General Apple Megathread

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Cross-compiling apps means that the same app can run on multiple OSes. You build it the app once and some tool (like MonoTouch or Adobe's new Flash CS5 feature) will compile that app for iPhone, Android and whatever else. This is what Apple bans in the new EULA.

The general thinking is that by forcing developers to decide between coding the app exclusively for iPhone OS (ie no cross-compiling), compiling for everyone else except Apple with cross-compiling or doing both, the majority of developers will chose to compile only for Apple. This is because the time, effort and money necessary to code the apps over again for non-Apple OSes or to code them exclusively for non-Apple OSes is not worthwhile being that Apple OS represents 95% of the market (or whatever the actual number is, I'm not sure) for mobile apps.

This is NOT true. Titanium from Appcelerator can create applications that can be compiled for Android and for iPhone and it is well within the new EULA. Monotouch, Phone Gap etc are all fine to continue to use as well.

And from previously:

People are under the impression that Microsoft got in trouble over bundling IE. They originally did but the ruling was overturned and the original judge was disgraced by the appeal judge for unethical conduct.

Microsoft still bundles its apps.

The majority of the criticism against Microsoft from competitors not named Netscape were with their dealings with OEMs.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Barnes

This is NOT true. Titanium from Appcelerator can create applications that can be compiled for Android and for iPhone and it is well within the new EULA. Monotouch, Phone Gap etc are all fine to continue to use as well.

It is true. From Apple's EULA

Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

C# is not C, C++ or ObjC, so Monotouch is definitely out. Titanium uses Python and Ruby, it's out. PhoneGap may be okay as it uses web-technology (but web-apps don't need a compiler to be cross-platform in the first place).

Now, I think its clear to everyone that Apple is specifically targetting Adobe with the EULA, but the way its written makes virtually all cross-compilers collateral damage. We all know of the controversy surround Apple's double-standards in rejecting apps, so they may not enforce it that way, but the EULA does forbid cross-compiling as it is written -- with the exception of web-apps, but these don't need a cross-compiler to be cross-platform in the first place.

[Barnes]

No, it is not true.

http://blogs.nitobi.com/jesse/2010/0...nse-agreement/

Through email discussions with Apple, I specifically asked what, if any, impact did this have on present/future applications submitted to the App store that were built using PhoneGap. In no uncertain terms, my contacts at Apple have assured me that “PhoneGap is not in violation of the 3.3.1 clause of the license agreement.”

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/p...ent-sez-apple/

Jesse Macfadyen, a contributor to the project, pinged Apple to make sure that users of the mobile development platform wouldn't find their apps rejected simply for using the tool. As you remember, the agreement states: "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine" (and of course HTML and CSS are cool), so PhoneGap -- which indeed sticks to HTML, CSS and Javascript -- is totally safe.

[FanIn80]

I think people have just become so used to a software-driven world, that they don't know how to interpret the actions of a hardware company that isn't reliant on someone else to make their software for them.

The interesting thing is that every other mobile OS maker right now is doing exactly the same thing. You want to sell apps for the Android? You use Google's SDK and you sell them in Google's app store. Palm? Same thing. RIM? Same. Microsoft? Err... Well they're kind of in limbo right now, but we'll see how things play out if they ever get back in the game. Hopefully, they do.

Edit: Also, of note...

To build the Android source files, you will need to use Linux or Mac OS. Building under Windows is not currently supported.

http://source.android.com/download

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Barnes

No, it is not true.

http://blogs.nitobi.com/jesse/2010/0...nse-agreement/


http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/p...ent-sez-apple/

I think you need to read my post again. I said right in there that PhoneGap was fine as it use WEB technology -- CSS, JavaScript and HTML.

Edit: To be totally clear, PhoneGap uses HTML, CSS and Javascript which are interpreted lanagues NOT compiled, hence its not a cross-compiler.

