13 ms·

New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

• swilliams 17y ago
  Is there a legitimate reason for this, or is Apple just thumbing their noses at Adobe (and everyone else)? Is Apple primarily annoyed that Adobe's app and MonoTouch aren't doing it the "Apple" way? Or do they not like that those frameworks present non-standard UI's (I haven't used MonoTouch, so I don't even know if that's the case here)?
  • bad_user 17y ago
    MonoTouch uses Cocoa bindings, so the interface is using native components.
    • city41 17y ago
      "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript" MonoTouch apps are written in C#.
  • lurch_mojoff 17y ago
    If stuff gets compiled to ARM code and is linked to Apple's frameworks, which I think both Flash-to-app and MonoTouch do, it should be all the same to Apple. Therefore I'd go with thumbing their noses at Adobe. And I'd even say it is because of Adobe's we've-already-sneaked-in-a-bunch-of-apps stunt. In other words, this is not entirely about the betterment of the iPhone platform, it's at least partly personal.
  • gojomo 17y ago
    Apple might say the rationale is to allow easier inspection of apps for policy compliance. (Even though other languages compiled-to-approved-languages will be the same for automated analysis, it's more likely the code will be inscrutable to human reviewers.)
    • sshumaker 17y ago
      You don't submit your source code to Apple. Why should this matter?
      • dgallagher 17y ago
        You raise an interesting question. Perhaps they'll require source-code to be submitted in the future?
        • anigbrowl 17y ago
          It would greatly surprise me if they did so, not least because every new piece of Apple software might get hit with speculative IP lawsuits if they had any features that bore even the most remote similarity to an iPhone app for which the developer had submitted code...even a company as wealthy as Apple would weep at the compliance costs. But the indirect effect would be to shut people up. Rather than spending much or any effort on peeking inside iPhone apps looking for signature traces of cross-compilation, Apple would benefit because people would stop talking in public about which 3rd-party development platforms they had used for their cool new app, out of fear that mentioning anything besides C, C++ or Obj. C might result in their app being taken off sale - so without Apple doing a single thing different at the technical level, this license provision would have a chilling effect on discussion about competitors' development tools.
  • sunkencity 17y ago
    I think that they see cross platform development platforms as a threat. They prefer if apps are written only and specifically for iPhone. I think it's stupid to ban different languages but I can see that writing apps specifically for a platform can make the application better on that platform, rather than having the lowest common denominator between iPhone, Android and Blackberry powered by a scripting language.
• starnix17 17y ago
  Would Adobe have a valid antitrust case with this?
  • aphyr 17y ago
    Doubtful. Adobe, Appcelerator, et al are not in competition with Apple, only making products which run on theirs. The ToS have always been disclosed as variable. It's a good reason not to predicate your business model on the whims of another company which has no stake in your success. :/
    • pyre 17y ago
      You could say the same thing about developing software for any platform that isn't open. None of these companies could have foreseen that Apple would drop the hammer on the creation of tools to help developers create more iPhone applications. They still have to pay Apple to develop for the iPhone. It's not like this was some end-run around the system.
      • aphyr 17y ago
        Some companies are interested in having their ecosystem succeed and keep their agreements largely stable. Developing software for Microsoft is typically a solid proposition, for example; they're unlikely to change the agreement as to what toolkit you can use after the fact. Apple, on the other hand, has shown a somewhat... avaricious... approach to the app store, rejecting applications for curvy buttons, speech bubbles, or being able to load arbitrary images from the internet. We should all realize that Apple will allow precisely what it wants to with respect to the app store, and nothing more. They don't need to do anything else; consumers will buy their products regardless of how the apps can be created. I don't like it, but I definitely saw it coming. :/
    • swilliams 17y ago
      It especially sucks if Apple does follow through with this and the people that paid for MonoTouch end up with a digital pet rock. http://monotouch.net/Store http://monotouch.net/Store $999 for the Enterprise version? Ouch.
• dirtyaura 17y ago
  I find it same time amusing and hard to believe that this kind of requirement (writing apps only in C++ & Obj-C) is legally possible.
  • pyre 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure that it's legally possible. It's a contract and I don't think that this restriction would be struck down by any court as being not valid.
    • gte910h 17y ago
      Contracts of adhesion often are often found Unconscientious and not enforceable.
  • plinkplonk 17y ago
    "I find it same time amusing and hard to believe that this kind of requirement (writing apps only in C++ & Obj-C) is legally possible." Is this technically possible? If I write my app in language L and also write an L->Obj-C translator, how is Apple going to know? I don't think Apple looks through your source code before putting your app on the App Store(do they)?
    • eru 17y ago
      It could still be enforcable in court.
• jwtanner 17y ago
  This could mean instant death for MonoTouch. What developer would choose to write an iphone/ipad app in MonoTouch with the risk of having to re-write their app if apple drops the hammer.
  • wvenable 17y ago
    What developer would choose to write an iPhone/iPad app with the risk of having to re-write or trash their app if apple drops the hammer.
    • jwtanner 17y ago
      Thats very true, but other app store policies aside, if your going to write a new app this might be enough FUD to completely rule out MonoTouch (which I was considering).
    • jjs 17y ago
      What developer would choose to write an iPhone/iPad app with the risk of having to re-write or trash their app if apple drops the hammer. Your comment is emitting dangerous levels of irony.
• icey 17y ago
  I don't really have a politically correct way to say this: What a horseshit maneuver by Apple.
  • api 17y ago
    I have been a very loyal mac user for years and love it, but I'm seriously considering going back to Linux. I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness, but this is getting absolutely insane. Enforcing which LANGUAGES can be used on a platform?!? Insane! Edit: I've been looking at these guys: http://www.system76.com/ http://www.system76.com/ (I don't work with or have any vested interest in them, but they look cool.)
    • deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    • jxcole 17y ago
      I have a lap top from them. It works well.
    • kqr2 17y ago
      Ubuntu will run on most laptops, including mac books, so need to go with a special vendor. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBook https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBook I actually went the opposite route and installed mac os on a netbook. http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-i...
    • Zak 17y ago
      Boycotting the Mac platform (which is pretty much free of any such absurdity) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's where Apple is doing things right. You should of course, shun iPhone OS devices if you feel this way. The system76 laptops are probably generic machines from Clevo, Sager or some such with a custom badge. Alienware used to do the same thing.
      • markkoberlein 17y ago
• derefr 17y ago
  If I'm reading this clause right, it seems to prohibit Greenspunning (as a "compatibility layer.")
  • bad_user 17y ago
    No, that was prohibited a long time ago.
