Steve Jobs defends Apple's changes to iPhone developer agreement - Page 5

True, but not in all cases. It seems as though Apple could add a condition that devs had to write code while eating spaghetti and wearing D&G undies and some would argue it was the right decision for any number of reasons.




Until those rules change midstream. The rules in place when most signed up are not the same rules under discussion now.


The app purge had more to do with the material than the quality.


True enough, but since Apple has set themselves up as the only gateway to the platform, obviously decisions that they make and policies they enforce, that directly affect peoples incomes, are going to come under some scrutiny.

If there were alternative ways to sell your apps to iPhone users, there would be little to complain about Apple's decisions...though I am sure some would.


Opinions are not only valid based on material success. If it were, we might as you for your own proof of being in the billionaires club, as you seem free with your opinions as well.


Arguably very true. But, wanting to use what you are comfortable doesn't always make you lazy. It is just human nature. Being more comfortable with a certain environment might also mean being more proficient with it.


Not exactly positive when the CEO, as of yesterday blogged about this with the statement
"Our current best guess is that well be fine".

Perhaps not such a moot point.



Gotta say, you have got virtual balls the size of grapefruit to be so insulting to mod.

sorry, I forgot the /sarcasm.

That was a sarcastic post that your replied to. First time I have even been called a communist. I am pretty much of a wimp though.

Yes. For example, when Apple doesn't admit to and correct product defects that cause problems for consumers, that's a line where criticism is justly deserved. My experience is that they've gotten better about this than they were in the years before Jobs' return, but there are still occasionally problems. (And, despite what Adobe would have us believe, Flash problems are not one of these instances.) I also think they are much better than most hardware vendors in this regard.

However, as far as developers go, Apple's been telling them for years to use Xcode/Objective-C/Cocoa, and these are business-to-business relationships where everyone is trying to make money. Apple doesn't have any obligation to endanger it's own business interests for the good of these developers, or tool vendors. At best the relationship is symbiotic, at worst, parasitic. But, essentially, if Apple has to make a choice between what's good for themselves and what would please developers. or be good for tool vendors, and those goals are in contradiction, there is no "line", not because Apple can do no wrong, but because it's not a moral issue. Or, if there is something like a moral issue, it's that Apple has an obligation to itself above the interests of others.

I wasn't asking what line they would have to cross before they would be condemned to hell. Simply what it would take some people to say "that's not right". Not what line they would leave the platform. Not what line they would picket 1 Infinite Loop. Simply, can any action from Apple actually be enough not to agree with.

It is a minor issue, relative to the issues in the world at large. Yet here we are, people on both sides (and some of us trying to remain in the middle) discussing it.

Then surely there is room for a developer to say "Apple, this sucks!", and yet want to stay with the platform. Obviously, to do so will eventually mean bending to the rules, since Apple is in total control, but they can still take issue with a decision and stay with the platform.

I reject your premise that such policies are automatically "bad" and the corollary that close systems are also therefore automatically "bad". Closed systems have their place, just like open systems have their place. There are pro's and con's to each.


Bingo. Apple was and is very up front about the requirements to play in the App Store. Adobe was hoping to skirt a technicality, and I for one wasn't relishing the "marginal ware" that was going to be churned out wholesale for the App Store. Kudos to Apple for sticking to their guns and further clarifying their position: If you want to play in the App Store, use the native tools!

Or simply being pragmatic and doing what worked best for them under the rules of the platform. I fully understand that developers who wish to use 3rd-party tools believe this is their most effective route to App Store success. But Apple's purpose is not, and ought not be, to insure the success of individual developers by allowing their platform to be commoditized.

Exactly! It doesn't bother me that a developer takes issue with one of Apple's decisions, I just find it funny that they want to make money using an Apple platform, and want to do so by their rules, not Apples.

Living in the US, I live in a democratic, capitalist society. Personal wealth is encouraged and most people yearn for more money. So I have a job but it doesn't pay enough for the things I want. So I rob a bank. I get arrested and I say, "Look, I'm not playing by the rules of law, but I am trying to increase my personal wealth and that is supported by society at large. So I don't really deserve to go to jail."

