FAKE tiny-code/kellytm post about being "on iTunes" and deving for 1.1.4 SDK: FAKE

[koko76]

Sorry, I've being reading this site for years, but when did it become a posting ground for "apologists" I like Apples products, but they need to be more free and saying this is not slagging them off or does every sight transaction need defending, we are all here cause we like apple, yes, the restrictions apple place are heavy and bad.

You say, just cause you have a cd of some music doesn't give you a write to make a ring tone of it, OK, then don't be suprised that music priacy exists cause this type or protectionast attitude by the record companies will help sustain it.

I'm not surprised at all, and I never said that I supported it, or that I apologized for it, but you seem to be further confused as to who it is even to blame. I'm not apologizing for APPLEs products, and APPLE has nothing to do with the record companies demands of their own rights.
What I'm trying to do is provide some instance of education of what someone's rights actually are. Besides piracy, which hurts everyone who consumes content as well as the record companies, people as a group need to understand what rights they actually have so they can start to demand what they don't have. Just taking those rights doesn't solve the root problem. Educate yourself, or live with the consequences.

 

[wizard]

I'm amazed at the abuse, tiny-code is getting on here, yes he might have very slightly went against the NDA

There is nothing slight about this situation. The whole point of a NDA is that you don't disclose anything!!!!!

but, come on, all he really said, that his apps arn't available anymore, but will be on itunes soon.

Well yeah and if that was a restricted piece of information then he should be drawn and quartered. There is no excuse for the blatant disregard for ethics here. In essence this is more discussion about what it is to be ethical and true to your word than anything.

Is it really, worth, the slamming he is getting and is it worth the cutting off from Apple that he's getting, I really think some people and Apple really need to chill and step back.

Yes and I really hope in the next few days Apple takes an even more aggressive tack with this issue.

You people come on here for Apple rumour news, he gives it, gets caught and told off for it, and people are here kicking him when he is down.

No they are responding to a totally inexplicable behavior. This is the Apple community and frankly everyone involved in it should understand Apples expectations.

This bloke didn't charge for his software, I really believe Apple and the people on here start giving more respect to the small developers, its by time that people and Apple remember without these small developers then the products that they adore and that Apple are trying to gain so much profit over are nothing!!!!

What???

Look at it this way you really don't know how many small developers Apple has in the program right now because they take the NDA seriously. On the other hand if you where Apple and had idiots like this brazenly ignoring the whole concept of a NDA then you might end up a bit shy around the small developer.

Rant over, and I hope Apple reconsider and sell his Apps on Itunes, otherwise, long live Jailbreak!

Personally I'd like to see Apple make an example of this guy in every and any way they legally can.

Dave

 

[toxicbomber]

So your suggesting the SDK will specifically stop developers building nag screens and paypal links it to apps.
Now that's what I call a feature.

I can understand there will likely be a couple of channels
The AppCast Channel for free/share/nagware (RSS list hosted by apple, app hosted by dev. same as PodCasts)
The iTunes Apps. -Paid apps sold by Apple iTunes store, just like the other iTunes store products hosted by Apple, with billing and Distribution handled by Apple. Maybe even certified by Apple.

Hell following the iTunes model the third channel the ever present channel find it yourself drop it on itunes in finder.

I can't see how this prevents any developer offering product on the terms they are happy with.

Suggesting by meaning knowing then yes. And I also love your idea of the appcast channel.

 

[frankly]

I never argued that all software should be free. Please point out for me where I said 'all software should be free.' Originally I was just pointing out that most of the software we have today was built from software that was once given away. This was in response to people suggesting that Apple step in and not let people give away iPhone apps they may build, the people who came out and said any software you don't pay for is crap, and the people who said they don't use 'free' software.



There is no 'if' here. Pretty much all of the software we have today started with software that was given away. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. I also don't understand how that has any bearing on my payment when I do work for hire. I never said all software should be free, just that anyone should be able to write and distribute it for free if they want to.