• ezy 17y ago
  Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. The corporate pissing matches have started in earnest... When Alan Kay said Apple would take over the world with an iPad, I don't think he realized that eToys or anything like eToys would never be allowed to run on the device and that a majority of the apps will probably have commercial spots embedded within them. Actually it reminds me of "educational" tv all over again... I'm starting to see the point of people who complain about the consume vs. create nature of the iPad...
  • ptomato 17y ago
    "a majority of the apps will probably have commercial spots embedded within them" The majority of apps on the app store already do. Free apps, ad-supported. Apple just wants the ads to not suck so much, but hey, nobody has to use iAds.
    • telemachos 17y ago
      but hey, nobody has to use iAds Yet.
      • ptomato 17y ago
        Well, Steve did flat-out say in the Q&A session today that they weren't going to require anyone to use their built-in services for any of that, and Apple doesn't really have a history of changing what they've said they're gonna do.
        • telemachos 17y ago
          I don't know one way or the other about their history of going back on direct claims, and that would be a pretty sprawling area to get real data on. But they certainly do have a history of locking the phone OS down more and more and controlling it further and further. I really wouldn't put it past them, and I think today's a bad to err on the side of "things won't change."
        • bitwize 17y ago
• pg 17y ago
  I don't like this at all. Maybe they only meant to hit Flash, and maybe not, but as written this is in direct opposition to one of the most important principles of software development. Apple themselves must have benefited countless times from writing software in layers. But no layer above their layers is permitted? I wonder if the open source world can successfully fight back, by making compilers that generate code the app store police can't tell from hand written.
  • gte910h 17y ago
    Yeah, the "no compatibility layers" bullshit is just that, bullshit.
  • zhyder 17y ago
    Even if they can, the policy is going to be a strong deterrent from using those tools. One would rather be less efficient than risk getting caught and being rejected (maybe even blacklisted?) from the App Store.
  • jrockway 17y ago
    I wonder if the open source world can successfully fight back, by making compilers that generate code the app store police can't tell from hand written. I think the answer is definitely yes. Apple's software engineering is not that great. There is always some hole in Safari that allows root access to the entire device. They can't get atomic syscalls working in OS X. Does anyone really think they can recruit and afford people that can tell computer-generated software from hand-written software? My guess is that this is a scare tactic to keep anyone thinking of supporting two platforms at once to "not want to risk it" and go for the iPhone instead. More users, only so many hours that the developer can be awake, safer to just go with the iPhone. (Of course, you are already risking it anyway; use the wrong multi-touch gesture -- app denied. Use a Google service -- denied. Do something useful that Apple wishes they thought of first -- denied. And people wonder why there are so many fart apps...) My next guess is that this tactic will be successful. People seem to adore doing whatever Apple tells them to do. It frightens me. What I've learned from iPhone vs. Android (among other things) is that people will pick pretty and mean over average and nice.
• WilliamLP 17y ago
  > Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine Controlling programmers like this seems positively insane, doesn't it? Does this mean that games can't do scripting in something like Lua either, under the letter of Apple's law?
  • _delirium 17y ago
    Lua is definitely out, and has been out for longer: Apple explicitly prohibits embedding interpreters, like the Lua interpreter, in your apps.
    • MartinMond 17y ago
      Yet Rovio Mobile's Angry Birds (#1 paid app...) clearly (there are lots of .lua files) embeds a lua interpreter.
    • g89 17y ago
      How about the Corona SDK (http://anscamobile.com http://anscamobile.com)? They use Lua, but they claim they're allowed by the pre-4.0 SDK. I don't know how it works behind the scene, but I think they were allowed because the SDK didn't allow you to load code on runtime (e.g. think about a C64 emulator), but as long as the code was fixed it's fine. It can't execute arbitrary code because the app signing process ensures that the only code that runs is the same code submitted to Apple.
  • bad_user 17y ago
    Games never could do scripting in Lua, since you can't run interpreted or Jitted code on the iPhone anyway. What they are forbidding now is the usage of any third-party compilers that are producing native executables ... Adobe CS5, MonoTouch, Unity.
    • pyre 17y ago
      > any third-party compilers that are producing native executables It's more than that. They are forbidding you from writing it in 'language X,' converting 'language X' into C/C++/ObjC, and then running that through Apple's developer tools. They state that the program must be originally written in C/C++/ObjC.
• gte910h 17y ago
  Hey lookie there, I can return this iPad still. I'll go buy a second android phone for my Development shop. Great Job Apple!
  • marknutter 17y ago
    Sounds like a grea business decision
    • gte910h 17y ago
      Honestly, I'm not returning it, but I hope other people do realize they have some relatively serious power over apple for the next 20 or so days.
• aheilbut 17y ago
  In principle, couldn't any of these translation layers be converted to code generators that would produce compiled Obj-C that would fall within the rules? Surely they aren't saying that all code has to be entirely hand-written? If so, then is running search-and-replace on a source file not allowed?
  • spolsky 17y ago
    the wording says "Applications must be ORIGINALLY written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript"
    • aheilbut 17y ago
      It seems absurd and unenforcable; I mean, applications are originally written in my head.
      • die_sekte 17y ago
        Next up: Only non-sentient developers allowed.
      • funxed 17y ago
        Since Apple completely controls the App Store and reserves the right to refuse any app for any reason (and have shown time and again they are willing to exercise that right), how could this possibly be unenforceable? It is their way or the highway. What is or isn't enforceable is entirely up to them. Note: I am in no way saying that Apple's stance on this situation is a good one or not, in face, absurd. The iPhone 3G is the last Apple product I will ever buy because of this and other iPod/iPad related anti-developer bullcrap.
        • aheilbut 17y ago
          Unless they start auditing source code and everyone's entire development process, there are lots of ways in which such a rule could be violated that would be completely undetectable (and some cases that would be easily detectable too).
• zhyder 17y ago
  Oh man, just when I was impressed with what they're doing in iPhone OS 4.0, they throw this in. I was hoping to finally develop for the platform thanks to background services, but my moral objection is now at par with my profit motive.
  • catch23 17y ago
    um, what does morality have to do with this? Apple's rules are not immoral. It's their platform and they're not a monopoly. If you don't like it, choose a different one.
• audionerd 17y ago
  Isn't MacRuby sponsored by Apple? There's been discussion re: writing iPhone apps with MacRuby, AOT compilation. I wonder how that project will be affected? http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macruby-devel/2010-January/004049.html http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macruby-devel/2010-Jan...
  • jzting 17y ago
    Yeah, the would be shooting themselves in the foot if they banned MacRuby.