Apple makes the rules for its products. If developers don't like the rules, that's cool, just develop for another platform.

And that argument is a specious one. The quality, committed and most desirable developers aren't affected by this in the least. They are already playing in and leveraging the iPhone OS ecosystem.

The developers affected by this are the "drive by" opportunists that are looking for a cheap and easy way to enter the App Store for a quick buck without having to commit. Hardly a true loss.

Don't let the proverbial door hit your whiny butts on the way out....

Good points.

It is sort of funny to see how the Apple community's view of external devs has changed. They used to be seen as partners to Apple. Around my campus, maths/comp sci co-op students that came back with WWDC T-shirts were envied as they must have had interesting placements (at least in the eyes those in the MUG on campus). Really, only MS was vilified. Today they are parasites(at worst). Even Adobe used to be held in pretty high regard...though they credibility they have lost is mainly on their own shoulders.

I guess for me, it comes down to the application of those rules. With the Mac, Apple always had guidelines. Following those guidelines was a good idea if you wanted your app to behave mac-like and have the Mac look and feel. But with the iPhone, it seems they are determined to use a much more heavy handed approach. I don't do any mobile development, and perhaps it is from being used to the 'open' environments of the desktop OSes, but this type of approach feels wrong...it doesn't feel 'Apple-like'.

Developers must accept the rules (to stay), but that doesn't they have to agree with them.

As an iPhone owner and longtime Apple user, however, the benefits to Apple and to consumers of this more hands-on level of control have certainly been undeniable.

*sigh*

QuickTime is a C API that has been around since before time began. Not Carbon, not Cocoa, "QuickTime", in vanilla C.... it's still there, and it's the SAME on Windows and Mac (except currently the SDKs have different versions in the headers, 7.3 vs 7.6.3).

It sits along side Core Audio, Core Image, Core Video etc., all of which are C, and none of which are Carbon, or Cocoa - they're considered the Graphics and Media layer.

QTKit, is an Obj-C wrapper on top of QuickTime; I guess that makes it Cocoa.

QuickTime X is a player, written in Cocoa using QTKit, which uses the QuickTime C API.
QuickTime Player for Windows is a native win32 app which uses the QuickTime C API.

Most developers have been and are still involved in a symbiotic, rather than parasitic, relationship with Apple. So, it's not the case that there's a general hostility toward developers now. And it's not the case that Apple is hostile toward developers, just look at the article and thread about the removal of the rate on delete function, done solely to please developers.

I think, in large part, it's a very healthy relationship, and one that customers realize they benefit from.

The difference, of course, is that Apple has explained why using the abstraction layers affects app quality - and virtually every knowledgeable developer agreed. Just how would eating spaghetti affect product quality?

IOW, your argument doesn't have even a shred of rational thinking behind it.



That is one of the inaccuracies you keep stating. In fact, the rules didn't change. Apple's intent in the original SDK was clear but Adobe thought they'd try to find a clever way to work around it. Apple simply clarified what was clear to everyone but Adobe from the start.



And you know this because.....?



That's fine. People can scrutinize all they want. It doesn't change the fact that what Apple did was perfectly legal, but if you want to scrutinize, go right ahead.


Some people complain about EVERYTHING Apple does - including, apparently, you. Apple doesn't need to offer alternative ways to sell apps on their phone. If you want to create your own system, go ahead and do so. Just stop whining that Apple doesn't do it the way you think they should.


Riiigghhhht. Where did I say only billionaires were entitled to an opinion? I said that if the person is claiming that he can do it better than Apple, he needs to provide some evidence of that.

Since I never claimed that I could do it better than Apple, I don't have to provide such evidence.


That's fine with me. They can be proficient all they want with painting or music or anything else they want to do. They can learn Flash or Fortran or Cobol or assembly language if they wish. But that doesn't change the fact that in Apple's opinion, these runtime solutions do not provide good code and if they want to develop for iPhone, they need to use an approved method.

Does that say that it's impossible to produce good code with some other language? Of course not. It simply says that Apple doesn't think it's worth the bother. If enough people write great apps in Pascal and ask Apple to consider adding it, Apple will undoubtedly consider it. But as of today, they have no evidence that any other development platform is going to consistently produce good apps - and virtually every developer here agrees with them.