That is such a ridiculous statement on its face. What do you mean by "pretty much all of the software"??? Even if you mean only 80% your statement is ridiculous, unless you are bringing it down to the algorithm level and so anything with a selection statement and/or a loop in it is based on previously free work. You can NOT give 3 or 5 or even a dozen examples of software that contains parts that are based on free software and then claim that "pretty much all of the software we have today started with software that was given away." There are millions of pieces of software in the world and it isn't even slightly credible to say that "pretty much all of" them are based on software that was free.

Also, even when a small part of a piece of software is based on something that was free your statement is ridiculous. You act as though the software couldn't have been made without the free software. Much of this free software that you are talking about being a part of software is so that computers can communicate with one another. The fact is that some of the examples you mentioned are companies that also create and release software for free so that other people can tie into their software.

The idea isn't that free software is inherently bad or good. The idea is that Apple wants to provide some sort of guarantee to their user base that a piece of third party software is not going to submarine their iPhone. You and I still don't know if they are going to allow for free software to be distributed for the iPhone. They might. Everything here is just conjecture at this point.

A very valid point, but only for one instance of time. Apple might be a monopoly when it comes to the distribution and sale of the apps. So over time it could be 50% of the sales price or more. The authors choice is either to stop selling the app that they invested a lot of time in developing, or settle Apple taking whatever cut they decide they want.

Perhaps those authoring apps for the device should form some sort of union. I'm normally opposed to unions but they have their place when there is a monopoly situation. It may just be me but I'm not sure I'd want to open a retail shop in a particular place and have the landlord know that I was restricted from ever moving my shop to a competing location. Not exactly the best spot to negotiate from.

I'm also concerned that there won't be any opportunity for open source development on the iPhone. I've already developed some software where part of the suite is targeted at the iPhone (via a web app.) I've released the source code and anybody can build and run it. I'd like to convert the web app to a native app, and continue releasing the source code so anybody can build and install it on their iPhone. This may not be possible, we'll see. From what I gather the iPhone has BSD roots- it would be a shame to effectively shut out open source development- i.e. those like myself willing to give applications away for free for others to use or modify as they see fit.

The problem is that none of us knows at this point what Apple's policy is going to be. They might take $0. We have no idea what they are going to do yet.

And your what ifs regarding them taking it up to 50% to screw the developers is a bit conspiratorial. You are getting a bit too tin foil hat for me.

 

[blackbelt]

Objective C is Apple's language of choice and it is almost a given that any code written natively for the iPhone/Touch will be written in this. I'm not sure what the SDK actually consists of- but I am guessing that it will be something that plugs into Xcode instead of an entirely new app like Dashcode.

If you've never used Xcode, you'll have to check it out and formulate your own opinion. Personally, I've gotten used to using Eclipse over the last several years and it is a bit of a let down for me when I have to use something else. It is all a matter of preference- some of my coworkers perfer Netbeans or IntelliJ IDEA, and still others insist on using vi to write code. Unfortunately, (or some may say fortunately), you really only have once choice of IDEs on a Mac.

Ok, thank you. I guess that i will have to start to figure out C. I am decent with java, is C anything like this? I have never owned an apple computer, but i am going to get the new MBP (THIS TUESDAY!!!... hopefuly), and will have to experiment with Xcode. Is xcode free, or do you have to buy it.

Thanks!

 

[frankly]

Ok, thank you. I guess that i will have to start to figure out C. I am decent with java, is C anything like this? I have never owned an apple computer, but i am going to get the new MBP (THIS TUESDAY!!!... hopefuly), and will have to experiment with Xcode. Is xcode free, or do you have to buy it.

Thanks!

First of all, the Mac development language is Objective-C, not plain C. Also, it depends a great deal on what you mean when you say you are "decent with Java." If you do not have a thorough understanding of Object-Oriented programming than I would say it will likely be hard for you to understand.

C, C++, Objective-C, and Java are all C-based languages. At the primitive level (declaration of variables, loops, etc.) they are very similar. The latter 3 are all object-oriented languages and each has a different way of doing things but if you have a thorough understanding of the principles it won't take long for you to pick up one of the other languages.

Frank

 

[blackbelt]

First of all, the Mac development language is Objective-C, not plain C. Also, it depends a great deal on what you mean when you say you are "decent with Java." If you do not have a thorough understanding of Object-Oriented programming than I would say it will likely be hard for you to understand.