  • MutantSushi 17y ago
    It's not MacRuby, it's RubyCocoa, but yes, they have their own project using a language not included in this list. No, I'm not expecting consistency here against their own "baby", but what kind of environment does this set up? Would you even want to use RubyCocoa in this environment, much less a 3rd party language bridge to Cocoa (which is 100% targetting Apple's platform and APIs).
    • base10 17y ago
      MacRuby and RubyCocoa are two separate projects. MacRuby is not a Cocoa bridge like RubyCocoa is. It's a complete reimplementation of Ruby's primitives in Objective C to allow you to compile a Ruby app to a double-clickable app bundle.
• andreyf 17y ago
  Looking forward to Adobe's response. Going to wager it'll be in the form of a lawsuit, and that the FCC will get involved. Whip out the marshmallows, this should be interesting :)
  • GHFigs 17y ago
    Going to wager it'll be in the form of a lawsuit, and that the FCC will get involved. On what basis?
    • MutantSushi 17y ago
      If Apple was judged a monopoly alot of this type of behavior, along with AppStore monopoly, would likely be barred. Until they are judged a monopoly, this is legit from a legal POV.
  • natrius 17y ago
    I'd say the FTC will get involved. This is clearly anticompetitive behavior, though maybe it's allowed since Apple isn't a monopoly.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  • chops 17y ago
    As much as I dislike this particular move, and Apple's Orwellian control over their platform, bringing this to a lawsuit and getting the FCC involved would be straight-up wrong. Let the market decide this one, Adobe has no legitimate ground whatsoever to force Apple to support it. I would be hugely disappointed to see Adobe pursue this course of action, and would regard it with significantly more contempt than I currently hold toward Apple.
    • exit 17y ago
      the market is fucking clueless. it's entirely possible that the path from where we are now to completely locked down "appliances" has monotonically increasing user experience. that doesn't mean it isn't an abysmal local maxima though.
• cmars232 17y ago
  Wow, this could also ban iPhone apps from using Scheme (http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-scheme/ http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-schem...) or maybe even model-driven tools (http://code.google.com/p/iphonical/ http://code.google.com/p/iphonical/). Telling developers which languages to use? Might as well stick with enterprise software development, more innovation going on over there Apple!
  • eru 17y ago
    Actually, yes. My employer caters to the enterprise market, but we use, say, Ocaml and Python, and are experimenting with Haskell.
• paulsmith 17y ago
  Putting aside the intention of this agreement which does seem targeted at the Flash-to-iPhone compiler, this just seems overly broad and silly from a "how things work" point of view. Let's say I write an iPhone app originally in Scheme (like this guy did: http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-scheme/ http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-schem...), and compile it down to C, which is then compiled to object code and linked against the iPhone libraries. At this point, the object code is the same (or functionally the same in terms of its syscalls, library calls, and general program flow) as if I had originally written it in C, except that I would have lost the unique developer efficiencies I got from using Scheme in the first place. I'm not saying Scheme is better or should be an officially sanctioned source language for the iPhone SDK. I'm just saying, where the rubber meets the road -- object code linking against libraries and making certain calls -- there is no difference to the computer what the original source was. Seems very silly.
  • dfj225 17y ago
    I had the same thought and wondered, if a developer did follow such a path, how would Apple identify that they did? I'm not sure Apple could detect that such a method was used. Although, I suppose they could ban an app even if they only suspected that it had been developed in such a fashion.
    • aidenn0 17y ago
      1) They may not be able to detect all frameworks, but they will easily be able to detect the top N frameworks, where N scales with how serious they are about enforcing this. 2) The app approval process is so opaque that it might be hard to tell if they were banning you due to this reason (note I hear things have improved, so this point may be out of date).
• gte910h 17y ago
  I'm surprised ADBE isn't going down: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE#chart1:symbol=adbe;range=1d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE#chart1:symbol=adbe;r...
  • revolvingcur 17y ago
    ADBE isn't going down because the market closed before the implications of this situation became obvious. For that matter, they're still not entirely obvious. But you can bet they're going to open down tomorrow.
• raganwald 17y ago
  Getting away from the frenzied rhetoric, my opinion is that what Apple really wants to prevent is people releasing multi-platform compilers. So taking Flash as just one example, if I can build one app and the compiler can make me an iPhone executable, an Android executable, and so forth, Apple don't want that. In my experience so far with such "cross platform compatibility layers," they always produce results that water down each platform's individual strengths and differentiations. And of course, instead of the developer being locked into the phone platform, they are locked into the compatibility layer's platform. Adobe's Flash compiler is a classic maneuver to "commoditize your complements," as Joel put it so well. Apple don't want to be commoditized, especially if it means having apps that don't take advantage of the iPhone's strengths. Adobe want to lock developers into Flash and commoditize everything else as Flash-delivery devices. Apple want to commoditize applications and lock developers into their APIs. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
  • bpod 17y ago
    I agree with Apple, 80% of apps are crap and are deleted after a few weeks, thats not a good app and not how apple what to be seen as having a junk yard of crap apps ? Would you delete Photoshop after a couple of weeks ? No, why ? because it's a good bit of kit, and Apple want to keep that inline with there image. I am not a developer but have been investigating starting a development company, I have seen 1,000 of bedroom chancers on the fourms.... Yeah man lets make an app and cash in, lets make an app called twitbook, it's a cross between a twit and a book we will get 1,000 downloads a day and we will spend it all the profit on weed, yeah man good idea ! Ok lets start... we can't code but we can use 3rd party apps that even my mum can use and we are done. Yeah I am exaggerating slightly but thats how the market is going, it means that the app store is constantly full of shite with shite apps and will get worse if these 3rd parties are allowed to run riot to let any Tom Dicks and Harrys to release apps, which will happen if it's allowed to. Apple does not want to encourage that and nore do I, I want quality not quantity apps. This is a new phenomenon for the world so Apple are bound to make mistakes on how they operate it and they have realised this is a bad thing that is happening to THEIR brand. I have seen so many good serious developers with good apps, they complain they are not getting seen on the app store and above is the main factor for that, piles of it. These guys can code with their eyes closed and yes the 3rd parties apps maybe an inconvenience but I am sure they can work round it and actually get the coverage and sales they deserve. In the short it's not good but the long of it is that it will be good for the people who know what they are doing hence brining us apps that don't sit on our phones for a few days and get ditched. Why are people screaming about this ? It's all about money on both sides, not future development of the up and coming kids, end off. If I rent a room in your nice house and start pissing on the carpet would you want to boot me out ? As far as i remember it was always Apple being victomised by other OS and software companies, how the tables have turned and good on em.
