Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Opens App Store to Third-Party Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From what I understand these apps that use a 3rd party tool would still need to be compiled into Apple's lingre no? Like in CS5 where it converts it to objective c right?
I am worried about UIs and updates. Seems that apps being build this way will tend to be inconsistent deisgn with iOS UI guidelines and that when Apple updates the OS they will be slower to update and implement new feature support etc.
I think the reasons Steve gave for not allowing layers of abstraction are valid points whether people agree with them or not! And no, I don't agree with or believe everything he says. I'll bet this was probably the result of ongoing investigations.
Mythical technical safeguards? What will you guys think of next?
It's not technical, it's magical safeguards.
Once again... we're in a thread where the topic is [related to] Flash Pro (CS/IDE), but some posts drift toward the browser plugin instead. No matter, i'll play along.
Wiggling pictures??? Is that what Flash (plugin) fanatics are all worked up about?
Feast? Try barf. Overly ostentatious. All show and no go. Too fugly, for my taste. But it certainly is "flash" in the least complimentary sense of the word (i.e., pretentious).
Utterly unnecessary. Nothing on that page needs Flash, except for the wiggling pictures.
Wiggling pictures???
Is that what Flash (plugin) fanatics are all worked up about?
No. iOS platforms don't know, or care, about Objective C. iOS devices understand ARM machine code and nothing else. Every app that runs on the platform is, at some point, translated into machine code.
Mythical technical safeguards? What will you guys think of next?
Fine, live in your fantasy world where Steve Jobs does everything based on infantile thinking instead of business reality.
Work well... that is a gross overstatement...
Besides this has NOTHING to do with flash content being viewed on ios .... it has to do with the way that apps are created before they are sent to apple for the app store.
Programing with flash today is about the equivalent of still using an atari console because you don't want to learn how to use a PS3 controller.
So, one person tries to make the point that Apple is in fact not evil yet it took them years to publish something that should have been public from the start (not complaining) and he is right this helps to reinforce that Apple isn't completely closed. However then the rest of the forum goes on that same road (as the people who complain that Apple is evil) and bash on Flash games for being ugly and slow and horrible. At least that same poster didn't do this.
I kinda wish they didn't just because I love the argument that Apple is evil and this puts a wrench in those cogs =(.
Nebula do you seriously believe there was some technical problem that prohibited Apple to willingly post this earlier or just an excuse for why they haven't until now?
I kinda wish they didn't just because I love the argument that Apple is evil and this puts a wrench in those cogs =(.
Nebula do you seriously believe there was some technical problem that prohibited Apple to willingly post this earlier or just an excuse for why they haven't until now?
What?
What law says they have to let anyone develop in anyway for their platform?
Can you point me to the 'law'.
Most likely, Adobe caved on something in the background. Maybe Apple got them to actually update their Mac apps with bug fixes. Maybe they have demonstrated a Flash conversion that isn't stinky. Of course, there is still no mention of 'flash' being used on an i-device. I think this is aimed at the more robust dev. environments and not just the Adobe 'export to anything' routine. But as for law, I don't think there is any conceivable way to twist any existing law into one that says a technology developer HAS to allow whatever dev environments anyone wants onto their device. Especially when there is no monopoly issue. And according to all the sad and lonely Android fans on this board Android is the biggest, best mobile solution out there. (even though is STILL looks horrible, runs clunky and sports a collection of horrible apps in an 'app' market that is medieval in design and function.)
What law says they have to let anyone develop in anyway for their platform?
Can you point me to the 'law'.
Most likely, Adobe caved on something in the background. Maybe Apple got them to actually update their Mac apps with bug fixes. Maybe they have demonstrated a Flash conversion that isn't stinky. Of course, there is still no mention of 'flash' being used on an i-device. I think this is aimed at the more robust dev. environments and not just the Adobe 'export to anything' routine. But as for law, I don't think there is any conceivable way to twist any existing law into one that says a technology developer HAS to allow whatever dev environments anyone wants onto their device. Especially when there is no monopoly issue. And according to all the sad and lonely Android fans on this board Android is the biggest, best mobile solution out there. (even though is STILL looks horrible, runs clunky and sports a collection of horrible apps in an 'app' market that is medieval in design and function.)
Huh? You believe that Apple have developed som kind of technical safeguard that suddenly makes it OK to allow other languages than before. Now you're talking about business reality. Make up your mind.