C, C++, Objective-C, and Java are all C-based languages. At the primitive level (declaration of variables, loops, etc.) they are very similar. The latter 3 are all object-oriented languages and each has a different way of doing things but if you have a thorough understanding of the principles it won't take long for you to pick up one of the other languages.

Frank

When i say that i am decent, I mean that I took an intro course, so I guess that it would be less then what you are talking about, but i have a good understanding of variables, loops, conditions, classes, etc. I am also firmiliar with PHP and VB. So I know that i have a lot to learn, but i was hoping that they would come out with a Visual Basic- like SDK that would allow you to visually put together the app, as well as code it (obviously). This, to me, would seem like something that apple would do, for simplicity, but as i said, i am very new to developing for apple, an have realized that it will be a lot different then i was thinking.

Thanks for your help!

 

[frankly]

When i say that i am decent, I mean that I took an intro course, so I guess that it would be less then what you are talking about, but i have a good understanding of variables, loops, conditions, classes, etc. I am also firmiliar with PHP and VB. So I know that i have a lot to learn, but i was hoping that they would come out with a Visual Basic- like SDK that would allow you to visually put together the app, as well as code it (obviously). This, to me, would seem like something that apple would do, for simplicity, but as i said, i am very new to developing for apple, an have realized that it will be a lot different then i was thinking.

Thanks for your help!

The Mac does have an interface like this for building Mac apps. I'm not sure what they will have for the iPhone but no matter how easy it is to build "something" in VB it still isn't easy to build an application that does something complex. Sure you can throw together a form really quickly but aside from the proverbial loan calculator how far is that going to get you?

Do you have a type of application in mind? That would be helpful in determining how hard it might be.

Frank

 

[winmacguy]

Fortune has picked it up too
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...developer-no-soup-for-you/?source=yahoo_quote

 

[irun5k]

Ok, thank you. I guess that i will have to start to figure out C. I am decent with java, is C anything like this? I have never owned an apple computer, but i am going to get the new MBP (THIS TUESDAY!!!... hopefuly), and will have to experiment with Xcode. Is xcode free, or do you have to buy it.
Thanks!

XCode is free, it is included with Leopard. Objective C is kind of an odd monster because it isn't really much like C or C++ in my opinion. Java was inspired by C++ more than anything. Objective C uses smalltalk style messaging which may take a bit of getting used to.

I got started by installing XCode and using this tutorial:
http://www.matthew-long.com/2007/11/09/xcode-30-tutorial/

I'm not affiliated with the author of the tutorial, it just happens to be a pretty good one that I found.

Good luck

 

[frankly]

XCode is free, it is included with Leopard. Objective C is kind of an odd monster because it isn't really much like C or C++ in my opinion. Java was inspired by C++ more than anything. Objective C uses smalltalk style messaging which may take a bit of getting used to.

I got started by installing XCode and using this tutorial:
http://www.matthew-long.com/2007/11/09/xcode-30-tutorial/

I'm not affiliated with the author of the tutorial, it just happens to be a pretty good one that I found.

Good luck

Thanks for the link. One thing that Java does that is much nicer than developing in C++ is garbage collection. It is very nice not having to worry about deallocating pointers. Doesn't Objective-C have garbage collection as well?

 

[darkblu]

Thanks for the link. One thing that Java does that is much nicer than developing in C++ is garbage collection. It is very nice not having to worry about deallocating pointers. Doesn't Objective-C have garbage collection as well?

AFAIK runtime-integrated garbage collection is available only under leopard. prior to that many framewoks did employ reference counting for their classes (e.g. cocoa), so garbage collection was already de-facto in to some degree.

 

[jakovasaur]

The SDK is NOT what everyone thinks it will be.

The SDK is NOT what everyone thinks it will be. Jailbreaking will still be a necessity for many.

1) Apps will NOT be free. None of them. Apple engineers must disassemble and approve every app, and distribute them through their iTunes network. Tell me where free apps work in that business model.