• dugmartin 17y ago
  Wow. Just wow. I was planning on building an app in Titanium. I guess I'll wait and see how this shakes out first. btw, at the time of writing this comment Titanium's developer center is hosed. Maybe it became self aware at the same time and commited suicide. http://developer.appcelerator.com/ http://developer.appcelerator.com/
  • cheald 17y ago
    Same here. I've even built prototypes that I was planning to turn into full-fledged apps. Titanium had the best chance of me building apps for the iPhone. If Apple doesn't allow it, well, tough beans. Sorry users, Apple screwed you. My apps, however, will be available on all Android platforms.
  • kalid 17y ago
    Agreed -- I had just found Titanium and was gearing up to make app ports using it. Now I'm nervous whether they will be allowed.
• ptomato 17y ago
  Problems with it aside, and I certainly don't like it anymore then anyone else here (I was still hoping to get a lisp working for iPhone development), I think it would be wrong to attribute the decision to malice. Apple's doing this for the exact same reason they do EVERYTHING else controversial that they do on iPhone OS: because the primary (only?) thing they care about is the end user experience being as good as possible. In this case, Flash (which I'm sure this is entirely aimed at) doesn't provide as good of a user experience as the native UI controls, so they're nixing it while they can without as much bad publicity as they'd have if they waited until after CS5 was released.
  • tumult 17y ago
    No, they're clearly doing this to lock people down and prevent strong innovation on their platform. They want tons of toy apps, but nothing threatening. They don't want people abstracting over their platform. They are deliberately restricting developer freedom. If they wanted to avoid crap apps, they would just reject crap apps. They don't care about that. They want to prevent developers from innovating on top of them, so they cripple the tools that developers may use, hobbling us so that we may only produce small cute toys which they can use to promote their platform.
    • ptomato 17y ago
      Really? Bullshit. You honestly believe that stuff made in Obj-C can only be a toy whereas something written in ActionScript will bring the "strong innovation"? Yes, they're certainly restricting developer freedom (which, again, I don't like any more then anyone else), for the same reason they have been in the past: because they don't want their users to have a shitty experience. I mean, how the hell do you define a "cute toy" vs. an actually innovative app? What's something that is more innovative on Android, say, or a Pre that isn't there on an iPhone? (Google Voice being the obvious exception, but again with the everything-Apple-does-is-about-UX thing.)
      • rayval 17y ago
        Tumult's point is not about writing a single script-based solution but rather about developing an enabling technology for a whole raft of solutions. A platform-on-platform.
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
• tumult 17y ago
  This is unsavory in the extreme. I had been writing an iPhone app in Haskell, and now I have to can it? What the fuck? Fuck you, Apple! Blowhards. Hope you guys enjoy the mass exodus of decent developers from your dumbass platform with kiddie languages.
  • jrockway 17y ago
    GHC has a C backend. Just claim that you wrote that code yourself. Problem solved.
    • tumult 17y ago
      I don't want to invest months of my life, only to be told, "sorry, if you can't prove it's C, your app is rejected. Bye."
      • jrockway 17y ago
        Yeah, then stop supporting their hardware. If you just bend over in front of them, of course they're going to fuck you.
    • chromatic 17y ago
      The sort of company that would restrict the original source language of applications in a developer agreement doesn't strike me as the sort of company that would laugh and applaud the linguistic cleverness necessary to justify adhering to the letter of the agreement and not the spirit.
    • steveklabnik 17y ago
      It's being phased out in the next version.
      • sparky 17y ago
        In favor of an LLVM backend; LLVM, in turn, has a C backend :P
  • 17y ago
• jim-greer 17y ago
  'Additionally, developers may not consume energy drinks or snack foods with preservatives while developing Applications'
• mortenjorck 17y ago
  The App Store has always been a set of moving goalposts, but Apple just moved them completely out of the end zone. Such a relocation tends to be more visible from a distance.
• danh 17y ago
  "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript" So porting from another language is now forbidden? Or is it unoriginal code that is banned? Either way, the sheer craziness is astounding.
• orangecat 17y ago
  1. Apple takes iPhone stability and security Very Seriously. 2. ??? 3. Therefore, if you write native iPhone apps, you must use C derivatives that expose raw pointers and direct memory access.
  • rimantas 17y ago
    Yeah, as if Flash is known for its stability (especially on the Apple platform) and security…
    • tumult 17y ago
      This affects anything that isn't C, C++, or Objective-C. Pay attention.
      • rimantas 17y ago
        Yes it does. My comment was about Flash however.
        • catch23 17y ago
          you're preaching to the choir already. I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement on how sucky the Flash runtime is already.
  • towndrunk 17y ago
    You haven't used XCode's Build and Analyze have you?
    • cdonnellytx 17y ago
      I have, and it has some significant bugs that make it difficult to use: - There is a bug with the compiler not properly counting references when assigning a variable that needs a release to a property marked "retain". The property will increment the reference count, expecting the caller to decrement it, but the static analyzer does not see this, and so fails to warn. - http://www.openradar.appspot.com/7338181 http://www.openradar.appspot.com/7338181 - CodeSense fails to work when Static Analysis is turned on. (DISCLAIMER: I am using Xcode 3.2.1 on Snow Leopard 10.6.3)
• tumult 17y ago
  What's next? A requirement on what languages I'm allowed to think in? Not allowed to think thoughts that impinges Apple or one of its partners?
• city41 17y ago
  Due to time mostly, my Port of Cocos2D to MonoTouch (http://github.com/city41/cocosnet http://github.com/city41/cocosnet) has gone untouched for sometime. Looks like that was inadvertently the correct decision :( Damn Apple is evil.
• rimantas 17y ago
  Adobe will not be happy about this, which makes me think: given how events unfolded recently in Adobe-Apple relationship and given that Photoshop is getting crappier and crappier in its OS X incarnation—has Apple some Photoshop/CS analog in the works?
  • radley 17y ago
    http://www.apple.com/aperture/ http://www.apple.com/aperture/
    • rimantas 17y ago
      That's a counterpart for Adobe Lightroom, not Photoshop. Of course I can plug a wonderful http://pixelmator.com/ http://pixelmator.com/ but as much as I love the work of fellow Lithuanians it ain't Photoshop yet :(
  • Keyframe 17y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if there were "unexpected" difficulties or delays of CS5 for OSX. Same stuff happened when Apple pulled a Final Cut on Adobe and Adobe pulled Premiere off of Mac back then - all accompanied with lots of sparks. I guess things never settled between those two companies ever since.
