With a push like this on the Developers, I'm going to have to guess that 3.0 is just around the corner from public release.
Apple will no longer approve any iPhone application that isn't compatible with its upcoming iPhone 3.0 operating system. This tidbit comes to us thanks to a post on The Loop Blog, which quotes the following meat of an email sent to all members of Apple's iPhone Developer Program: All apps must be compatible with iPhone OS 3.0 …
With a push like this on the Developers, I'm going to have to guess that 3.0 is just around the corner from public release.
You can release applications built for 2.0 et al, they must simply now be QA'd as compatible with 3.0 - this in no way is forcing people to upgrade to 3.0 (i.e. iPod Touch users).
This is merely Apple reminding everyone to keep up with the Jones's, and making sure 3.0 gets no nasty surprises (or fewer than it could otherwise).
@slider5634 - The developer email states that 3.0 is imminent (Summer release, i.e. June)
Otherwise Apple ends up servicing a long tail just like MS with IE 6 and older OSs
It really is perfectly reasonable as the alternative is a whole range of stuff that probably undoes the functionality we have come to expect?
I am sure that there can be no errors whatsover in their beta of 3.0.
I have a better idea. Why don't i just buy a big hat that says "i am a gullible fool" instead of lining steve jobs pocket.....
PS..... Reg, change your pictures of Jobs....he aint fat no more!
The last comment in the article is unnecessary - just because an app gets removed from the store does nor automatically lead to it being removed from your device. If iPod Touch owners don't want to upgrade to OS 3.0, it doesn't affect them at all.
yes - it's next month
@ Rik :
"Apple bars 2.0 code from App Store" and "iPhone 3.0 or nothing" are not actually true, are they? your being a tad tabloid and sensationalist here
all apps will need to be 3.0 compatible, yes, but there's nothing stopping them from being 2.0 compatible also
you're headlines make it sound like anyone who doesn't upgrade to 3.0 won't be able to download any apps going forward.
It hasn't been officially release yet. However the beta for 3.0 is publicly available (has been for a couple days actually). So yeah it's gonna be here soon. Even if the beta weren't out there it's not to many more weeks before the WWDC so yeah it's gonna be out officially in short order.
So...the article is a bit confused, or confusing. Not sure which.
Apple isn't asking any developers to GIVE UP support for OS 2.0, they are simply saying that new apps must ALSO work on 3.0. That is actually future compatibility - while not requiring them to break backwards compatibility. Obviously, as 3.0 has a lot of new services, there is no way to guarantee that any given 3.0 app will run on 2.0...so backward compatibility really can't be guaranteed.
But comparing the Moto to Intel switch isn't really the same - mostly because operating systems for PCs are a VERY mature technology, while smartphone operating systems simply are not (as some vendors prove with every release!). So there is a high probability that there are 1000 new API calls in 3.0 that do things that 2.0 never considered possible - and no workarounds are going to make that happen.
Given that, all Apple can do is ask for future compatibility, and that is what they are doing...but somehow, someone has to try and find fault regardless...weird.
Great news about 3.0 coming soon to GA...really looking forward to it.
Has crApple finally managed to figured out how to get the IhaveasmallPenisPhone to do cut and paste?
Or will that be left for a later version? 5.8 perhaps?
It has already been widely discussed that 3.0 supports cut and paste, voice memos, and tethering, and a hell of a lot else. It basically does MOST everything a jailbroken iPhone can do with add-ons, but without the jailbreak. I hear it even mows the grass for you, and pours a pint well.
Love the people that can't even follow the most basic news, yet feel compelled to post comments...as if their opinion matters. Do you just like the sound of your own fingers hitting the keyboard? Isn't that what Twitter is for?
I used to be an Apple fan. But in the last few years they've gotten so damn greedy and grasping that I can't help but start to lump them into the same camp as Microsoft. Their removing all 2.x applications is just more of the same type of "bend over and let us sodomize you" crap they've been doing for a bit now. They did the same thing when they for no valid reason changed JUST enough in the iPod Touch to make all iPod accessories useless.
Fuck them all with a rusty chainsaw. I ain't playing anymore.
