Apple creates iPad AdLib framework to join TuneKit, PastryKit

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Apple has created a new development framework to enable rich web apps for iPad using simple HTML, CSS and JavaScript, following its previous efforts to do the same for the iPhone and within iTunes.



The new AdLib framework for iPad, detailed by web developer Jim Hoskins, is used by the built in iPad User Guide within Safari to present a touch-based scrolling list of topics in a split view that also presents a series of subtopics for each subject.



Hoskins wrote that "the framework weighed in at 4,300 lines of code, and was unmistakably an Apple-born API. Every class and constant was prefixed with the letters 'AD' and some of the classes include ADTabBarController, ADScrollPane, ADViewController, ADView, ADToolbar, and dozens more."



In a short video posted on YouTube, Hoskins presented the iPad User Guide within the iPad Simulator, being used with a mouse. iPad owners can peruse the Guide themselves by bringing up bookmarks in Safari.











A variety of frameworks



This makes the AdLib framework a very close sibling to the PastryKit for iPhone and TuneKit, another web standards framework used to create iTunes Extras and iTunes LPs content. AppleInsider reported on the TuneKit framework back in September of last year, and PastryKit was identified in a parallel article as being related effort developed for iPhone.



Just as with TuneKit and PastryKit, there isn't any public documentation for AdLib, nor even any hints as to what the frameworks "AD" prefix letters stand for. But because it's written in JavaScript and CSS and HTML, the framework (like its earlier relatives) isn't too difficult to learn how to apply in creating new, original web apps for iPad, just as developers have experimented with using PastryKit and TuneKit.



What's Apple's strategy?



The fact that Apple is building these frameworks and not making a public announcement about how to apply them, or even releasing full documentation, indicates they're still under development internally.



It is possible the company will unveil a unified new strategy for developing rich web applications entirely using web standards (and avoiding the need for proprietary plugin add ons like Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight), and could even release a new development tool (or expand upon its existing DashCode) in order to provide web developers with the ability to quickly and efficiently create mobile web apps that support touch, Apple's Human Interface Guidelines for its mobile devices, and users' expected behaviors.



The AD naming scheme for the iPad framework may also be linked to iAd, the rumored name of Apple's new mobile advertising network, as it could be used to deliver interactive ad content using web standards, much as Flash is commonly used by web advertisers on the desktop.



More details on the AdLib framework and iAd program may be presented in tomorrow's unveiling of iPhone OS 4.0.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    1) I hope this gets applied to MobileMe quickly (as well as their other sites).



    2) I hope Google updates their Gmail app to work better and feel more natural on the iPad.





    PS: Hopefully tomorrow answers the question of why Apple's own App Store apps still aren't iPad optimized, save for iBooks, of course.
  • Reply 2 of 50
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    its hard to imagine Apple's not working on some sort of HTML5/web framework.
  • Reply 3 of 50
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I like "AdLib" a heckuva lot better than "iAd", I'll tell you what.
  • Reply 4 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I like "AdLib" a heckuva lot better than "iAd", I'll tell you what.



    iAd sounds weird.
  • Reply 5 of 50
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Man.... I was actually hoping MadLibs was making a 21st Century comeback....



    This is clearly NOT what I was expecting AT ALL...
  • Reply 6 of 50
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    iAd sounds weird.



    Remember how bad everyone said MacBook Air was? What about all the negatives about iPad?
  • Reply 7 of 50
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1)PS: Hopefully tomorrow answers the question of why Apple's own App Store apps still aren't iPad compatible, save for iBooks, of course.



    I wasn't aware of this. Please clarify?
  • Reply 8 of 50
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    I wasn't aware of this. Please clarify?



    I should have used the word optimized, not compatible. They run like other iPhone apps in 1x or 2x mode.
  • Reply 9 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


    Remember how bad everyone said MacBook Air was? What about all the negatives about iPad?



    Macbook Air seems fine. I don't remember criticisms of that.



    iPad isn't great, but it's dying down. Apple could have even kept the buzz generated by the name in mind when they named it. I like Gruber's suggestion best; iCanvas. Or just Canvas. People are describing it as a blank canvas anyway, that name would have been great.
  • Reply 10 of 50
    cimcim Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) I hope this gets applied to MobileMe quickly (as well as their other sites).



    2) I hope Google updates their Gmail app to work better and feel more natural on the iPad.





    PS: Hopefully tomorrow answers the question of why Apple's own App Store apps still aren't iPad optimized, save for iBooks, of course.



    Google has a Gmail web app for the iPad.
  • Reply 11 of 50
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CIM View Post


    Google has a Gmail web app for the iPad.



    Thanks, that's what I'm using. The display formatting is fine, but it isn't auto-updating with new Mail and the scrolling is unnatural feeling compared to Apple's JS. Clearly there are some bugs when compared to the iPhone web app for Gmail.
  • Reply 12 of 50
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,146member
    I would be keen on see this woven into XCode released to all developers not just those who pay for the $99 developer fee.



    I like developing for the web but I want to learn how to do things standards compliant and have an IDE suited to the task of developing for iPhone, iPad, and desktop and XCode kind of makes the most sense.



    At the very least make an awesome version of iWeb to deal with it all.
  • Reply 13 of 50
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Maybe ADLib stand for "Application Development" Library?

    As in rich web applications, that is.
  • Reply 14 of 50
    There's an ad for that!
  • Reply 15 of 50
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I would be keen on see this woven into XCode released to all developers not just those who pay for the $99 developer fee.



    I like developing for the web but I want to learn how to do things standards compliant and have an IDE suited to the task of developing for iPhone, iPad, and desktop and XCode kind of makes the most sense.



    At the very least make an awesome version of iWeb to deal with it all.



    The iPhone SDK is always free.

    You only need to pay $99 a year if you want early beta releases.
  • Reply 16 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ihxo View Post


    The iPhone SDK is always free.

    You only need to pay $99 a year if you want early beta releases.



    Are you sure it's per year, and not a one time fee?
  • Reply 17 of 50
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ihxo View Post


    The iPhone SDK is always free.

    You only need to pay $99 a year if you want early beta releases.



    Don't you have to pay the $99 a year to be able to release applications as well?

    I have not been clear on this, but it seems to discourage casual development or developing free apps.
  • Reply 18 of 50
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I should have used the word optimized, not compatible. They run like other iPhone apps in 1x or 2x mode.



    Thanks. You had me worried there for a moment.
  • Reply 19 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Don't you have to pay the $99 a year to be able to release applications as well?

    I have not been clear on this, but it seems to discourage casual development or developing free apps.



    You only have to pay the $99 if you apply for publication. Otherwise it's free. I think that if your app is free, Apple waives the fee.
  • Reply 20 of 50
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Are you sure it's per year, and not a one time fee?



    It's per year, just like the Mac OS X paid dev packages.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Don't you have to pay the $99 a year to be able to release applications as well?



    Yes, to sell your apps on the App Store is what costs the $99. This payment also gets you the Beta SDKs that were offered for iPad. It will also get you the Beta SDKs for iPhone OS v4.0 for your iPhone/Touch and the accompanying SDK, if history repeats itself.
Sign In or Register to comment.