• AndrewO 17y ago
  While Adobe is going to bear the brunt of this, this looks like a calculated move against Android as well. By precluding things like PhoneGap (if it turns out that it's "an intermediary translation or compatibility layer"), they're forcing developers that can only afford to write an application once to choose one platform. Right now, iPhone is the easy choice for a lot of developers, just based on market. The end result being fewer apps for Android and a less vibrant software ecosystem.
  • hristov 17y ago
    Yeah, but if someone writes a compiler that compiles apps natively written for the iphone into android apps, Google will allow that and Apple can do nothing to stop it. So in a way this will mostly hurt Apple.
    • wvenable 17y ago
      But Apple will still be the first-class platform and Android will be the second-class citizen in that scenario.
    • ryanhuff 17y ago
      That would be Apple's dream. All mobile developers coding on macbooks.
  • cheald 17y ago
    If I have to pick one platform, it's going to be Android. I already know Java, but even more simply than that, I know Javascript, and Appcelerator's Titanium lets me basically write an app as though it was a web app. I don't have to invest 2 months of intensive study at the cost of my other work; I'm going to go with what I know. Companies that have existing resources in Objective C, sure, they may choose to go with the iPhone. Developers who already know Objective C will go with the iPhone. Developers who, like me, don't yet know Objective C, and have been interested in development on the iPhone through PhoneGap or Titanium? We're not going to bother with the iPhone.
    • 17y ago
• archgrove 17y ago
  I can think of only two (tenuously) justifiable reasons for this. 1 - Perhaps, during the beta, they want code written in C (and derivatives) to aid in debugging framework bugs. Rather than "My App doesn't WORK!!!!! (Using MonoTouch Vxxyy)", they can get a repro using a stack they know and control top to bottom. In this case, I can see it as justified. 2 - If it's specifically to target cross-compilers as a business decision, to ensure that iPhone only gets "exclusives", then I suppose it's their prerogative. It will probably backfire long-term, as their market share isn't that dominant. "Browser, Palm, Android + all else" or "iPhone" makes the iPhone a secondary port target versus a first class platform. If it's any other reason, it is ridiculous. It makes me seriously question my upcoming Mac Pro & iPad purchases. Even though I currently develop for Mac and iPhone using only Obj-C, I can't build a development strategy around a schizophrenic "partner". What's next - documentation not written in Pages? Failure to use Steve's favourite colour in the background? It's getting... bizarre.
  • axod 17y ago
    Surely there's also the approval process? Checking an app isn't doing anything malicious may be easier if it's written with standard tools.
    • theBobMcCormick 17y ago
      I don't see how. They don't ask for source when you submit your app, so it shouldn't matter at all what language you "originally" wrote the app in. This is just a bullshit control-freak move. Apple has stopped looking out for the interest of it's users and has started looking to punish it's competitors. Epic fail. <sigh>
      • catch23 17y ago
        You mean Apple has stopped looking out for the interest of it's developers... If anything, Apple listens to their users better than any of their competitors. Try convincing an average 17 year old girl to buy an android/zune over an ipod touch for her music. I think the situation will only improve when Google actually cares about their users and less about the cool tech that comes with every phone.
• jrockway 17y ago
  Who's going to know? My C happens to look exactly like what Chicken Scheme generates!
  • niravs 17y ago
    If everybody's C starts to look like what Chicken Scheme generates then you've (Apple) just detected Chicken Scheme.
    • jrockway 17y ago
      Or I'm just ultra-productive and very helpful to The World At Large.
  • sgrove 17y ago
    Out of curiosity, do you happen to have chicken scheme working on the iphone? I've been developing a 3d engine with it for the past few days with the intention of porting it to the iphone, so if you have some progress already, that would be awesome. ...or would have been, before this announcement. Ouch.
  • JoachimSchipper 17y ago
    If Chicken Scheme's output is anything like Gambit-C's, that won't fly: it's a dump of internal data structures into syntactically valid C, not something that a human would write or even understand.
  • malkia 17y ago
    Or LOOM/Stella - Java/C++/Common Lisp - http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/Stella/ http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/Stella/ - "When we embarked on the task of developing PowerLoom® which had to be delivered in C++, we were faced with exactly this problem. Our response was to invent a new programming language, called STELLA, that incorporates those aspects of Common Lisp that we deemed essential into a language that can still be translated into efficient, conventional and readable C++ and Java code."
• barrkel 17y ago
  Can someone put up a link to the full text of license?
  • MutantSushi 17y ago
    Click the title of the original post. New licence quoted in Gruber's story.
  • rortian 17y ago
    I hope you understand there is a reason that this can't be done: Developers cannot disclose the license. The first time I and many others saw one of them was when EFF FOMAd one from NASA.
• asnyder 17y ago
  Before you know it they'll be adding clauses like "Code for your application may not be written on Sunday".
• elblanco 17y ago
  Wow, color me totally surprised. Apple treating their developers badly? Say it ain't so.
• alex_c 17y ago
  Welcoming explanations for how this is a good thing for Apple's end users.
  • tshawkins 17y ago
    Because the apps will be running on controlled development libraries that might be able to.... perhaps multitask in OS 4.0, remember guys this is a phone we are talking about here, not a games console, security is paramount, and apple is just trying to put the the genie back into the bottle before a mass of insecure apps are elevated up the permission chain in 4.0 to be able to operate on a par with apple authored apps.
    • MutantSushi 17y ago
      using a different language doesn't affect security, the executable is still within the same sandbox. please read up on the plethora of projects allowing other languages to work with Cocoa, including desktop OSX, including Apple-funded projects like RubyCocoa.
  • cakesy 17y ago
    The first Apps produced by the beta version of CS5 were horrible, bloated, kept everything in one class, slow. Of course, if Adobe managed to improve this process, which they surely would have, then that argument goes. I guess if these libraries contained a bug, then several apps would all have this bug, and Apple would get blamed, rather than the app writers. A bit of a stretch. It is probably just wiggle room for Apple, so they can reject apps if they want to. Maybe.
  • jcl 17y ago
    The least cynical explanation -- and thus the one most likely to be put forward by Apple -- is that by banning cross-platform compatibility layers, developers are forced to focus expressly on the iPad/iPhone platform, which reduces the likelihood of platform-specific bugs and keeps the developer from cutting corners to remain platform-agnostic (such as introducing foreign UI conventions). Likewise, they can claim that by requiring C/C++ they ensure high performance and efficient use of resources, resulting in better a end-user experience. A more cynical theory: Apple believes they have more than enough developers for their platform, and they need a way to raise the bar. Particularly, they need to limit the pile of me-too apps, and Flash's impending iPhone compatibility threatens to send nothing but. The benefit to the user in this case is that they have less crap to wade through in the App Store. The harm to the user is that a highly desirable app does not get made for the Apple platform because the developer is put off. And that risk is spectacularly low: any popular app on another platform is quickly cloned, and any killer app that fails to materialize at all... well, the users would never know what they're missing. (The logic breaks down for expensive-to-develop apps, game franchises, and other forms of lock-in, but these cases are few; Apple can negotiate them on a case-by-case basis.)