[Lego Man]

I was gonna make a seperate thread about this... But since it falls under general apple:

i just made the switch from windows to osx and i have one little issue that is completely driving me bonkers. I tried google. When i select a song to listen to from a folder, it opens up quicktime (which is the program that i want playing music files- not itunes) and plays so thats all good. The problem occurs when i select another song from the folder, it doesnt stop or close the current song playing, or even replaces it, but it opens up another quicktime window and the two songs start playing at the same time. Wtf? Who would ever want this happening? How do i get it working like windows media player (where the song stops and the program plays the most recent file chosen?)

[Pastiche]

Welcome to the Apple work mpaca where you are required to use your computer how Apple wants you to. So go and use itunes.

[FanIn80]

In a widely-publicized blog post today, Richard Reich, who served as U.S. Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, offers his thoughts on the rumored antitrust inquiry being considered by federal regulators over Apple's exclusion of cross-compilers for creation of applications running on its iPhone OS devices. Reich argues that the Federal Trade Commission's efforts targeting Apple could be better spent on investigating Wall Street banks, but federal law excludes the financial industry from the FTC's purview.

Our future well being depends more on people like Steve Jobs who invent real products that can improve our lives, than it does on people like [JPMorgan Chase CEO] Jamie Dimon who invent financial products that do little other than threaten our economy.

Reich's position is that Apple's move is not anti-competitive, with many other companies rapidly innovating in the sector, and if Apple's decision results in less competition on the iPhone platform, Apple itself will be the one to suffer.

Apple's supposed sin was to tell software developers that if they want to make apps for iPhones and iPads they have to use Apple programming tools. No more outside tools (like Adobe's Flash format) that can run on rival devices like Google's Android phones and RIM's BlackBerrys.

What's wrong with that? Apple says it's necessary to maintain quality. If consumers disagree they can buy platforms elsewhere. Apple was the world’s #3 smartphone supplier in 2009, with 16.2 percent of worldwide market share. RIM was #2, with 18.8 percent. Google isn't exactly a wallflower. These and other firms are innovating like mad, as are tens of thousands of independent developers. If Apple's decision reduces the number of future apps that can run on its products, Apple will suffer and presumably change its mind.

While Reich is not the first to make this argument, his public statement comes with the perspective of an academic and political insider who has spent considerable time in the upper reaches of government.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/05/...itrust-issues/
http://robertreich.org/post/57211206...-big-banks-are

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

?????

Windows and OS X have absolutely zero to do with any of this. There is no EULA in either Windows nor OS X that restricts you from cross-compiling apps with any other platform. Just because MS bothered to port an app to OS X doesn't mean that cross-compiling isn't a valid option for some people. Nor does it mean that everyone should have to port their apps like MS did. Moreover, large apps like Word are not typically easily cross-compiled where small apps like the ones that run on mobile phones are, but again desktop/laptop OSes are completely irrelevant because there is absolutely zero legal means stopping you from cross-compiling.

Yeah, my point was more that a lack of cross-compilation support on the iPhone platform does very little to de-incentivize developers from developing applications for more than one platform. Very few applications rely on any sort of write-once-run-anywhere model to achieve cross-platform compatibility.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Welcome to the Apple work mpaca where you are required to use your computer how Apple wants you to. So go and use itunes.

You're just hanging around here waiting to make negative comments aren't you?

Originally Posted by mpaca

I was gonna make a seperate thread about this... But since it falls under general apple:

i just made the switch from windows to osx and i have one little issue that is completely driving me bonkers. I tried google. When i select a song to listen to from a folder, it opens up quicktime (which is the program that i want playing music files- not itunes) and plays so thats all good. The problem occurs when i select another song from the folder, it doesnt stop or close the current song playing, or even replaces it, but it opens up another quicktime window and the two songs start playing at the same time. Wtf? Who would ever want this happening? How do i get it working like windows media player (where the song stops and the program plays the most recent file chosen?)

Does it have to be Quicktime? You're right, quicktime behaves uniquely in this regard. Would you willing to try VLC? It acts much the same as quicktime, is lightweight, can play infinitely more formats of movie and changes songs in the way you are wanting.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html

[Lego Man]

Originally Posted by Russic

You're just hanging around here waiting to make negative comments aren't you?



