I hope they add searchability to in app purchases soon. If you make travel guides for many countries, it looks like you can't sell them as separate apps easily anymore. If someone searches for Bali, it's going to get missed if you make a travel guide for Bali and 50 other regions.
Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
161–170 of 240 posts
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#162I'm still concerned about the "look & feel" problem of shoddy ports using Flash or whatever but rejecting apps with bad UIs on a case-by-case basis should protect users equally as well.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Google doesn't let you release an app that allows wifi tethering without rooting your phone. I'm sure there are other examples. Google/Apple = the same. They all bow before the carrier gods. Edit: I can't reply to the child for some reason (too deep), but I just wanted to let you know that you're wrong: 2.2 as distributed by Verizon does not have tethering unless you use their carrier replaced version which bills you…
And how is that Google's fault? Are you going to blame the locked NAND and signed bootloader on Google too? Carriers locking down Android is just as bad a reason to blame Google as faulting iOS for not having tethering is (considering that the OS has been capable for a long time but ATT drug their feet).
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it looked plenty for very small values of plenty, from where I stand. There were some very well reasoned arguments against the restriction - arguments like the fact that many libraries and game engines require the flexibility that scripting allows; or like the fact that there are languages and environments that are more conducive of tackling certain types of problems. Those, however were drowned in a sea of pet…
> "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-character prefix on all your class and function names (some people even recommend prefixing method names) and hope that nobody else happened to pick the same two or three characters for theirs.
For another example, it has a strongly dynamic OO model, but a singularly unhelpful static type system that is shackled with C compatibility, leaving the language in this awkward limbo between static and dynamic, where you're offered all these tantalizing paths that turn out to be blocked by walls.
Yet another: It has monkey-patching like Ruby, but it lacks the language or library support to do it anywhere near as cleanly (which is saying something if you know how messy Ruby monkey patches can be), to the point where some parts are almost necessary and others are almost unusable and it's not obvious at first where the pitfalls lie.
(On the other hand, a lot of people hate Objective-C for pretty bad reasons too. There seems to be a legion of PHP converts who really want to write PHP in Objective-C.)
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of such a comment. It reminds me of the pundits talking about how it was "About time" copy & paste was devised. Be glad that Apple isn't so prideful that they aren't able to make changes like this. A lot of people and companies wouldn't be able to admit things like thing to make the right decision. Whether it was fast enough for you is entirely besides the point. They couldn't have just opened up the…
The point was that Apple could have avoided much pain and suffering for all concerned if they had done the right thing in the first place. Now we just need to be able to run programs not purchased through the Apple store and access my iPod without having to use Windows, and I will have to take Apple of my "somewhat evil" list.
My point is that it's not nearly so simple as just enabling it. They're trying to reach a compromise between security/control and giving freedom to the developer. Not fast enough is sour grapes. I'm not saying it could have happened faster, but it's sort of pointless to count the days.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#166So, 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.
It's kind of informally worded, as opposed to the precise legalese you tend to find in TOS documents. I think most people will understand the meaning.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#167What I find really funny is that a certain breed of fanboy applauded the restrictions in the first place, saying that they were needed. Yet I don't see anyone complaining now that the restriction is removed!
raises small hand sheepishly :)
I didn't like the old system at all: I'm very happy that Apple has finally deemed a good idea to release the review policies.
However I would have much rather seen Apple giving users another way to install their apps, and turned the store into a nice, curated, deal.
In particular I am a bit worried about floods of badly designed apps, maybe because they used some cross-platform framework.
Sure, I can ignore those, but the point is that it will still increase the noise/signal ratio. Mmm... maybe Apple should have a tiered system in the App store. Hence why I thought that if they allowed anyone to install any app they want some other way (even though with big signs saying "DANGER DANGER") then they could keep curating the app store without risking anyone's anger.
But, oh well... shrugs
edit: actually as jdz2 said above, as long as they keep curating the new apps, I don't really care if they were built from CS5 or brainfuck... but the first point is important.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#168I think this is a big mistake from apple's perspective. Despite the noise, and the possible exception of a few games dev tools for which they could have made exceptions, there has been no serious evidence of people avoiding ios because of the toolchain. This will inevitably result in cross-mobile-platform apps which have non ios-like interfaces. At the very least it will give succour to developers who don't want to f…
Section 10.3 of the new rules specifically bans apps that incorrectly use or fail to use the native widgets.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#169So, 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…
My guess would be that it had more to do with the number of apps submitted since the policy was enacted than the number of complaints on internet forums.
I also believe the original policy had less to do with security and more to do with selling more MBPs (their higher margin product). So if their research showed that those mobile developers without a Mac chose to develop for other platforms instead of buying a Mac it would've only made sense to reverse their policy.
Re: Apple Relaxes iOS Restrictions On Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
#170Some of the app review guidelines seem weird: Apps larger than 20MB in size will not download over cellular networks (this is automatically prohibited by the App Store) Don't many games cross this threshold? Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript Opera Mini - which was accepted by the App Store - would seem to fail this rule.
The 20MB size limit over cell networks has been published for a long time. It used to be 10MB and they raised it last year, so nothing new on that one.
Doesn't that also rule out the majority of podcasts? 8/12 on my phone right now are over 20MB. Seems like a rather harsh restriction.