Did you know that Macs now come with a multi-button mouse and it scrolls?
Or how about supporting legacy software that cripples the OS so much that company sees a 50% drop in market value over since it's release? Oh yes I did. It's called PROGRESSION. Microsoft could learn from this. Tit.
Could not agree more! I write this from a MacBook - my last ever Mac!
I'll bring the potato masher and finish the job!
WTF are you talking about? It's not about being a fan, it's about moving standards forward. Agreed it shouldn't be about $'s. Apple should give developers a reasonable amount of time to upgrade their apps. If they don't do it tough shit, evolve or die.
I write absolute crap "apps" for the iPhone, but people pay, so will continue to write crap. Don't care which code standard is used because.
If you want fast easy bucks, write crap and Apple will sell it because they don't care what it is, they are more interested in quantity over quality.
You can still develop on v2.2.1 and you can still submit v2 apps, so long as they will ALSO run on v3.0 - ie using no deprecated APIs.
It's not rocket science. Just plan english, which our reporter seems to have a poor grasp of.
They have to make sure operators can sell new contracts to their customers. It would be a shame if they'd sell a new n year contract and no applications would run.
Read your own writing. Lets assume you wrote an app, which does need said deprecated API call to properly function in v.2.0. Now, you can remove said call, make it 3.0 "clean" and get it through aproval. Wont work on 2.0 properly ofc. Or you can keep said call, making it work properly on 2.0, only it wont go through aproval.
Can anyone say "no customer choice"? At least on other devices i can read a disclaimer saying "product x might not function properly on OS y" and make my call. iDodo users could make it too, if brains not too full of "Steve's Holy Gospell" to be able to reason....
I am just have, recently, noticed that CUPS, under Ubuntu, is provided by Apple, unless I am wrong.
Excuse me.... that will be a load of FUCKING SHIT then.
Still I suppose that when peeps upgrade to version 3 then everything will be sweetness and light.
Yay!!!!! Open Cluster Fuck..... erm Source...
My Clit.. when you choose to ignore it!
I'm no Apple fan AT ALL but must point out requiring apps to run on 3.0 doesn't mean Apple went around breaking backwards compatibility, we'll wee but I'm guessing VERY few apps are affected.
@Adam T - What exactly do you mean by "So developers wishing to support 2.x builds need to keep two concurrent SDKs, which is I confess, a bit gay." Are you insinuating that the fact that developers need to keep two concurrent SDK's is a jovial matter?
Using two codewriting playpens sounds more heteroflexible or bi-/pan- sexual than gay, if we must bring sexual preference into the discussion.
Having said that, writing/ editing the same code in two separate SDKs to ensure forward- and backward- compatibility sounds fairly inefficient, regardless of its choice of bedroom workout partner.
I suggest you learn to speak 'Plain English' before you attack others for bad spelling.
Quote:"Just plan english, which our reporter seems to have a poor grasp of."
Bear with me though, from the iPhone Dev Center (you have to log in and hit the SDK 3.0 button):
"iPhone SDK for iPhone 3.0 beta can not be used for submitting iPhone OS 2.2.1 applications to the App Store."
I've misinterpreted that already (it's not a blanket <3.0 for starters), so if you do know what it means, I'm all ears.
@Clyde: See skeptical's post.
Yea, I've read that.
I'm pretty sure it just means that as of time of writing, you shouldn't submit applications for the app store built against the 3.0 SDK. Though now they are accepting applications built against 3.0 (I think) so who knows, to be honest. Apple have never been 100% transparent with these things I've found.
(For reference, we submitted an app built against 2.0 the other day, and it was accepted just fine).
"Millions of iPhone and iPod touch customers will move to iPhone OS 3.0 this summer"
And I'm sure millions of programmers will say fuck it! and go elsewhere
It means you should build it with the 2.x SDK, but Apple's policy is (now) that you should test with both 3.0 beta and 2.x
Can we get a slap-down on the following comment please?
"So developers wishing to support 2.x builds need to keep two concurrent SDKs, which is I confess, a bit gay."
