Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 240 posts

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#101

Post by jlongster »

jacquesm wrote: post #100
jlongster wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about statement 2.9: "Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected" Does this mean no "lite" versions of games? That would affect tons of apps... unless Apple is about to come out with a way to bundle a lite version with your app.

That's a tricky one, you're right about that. Maybe there is a way to get some clarification on that one without having to go through a whole round of developing an app and then having it rejected or accepted. I think what they mean to say is that it should be a 'finished product' (no beta, no test), it should be fully functional (no demo or trial), so self contained. If there is a more fully featured version of the…

Yeah, I think you're right. If they had omitted "trial" I think it would be pretty clear, but that's a tricky word (trial can be the same as lite).

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#102

Post by nlogn »

loewenskind wrote: post #55
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Target the Dalvik VM and Google doesn't care what you do, what language you do it in, or what tools you use to build it. Sure there are some parts of the system that you can't access without root privileges, but that's an entirely different issue.

But it's their platform. Maybe they don't care today but how do you know they, or the carriers wont care tomorrow? That risk seems at least as big as Apple going back on today's announcement (for the record, I would view both small).

The difference is that Apple has enacted many policies that limit developers while Google has, to my knowledge, never done anything of the sort. In fact, it seems like they go out of their way to be fair to developers (for instance: every app they built for Android uses only the APIs that are available to everyone).

Edit: My point is that Google has never shown an inclination towards policies like these, and I think it's reasonable to expect that not to change.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#103

Post by MartinCron »

sourc3 wrote: post #90
kylechafin wrote: post #53

Now that MonoTouch appears to be in the clear on iOS... It sounds like C# is going to be a viable language for 3 major mobile platforms this Fall. Windows Phone 7 supports C# by default. MonoTouch brings it to iOS and MonoDroid takes it to Android. It sounds like there will be some really neat opportunities to reuse C# libraries across all three platforms, while dropping a native platform UI on top of them.

Having programmed in C, C++, C#, Java and JS (if scripting counts) I applaud this. I have tried to get used to Objective-C but after using C# for the past 4 years or so, it just seems uncomfortable with me (probably a personal bias that cannot be generalized). I was considering developing my startup's first mobile app in Android since I did not want to touch Objective-C and go with an iPhone Web Page. Considering the…

Accidental downvote. Meant to upvote. Totally agree.

Damn iPhone.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#104

Post by tptacek »

ohhmaagawd wrote: post #36

my guess is the FTC investigation into Apple's practices got them nervous. better to just cave than deal with anti-trust issues: http://voices.allthingsd.com/20100611/ftc-to-investigate-app...

My guess is that only Apple knows why it changed the rules, but that anyone who can do a Google search can (a) read up on what antitrust means and (b) observe Apple's non-commanding share of the mobile market.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#105

Post by evo_9 »

kylechafin wrote: post #53

Now that MonoTouch appears to be in the clear on iOS... It sounds like C# is going to be a viable language for 3 major mobile platforms this Fall. Windows Phone 7 supports C# by default. MonoTouch brings it to iOS and MonoDroid takes it to Android. It sounds like there will be some really neat opportunities to reuse C# libraries across all three platforms, while dropping a native platform UI on top of them.

Yeah this is just awesome news for MonoTouch - I'd been on the fence about spending the money on the license thinking it might end up being a waste of money, but now, hell yeah full speed ahead. Hopefully the mono-Droid update is as well done and available soon, I really need it.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#106

Post by bad_user »

thwarted wrote: post #84
vaporstun wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those non-registered developers, here is a link to a pdf posted by Engadget: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guide...

2.11 Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them I wonder how quality of the current apps vs quality of the new app applies here.

Of course those rules are still subjective ... what does "many of them" mean anyway?

But still, it's an improvement.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#107

Post by gaiusparx »

What is the pros for Apple beside being able to fend off FTC probe? If company starting to look at cross-platforms tools (such as one that develops for iOS, Android and Windows Mobile), and abandon Obj-C and XCode, will this weaken Apple strategically?

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#108

Post by bad_user »

mambodog wrote: post #60

I really hope this doesn't result in a flood of Flash-based apps. And I say that as someone who's been developing Flash content for the web for quite some time.

Guidelines or not, they can always ban crappy apps ... that's why those restrictions (like developing with other languages) seemed so out of place and more like a political move meant to take shots at its competition.

It's quite simple ... if an app consumes lots of resources (measurable) or is violating the design guidelines or is another fart-app ... then ban it. If Flash-based apps are indeed crappy, you don't need to explicitly ban Flash ... and who knows ... maybe a skilled developer can make something usable that doesn't fuck up your battery life.

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#109

Post by elai »

woodrow wrote: post #77

No one has mentioned what seems to be one of other most seemingly positive developments of this -- the App Review Board [1]: "We’ve created the App Review Board to provide you the opportunity to appeal the rejection of an application if you believe that the functionality or technical implementation was misunderstood. You will be able to submit details that the App Review Board will use to determine if the rejection o…

Sending emails also work rarely. You don't even have to resubmit!

Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines

#110

Post by Someone »

jlongster wrote: post #101
jacquesm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tricky one, you're right about that. Maybe there is a way to get some clarification on that one without having to go through a whole round of developing an app and then having it rejected or accepted. I think what they mean to say is that it should be a 'finished product' (no beta, no test), it should be fully functional (no demo or trial), so self contained. If there is a more fully featured version of the…

Yeah, I think you're right. If they had omitted "trial" I think it would be pretty clear, but that's a tricky word (trial can be the same as lite).

I haven't read the document, but in my mind, trial
Post reply on HN