Well that was a bunch of unnecessary drama for a whole lotta nothing.
Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
171–180 of 240 posts
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#172What's with 4.2 and 4.3?
I can't build an app that lets my app drive a toy car around via GPS? (That would actually be pretty cool!) I can't build an app that taxi drivers can use to interact with their dispatchers and report their location via GPS?
I can see that those sorts of apps would be likely to run afoul of some other problems, but I don't see how that in and of itself should be a reason for rejection.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I know language XYZ and now Apple are making me learn their sucky ObjC" That's a very valid complaint imo, except for the 'sucky', was that present in the original? > "Apple just want to prevent you from porting your app to a competing platform, them Nazis" Are you sure about the 'them Nazis' bit in this one ? Otherwise, again, that's a valid complaint. > I'm also not saying we shouldn't complain. I am saying we s…
"Sucky" isn't very descriptive, but I wouldn't blame somebody used to a more advanced or coherent language for feeling frustrated with Objective-C. It is a backwards language in many ways, and I say that as somebody who's been writing it for the better part of a decade. It doesn't even have namespaces — something that has been standard in every language since the '90s. Instead, you must stick a two- or three-characte…
I've been doing a lot of Objective-C coding the past few months, and have found it surprisingly pleasant, once I got used to the syntax. Maybe I had low usability expectations for a language based on C. :-)
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#174my 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.
Their app sales accounted for 85% plus of the paid app market.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Keep in mind that using C# to program iOS apps is still very different than traditional .NET apps. The language is familiar, but the framework is definitely not.
I was a little disappointed to see that using Monotouch doesn't work my Visual Studio + ReSharper + nUnit development trifecta. C# as a language is nice, but the tools are where it's at.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#176An important Caveat is Section 1 and 10.1: The Human Interface Guidelines. This is large document that describes in general the "look and feel" of apps that run on the iPhone. If you make something that doesn't fit with their long-term vision, or irks them in some other way, it is extremely easy for them to say "You are violating the Human Interface Guidelines," and leave it at that. This has prevented me from delive…
However it also lets them smash the Flash developers who don't actually port their apps to the platform, which is one of the issues they cited this spring.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#177So, how about all those people that were supporting apples' right to run their app store the way they see fit and who said that there is no point complaining about it? I think this proves that complaining about stuff like this is well worth the effort, assuming that that - and not some backroom pressure - is what caused them to back off. They mention it in their release so I figure it must have been a major factor. e…
There are a lot of items worded like this: > Apps that do not use the MediaPlayer framework to access media in the Music Library will be rejected That sounds like apps that don't access the Music Library at all will be rejected.
Currently any app can just get raw read access to the Media Library SQLite database file — the current MediaPlayer framework just implements an unprivileged API on top of that.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 think trial software has the connotation of being time limited. This whole section of the rules is just saying that they should be able to use the software as much as they want without having a "dead" app in the phone after the software expires. Lite just means less features/levels so that is permissible.
Time-limited or nagware. Upsells are OK, but IIRC Apple doesn't like nags.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#179What's with 4.2 and 4.3? I can't build an app that lets my app drive a toy car around via GPS? (That would actually be pretty cool!) I can't build an app that taxi drivers can use to interact with their dispatchers and report their location via GPS? I can see that those sorts of apps would be likely to run afoul of some other problems, but I don't see how that in and of itself should be a reason for rejection.
I imagine Apple and AT&T don't want their consumer device to become part of the infrastructure of a major and potentially critical business. Same with the EMS thing. Just too many potential legal risks.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#180What's with 4.2 and 4.3? I can't build an app that lets my app drive a toy car around via GPS? (That would actually be pretty cool!) I can't build an app that taxi drivers can use to interact with their dispatchers and report their location via GPS? I can see that those sorts of apps would be likely to run afoul of some other problems, but I don't see how that in and of itself should be a reason for rejection.
Liability is a bitch!
I do notice that they left out the standard clause about operating Nuclear facilities, but that's probably present in the clickwrap for just using the device at all.