4 ms·

Because third party iOS developers are still second class citizens compared to Apple in-house developers. Google doesn't make third party developers second cla

by criley2 12y ago

Because third party iOS developers are still second class citizens compared to Apple in-house developers. Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps. This is a step forward for Apple, but for example: Safari will remain the only browser available on iOS, and Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design. True competition is prevented by design, and it takes 5 years to open up something as basic as the keyboard. How many more years until browser is opened up? 5 more? It's an interesting move as far as platforms go, but I know that it's no where near what I want from a platform. It's still locked down, under featured and heavily controlled. For a non-tech user or someone who wants a dead simple phone, it seems great. But for those of us who love our devices, love customizing them in and out, and love trying to create the best experiences, Apple still is not a choice: we can't compete with Apple apps, we can't use their in-house APIs, and they still offer us inferior versions of the software/APIs that they use inhouse.

threeseed 12y ago
> True competition is prevented by design. You really think Apple is threatened by the competition posed by an alternative keyboard or browser ? Pretty sure they care far more about maintaining their "99% of malware" exists on Android record.
- criley2 12y ago
  Please look past the hype, malware on phones is a near non-issue. Need I remind you that it was iOS devices being hijacked by hackers, not Android devices? Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom. And no, Apple isn't threatened by the "competition". I'm just saying: from the perspective of a tech-forward developer who spends a lot of time on their mobile computing device, the locked down reality of iOS, while marginally improving, is still leagues away from a platform that gives developers a deep and powerful ability to create wonderful mobile experiences that transcend the concept of "sandboxed app". Sure iOS apps have some great modern flat-ui navigation, but how many iOS developers are trying to re-imagine what mobile means, how we use phones? How many iOS developers are capable of adjusting how we use the phone, the screens and service we see the most? On Android: most developers can. I have a list of a dozen apps that improve on Google's core functions, and I'm sure hundreds more amazing apps exist. On iOS: None can and none are, outside of the small jailbreak scene. Everyone uses stock everything because that's all that's allowed. #innovation
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom. The feature used for this - remote locking of a stolen/lost phone - is present on both Android and iOS, as are weak passwords. That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying.
    - criley2 12y ago
      "That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying." I'm pointing out that just because Tim Cook makes a random hypey statement, it doesn't MEAN anything. I rightfully showed that iOS, without malware, is suffering from hijacks that aren't occurring in Android. Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics.
      - wrboyce 12y ago
        > Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics. This seems a curious view for a self-professed "tech-forward developer". Your logic can extend to a lot of things. My credit card... Is that malware in my bank if someone guesses my PIN?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - criley2 12y ago
        If someone could use an app developed by the bank for you, and use that bank software to gain unlawful access to your bank account and hijack your bank account, then that app could semantically be called "malicious software". I disagree with your unfair oversimplification in your analogy, because I think it dilutes the point into nonsense. I also dislike that you're ignoring the fact that I am obviously being glib and have dropped several context clues for you, and yet you're ignoring them to attack/insult me ("for a so-called developer"). Please don't play dumb!
- bicubic 12y ago
  Regarding alternative browsers, yeah I think they might be. Safari and UIWebView intentionally disable webgl (http://atnan.com/blog/2011/11/03/enabling-and-using-webgl-on-ios http://atnan.com/blog/2011/11/03/enabling-and-using-webgl-on...). The official reason is security but given that webgl has been running on Android and desktop browsers without incident and that its present in Safari Mobile and merely disabled, its more likely that Apple doesn't want to have webgl based apps taking from app store sales. A true alternative browser would open the doors to breaking the app store monopoly on games.
  - wildpeaks 12y ago
    WebGL works in iOS8, no longer disabled :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7837899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7837899
    - bicubic 12y ago
      Yeah I got the news an hour ago. That's amazing, very happy about it! Been working on a webgl pet project and concerned about adoption with the iDevice market out of reach. It also partly invalidates my point earlier.
      - wildpeaks 12y ago
        iOS has definitely been a sore point for selling WebGL solution until now because the only option was doing it as an app, so that was limiting 3D It might still need some tweaks here and there but I'm already amazed this demo for a customer of mine from January works as-is (except I need to tweak the background shader, it was a quick test anyway), in the browser without plugin or app on an old iPad 2: https://twitter.com/wildpeaks/status/473672792689639424 https://twitter.com/wildpeaks/status/473672792689639424
      - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
        The pattern increasingly seems to be Apple try stuff out with their own apps then release to the wider community as they get comfortable. I can understand why that frustrates developers but I can understand why Apple do it.
the_watcher 12y ago
>> Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design. My hope is that deep-linking can make this somewhat irrelevant. If you can deep link to Safari from where you'd otherwise use UIWebView, and design a system that allows you to return to the app you were in when you finish (an easy one, like letting the back button take you back to the previous app), then a lot of these issues are somewhat solved.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- criley2 12y ago
  But it means IMO that innovation and competition are limited on iOS. On Android, I use Firefox (with the real gecko engine), Chrome Beta and Dolphin. I mainly use Firefox, which is a great mobile browser that fully supports extensions, and has some incredible mobile extensions. These kinds of innovations are imposssible in iOS, and deeplinking only hides the fact that real innovation in mobile is impossible on iOS. I don't want to use Apple's evolutionary improved one-size-fits-all-app, I want to see what real competition in an open marketplace is capable of achieving. Think of this: in a world where mobile rules desktop by a huge margin, and a world where iOS rules all other smartphones, the only major browser developers would work for Apple and no one else would be able to compete by design. It's unrealistic, but possible. I don't like not having choice, and being told that Apple knows best.
wrboyce 12y ago
> Safari will remain the only browser available on iOS https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chrome-web-browser-by-google/id535886823?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chrome-web-browser-by-google... > ...meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design But you just said Safari is the only browser?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  More accurately, Safari is (and presumably will remain) the only browser engine, but its possible for third party apps to reskin the engine and provide certain limited differences in non-core functionality and call it a different "browser".
- criley2 12y ago
  wrboyce, you linked me Chrome for iOS. I covered that in my post, please keep up: Chrome for iOS is powered by Safari on iOS, because Apple refuses to allow any other developer use the developers own code and libraries. Chrome is prevented from using Google's inhouse Blink rendering engine and the majority of the rest of the Chrome code and features we know and love on every other platform including Android. Chrome is forced to use UIWebView, which is an OUTDATED and OLDER version of Safari than Safari. If you use Chrome on iOS, you are getting an INFERIOR browser because Apple dictated that all other browsers must A) use Safari as their internal and B) must use outdated and old versions of Safari so they don't and can't compete with Safari fairly. Which is MY WHOLE POINT, really, that Apple holds back innovation.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    Do you have a source for UIWebView being an older version of safari than MobileSafari? I thought they were the same except for the Nitro (JIT) stuff, and even that seems to be changing for iOS8, especially with the Modern Webkit thing that's been showing up in webkit git commits.
    - ubaltaci 12y ago
      You are right, except nitro there arent any critical differences between them.
interpol_p 12y ago
> Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps. This is exactly my problem with Google. They seem to prioritise developers over users. Apple does the opposite. As a developer I prefer this — I've been rejected many times, and many times it was because I failed to do something for my users. I don't trust most developers to do right by their users. I don't trust them to respect user privacy, store data securely, ensure decent battery life, not be lazy, and so on. Developers don't have the right to develop for and sell on whatever store they want; they should follow the rules if they want their software on someone else's store. The Safari UIWebView thing relates to memory protection. And really, there's not that much of a difference (I use JavaScriptCore pretty heavily at times). Which Apple APIs, specifically, are you complaining about? As far as I see, the vast majority of what we use, Apple uses. Their APIs are often elegant and very well thought out. Also powerful.
- devcpp 12y ago
  What's so awesome about Android is that Google can't reject you, since you can just install any APKs you want. If you can't appreciate that (among all the other freedom features, like root, ADB, customization, etc), you don't really get Android's philosophy.
  - interpol_p 12y ago
    That's true — I'd acknowledge that as a nice aspect of Android from a developer or enthusiast user point of view. I believe that iOS would be less successful if it had similar capability, though. (I'm also the kind of person that doesn't really mind spending $100/year on a Dev account to install what I want.) The point is that for the vast majority, and for developers looking to make a living, the play store can reject you. So for my purposes Google is pretty much in full control here.