Sounds like Unity thinks that they're fine - just as I said.



I don't care who it is - if they post such inane figures and pretend they know what they're talking about, I'll correct them. I wasn't insulting - just told them to learn something about finance before posting on financial topics. Failing to do so is indefensible.

Likewise, a lot of people are pissed for iPhone/iPad not supporting Flash. You can't make everyone happy with single solution. Best thing you can do is give a Flash and an option to disable it, and let users choose. Choice is always good. But that option would let people use unauthorised (by Apple) Flash applications, and more and more I'm convinced that is real reason for Apple's behaviour.


I'm sure 3D games are killing battery much faster than Flash content. My decision is not to game on iPhone (short of 2-3 really simple 2D games), but I still don't think Apple should kill 3D gaming on iDevices in order not to piss people with short battery life. Everyone should choose for himself should he/she preserve battery life to the max, or use features to the max. Or anything in between.


Number of games are being developed for multi-platform. Personally I dislike when MS, Sony... get game developers into exclusive deal. But that's me.

If Apple has not given Adobe what they need to have Flash run as fast on OS X as on Windows, then how is it that the next iteration of Flash later this year will, according to Adobe, use 50% of the CPU it now uses on the Mac, and be just a tad slower than its Windows equivalent?

Sounds more like what Steve P. said about Adobe being lazy than Apple preventing Flash from being faster and less of a resource hog.

Sure, if I was a huge Flash fan, I'd love it to be able to use the GPU, but if it can't, it can't. That doesn't excuse Adobe from not working on the efficiency of Flash on the Mac since it can obviously do it and have announced that it will come later this year.

So, who's to say that if Adobe DOES improve Flash, that it won't be on Apple's iGadgets. I don't miss it, but at the least, I'd like to have it perform much better on my Mac OS X machines.

Sue Denim - my new favorite poster. Too bad you are banned. I wonder what it was that you said because everything I read seemed very well stated and rational.

This is no different then Microsoft saying .net runtime only on their phone and Android saying the Java runtime only. No one would have a problem with .net and Java because they _seem_ more open. The Objective-C runtime is an open specification from the NextStep days too, so this really is no different then the competitors.

Compatibility layers are different then programming languages. Multiple languages run on top of .net and Java. Apple is developing a port of Ruby that runs on top of the Objective-C runtime called MacRuby. When it is finished it will most likely be allowed on the iPhone. Other programming languages could run on top of the Objective-C runtime too. This is no different then the .net and Java runtimes.

Basically Apple is being criticized for doing the same thing as every one else, but they are treated as if they are the only ones with this policy. Instead of making their platform unable to support this due to JIT compilation, they use legal contracts to prevent it instead.

Compatibility layers for UI (what apple is really concerned about) are awful. Look at Java Swing or QT for example. You can definitely tell they are inferior to a native app. Even something as simple as Cut and Paste often doesn't work on Java programs. I would be more forgiving of non-UI code personally. The types of applications that are available for the iPhone are primarily UI driven because there is very little processing power. These types of apps you really need to write from scratch for the platform. If you put the work in to make a compatibility layer look like a native app it would have been easier to write the native app in the first place. Ex-Sun Microsystems managers and people who have never written an application both ways before are the only people who think differently here. Beyond that, the iPhone is a very easy platform to develop for. I've heard Android and Silverlight are also pretty easy to develop for. Developers also don't scale very well. It is easier for a developer to target one platform. If you want to target multiple platforms, hire more developers to port to them. Three developers on three platforms works better then three developers on one compatibility layer.

The exception to this is of course games because they will port more easily between platforms, but games are written in C++ anyway so it isn't a big deal.

Sue Denim = pseudonym = previously banned troll. Get it?

"Her" last post let forth with the "Koolaid" and "fanboys" tirade thus exposing the true nature. AppleIsider mods are not stupid.

Good for Jobs.
I don't want any Flash crud on my mobile Apple devices. On my Mac, I block Flash when using Firefox and Safari, and will continue to do so.

