Steve Jobs bans all apps from iPhone (or thereabouts)
You could argue that the new Jobsian SDK bars developers from writing any application for the iPhone - unless they possess some sort of savant-like ability to think solely in Objective C. The much-discussed software development kit for the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0 says that native applications must be "originally written" in …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: liver doner
Right, because wanting control over a piece of shiny electronic toy that a lot of people like to buy and use for leisure is *exactly* like requiring a major critical organ for human survival.
-dZ.
You win the Internets
You win the Internets with that remark.
HUMAN?????
You are running the risk of getting on the lord jobses bad list... human?
i rather think not!
iHuman possibly, liver kidneys, lungs heart, fuck them all, steve is a magical and revolutionary being. and the mere energy of his creative geniusness can sustain him.
(plus of course only the good die young, so either way he's with us for the next couple of millenia at least)
transportability
The reason why Apple is insisting on on using their tools is the same reason they very strongly encouraged developers to switch from other compilers to XCode - to make it a snatch to move from one processor platform to another with little more than a click of a button.
If you write other programs to write your applications - ahem, Adobe and Microsoft - in spite of Apple's recommendations, then you're left with a great pig's breakfast to deal with.
This gives Apple the flexibility - and freedom from the whims of Intel, etc - to switch processors with ease without giving developers a heart attack.
If it's rotten, then it's in the core.
I hate to break it to some of you Apple cult members but you don't need Xcode in order to support multiple processor architectures. It's quite orthogonal to the problem infact. As long as your APIs are supported on the shiny new CPU, you won't have any problems.
Arguments like these show a fundemental lack of technical understanding on the part of Apple boosters (which should not be terribly surprising really).
Tools move easily between hardware when they don't make stupid assumptions and then encode those into the guts of the system. This includes Apple's own APIs.
OTOH, the sorts of things that Apple bans most (emulators, VMs, and script languages) are actually the best at avoiding any sort of platform specific assumptions.
These sorts of excuses are hilarious to those of us that actually deal with diverse hardware and operating systems.
When I bought a new phone
I had a choice between an iPhone and an Android device. I chose Android, and as time goes on I am ever more happy with my choice. If I had an iPhone, I think I'd be getting worried now whether some of apps might no longer appear on my phone, or at least would no longer have updates and improved versions available.
Oooh
Is there something magic about Android that makes developers continue to support and develop their applications?
Can it be fitted to other phone OSes?
I have a few apps for Symbian and WM5/6 that I would like to get updated, but sadly the developers didn't even create bug fixes. And there are some that I had to give up completely because they didn't make a version to load on a newer firmware.
You /might/ want to take off the Android-tinted glasses every now and again.
Sure, Android has a great deal of potential, but there's nothing that makes it immune from the same old crap that goes on *everywhere* - these are problems that exist on all platforms, not just mobile ones and not just with Apple.
Android ain't immune either.
Dear Steve
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" Isaac Newton
Modern software development is about layers on layers on layers. The whole science of computing is now so large few developers have the time let alone the opportunity to learn it all. Add to that the multitude of specifications standards and software patents (may it never happen to Europe). Our job is nigh on impossible without using intermediary layers. Apples own sdk frameworks are an example of a layer and that sits on its own stack of code layers.
Steve Jobs is an example of someone who hasn't programmed in 33 years, everything is procedural when you have a single core 1mhz chip everything is simple and light weight when you have 4k of memory.
this is a good thing....
If apple push their ideas of zig heil mine fuehrer too much, then the people they need to develop for their platform will leave and migrate to the next big thing (ie. android). then the iphone becomes nothing but the vapid fashion statement for the paris hiltons of the world - with their 50,000 fart apps.
If however, apple do get a clue... which is something they've had an uncanny knack of since the gen1 iPod and rainbow coloured all in one eMac/iMac(?) got them out of trouble, then they'll just be lauded by the general media as the heralds of another new technical dawn for the general non-technocrat populace.
Either way, consumer trend moves on and the wheels of commerce keep turning. Just different companies the money goes to.
The only differentiating factor is that people seem to be getting bored with apple throwing their weight around. As soon as this starts to effect the man in the street - game over.
Plus, i don't know about you, but it seems inherent in the human condition to want to see the arrogant fall from grace.
mwahahahahaha....
no
You're confusing consumers with developers there. Consumers don't give a shit about development platforms so they won't care about this policy.