by criley2 12y ago

threeseed 12y ago

> True competition is prevented by design. You really think Apple is threatened by the competition posed by an alternative keyboard or browser ? Pretty sure they care far more about maintaining their "99% of malware" exists on Android record.

criley2 12y ago
Please look past the hype, malware on phones is a near non-issue. Need I remind you that it was iOS devices being hijacked by hackers, not Android devices? Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom. And no, Apple isn't threatened by the "competition". I'm just saying: from the perspective of a tech-forward developer who spends a lot of time on their mobile computing device, the locked down reality of iOS, while marginally improving, is still leagues away from a platform that gives developers a deep and powerful ability to create wonderful mobile experiences that transcend the concept of "sandboxed app". Sure iOS apps have some great modern flat-ui navigation, but how many iOS developers are trying to re-imagine what mobile means, how we use phones? How many iOS developers are capable of adjusting how we use the phone, the screens and service we see the most? On Android: most developers can. I have a list of a dozen apps that improve on Google's core functions, and I'm sure hundreds more amazing apps exist. On iOS: None can and none are, outside of the small jailbreak scene. Everyone uses stock everything because that's all that's allowed. #innovation
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom. The feature used for this - remote locking of a stolen/lost phone - is present on both Android and iOS, as are weak passwords. That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying.
  - criley2 12y ago
    "That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying." I'm pointing out that just because Tim Cook makes a random hypey statement, it doesn't MEAN anything. I rightfully showed that iOS, without malware, is suffering from hijacks that aren't occurring in Android. Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics.
    - wrboyce 12y ago
      > Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics. This seems a curious view for a self-professed "tech-forward developer". Your logic can extend to a lot of things. My credit card... Is that malware in my bank if someone guesses my PIN?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - criley2 12y ago
      If someone could use an app developed by the bank for you, and use that bank software to gain unlawful access to your bank account and hijack your bank account, then that app could semantically be called "malicious software". I disagree with your unfair oversimplification in your analogy, because I think it dilutes the point into nonsense. I also dislike that you're ignoring the fact that I am obviously being glib and have dropped several context clues for you, and yet you're ignoring them to attack/insult me ("for a so-called developer"). Please don't play dumb!
bicubic 12y ago
Regarding alternative browsers, yeah I think they might be. Safari and UIWebView intentionally disable webgl (http://atnan.com/blog/2011/11/03/enabling-and-using-webgl-on-ios http://atnan.com/blog/2011/11/03/enabling-and-using-webgl-on...). The official reason is security but given that webgl has been running on Android and desktop browsers without incident and that its present in Safari Mobile and merely disabled, its more likely that Apple doesn't want to have webgl based apps taking from app store sales. A true alternative browser would open the doors to breaking the app store monopoly on games.
- wildpeaks 12y ago
  WebGL works in iOS8, no longer disabled :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7837899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7837899
  - bicubic 12y ago
    Yeah I got the news an hour ago. That's amazing, very happy about it! Been working on a webgl pet project and concerned about adoption with the iDevice market out of reach. It also partly invalidates my point earlier.
    - wildpeaks 12y ago
      iOS has definitely been a sore point for selling WebGL solution until now because the only option was doing it as an app, so that was limiting 3D It might still need some tweaks here and there but I'm already amazed this demo for a customer of mine from January works as-is (except I need to tweak the background shader, it was a quick test anyway), in the browser without plugin or app on an old iPad 2: https://twitter.com/wildpeaks/status/473672792689639424 https://twitter.com/wildpeaks/status/473672792689639424
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      The pattern increasingly seems to be Apple try stuff out with their own apps then release to the wider community as they get comfortable. I can understand why that frustrates developers but I can understand why Apple do it.