Tell you what. Take a CS course on decidability. If you still think it is possible to implement these magical safeguards, then we'll talk.
While you're all focused on the flash issue, I'm more focused on the fact that we might see legitimate tools for app dev on Linux and Windows finally. Figures after I just purchased Snow Leopoard because I can't develop version 4 apps on 10.5.
I personally don't see this as admission of defeat to Adobe at all as much as I see this as an admission that developers are crippled by Mac restrictions for developers. Yes the Mac is a student's best friend this year, but a number of students on a budget use windows and Linux. Apple will only see more growth in iOS by not forcing a silly restriction like that.
I personally don't see this as admission of defeat to Adobe at all as much as I see this as an admission that developers are crippled by Mac restrictions for developers. Yes the Mac is a student's best friend this year, but a number of students on a budget use windows and Linux. Apple will only see more growth in iOS by not forcing a silly restriction like that.
Im not sure your view of this change in position is anymore based in reality than those who spread said propaganda.
Why not just let the market decide. If these apps developed with 3rd party apps are so bad no one will buy them. some of the apps coded with previously approved methods werent all bug free either.
a lot of truth to this
a lot of truth to this too
it's true. He is the master salesperson but often times will omit details, truths and no one appears willing to question or debate with him. I enjoy their products, but he can be disingenuous at times
How many times do some of you people need to hear this?
Apps created with Flash have very little to nothing to do with Flash once they are compiled. Flash as a browser plugin on your Mac is nowhere near the same as Flash compiling a native iPhone app. Flash itself is just being used as a GUI development tool and then the project gets converted to an app.
Will it run as well as an app 100% developed in Xcode? Maybe not but it is also nowhere near the same type of performance as if Flash were running in the browser on an iPhone. Totally different.
This is really no different then other companies that allow you to create apps with Javascript or other lesser programming languages and compile native apps. And there are 100's to 1000's of apps out there right now made like this and none of you even know it.
Apps created with Flash do not call any other SWF files they are all internally native apps. These apps also support multi touch and the accelerometer.
Just to reapeat nothing at all about Flash created apps has anything to do with Flash once they are created. Think of like Keynote exporting a HTML version. Yes the HTML page version was made with Keynote but in every way it is now a proper HTML page.
Apps created with Flash have very little to nothing to do with Flash once they are compiled. Flash as a browser plugin on your Mac is nowhere near the same as Flash compiling a native iPhone app. Flash itself is just being used as a GUI development tool and then the project gets converted to an app.
Will it run as well as an app 100% developed in Xcode? Maybe not but it is also nowhere near the same type of performance as if Flash were running in the browser on an iPhone. Totally different.
This is really no different then other companies that allow you to create apps with Javascript or other lesser programming languages and compile native apps. And there are 100's to 1000's of apps out there right now made like this and none of you even know it.
Apps created with Flash do not call any other SWF files they are all internally native apps. These apps also support multi touch and the accelerometer.
Just to reapeat nothing at all about Flash created apps has anything to do with Flash once they are created. Think of like Keynote exporting a HTML version. Yes the HTML page version was made with Keynote but in every way it is now a proper HTML page.
Finally! Theres some awesome middleware that can let a small team make a great game without reinventing the wheel on a budget of millions! Unity and Unreal Engine come to mind. Glad to see Apple change course on this.
And I wouldnt mind seeing Flash apps IF quality is maintained. Standard UI, good battery life, and stable. I suspect thats a long way off, but it could happen. Filter out the apps "by kids for kids and it could work (I dont expect mobile Flash to happen in Safari, because Adobe shows no signs of making mobile Flash work well. But maybe for standalone apps. Individual games hogging battery and running slow isnt nearly as bad as having the browser act that way.)
And I wouldnt mind seeing Flash apps IF quality is maintained. Standard UI, good battery life, and stable. I suspect thats a long way off, but it could happen. Filter out the apps "by kids for kids and it could work
(I dont expect mobile Flash to happen in Safari, because Adobe shows no signs of making mobile Flash work well. But maybe for standalone apps. Individual games hogging battery and running slow isnt nearly as bad as having the browser act that way.)
This is what he's talking about:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28410/Report_FTC_Examining_Possible_Antitrust_Violations_Involving_Apples_Flash_Ban.php
My guess is they made this changed because Apple is trying to keep the US gov and the EU from going after them hard. Apple knew it was abusing its power and was trying to put it off as long as possible.