I was starting to wonder if "Sue" were posting from an Adobe IP

Wouldn't surprise me... it would explain why it has taken Adobe the better part of a decade trying to make Flash on the Mac suck less. They have to fit that pesky coding in between the hours they spend trying to defend their bloated and inefficient products on message boards and blogs.

Well Adobe, when you suck in bed - ya suck in bed.

Some people are scared that if Apple keeps picking with adobe, adobe will pull their software for mac and stop developing for them. I've seen two or three interviews with different tech guru's who think that will eventually be the case. But the majority of creative suite users are mac users. I don't think adobe would want to lose that amount of customers. With the prices for their software it is limited to the pros or people who use it for their income and adobe would be stupid to fight back with such a move. One poll estimated that 71% of adobe creative suite users are using it on a mac. I seriously doubt adobe will want to lose 71% of their returning customers. Apple is smart and does not want adobe to have any control of the apps release. And adobe has made no effort to improve the way flash works on mobile devices such as iPhone and iPad. Flash is even slow on nexus one and droid phones. Everyone thinks Apple is crazy for not letting flash work on their mobile devices and that HTML5 is never going to take the place of flash, but ever since the iPad was announced thousands of companies have already changed their entire websites to work with the iPad with HTML5. They want their content to be able to be viewed on the most popular mobile devices which is a market that Apple currently rules. The iPad alone is enough to make people change their web pages over to HTML5 instead of (crash), i mean flash. I think the future will be HTML5 and not flash. Apple has a major impact on the mobile tech community and they set the trend. If this is what Jobs wants, this is what Jobs will get.

Just add flash for Christ sakes and make everyone happy

The iPhone may only be 25% of the overall smartphone market, but if you eliminate Blackberry devices (which make up roughly half of smartphones) from those that have a strong presence in the application-based standings their main competition consists of devices running Android and WebOS. The latter is a platform that is struggling for survival and the former is not without problems. Android is growing, but the lack of uniformity amongst the handsets and the versions of the OS they support (as many like to put it "fragmentation") can make it difficult for a developer to assure that their design will work as desired for all phones running the OS. This has not been a major problem thus far for the iPhone. The worst we have to deal with is a handful of features that change between hardware revisions (and some software features that are unsupported on older hardware ala multitasking) and different resolutions between the iPhone and the iPad (and maybe iPhone v4 hardware).

Developers pick their poison. Right now the iPhone has roughly double the user base of all Android based smartphones combined, as well as having the same basic platform as the iPad. However, developers are bound by stringent rules. Android allows for a variety of languages to be used for development and does not require an application store to distribute software, all at the cost of needing extra work to account for the different OS versions and associated hardware. Sure, you can target just the Droid or the Nexus One, but the overall Android marketshare sits in the low double digits at best, so a single handset among dozens is a very narrow market to target.

Apple only made up 25% of the market in 2008-2009. since the beginning of the year apple has doubled is sales percentage. By the end of the year they will be closer to half the market. And if they go to verizon which they eventually will, they will dominate. The only reason people even buy a blackberry or dorid is because they don't want AT&T just to get a iphone. If the iphone was available on their good carrier they would have one. The iphone is the most sought after smartphone on the market. If it were available to more carriers, game over. Adobe would be stupid not to jump on that wagon. As for apple products in general. 80% of iphone users have other apple products in their home. I for one bought the original iphone as my first apple product and now own 3 imacs, 2 iphones, and and ipad on the way. I am just one of 80% percent of iphone users who will continue to buy apple products cause they work. When apple eventually dominates the mobile device market and those customers buy more apple products because of their experience with an iphone, there will be a lot more apple products around. Not developing for apple would be a huge mistake.

And they both suck do they not? Point proven.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but there appears to be lots of whining about Flash. Can we ignore Flash for a second? What about the other popular frameworks - especially Unity and GameSalad. GameSalad claims 10 of the top selling 100 iPad game apps were made with their tools. Unity claims "a significant proportion of the best selling" games. The new license language clearly appears to prohibit these popular and lucrative tools.