If by "people" you mean reg commenters then good luck to you.
Farting Apps
Let's cut to the chase - does this mean less farting apps?
Exclusive farts.
"Apple's ban translation layers could be seen as a bid for "exclusivity"."
So apple wants to keep all those farting apps to itself?
Baja? I don't own anything in Baja ...
It surely is only a matter of time before Jobs is holed up in a penthouse with a big 'J' on it, growing his fingernails and collecting his pee in jars.
really helping to forward technology there steve
'Apparently, Steve Jobs has hinted the new SDK language is an effort to prevent anyone else from establishing a de facto standard platform on top of his own tools'
what the hell.. tho if he wants to remove his shit from the technological gene pool, im not gonna stop him! natural selection taking place
it's simple
They just want you to develop for Apple platform exclusively. I think the ban for these 'non native compilers' is so you can't easily make the same app run on a non apple platform. That is exactly what these tools do, they allow you to cross compile your app for non-apple platforms.
Code in objective -c, because nobody else runs that.
I agree
A reasonable guess that apple does not want cross compilation to another platform... Or wants to make it more difficult.
But this decision could (unlikely though) end up shooting steve jobs in the foot. I mean, there just may be quite a few people interested in porting stuff over to the iThingie and this may be a dealbreaker.
Having said that... Really, how many iphone apps aren't coded in some apple compatible c? I really don't know.
That's right vincent
Amongst all the armchair experts it is good to see someone understands the issue.
The biggest threat to iphone would be if it was commoditised as just a phone with an OS. That would give people an easy migration from one to platform to another. Objecttive C forces people to make a choice.
yes it could shoot apple in the foot but,
Right now apple is dominant for apps over any other platform (when i say 'any', for apple this means 'android' and 'symbian'). To slow down the uptake of new platforms (android) you throw up a hindrance (thou shalt not cross-compile). This forces developers to select the platform they want to develop for. Purely ecnomically speaking, as a developer, you shoot for the largest audience. And right now that is Apple. so you will put your effort where you can reap the most profit. App development for other platforms will slow down and in turn this will push down the appeal of those other platforms.
This whole thing is nothing else than a roadblock. And yes, you can argue that it would slow down uptake of new API and features, but it also blocks originality and true creativity. You will only do what i allow you to do.
not only objective-c
but also linking against their API. Now your codebase is entirely dependent on that API. And i bet money that that API is heavily protected by legalese.
These tools basically create their own API and use a translation layer. Yank that layer away and it's goodbye portability. Of course you could implement the iphone's API's on other systems but you;d be faced with legal problems but also technical problems.. And who is going to maintain what for which OS...
@foot shoot
>Purely ecnomically speaking, as a developer, you shoot for the largest audience. And right now that is Apple.
Apple is 25% of the handset market, 30% less if you count users rather than sales. Better business sense to focus on portable Apps across the 75% and the desktops/notebooks generally - especially since the methods developers used to create much of the current App store are now verboten.
Or perhaps you think it makes business sense to throw all that code away and start again on the same App for new T&C - rather than port it to the growing mass of alternate handsets and new customers.
Personally I think iPhone peaked in 2009, Apple's focus on iPad instead of releasing a more up to date handset - coupled with their new Stalinism, should ensure that.
Uh, Vincent...
A couple of things:
First, i read in at least 3 places that the "approved" languages included C and C++ (oh, and a particular flavor af JavaScript). Seems that I have a **lot** of options besides Objective-C.
So I write my app in C++...and sonovabeech, I have to use one of those dreaded API thingies. Well, if I were going to want to write my app for cross-platform use, I'd write an adapter for those APIs, and when I needed to use that same functionality embodied by the Jobsian API on another platform, I'd override the adapter functions for my non-Jobs target. Yeah, it's a bit of a PITA, but then, it beats having to rewrite the entire app as you seem to suggest is the **only** way around the Steve-block. And it is complete compliance with the "law".
@someone else
Maybe that is a way out. but it restricts you to what is possible with the apple API. if you use one feature not supported in that api you are stuck.
i don't know how hard that is.
Anyway the point is that it will cut off lots of app developers because their toolchains have been invalidated.
Assh*ts!
I agree with a lot of the post-ers on here. If this was Microsoft, the lawyers and courtrooms of the world woul dbe rattling there sabres. Why has no one legally challenged Apple about these ridiculous rules they keep setting??!!