Apple changed to keep them from digging deeper because I bet if things really start being dug a lot more would be done to force it to open up.
I still believe apple started selling DRM free music because the US Gov and the EU were getting close to saying anti trust and forcing apple to give out fair play DRM. They held it off longer so they can use it for their movies and TV shows and only apple products can play them.
Apple changed to keep them from digging deeper because I bet if things really start being dug a lot more would be done to force it to open up.
I still believe apple started selling DRM free music because the US Gov and the EU were getting close to saying anti trust and forcing apple to give out fair play DRM. They held it off longer so they can use it for their movies and TV shows and only apple products can play them.
Apple just gave Adobe enough rope to hang themselves
Disagree. This is Apple laying a trap for Adobe. Their cross-development tools are a crutch to allow them to add features to their apps on multiple platforms simultaneously. This adds enormous complexity to the actual development tools.
How can this hurt Adobe? Well, let's say Apple releases iPhone 5 next year with the chip that PA Semi has been working on since 2008. (In case you don't remember, Apple bought PA Semi for $278 million in order to have in-house custom chip design talent.) And let's say that the PA Semi chip is very different from the A4 chip, with a new instruction set that requires entirely new compilers and assemblers.
If you're using Xcode, Apple will release a new version of Xcode with a popup that lets you choose "A4" or "A5" (or whatever the all-new chip will be called.) You recompile your app, submit it to the App Store and you're done.
If you're using Adobe's development tool, you'll send an email to Adobe's developer support group. "My app won't run at all on the iPhone 5 with iOS 5.0." After the tech support emails reach a critical mass, Adobe will realize something is wrong. They'll need to start working on updating their development tool to handle the new A5 CPU. And where, exactly, will they be able to get the specific details on the machine language of the A5? Will they be able to call ARM support? Nope. Will they be able to call Apple and ask them to reveal the inner workings of their own product? To hand over their trade secrets? Nope.
Adobe will be forced to painstakingly reverse engineer the A5 chip, which would take them years. It took Adobe 10 years just to port all their apps to Mac OS X. Years after Apple transitioned to vanilla Intel CPUs. Adobe will again fall far behind the developers who use Xcode.
So why did Apple originally ban cross-compilers? Because if any apps made by companies who use cross-compilers became extremely popular, the lack of those apps when Apple makes a quantum leap in hardware might have hurt sales of the new iDevices. Because said apps would be missing for a long time. But apparently Apple isn't afraid of apps made by cross-compilers any more. I guess Adobe apps on iPhone just aren't popular enough to be bothered with.
Disagree. This is Apple laying a trap for Adobe. Their cross-development tools are a crutch to allow them to add features to their apps on multiple platforms simultaneously. This adds enormous complexity to the actual development tools.
How can this hurt Adobe? Well, let's say Apple releases iPhone 5 next year with the chip that PA Semi has been working on since 2008. (In case you don't remember, Apple bought PA Semi for $278 million in order to have in-house custom chip design talent.) And let's say that the PA Semi chip is very different from the A4 chip, with a new instruction set that requires entirely new compilers and assemblers.
If you're using Xcode, Apple will release a new version of Xcode with a popup that lets you choose "A4" or "A5" (or whatever the all-new chip will be called.) You recompile your app, submit it to the App Store and you're done.
If you're using Adobe's development tool, you'll send an email to Adobe's developer support group. "My app won't run at all on the iPhone 5 with iOS 5.0." After the tech support emails reach a critical mass, Adobe will realize something is wrong. They'll need to start working on updating their development tool to handle the new A5 CPU. And where, exactly, will they be able to get the specific details on the machine language of the A5? Will they be able to call ARM support? Nope. Will they be able to call Apple and ask them to reveal the inner workings of their own product? To hand over their trade secrets? Nope.
Adobe will be forced to painstakingly reverse engineer the A5 chip, which would take them years. It took Adobe 10 years just to port all their apps to Mac OS X. Years after Apple transitioned to vanilla Intel CPUs. Adobe will again fall far behind the developers who use Xcode.
So why did Apple originally ban cross-compilers? Because if any apps made by companies who use cross-compilers became extremely popular, the lack of those apps when Apple makes a quantum leap in hardware might have hurt sales of the new iDevices. Because said apps would be missing for a long time. But apparently Apple isn't afraid of apps made by cross-compilers any more. I guess Adobe apps on iPhone just aren't popular enough to be bothered with.