Does it have to be Quicktime? You're right, quicktime behaves uniquely in this regard. Would you willing to try VLC? It acts much the same as quicktime, is lightweight, can play infinitely more formats of movie and changes songs in the way you are wanting.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html

Yeah, i have vlc for my mkvs. I suppose if vlc is lightwieght then i'll use it as the default. . I just hate the stupid pylon logo lol. Anyway could I change that to a custom logo? (flames maybe?!?!)

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I think you need to read my post again. I said right in there that PhoneGap was fine as it use WEB technology -- CSS, JavaScript and HTML.

Edit: To be totally clear, PhoneGap uses HTML, CSS and Javascript which are interpreted lanagues NOT compiled, hence its not a cross-compiler.

As does Titanium which you said would no longer be allowed.

MonoTouch 3.0 was recently released.
http://monotouch.net/

While, we have heard little direct feedback from Apple regarding recently reported changes to the iPhone Developer Program Agreement, we have heard consistent feedback that Apple is concerned about inefficient apps created using abstraction layers that hide native APIs.

We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement.

Unity and iTorque are both ready for 4.0 as well...

[photon]

So it's basically what I said earlier, the EULA clause is going to be selectively and arbitrarily enforced by Apple to combat their perceived enemies, not to actually do anything with regards to quality...

What language are MonoTouch apps written in?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Barnes

As does Titanium which you said would no longer be allowed.

It also uses Python and Ruby in addition.

Originally Posted by Barnes

MonoTouch 3.0 was recently released.
http://monotouch.net/

That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

It's really quite simple (Ruby, Python, C#, Flash, etc ) != (C, C++, ObjC). And Apple says C, C++ and Obj-C (plus Web apps) are the only languages allowed. There's no disputing that, the language is very clear.

They might might choose to look the other way for anything non-Flash related, but that's not the way its written. And it fully gives them the right to start banning other cross-compilers if they do something Apple doesn't like (as with Adobe) in the future.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by photon

What language are MonoTouch apps written in?

C#. Or anything .NET I believe will work too.

[photon]

Exactly. And as you say by the strict wording of the EULA they violate it. If Apple doesn't enforce it then the EULA clause isn't valid and wouldn't stand up in court, which means a lawsuit might succeed based on those grounds.

They could alter the EULA to say any app developed in a framework that hides native APIs, but that would basically encompass everything since every app developed beyond hello world has some kind of abstraction from the native APIs to the actual app logic.. that's the whole point of good programming is to make it easier for yourself rather than having your whole app being one big loop in a single file of code. So they can't word it like that either.

[FanIn80]

In addition to earlier statements from Apple and Microsoft, Opera has now stepped into the Flash debate...

"Today's internet content is dependant on Flash," said Grønvold. "If you remove Flash you do not have today's internet.

"We are trying to give the best internet experience for our users therefore we need Flash - there is no way to beat around that bush."

"But at Opera we say that the future of the web is open web standards and Flash is not an open web standards technology.

"Flash does have its purposes and will have its purposes, the same as [Microsoft's] Silverlight and others, especially for dynamic content.

"But flash as a video container makes very little sense for CPU, WiFi battery usage etcetera – you can cook an egg on [devices] once you start running Flash on them and there's a reason for that."

http://www.techradar.com/news/intern...rgument-687597

Also... in addition to the numerous other high-profile sites that have dumped Flash in favour of HTML5, next on the list is Scribd.

“We are scrapping three years of Flash development and betting the company on HTML5 because we believe HTML5 is a dramatically better reading experience than Flash. Now any document can become a Web page.”

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/05/scribd-html5

[BlackEleven]

Heh, maybe we need a General Flash Megathread?

On that subject, an article examining the readiness of HTML5 to take over from Flash from Tim Bray (one of the original editors of the XML specification):
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/20...L5-and-the-Web

[FanIn80]

Yeah, I'm starting to share the sentiment of others here. The Flash thing is getting pretty old. Sure it's buggy on a Mac, but level of effort being put into discussing it is far outweighing the bugginess of it.

In fact, I can't even remember what started this whole thing.

I am going to read that article, though.

[Barnes]

Well, here's what's going on.

Flash Alternative