Those saying to ONLY use Obj-C or go play somewhere else clearly have no idea how modern, large applications are developed - especially games. It is quite common to write some sort of domain specific language that gets interpreted by a game engine. And no one is going to write things like physics engines from scratch in Obj-C when they could use the one built in to a tool like Unity.

Apple obviously tried to block Adobe & Flash, but their heavy-handed language - at face value - also bans a bunch of other widely used tools.

- Jasen.

GameSalad doesn't exactly look like it is targeted at developers of large, modern applications (many of which still extensively use C and C++ by the way).

Apple isn't forcing users to write new physics engines; I'm sure for efficiency reasons many of these libs are already written in C and/or C++ with hooks into them from higher level interfaces. As long as the behavior script language gets compiled down to native instructions at application compile time AND doesn't require direct linking to Apple's APIs, there may not even be a problem there.

Oh, and Unity thinks they are unaffected by the changes to the agreement.

Much of this was previously discussed. Next time read the whole thread.

Reasonable comments and analysis by Gerbarg here and Gassée's here.

http://db.tidbits.com/article/6980

very insightful comments and gives great perspective on how other companies can control your own development schedule. I totally agree with what Apple has implemented in their license agreement.

please explain your rational of linking MS verdict in 2002 with Apple and Adobe?

of course it wouldn't. That was simply a reply to your silly assertion that fanboys prefer quality over quantity. That is just fantasy.


Nice of you to provide your personal interpretation of the rules and the changes to those rule while trying to show that the rules haven't changed. Logic is fun isn't it?



Apple's own statements on matter actually. Don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies, however.




because we all know legal mean right, right? Who claimed this was a legal matter? More silliness.



No, some people are just so infatuated with Apple, that anyone that might even question them is seen as complaining. Those that have a complaint are seen as the enemy...always complaining.

I suppose a simple way of looking at the world, but one that seem common. Or, as seems to be the case here, a delusion confused with fact.



Perhaps you might read what you wrote. You did write it so you should be able to understand it.
"Once you've developed a platform which has sold 85 million units and billions of dollars in revenues, then maybe someone would be interested in your opinion. Until you give some reason for people to think you have credibility"

So, have you sold 85 million units (I expect you would then be a billionaire)? Because "then maybe someone would be interested in your opinion. Until you give some reason for people to think you have credibility, that looks like a juvenile delinquent whining because" someone questions your dear leader.

reading is fun.



well duh.
Too bad that wasn't the topic. The topic was simply yuo being so free with your opinion here and your advice, yet unable to meet your own criteria for spewing your opinion.

reading really is fun.


But again, that isn't what my reply was to. You said
"1. Some of the Flash developers are just lazy. You don't have to read too many posts on the topic to come across "I don't want to learn a new platform".
2. Many of the Flash developers aren't really programmers at all. They're little better than script kiddies - and learning real programming is apparently beyond their abilities."

Lazy or not real programmers. As even you admit, that was hardly a fair or complete list. It was simply rhetoric and hyperbole...and not very insightful at that.



Sounds like they aren't sure. Guesses aren't confirmation of anything. To most people anyway. I guess.


Of course it was insulting. It was meant to be. But, maybe, only on careful reading.

In the meantime, "stick to talking about topics you know something about. You making yourself look bad."

Private APIs are only acceptable to the degree that a vendor is unsuccessful gaining a dominant majority market share.

That's a question open source Android will never have to answer.

I guess with Apple's license change Gartner can move up their prediction a bit.

Good read and a thoughtful analysis.

i'm not saying it. windows users do. since i don't use windows, i'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they know better than i do.

I completely disagree and hope you are wrong. All those intermediate layers let developers focus on their application domain and not worry about lower level code. Just like a "scroll bar" object lets a developer not worry about click detection, tracking the mouse, redrawing the pixels, etc. Apple provides lots of libraries and abstraction layers to help devs write good apps. Other parties can provide similar tools for other application domains, from 2D games (GameSalad) to 3D games (Unity) to devs coming from other environments (Appcelerator Titanium).

I hope that Apple comes down that as long as the code generated by 3rd party tools goes through XCode for final compilation then it is OK.

But knowing Apple, they will likely selectively enforce the clause arbitrarily.

- Jasen.

double post.