could not care less about an android user.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Why should Apple as a company give a damn about users who are using other OS's? They have made this choice to increase the quality of the Apps their users have access to. They could not care less about an android user.

Because people sue you if you don't care for competition.

[kermitology]

I have to think that in part is has something to do with helping the review process. If there is code that is generating using outside libraries, you don't know what that code actually does. I'm a firm believer that the application review process is a good thing, assuming they don't reject you for something they don't understand. I don't like the policy to reject apps they don't think you should buy. It should be a free market, let me decide what is appropriate for my family.

[kermitology]

First generation iPhone being left in the dust: http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/12/apple...st-gen-iphone/

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Because people sue you if you don't care for competition.

No... people sue you if you force manufacturers to install your software over someone else's.

Apple is the manufacturer, they make their own hardware and software. If you want to use their software, you buy their hardware. People are so used to Microsoft, that they forget that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They don't make software applications for other OSes. They make their own stuff to run on their own hardware. They have every right to control access to their software.

If anyone has a problem with that philosophy, then Apple products are clearly not for them. It's that simple.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Why should Apple as a company give a damn about users who are using other OS's?

They shouldn't. What some people in this thread are against is Apple limiting the development choices of people developing for Apple. Those limitations are still imposed whether or not the development tools are not being used for cross-platform development. This still affects Apple developers (and therefore users).

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

They have made this choice to increase the quality of the Apps their users have access to. They could not care less about an android user.

Well, whether it increases quality or not is what we've been debating for the past few pages. There's a difference between using a EULA to impose limitations to improve the quality of a product that also may hurt the competition and using the EULA solely to hurt the competition.

Microsoft ran into hot water for bundling IE with their operating system because it was seen as anti-competitive to other browsers. Imagine much trouble they'd have been in if they had a line in their EULA that made it illegal to run any cross-platform browser on Windows (Firefox, Safari, etc). I'm not saying that's equivalent to this situation, just providing an example of how placing restrictions in the EULA can be a big deal.

[octothorp]

Just watching through the new Adobe CS5 preview; looks like Flash developers will be able to export flash applications as iPhone Apps. OF course, no indication of how well it works.

http://cs5launch.adobe.com/?promoid=FDKBR

Relevant part is about 21 minutes in, and just a quick mention.
It does creating some interesting options for app developers, and will help keep Flash relevant as a development tool.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just watching through the new Adobe CS5 preview; looks like Flash developers will be able to export flash applications as iPhone Apps. OF course, no indication of how well it works.

http://cs5launch.adobe.com/?promoid=FDKBR

Relevant part is about 21 minutes in, and just a quick mention.
It does creating some interesting options for app developers, and will help keep Flash relevant as a development tool.

The new EULA makes it illegal to do this. Which is why Adobe is so unhappy with Apple at the moment.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

The new EULA makes it illegal to do this. Which is why Adobe is so unhappy with Apple at the moment.

So Apple will just refuse to sell anything that's developed in Flash?