• lispm 17y ago
  Okay, there is ECL (Embeddable Common Lisp) which has been hacked up to work on the iPhone. It compiles to C. I can't use it? I hope there are other companies that will release usable tablet hardware.
  • jrockway 17y ago
    I'm no Clojure fan, but if you want to write Lisp-like for a phone, why not Android? Your Clojure app can run on everything from the G1 to the Nexus One to the Archos 5" and 7" tablets, not to mention the wide variety of no-name Chinese tablets that run Android. I've heard you can even get a SLIME/Swank REPL from the emulator or actual hardware. Seems like this beats the iPhone any day; better development cycle, and nobody can ever stop you from selling your app.
    • lispm 17y ago
      If I won't write for Apple, why should I write for Google (aka 'the NSA frontend') and their OS? The only useful alternative will be a 'free' Linux derivative that does not restrict me in my developer choices and does not want to collect all kinds of data.
      • jrockway 17y ago
        Android is completely Free Software. You can compile the git version and install it on pretty much any Android device. If there's spyware, delete it and recompile :) And your less paranoid users can just grab your software from your website, and run it on their "stock" devices.
        • lispm 17y ago
          true, but I don't want to support a company that does not respect privacy and collects data without any control - I also don't have the time to inspect their code
          • jrockway 17y ago
• jbeda 17y ago
  I'd love to see something like Logo or MIT's Scratch for the iPad. As I think about introducing my kids to computers that totally makes sense. This new language from Apple seems to preclude that. It is totally off base.
  • natrius 17y ago
    Interpreters were already prohibited.
    • MutantSushi 17y ago
      Interpreters being banned is old news, this is about compiled stuff being rejected because you chose a 'wrong' language.
      • natrius 17y ago
        That's what I said. The comment I replied to is about the potential for educational apps that require interpreters, which were already prohibited.
• dpcan 17y ago
  Here's where this hurts. The Adobe blog stated that you'd be able to build iPhone apps. It wasn't until recently that some of us stopped and thought, wait.... what if Apple decides to deny all Flash built apps??? A lot of time was probably lost by developers. There's going to be a lot of crushed dreams. Plus, instead of spending $600 on CS5, I'll probably buy a Mac Mini.
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
• larsberg 17y ago
  Compared to the video game console industry, this is still pretty nice. Several of the companies require submission of the source code for review. And Nintendo in particular is renowned among my video game programming friends for having ridiculous, undocumented rules that change over time. If you think of the iPhone as a PC-like platform, yes, it's worth being crazy. But I think of mine as more like a game console. That helps me minimize my own feather ruffling, even when Apple does snarky things to me during the review process.
  • malkia 17y ago
    Simply you are mistaken, and that's not true (submitting the source code). First of all, lots of companies do license many 3rd party libraries, without their source code. Sometimes these said libraries are specifically compiled with latest bugfixes to the relevant project they've been used. What the companies might require is usually symbols/debug information/etc. But never the source code! After all, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo are direct competitors. Why should an independent publisher (EA, Activision, THQ, Konami) be sharing source-code with them?
    • larsberg 17y ago
      I am clearly misinformed and apologize for my mistake!
• zyb09 17y ago
  Apple pulling an A-Move straight out their jacket again. Haha anyone surprised? God, I lost my faith in this company a long time ago.
• awa 17y ago
  And Microsoft just announced they silverlight can work on iPhone/iPad using IIS Media Services http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/silverlight_media_server_ipad_iphone/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/silverlight_media_se...
  • ptomato 17y ago
    That isn't silverlight, that's video, which the silverlight media server now just provides in a format the iPhone/iPad already supports. No .net running on iPhone OS at all.
• symphy 17y ago
  There is no longer any debate as to who the "bad guy" is in this story -- Apple has proven themselves to be anti-competition, anti-developer, and anti-consumer. Just created a new "I'm with Adobe" Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113492765344092 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113492765344092
• tshawkins 17y ago
  I think Apple could have done with some explanation on this, despite all the anti-compertative conspiracy theories, this has probably got more to do with weeding out apps that wont be able to multi-task on the new OS 4 platform, than being another salvo in an apple-adobe wars. Thats why the Rule change has been couched more in terms of how you can write apps (objective-c, api's etc), and not in terms of how you cant which is pure conjecture at the moment.
  • MutantSushi 17y ago
    Sorry, I think you've failed to grasp what Apple's "Multitasking" is about. They are perfectly happy with apps that do not multitask AT ALL. They are not offering "true" multitasking, but allowing app's to notify system daemons to carry on CERTAIN tasks, e.g. IM notificiations, VoIP, downloading content. If an app doesn't want to do this, and there's no reason an App written in MonoTouch can't do this just as easily as an ObjC Cocoa app, that really doesn't matter to Apple.
• joubert 17y ago
  I want to code in Objective-C, and I don't think Android allows that, so I'm stuck programming for iPhone/iPad. I wish Google will support Objectice-C calls against their APIs.
  • harto 17y ago
    You could write your Android app in Objective-C and then run a program that translates it to Java. Google doesn't prohibit you from doing that.
  • strlen 17y ago
    Afaik, Android has a Native SDK which means you can incorporate C code: http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html -- I'd imagine, if you can get some cross compilation done with Obj-C it would work, as long as your output was a JNI library. You could use a JVM-based "close substitute" (e.g., Objective J->JS->Rhino) for the UI portion, which makes JNI calls to an Obj-C backend.
• GHFigs 17y ago
  Two things I haven't seen mentioned: 1. The majority of iPhone developers aren't effected by this at all. 2. To some degree, this is is about ensuring the Mac remains a required part of iPhone/iPad development.
• riso 17y ago
  I am not trying to defend Apple, but is it possible that the approval process was being slowed done by having to ensure that all the other intermediary translators were not using private APIs?
  • exit 17y ago
    no, it isn't any harder to determine whether binaries produced by intermediaries access private apis.
• biafra 17y ago
  I suppose C++ will be banned when QT for iPhone is ready.
