4 ms·

- You have to use a Mac to develop iPhone apps. - You have to use Xcode as your IDE. - You have to use the Objective-C language - You have to manage your mem

by dejb 17y ago

- You have to use a Mac to develop iPhone apps. - You have to use Xcode as your IDE. - You have to use the Objective-C language - You have to manage your memory manually. - You have to have a certificate in order to sign your code to make it work on a device. - You have to pay a yearly fee ($99) to get the ability to create such a certificate. - You’ll have to provide various pieces of information, and enter into a distribution contract with Apple. - Apple has to approve your app before it goes onto the App Store. Seems a little restrictive. Imagine the antitrust concerns this would bring up if the platform actually did become dominant.

tptacek 17y ago
It's no more restrictive than any major game console.
- dejb 17y ago
  Yes. Which is why I think it would be best to view the iPhone platform in a similar light as a game console. Cool and fun, but not something you would seriously be expecting to be the basis of the next wave of personal computing.
  - roc 17y ago
    Actually, I think the iPhone's success has practically guaranteed the next wave of personal computing will follow the console model. It's easier for the user, the development community is willing and it offers larger returns for the platform creator. Besides, most of the guts of personal computing are being done via protocols and services; platform lock-in isn't really done on the device anymore.
    - dejb 17y ago
      That would truly be a sad future, worse than the '1984' scenario being played out by Amazon's DRM. What free person would want to rely on a device that required the manufacturers constant consent to allow it to function as that they wanted? Thankfully this seems unlikely. History suggests that there is a significant benefit in choice and freedom and that consumers will eventually follow that path. > It's easier for the user, the development community is willing and it offers larger returns for the platform creator. So the lock-in is powerful and effective? > Besides, most of the guts of personal computing are being done via protocols and services; platform lock-in isn't really done on the device anymore. So the lock-in doesn't really matter? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The answer is that the lock-in acts like friction, wasting value instead of providing returns for participants in the system.
      - jcl 17y ago
        The important thing is not the lock-in, and probably not even the pre-screening of applications. The important thing is the streamlining of getting software and updates to the user. If centralized software distribution scares you, be afraid of Ubuntu.
        xel02 17y ago
        With the iPhone there is one software repository. With Ubuntu (and most major distributions) you can roll your own repository (or someone selling software can). Centralized software distribution is awesome, the issue with the iPhone model is that you have to be anointed.
        dejb 17y ago
        All losses of freedom are important. Ubuntu doesn't force you to use them for software distribution or updates. Of course Apple could do the same without any loss of experience for those who wanted to stay within their cage. The only possible 'benefit' in enforcing these restrictions is the prevention of pirating of software. But DRM hasn't worked for music and there isn't much reason to think it will work for software either.
TJensen 17y ago
I use Emacs and Make as my IDE (yes, it does call xcode to do the actual compile). There is at least one Ruby and one Javascript compiler you can use.
- smikhanov 17y ago
  Could you please give a little bit more info on how do you do this (and links to Ruby/JS compilers)?
  - TJensen 17y ago
    This goes in my Makefile. I have to add files in xcode. all: xcodebuild -activeconfiguration -activetarget -sdk iphonesimulator3.0 -project MyProject.xcodeproj I may have to back out of the Ruby. I thought I remembered reading about a Ruby project for iPhone apps, but I think I was smoking something that day. Other Links: http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickconnect/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickconnect/ http://phonegap.com/ http://phonegap.com/
cdr 17y ago
Not all of those are strictly true, either.
jlongster 17y ago
You don't have to use Objective-C, and you are free to use a language with a garbage collector: http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-scheme/ http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-schem...
- jsonscripter 17y ago
  You still have to have C in the end. The license agreement forces it upon you. That's disgusting.
  - Morn 17y ago
    That's not true. You can use any language/compiler combination that will compile to an ARM binary. See, for example, ArsTechnica's roundup of the state of C#/Mono on the iPhone: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/open-source-mono-framework-brings-c-to-iphone-and-wii.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/open-source-...

by dejb 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

It's no more restrictive than any major game console.

dejb 17y ago
Yes. Which is why I think it would be best to view the iPhone platform in a similar light as a game console. Cool and fun, but not something you would seriously be expecting to be the basis of the next wave of personal computing.
- roc 17y ago
  Actually, I think the iPhone's success has practically guaranteed the next wave of personal computing will follow the console model. It's easier for the user, the development community is willing and it offers larger returns for the platform creator. Besides, most of the guts of personal computing are being done via protocols and services; platform lock-in isn't really done on the device anymore.
  - dejb 17y ago
    That would truly be a sad future, worse than the '1984' scenario being played out by Amazon's DRM. What free person would want to rely on a device that required the manufacturers constant consent to allow it to function as that they wanted? Thankfully this seems unlikely. History suggests that there is a significant benefit in choice and freedom and that consumers will eventually follow that path. > It's easier for the user, the development community is willing and it offers larger returns for the platform creator. So the lock-in is powerful and effective? > Besides, most of the guts of personal computing are being done via protocols and services; platform lock-in isn't really done on the device anymore. So the lock-in doesn't really matter? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The answer is that the lock-in acts like friction, wasting value instead of providing returns for participants in the system.
    - jcl 17y ago
      The important thing is not the lock-in, and probably not even the pre-screening of applications. The important thing is the streamlining of getting software and updates to the user. If centralized software distribution scares you, be afraid of Ubuntu.
      - xel02 17y ago
        With the iPhone there is one software repository. With Ubuntu (and most major distributions) you can roll your own repository (or someone selling software can). Centralized software distribution is awesome, the issue with the iPhone model is that you have to be anointed.
      - dejb 17y ago
        All losses of freedom are important. Ubuntu doesn't force you to use them for software distribution or updates. Of course Apple could do the same without any loss of experience for those who wanted to stay within their cage. The only possible 'benefit' in enforcing these restrictions is the prevention of pirating of software. But DRM hasn't worked for music and there isn't much reason to think it will work for software either.

TJensen 17y ago

I use Emacs and Make as my IDE (yes, it does call xcode to do the actual compile). There is at least one Ruby and one Javascript compiler you can use.

smikhanov 17y ago
Could you please give a little bit more info on how do you do this (and links to Ruby/JS compilers)?
- TJensen 17y ago
  This goes in my Makefile. I have to add files in xcode. all: xcodebuild -activeconfiguration -activetarget -sdk iphonesimulator3.0 -project MyProject.xcodeproj I may have to back out of the Ruby. I thought I remembered reading about a Ruby project for iPhone apps, but I think I was smoking something that day. Other Links: http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickconnect/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickconnect/ http://phonegap.com/ http://phonegap.com/

cdr 17y ago

Not all of those are strictly true, either.

jlongster 17y ago

You don't have to use Objective-C, and you are free to use a language with a garbage collector: http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-scheme/ http://jlongster.com/blog/2009/06/17/write-apps-iphone-schem...

jsonscripter 17y ago
You still have to have C in the end. The license agreement forces it upon you. That's disgusting.
- Morn 17y ago
  That's not true. You can use any language/compiler combination that will compile to an ARM binary. See, for example, ArsTechnica's roundup of the state of C#/Mono on the iPhone: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/open-source-mono-framework-brings-c-to-iphone-and-wii.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/open-source-...