the_watcher 12y ago

>> Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design. My hope is that deep-linking can make this somewhat irrelevant. If you can deep link to Safari from where you'd otherwise use UIWebView, and design a system that allows you to return to the app you were in when you finish (an easy one, like letting the back button take you back to the previous app), then a lot of these issues are somewhat solved.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
criley2 12y ago
But it means IMO that innovation and competition are limited on iOS. On Android, I use Firefox (with the real gecko engine), Chrome Beta and Dolphin. I mainly use Firefox, which is a great mobile browser that fully supports extensions, and has some incredible mobile extensions. These kinds of innovations are imposssible in iOS, and deeplinking only hides the fact that real innovation in mobile is impossible on iOS. I don't want to use Apple's evolutionary improved one-size-fits-all-app, I want to see what real competition in an open marketplace is capable of achieving. Think of this: in a world where mobile rules desktop by a huge margin, and a world where iOS rules all other smartphones, the only major browser developers would work for Apple and no one else would be able to compete by design. It's unrealistic, but possible. I don't like not having choice, and being told that Apple knows best.

wrboyce 12y ago

> Safari will remain the only browser available on iOS https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chrome-web-browser-by-google/id535886823?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chrome-web-browser-by-google... > ...meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design But you just said Safari is the only browser?

dragonwriter 12y ago
More accurately, Safari is (and presumably will remain) the only browser engine, but its possible for third party apps to reskin the engine and provide certain limited differences in non-core functionality and call it a different "browser".
criley2 12y ago
wrboyce, you linked me Chrome for iOS. I covered that in my post, please keep up: Chrome for iOS is powered by Safari on iOS, because Apple refuses to allow any other developer use the developers own code and libraries. Chrome is prevented from using Google's inhouse Blink rendering engine and the majority of the rest of the Chrome code and features we know and love on every other platform including Android. Chrome is forced to use UIWebView, which is an OUTDATED and OLDER version of Safari than Safari. If you use Chrome on iOS, you are getting an INFERIOR browser because Apple dictated that all other browsers must A) use Safari as their internal and B) must use outdated and old versions of Safari so they don't and can't compete with Safari fairly. Which is MY WHOLE POINT, really, that Apple holds back innovation.
- 0x0 12y ago
  Do you have a source for UIWebView being an older version of safari than MobileSafari? I thought they were the same except for the Nitro (JIT) stuff, and even that seems to be changing for iOS8, especially with the Modern Webkit thing that's been showing up in webkit git commits.
  - ubaltaci 12y ago
    You are right, except nitro there arent any critical differences between them.

interpol_p 12y ago

> Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps. This is exactly my problem with Google. They seem to prioritise developers over users. Apple does the opposite. As a developer I prefer this — I've been rejected many times, and many times it was because I failed to do something for my users. I don't trust most developers to do right by their users. I don't trust them to respect user privacy, store data securely, ensure decent battery life, not be lazy, and so on. Developers don't have the right to develop for and sell on whatever store they want; they should follow the rules if they want their software on someone else's store. The Safari UIWebView thing relates to memory protection. And really, there's not that much of a difference (I use JavaScriptCore pretty heavily at times). Which Apple APIs, specifically, are you complaining about? As far as I see, the vast majority of what we use, Apple uses. Their APIs are often elegant and very well thought out. Also powerful.

devcpp 12y ago
What's so awesome about Android is that Google can't reject you, since you can just install any APKs you want. If you can't appreciate that (among all the other freedom features, like root, ADB, customization, etc), you don't really get Android's philosophy.
- interpol_p 12y ago
  That's true — I'd acknowledge that as a nice aspect of Android from a developer or enthusiast user point of view. I believe that iOS would be less successful if it had similar capability, though. (I'm also the kind of person that doesn't really mind spending $100/year on a Dev account to install what I want.) The point is that for the vast majority, and for developers looking to make a living, the play store can reject you. So for my purposes Google is pretty much in full control here.