  • CamperBob 17y ago
    ROFL, as if Apple is going to allow Qt apps.
• jeenyus 17y ago
  This is only enforceable for tools like CS5 that reverse engineered the app signing process. How could Apple distinguish binaries produced intermediaries like PhoneGap and Appcelerator's Titanium from binaries produced by native Objective C code?
  • rmc 17y ago
    I'm sure it's possible to figure out if a programme was generated by some other programme. When programmes generate other source code, they will have a certain style, a certain naming convention for functions, a certain main class, etc.
• joubert 17y ago
  Totally rational if: - it doesn't undermine the market for Apple hardware - it sets back competitors The requirement to use Apple development tools, automatically means you must use Apple hardware to develop on. Ka-ching! So, as an Apple shareholder, I'm happy about it.
• g89 17y ago
  Apple's going to annoy a lot of big developers with this. Who's going to use Game Center, when a lot of big games are written with the help of Unity, etc.? There are so many top-10 games affected by this. Even THQ's Star Wars: Trench Run is affected. You can't really get more high profile than that. I wrote a blog post (http://bit.ly/disQ2C http://bit.ly/disQ2C) with some links to various SDKs and their app showcases to give people a bit of an idea of just how many existing apps this SDK change will effect.
• dedward 17y ago
  This doesn't sound practical for Apple to enforce - they could cherry pick a few big targets perhaps (Adobe....). It could also simply be a change just so they can see what the response from the development community is - and may change rather soon. I just can't fathom this particular rule lasting very long... it's not just lock-in, or a little bit evil, it's patently insane.
• buster 17y ago
  Looks like http://xmlvm.org/overview/ http://xmlvm.org/overview/ is still usable, isn't it? I am wondering when apple will close this route down, too, though
• jsz0 17y ago
  Apple is shifting the burden here from users to developers. It's easier for a developer to simply puke out a lowest common denominator app but it's not so good for the user who is buying the iPhone because of the cool UI/interaction/integration good native apps provide. It's easier for a developer to simply have their unmodified app run in the background but it's not so good for the user who is losing cycles/battery because of it. I don't want to justify it because obviously there's some valid downsides especially for developers to this approach. My only point would be that's Apple's secret sauce. It's gotta work right, it's gotta look right, everything has to work right together. Apple is going to do whatever it takes to make this happen because they feel like that's their core advantage over their competitors. They're probably right. If you disagree there's Android, BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, etc. It's not like Apple has a gun to our head. As individuals we have free will.
• c00p3r 17y ago
  I think this decision is also about preventing the virus and trojan hell like that on Windows platform and other "unauthorized" code to be spread on millions of devices. It is much easier and cheaper to examine and control such restricted binaries before releasing them on iTunes. About Flash, Java and other outdated WM-based crap - they are pragmatic. They don't need any WM to run apps on their hardware. Modern CPU is the only necessary WM. So, there will be much less complains about crashes, bad performance and out-of-memory issues. Together, these two major problems sank the reputation of Windows and Apple want to avoid them. So, there is nothing special. Apple can dictate rules which helps them to make more profit, and of course they will. Wanna freedom - there is Android. Google trying very hard to position it as Linux (community-driven open and free platform) for smartphones.
  • jasonlotito 17y ago
    I don't know why you got voted down. I don't agree with Apple here, but you make a good point. However, assuming Apple is concerned about security here, it's clearly not the only issue. Nanny Apple wants to dictate the media you take in. Trust me, if it could, it would restrict HTML. Open standards are only good if you control the standards. =)
• aufreak3 17y ago
  My original reaction to this was "WTF. There should be a class action suit against Apple by developers along the lines of hindering freedom of speech". ... but then, any compiler that can generate the processor's instructions can obviously also be modified to generate Objective-C code. So I guess this will result in all the cross-compilers just changing their target language from llvm or assembly to ... Objective-C. I can live with that ... and watch Apple slap themselves on their pretty foreheads ... whatever it is they hoped to accomplish in terms of lock-in :)
• jacquesm 17y ago
  If the installed base of the products is large enough, no matter how draconian the terms there will be a subset of all potential developers that will be swayed by the money to be made so they'll accept the terms. Any attempt at boycotting will simply fail because of that.
• DannoHung 17y ago
  Thought: They already reserve the right to reject an app for no reason at any time, why add this to the SDK terms?
• fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  Bill Gates made a big mistake back in the late nineties. He could have just banned everything that didn't use the Windows API directly. Java and the web would never have happened. The world is so simple :-)
• lucyfor 17y ago
  After more than a decade of hanging on and hoping Apple would eventually come around, I'm finally done. Sold the 9 month old macbook a few weeks ago. I'm dumping the iPhone too shortly.
• sunchild 17y ago
  Apple has pursued a single consistent goal under the reign of King Jobs II: protect the ecosystem, and grow it in careful, measured increments. In order to keep something great from turning to crap, you have to have a gatekeeper. If you don't trust the gatekeeper, that's OK. But I'm hearing a lot of noise from developers who are already beholden to their own gatekeepers (whether it's the core team of your open source project, Microsoft, Oracle/Sun, or whoever). I mean, Adobe?! Could there be a more arbitrary and horrible gatekeeper than Adobe?! Just because Apple doesn't do what you want doesn't make them better or worse than any maintainer of any "good thing". In the end, it all boils down to whether you trust Apple to do the right thing. If you don't, then you're welcome to go punt on the umpteen device platforms that are currently vapor. (How many years have we been hearing about "iPod killers", and where are we with that?) It's OK to complain, but I really would have thought the HN audience would understand that EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE is a trade-off. Yes, we should be debating the rules that Apple imposes, because we have a say in that. No, that doesn't validate rhetoric about Apple being "evil" or "anti-developer" etc.
  • prodigal_erik 17y ago
    > developers who are already beholden to their own gatekeepers (whether it's the core team of your open source project I couldn't disagree more. The goal of free software is to ensure nobody has that kind of control over you and your tools. If you don't need to organize a fork, great, but they've already agreed they can't stop you. As for the rhetoric, making tools is what makes you a member of our species. Agreeing not to is more like serfdom than partnership.
    • sunchild 17y ago
      Then go ahead and fork Flash. LOL. And forking is obviously less-than-ideal in terms of maintaining against future core updates. It's a kind of "freedom" that comes with plenty of new burdens.