2) Many "holy grail" apps will never see the light of day because Apple is beholden to AT&T, and their own shareholders' profits. Apps that would seriously cut into revenue (be it services or bandwidth) will be forbidden. This includes iChat, VoIP, streaming music, ringtone services, and any service that offers a competitive disadvantage to either company.

3) Official apps will not have unfettered access to the iPhone's file system. They will run as a non-root user with severely limited file permissions. Think they're going to let you drop files into the /Library/Ringtones directory? Really?

 

[frankly]

The SDK is NOT what everyone thinks it will be. Jailbreaking will still be a necessity for many.

1) Apps will NOT be free. None of them. Apple engineers must disassemble and approve every app, and distribute them through their iTunes network. Tell me where free apps work in that business model.

2) Many "holy grail" apps will never see the light of day because Apple is beholden to AT&T, and their own shareholders' profits. Apps that would seriously cut into revenue (be it services or bandwidth) will be forbidden. This includes iChat, VoIP, streaming music, ringtone services, and any service that offers a competitive disadvantage to either company.

3) Official apps will not have unfettered access to the iPhone's file system. They will run as a non-root user with severely limited file permissions. Think they're going to let you drop files into the /Library/Ringtones directory? Really?

Wow, it is so cool to be able to get the "facts" from an inside source such as yourself.

 

[jakovasaur]

Wow, it is so cool to be able to get the "facts" from an inside source such as yourself.

Does any of it sound unreasonable? Take off your fan hat and put on your shareholder hat. Apple isn't releasing an SDK to make iPhone users happier, they're releasing it to bolster phone sales and profit from the already successful model of iPod software distribution through iTunes.

 

[irun5k]

AFAIK runtime-integrated garbage collection is available only under leopard. prior to that many framewoks did employ reference counting for their classes (e.g. cocoa), so garbage collection was already de-facto in to some degree.

Right, garbage collection is in version 2.0. I've heard varying reports of how good it is, so I guess a person will have to spend some time with it to form their own evaluation.

I guess there is some controversy over garbage collection in general. But my personal opinion is that Java is a mature language at this point and I've never run into issues with the garbage collector. It has probably saved me a lot of grief over the years trying to track down memory leaks. Not that you can't still make your own memory leaks in other ways- done that a time or two

 

[frankly]

Does any of it sound unreasonable? Take off your fan hat and put on your shareholder hat. Apple isn't releasing an SDK to make iPhone users happier, they're releasing it to bolster phone sales and profit from the already successful model of iPod software distribution through iTunes.

The goal is to sell more iPhones. If someone makes a really compelling application for the iPhone and they want to give it away does it make sense from a sales perspective for Apple to say no? Take off your pessimist hat and think things through for a minute. Neither of us knows what Apple is going to do but you are leaning very heavily to one side and speaking with such certitude even with your lack of knowledge. I'm just pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about and it is complete conjecture on your part


I especially love though how you make it sound like a bad thing that 3rd party applications will not have unfettered access to the iPhone's file system. You really want that? Really?

 

[darkblu]

I guess there is some controversy over garbage collection in general. But my personal opinion is that Java is a mature language at this point and I've never run into issues with the garbage collector. It has probably saved me a lot of grief over the years trying to track down memory leaks. Not that you can't still make your own memory leaks in other ways- done that a time or two

as somebody coming from the realtime/performance-centric sector, i have one issue with garbage collectors, and that's not so much about them being a performance hit, as them being a non-deterministic performance hit - the fact that they can kick in doing their work rather randomly from the perspective of the application logic - real bad for realtime scenarios. of course, nowadays most sane garbage collectors can be tweaked and tuned in that regard, so it's not that bad.

 

[TurboSC]

It's all speculation at this point, but know that it's coming, and that it'll probably bring with it a world of hurt. As much as Apple worries about stock holders, they are nothing without their loyal fan base. They just need to find that perfect balance and satisfy both camps.

 

[frankly]

as somebody coming from the realtime/performance-centric sector, i have one issue with garbage collectors, and that's not so much about them being a performance hit, as them being a non-deterministic performance hit - the fact that they can kick in doing their work rather randomly from the perspective of the application logic - real bad for realtime scenarios. of course, nowadays most sane garbage collectors can be tweaked and tuned in that regard, so it's not that bad.