I know that I shouldn't be such a sensitive, delicate flower, but I do find it a bit offensive when people use my sexuality as a pejorative. It's not big, it's not clever, and lets be honest, if we were to start using "that's a bit jewey" or "that's a bit black" or "that's a bit disabled" to mean that something was bad / rubbish / etc etc then I think that a smack-down would be in order, as it is here too. Unless us poor defenseless gays are worth less than black and/or Jewish people.
"Millions of iPhone and iPod touch customers will move to iPhone OS 3.0 this summer."
Only if they take one for the team and give the 3.0 to iPod Touch customers free. I'm not paying £10 pounds for a minor update labeled as a major update. Why should iTouch users be punished because apple don't know how to do copy & paste amongst other things -- fcuking dcikheads the lot of them, my iPod is the only tech thing I regret buying after dealing with the 'apple vampire corporation'
b.t.w Jobsy -- Roll necks are just soooo nafff
If you mean me, I was unaware of your sexuality and don't actually have an opinion either way about it - just as you neither know mine, nor would have an opinion.
Just because someone employs a word which has more than one meaning doesn't mean they're talking about you - or in fact, a person or type of person. The word has been in common use for the purpose I used it for a lot longer than the nanny state mindset, and was used I do confess with complete disregard for any political correctness, to which I don't subscribe.
And it is NOTHING like comparing racial insults or deragatory terms. Don't put yourself on that pedestal, it's reserved for people with real cases who have suffered more than a petty self-inflicted dictionary definition.
Until fairly recently, one in Amurka could refer to shoddy goods as "n*gger- built" with relative impunity whereas we generally don't use the term today because we know better than to equate poor quality with race. Or religion. Or gender. Or sexual orientation. It's not about being politically correct, it's about giving people a modicum of courtesy and respect until they prove unworthy of it, about treating others the way you would like to be treated, et cetera.
The word "gay" meant "lively, cheerful" since way back, and referred to homosexuals starting in the 1950s. The "gay = not good" association is of a much more recent vintage, stems directly from lingering backwater assumptions about the LGBT community, and is probably a backlash against gays having the audacity to demand equal treatment under the law. Whoever led you to believe otherwise did you no favors.
"or "that's a bit disabled" "
So paytard, freetard, and all the other 'tards are out of the question too? :(
@ skeptical i:
Thanks. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't see the comparison to be honest - I was only commenting on using "gay" which is, despite what anyone might say to the contrary, the main word used to describe the LGB (not so much T) "community" and is its main use apart from this new trend for it to mean something rubbish or bad. I've never heard of freetard, for example, being a word to describe anything other than someone who prefers not to pay for digital content be it legal or not.
@ Adam T:
I've got a pretty thick skin - it has to be since I have had the cr@p physically beaten out of me by people who don't believe that I have the right to be who I am, but despite what you say here you *are* using the word gay as a derogatory term, and I *do* put myself in the same category as people who are black or disabled *because* I am discriminated against in low level ways like you're doing and in more overt ways; I've been queer-bashed simply for coming out of a gay bar, not because I have done anything else.
There are plenty of words you can use other than "gay" to describe something you consider to be "a bit gay". Saying you're not politically correct doesn't excuse you saying whatever the hell you like and not being challenged on it. I believe in free speech and you can go right on using the word if you like, but you have to accept that people like me will then tell you that it's offensive and you should just shut the hell up until you've tried life from this side of the divide.
I have just noticed that a sliver of homophobic commentary has crept into this thread. I have deleted the original offending remark and will remove any further remarks which contain similar sentiments. I also reserve the right to ban anyone who makes such remarks from the forums.
I am not going to debate the relative levels of oppression suffered by different minority groups here, since I do not think it is relevant.
And don't give me any nonsense about anti-PC, freedom of speech issues and all the other arguments people come up with when they get caught out. You know it is wrong, so just stop doing it.
Sarah, your favourite Moderatrix, is not in today, so you are stuck with me instead. I don't want to hear any more about it, so just play nice.
Any more shenanigans and I will lock up the thread and you will have to go and play outside.
Goggles, because I'm watching.