• bobwaycott 17y ago
  If you want to develop apps for the iPhone, iPod, or iPad, then you have two choices--make a webapp, or make a native app. Don't want to learn Objective-C? Then build a webapp. Apple is not restricting your rights. Apple is not stealing your freedoms. Apple is not being tyrannical. Apple is not snatching your children away as payment for your access to the AppStore. I bet there's very few on here who are even developing apps that are doing all the bitching. Your the I'm-a-Flash-developer I-can-has-AppStore? type who want to have access to the latest opportunity to grab some money bags without having to learn a new trick. Did you try to read a line of Obj-C and realize it has a different syntax than your Flash timeline and AS and decide to cry cos you might have to work for those riches you're after? Do you all gripe that the web requires HTML? Did you all complain when Macromedia didn't give you Flash that only required you have a scant understanding of HTML and CSS to call yourself a "developer"? Your complaints are so lame. Companies make products. They want to control their products and its image as much as they can because it is their livelihood. If you want to base your livelihood on that product, then you pay by their rules. If you want to be outside the rules then you go your own way, but don't start crying cos they ask you to use their product to make your money in a specified way that protects their name and image. If you don't want to use the tools, make a web app. If you want to complain thAt web apps can't do everything a native app can, then learn the platform and make a native app. Stop expecting that the company that has taken all of the risk and spent all the money on r&d and given you an SDK and documented it exhaustively and covers the costs of distribution and takes all that WORK and COST off your back is asking too much to request that you repay them with the kindness of protecting and advancing the brand by using the tools THEY BUILT FOR YOU so the product and the platform can stay popular and successful and keep making you money. Good grief. That shit is so hard to swallow isn't it? Let's all burn our Macs and sound like morons with all our Android-or-Nothing cries while we quietly go fire up XCode so we can make some offing money. This is stupid.
• nikils 17y ago
  isn't it possible to distribute apps written using other languages with this method ? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040810-apple-iphone-os4.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040810-apple-iphone-os...
• j23tom 17y ago
  how can i filter apple related news in news.ycombinator.com ?
• malkia 17y ago
  Might sound ridiculous, but how would one write GLSL shaders now that the C/C++/Objective-C/JavaScript only rule is there...
• ilike 17y ago
  Apple has always been too rude to developers. Returning the iPad will be a good way to protest. Lets see how well apple does without early adopters (a major chunk of which are developers and developer referrals)
• wenbert 17y ago
  I am not regretting my decision to move away from Apple and it's products. The first thing that came to my mind when I read the title is "wtf". What a really bad move. I wonder how much more can the app developers take.
• daven11 17y ago
  Compare this to the recent Google action of withdrawing from China, which company is evil? It's a no brainer.
• jasongullickson 17y ago
  Could this be something simpler like, code from non-XCode tools is more likely to hang-up their automated testing?
• apinstein 17y ago
  Is it not possible that all this fuss is over a typo? > 3.3.1 — 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). My thought on what they probably meant: > 3.3.1 — 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 code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link only against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to UnDocumented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited). I bet what they're trying to do is prevent intermediate tools from allowing people to "whitewash" private API access. I say this because the interpretation everyone else is seeing in this clause is obviously a horrible position, and I just don't think that's the intent. Time will tell!
• voidpointer 17y ago
  This feels wrong on so many levels... Basically, they reserve the right to ban any sort of DSL/runtime/engine application architecture. Imagine you are building adventure games (like Money Island). You'd have a game engine and a domain language in which you describe the game. The beauty of this is, you don't have to rewrite the engine every time you finish a story for a game, you just write in your DSL. The same holds for a range of other applications such as travel guides, recipes for cooking... How can you be sure where they draw the line between data and code? Well, it probably just depends on whether it comes from an Adobe tool or not. Let's see who's next.
• TallGuyShort 17y ago
  I'm no economist, and certainly no lawyer, but this does seem to me like it violates anti-trust law. Can anyone more informed about such issues comment on that?
• victor9762 17y ago
  apple is too restrictive!
• strlen 17y ago
  Don't forget another possible explanation: Objective C, C and C++ are difficult languages, meaning there's a barrier to entry. Apple may also want to prevent application development from becoming a commodity: they don't want "widget shops" employing warm bodies to churn out low-value applications. Of course, I disagree with this approach: there already are widget shops. It's possible to program in a language without knowing it, by writing it non-idiomatically resulting in buggier, slower code that takes longer to develop and is difficult to maintain. The fact that they write in languages that take longer to develop an app in would just mean they'll choose "low quality" while still maintaining the same quantity.
• anupam 17y ago
  You can't stop people from making their own choices, whenever you try to force any kind of sensor ship or prohibition on people, they will find out ways to go around. IMHO very stupid and arrogant move by Apple.
• fantazio 17y ago
  "Apple responsible for 99.4% of mobile app sales in 2009" http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-for-994-of-mobile-app-sales-in-2009.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-... so obviously AppStore is a monopole - the other 3~10 stores have a miserable 0.6% ... of course that says a lot about Apple genius and how its competitors are plain retarded ... but ... still i think they are more and more abusing their dominant position with their draconian dev rules ... and that should be looked at - could present some legal challenges for them ... im no lawyer - but i think the only way they can get away with it is tru the private nature of the dev agreement ... incidentally - i really think Apple is special - one of a kind genius company - but also because of that people cut them way too much slack ... to prove my point - just try this simple mental exercise - try to picture - what would happen on this same forum if we were discussing about say - Microsoft - say Microsoft just put out a nice new license for Windows-7 that said you "can develop for W7 only if you use C#, .NET, Microsoft own compilers, Flash is banned and Redmond will need to approve all any application" ... dude - it's so funny i cannot even finish typing it ... really - it just sounds so crazy - like a story from another world - a world of evil monopolistic corporations that try to control our free lives... yet all we did with this simple exercise is to change one word : Apple -> Microsoft ... and - last time i checked - Windows does not even have 99.4% of the market - more like 90% coupled with a boring, inferior resource hogging product that though comes with all the freedoms democracy brigs us ... and that proves my point - we do cut Apple way too much slack just because they are so awesome in making great products ... full disclosure - i owned both iPhone 2G and 3G, just recently dumped 3G for a nexus-one because id rather own an imperfect (though rapidly improving) democracy than in a perfect nazional-socialistic system ... i still use my mac - osx is awesome and kicks Windows-7 lower-back ... and just got an iPad - just because there are no other choices ... yet ...
• gcr 17y ago
  Ok, idea: If we can't bring flash / other languages to the ip{{o,a}d,hone}, why not bring the ipod/ipad/iphone to other platforms? Write an Android wrapper around Cocoa's API, for example. Something like a WINE of sorts. People with lots of iphone app dev experience can write their iphone app, then turn around and recompile that Objective C code into an android app. Far from ideal, but it may be the best solution at the moment.