You have a valid point but we were talking about Mac and iPhone apps. I don't think either of them are big players in the real time field.

However, if you want to use Java for your real time programming:

http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/realtime/

which takes care of the garbage collection problem, among other things.

Frank

It's all speculation at this point, but know that it's coming, and that it'll probably bring with it a world of hurt. As much as Apple worries about stock holders, they are nothing without their loyal fan base. They just need to find that perfect balance and satisfy both camps.

Exactly what is coming and bringing with it a world of hurt? Overdramatize much?

 

[timmillwood]

I have had my 8gb iPhone for 3 weeks, a week before the 16 gb came out. I didnt swap it for the 16gb because I couldn't warrant the extra £60 for my usage.

I am now worried that if I had waited until 26th feb I could of had 16gb for the same price as I paid for the 8gb.

Cant wait for sdk!

 

[MattInOz]

The SDK is NOT what everyone thinks it will be. Jailbreaking will still be a necessity for many.

1) Apps will NOT be free. None of them. Apple engineers must disassemble and approve every app, and distribute them through their iTunes network. Tell me where free apps work in that business model.

2) Many "holy grail" apps will never see the light of day because Apple is beholden to AT&T, and their own shareholders' profits. Apps that would seriously cut into revenue (be it services or bandwidth) will be forbidden. This includes iChat, VoIP, streaming music, ringtone services, and any service that offers a competitive disadvantage to either company.

3) Official apps will not have unfettered access to the iPhone's file system. They will run as a non-root user with severely limited file permissions. Think they're going to let you drop files into the /Library/Ringtones directory? Really?

1)There is already free content podcasts and Webapps.
Moving webapps to free widgets (sdk or web) lowers bandwidth improves exprience adds confidence for people like banks to add secure online banking apps for their customers, not apps that are likely to be paid for. Nothing bad for Apple or At&t to allow a free app channel.

2) is more about at&t and how they have written there contract. If they don't want or haven't allowed for such things and haven't expressly written that in to the contract then most of their shareholders should be annoyed.

Not Apples job to maintain that, if anything Apple job in the carrier relationship is to create demand for higher bandwidth and value contracts which is good for both.

3)three is about confidence in the product and the brand name. it's not unreasonable it's expected.

 

[boz0]

i love free software (and more so OSS) just as the next guy, but let's face it: everything that has a cost of production can be expected to have a price (which means - everything ever made by humans), and that's a gross oversimplification, as in practice the pricing of something is never as simple as its cost.

I'll set aside for now Apple's tendancy to grossly overcharge for their products - if they can get away with a 50% margin and still sell a ton of their stuff, well, we're the consumers who are dumb enough to pay the premium, myself included.

What I fear, though, is that Apple will not allow those who wish to deliver free software to do so through the iTunes Store. I fully expect many developers to try and port various free software apps to this SDK, and it would really be ugly from Apple to force them to set a minimum price.

 

[Alphy]

I don't buy your argument at all. NDA's aren't stopping people from reporting bugs to Apple and working with them to iron out compatibility issues. NDA's stop people from leaking information to the public and other companies. For example, tinycode's violation of the NDA did nothing to help create a better product. What it did was get tinycode a lot of attention. One purpose of an NDA is to stop people from stealing your thunder. If everyone knows everything about a product and learned it bit by bit over the months or years it is developed then it is hard to dum up publicity once it is out.

Apple did what it had to do to protect itself. Anything less would be negligent on their part.

Shutting a developer's site down because he made mention of the next logical installment 1.1.n+1 (zomg!), in a series? No, I'm sorry, no matter how you try and spin this, it still seems kind of childish on Apple's part. Breaking an NDA and posting screenshots of 1.14 would be one thing, sending a takedown notice because of three numbers and "alpha", is another.

 

[adrian.oconnor]

No matter how you try and spin this, it still seems kind of childish on Apple's part.

I'm with you on this one.

For what it's worth, my own personal take is that I'll read, understand and make sure I agree with anything that I sign in ink. Click-through software agreements can go to hell, as can attempts to stop people talking about relatively trivial stuff.