It's bad enough that we have to use Safari on the iPhone, at least we can use Opera now, but Apple will still find ways to ban browsers like Firefox, and banning other apps just because they have words like Pad of use the "i" in there names is pure lunacy!!
Oh man. How many times?
In a world MONOPOLY.
Microsoft was judged (in courts in the USA and around the world) to have a monopoly position in the personal computer market. Do you see? They were saying that there was no reasonable alternative to using Microsoft products and this could be used by Microsoft as a lever in other markets and as a bargaining tool in lobbying for legislation. Do you see how that might effect the rules on what they should be allowed to do? Do you see that it would not be in any country's best interest or in the interests of any business or individual to have a commercial enterprise with that much power over business and state? Especially one that has been convicted (in courts in the USA and around the world) of underhanded and often illegal practices. Do you see how that puts Microsoft in a different position to other companies?
At the time of the famous court rulings if the user didn't like what Microsoft did then they could not reasonably move to another platform. That may or may not still be the position Conversely if you don't like what Apple says about the iPhone you can easily use a different smartphone and get a similar service. Loads of people don't like Apple and don't buy/use their products with minimal effects to their lives or businesses (I know some of the more rabid Apple fans may disagree). Do you f***king see now?
Takuhii stop the senseless bashing
"and banning other apps just because they have words like Pad of use the "i" in there names is pure lunacy!!"
Takuhii,
you obviously did not studied laws or worked in a marketing department. If i paid good money to register and/or use names such as Pad an iWhatever in my products i surely wants to keep the privilege for my own products especially if i control the market place.
In a more practical way, as a user, if you see a iWhatever you'd think the product is related to Apple and blame them if it fails.
There is no lunacy here. Just a company protecting his products.
It's the APIs, stupid
It's pretty clear that Apple's concern is keeping control over the APIs that developers use for their platform. If some other compatibility library (from Adobe or anyone else) becomes the defacto standard way of writing iPhone/iPad apps then Apple is pretty quickly at the mercy of that vendor and whatever APIs and platforms they choose to support. Apps will be coded to the lowest common denominator, and any fancy new features or new platforms that Apple tries to introduce to distinguish itself from other mobile platforms will be irrelevant as most apps won't support them.
That concern is understandable from Apple's point of view, but as a developer it sucks. I don't want Apple telling me how I should write my apps, still less implicitly telling me I can't also write them for other platforms. So, I wish Adobe every success with their lawsuit.
It's worse than that
Suppose (Adobe/whoever) refuse to add support for your shiny new API/hardware unless you pay them to do it?
And what about all the work you put in trying to make the UI slick and fast. Add in a one-size-fits-all translation later and you risk ending up with something that runs like a three legged dog with asthma. Who will your end users blame? Probably not the developer or the tool writer.
I've said this before, people are looking at the iPhone/iPad/iPod platform the wrong way, it's *not* a general computing platform, it's more akin to a game console platform from a few years ago - the console manufacturer tightly controlled a good chunk of the development/release cycle; some of them did their own play testing and some of them even branded all of the titles.
Sure, that market has loosened up a bit in the last few years, but you still can't just decide to be an Xbox programmer and sit down in your back room to do it, there are hoops to jump through and contracts to sign first.
I'm not saying it's right, just saying that's the way it is. Some developers will decide that's it's not worth the effort and move on, some won't. I'm pretty sure that enough will stay to develop for those 85 million devices to keep the platform viable for a while yet, though.
Heil Steve Jobs
Heil Steve Jobs!
Heil Steve Jobs!
Heil Steve Jobs!
crApple again show why they shouldn't be trusted and how they are clawing tooth and nail to corner the market and monopolize while they can. There is no element whatsoever in the crApple ethic that is about the customer, it's all about getting iSheep to only use crApple for everything so they can milk them dry.
You poor fools.
Yes for open soruce, yes for open platforms, yes for less restrictive SDK's that promote incusion and creativity, yes for making it about technology and the customer and not lining a medioca-tech company's pocket.
I really don't think I need to say any more....... farking megalomaniac.
You lot
are just all kinds of fail. It's not as if Obective C/C/C++ are hard languages to grasp especially if you call yourself developers. Get a grip. I'd much rather use natively written applications (on any platform) as they are simply much more polished and better optimised. It's obvious (and fact).