AdMob analytics are still completely shut out
Wrong. AdMob ads are still allowed, and always have been. But sending analytics from AdMob ads back to Google is still totally banned. Here is the actual text from section 3.3.9 of the App Store License Agreement:
The wording of section 3.3.9 has been shortened. But it's still a crystal clear "NO."
Wrong. AdMob ads are still allowed, and always have been. But sending analytics from AdMob ads back to Google is still totally banned. Here is the actual text from section 3.3.9 of the App Store License Agreement:
The wording of section 3.3.9 has been shortened. But it's still a crystal clear "NO."
You are off your rocker! Every app would have to be re-compiled and resubmitted to the store with multiple versions out there so they would run on either device (they aint gonna rosetta one mobile chip with the next). This is dumb, you people need to get off your hate trip on Adobe. Half the Macs out there wouldn't even be in use if it wasn't for Adobe products.
Apple started selling DRM-free music to kill Microsoft's DRM
Hate to shatter your illusion here, Rodimus, but somebody has to do it.
At the time Apple started selling DRM-free music, Microsoft and Sony still had a chance in the portable music player market. They were trying to lock customers in with their proprietary DRM schemes. Apple was too, with FairPlay. Then Steve Jobs published his "Thoughts on Music" and proposed a DRM-free future.
Ultimately, DRM-free music meant that Apple couldn't lock in customers. But it also had several huge benefits. For one, Apple no longer needed to quickly fix FairPlay when it was cracked. (The music companies could remove their libraries from iTunes if Apple didn't fix the problem quickly.)
And more importantly, it killed off any attempts by Microsoft and Sony to promote their own DRM schemes and lock in their customers. And what did that mean? It meant Microsoft's customers and Sony's customers were free to buy iPods from then on. No more lock-in. Yes, their existing DRM-ed music would play only on their Microsoft or Sony devices. But any new DRM-free music they bought could be played on iPods.
Apple gave up DRM control because it helped them build market share. Not because of any government pressure.
Here's "Thoughts on Music": http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Hate to shatter your illusion here, Rodimus, but somebody has to do it.
At the time Apple started selling DRM-free music, Microsoft and Sony still had a chance in the portable music player market. They were trying to lock customers in with their proprietary DRM schemes. Apple was too, with FairPlay. Then Steve Jobs published his "Thoughts on Music" and proposed a DRM-free future.
Ultimately, DRM-free music meant that Apple couldn't lock in customers. But it also had several huge benefits. For one, Apple no longer needed to quickly fix FairPlay when it was cracked. (The music companies could remove their libraries from iTunes if Apple didn't fix the problem quickly.)
And more importantly, it killed off any attempts by Microsoft and Sony to promote their own DRM schemes and lock in their customers. And what did that mean? It meant Microsoft's customers and Sony's customers were free to buy iPods from then on. No more lock-in. Yes, their existing DRM-ed music would play only on their Microsoft or Sony devices. But any new DRM-free music they bought could be played on iPods.
Apple gave up DRM control because it helped them build market share. Not because of any government pressure.
Here's "Thoughts on Music": http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Actually I do program and it is you that seems to fail to understand what Adobe is offering to flash devs, and what I was talking about.
The thing that Adobe offers is to take your flash app (coded in actionscript 3) uses a special LLVM front end that transforms it in a code understandable by the back end to compile it to be a native iOS app.
Which means that Adobe translate their actionscript 3 calls to use Apple iOS APIs calls, which means that if you're a flash dev you'll only use iOS APIs that Adobe has integrated into their translator, without control on how the translation/optimization is done.
And my talk about IDE is exactly what this change is about, the fact that some people instead of learning the language of the platform prefer to keep coding in a language they're used to, through an IDE they're used to, accepting the fact that they will never use all the possibilities given by the platform, is bad. The same goes for libraries, if devs start using external libraries they'll stop looking into iOS APIs to see if the functionality they were looking for is natively present, again new features might just end up un-used.
And this is important for the users and the platform, since Apple has kept improving it's platform, because a fraction of the devs will not be able to use the latest functionality until the company that builds the dev tools or libraries they use updates them to use the new functionality it'll be like Apple hadn't changed anything.
Again how can still people believe that Adobe is willing or capable to follow Apple without making or being incredibly late when they took almost 10 years to rewrite their main software to cocoa?!