Cross-compiled software is bollocks, as are the cross compilers. Stop being so f*cking lazy and write your applications properly.
Actually
C++ initially was cross compiled.
Methinks there is a bit of a contradiction in your argument (word used without prejudice)
What about older iPhones / iPads
I can see why they want to put up roadblocks for people trying to create multi-platform applications, as long as the other target platforms are symbian/android/blackberryOS. But what if you're trying to develop an application that can run on different versions of iPhoneOS? When OS4 is released this summer there will be three versions available at the same time: 3.1 for 1st gen iPhone/iPodTouch, 3.2 for iPad and 4.0 for newish iPhones.
The most reasonable way to manage this would be using some kind of wrapper that emulates the missing new APIs for 3.x hardware (or does Jobs not want people to develop for the iPad?)
What about apps we paid for
OK so how does it stand for apps that I have already been paid for, I have sepent close to £100 on apps what if the developers decide to not rewrite the apps for 4.0. Then said apps stops working on the Iphone after the update where do I go to get my money back?
Re: What about apps we paid for?
>...then said apps stops working on the Iphone after the update
Same thing that happens when Apple changes its mind and removes Apps it previously approved. You buy different Apps instead and Apple takes 30%.
Depends on the developers
It depends on whether the developers have stuck to Apples rules and the offical APIs. If developers stick to Apples new rules you can guarantee that your apps will work with newer versions of the OS. If the developers (such as Adobe) bypass the official APIs there's a good chance the apps won't work with newer versions as the workarounds they use might not still be there.
Been down that road with Adobe in the past - update to a newer Mac OSX version and you have to upgrade to a new version or wait for a patch for Photoshop and Dreamweaver as your old versions no longer work. If Adobe stuck to official Apple APIs the software would still work and not need hacks by Adobe to stop them crashing.
Strangely enough my old version of Office still manages to work fine.
02 could have problems?
This has not happened to me as of yet but if and when it does I will vote with my money, could mobile operators be implicated?
I am hearing stories of people in the EU receiving money from retailers over the removal of features on the PS3 could this same legislation not be used for removal of paid apps on the Iphone?
if you want to write apps
for more than one mobile platform
and the iPhone is one platform you are targetting
and Jobs persists with this restrictive and monopolistic approach
then
write a layer that translates between the iPhone API and the other platforms you wish to support
yes, you are playing by Job's rules but you are thwarting his attempt to lock-in developers
you can code in C/C++ so you are not constrained by the possible lack of an ObjectiveC compiler for your alternative platforms
Apple...blah blah...iThis, iThat....
....iDon't give a fuck about anything they do, I've lived a long and happy existence without ever owning a single piece of shiny apple crap.
Why on earth would anyone spend the money on things like iPods which tie you into buying more shit from apple is beyond me. I would rather buy a regular MP3 player for half (or less) the money, and be able to use any MP3s I like on it. Some people obviously like spending money on crap. Shiny crap, but still crap.
Apple doesn't need Adobe
Dear Adobe,
Since Apple love your products so much, I suggest that you make your next version of the Creative Suite, Acrobat Reader (and all of the other myriad of programs that you've bought) only for the Windows platform, or even for Linux if you're feeling daring.
Apple doesn't need Adobe. Apple doesn't need anyone.
Thanks Reg...
Now because of the article graphic every time I see Jobs all I'll hear in my head is HAL singing "Daisy! Daaaaaaiissssyyy!"
Journalism fail?
Has anyone actually bothered to go and ask the Apple legal department what the clause actually means? Anyone?
It's my ball and I'm taking it home.
I don't think anyone can really dispute that the iPhone platform (and there for development for it) is Apple's ball and they can damn well take it home anytime they like. Those that bang on about rights and freedoms that Apple "owes" them are generally children and the deluded.
However much like the actual balls the saying comes from - if you "take it home" too often then sooner or later you run out of people that want to play with you.
iPhone app development is a good way of making some money right now - the market is strong and barriers to entry are not insurtmountable. Anyone who relies on it totally is an idiot though, Apple can (and has shown that it will) move the goalposts at a drop of a hat so it's no good these people throwing their arms up in the air in shock and horror when they do. To paraphrase a certain popular show involving unfeasibly hot robots "All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again"
What next I wonder?
Will Steve Ho Tep demand that the Hebrews make bricks without straw?
This topic is closed for new posts.
