Apple Eases Restrictions On iPhone Developers

WrongSizeGlass writes "MacRumors has a story on a report by Apple Outsider's Matt Drance that Apple is easing their restrictions on interpreted code used in iPhone development, a change which allows game developers in particular to continue to use interpreted languages such as Lua in their App Store applications. The change comes alongside Apple's further modifications of its iOS developer terms that again allow for limited analytics data collection to aid advertisers and developers, but appear to shut out non-independent companies such as Google's AdMob from receiving the data. It's not enough of an 'about face' to let Adobe or Google back in the picture but they've backpedaled enough to let the little guys squeeze through."

Comments

Common sense prevails

[Dan East]

Good to see a little common sense prevailing. I use Lua in my game engine, and it is a very good language for embedding in an application. It is much more efficient to call into than Javascript, for example. This is more about the logical segregation between engine developers and game designers. Scripting (especially event-driven) better suites game designers, who often are not hardcore developers that have a firm understanding of Objective C, C++ or C.
It's not even about portability - pure C and C++ (not dependent on any external APIs besides that of the game engine) is even more portable. It's about using the proper language for the job.

big nothing

[MrDoh!]

So.. interpreted is not ok atm, but might be ok next week.
Cross compiled flash is not ok now, but might be ok if server side translated to be displayed.
Showing too much on a desktop picture frame still gets your app removed.
Flash (that'd allow more apps to run, just no totalitarian control of the app market) will never be allowed.
Gotcha.

Stuff even attempting to develop on this platform.

Re:big nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, while "officially" China is a very restrictive country, I think the Chinese are much more relaxed and flexible than Americans (U.S. Americans and Canadians both - I had the doubtful pleasure of dealing with both as manufacturers).

In China, there's much less sense of entitlement. This means that:

  A) Your project matters to them. If you take enough time and attention to talk to their engineers, you'll see that they are often (not always, of course) both smart and resourceful, and will generally want to work with you.

  B) They will not apply rules like automatons would, just to get out of work. Typical US excuse: "we are not allowed to change the production process without a written ECO and a re-quote" - never mind that basically adds a week of downtime to any "experimental" change, and allows the manufacturer to sit on their ass for a week. Or, "well, I guess we'll have to wait until we have the intermediate product before we start making tooling for the next step, you know you can't trust those thar CAD drawings of yours."

  C) Unions. It's very "amusing" when you move a piece of equipment from one room to the other (on casters no less), just to get written up for not requesting a union employee. This usually takes at least 4 hours to get sorted, usually a day. The problem with unions is not that they don't want to do any work, but that they don't want anybody to do any work that they are also not doing.

As an engineer, who has absolutely no financial interest in the cost/profit from my designs, I would still very much prefer to manufacture in China.

Re:big nothing

[0xdeadbeef]

Jebus Crust! You mean for any application there is a 5% risk you'll end up sitting in limbo, and the weeks of time and money you spent developing the application could be wasted?

That's a service level availability of "one nine". No business would tolerate that, but fanboys think it is great.

Re:big nothing

[kanweg]

Well, according to Apple the top three reasons why those 5% of apps were rejected are:
1) they crash (apple doesn't want rotten fruit in its shop)
2) because they don't do what the developer says they do (lemons instead of peaches)
3) third I forgot (perhaps the use of non-public APIs. If Apple changes those, the third party apps relying on them wouldn't work; see #1)

It is not as if the developer isn't in control of any of the above.

Bert

Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbidden

[sosume]

Apple is acting worse than Microsoft has ever done. The have developers jumping through hoops.

"No we won't allow non-objective C so your investments in your app are worthless."
"Oh we're getting bad press now? well we'll allow it then for a while."
"Storm settled? let's forbid it again."
"Antitrust investigation? Hmm let's allow some for a while again"

My business has decided against investing in the iPad/iPhone development platforms. The uncertainty and unreliability of Apple management are too great a risk.

PR drivel

[yyxx]

against Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone compiler as part of Apple's broader effort to keep third-party meta-platforms from eroding the user experience and stifling innovation as developers become reliant upon them to roll out support for new features introduced by Apple

Translation: "... Apple's broader effort against a fair and competitive market place, and their attempts to translate their early lead into a monopoly".

What they are afraid of is people using non-Apple music and video stores and people creating applications that also work on Android. And in doing so, Apple stifles innovation and manages to extract more money out of people's pockets.

Re:PR drivel

[teg]

What they are afraid of is people using non-Apple music and video stores and people creating applications that also work on Android.

Apple allow non-Apple music and video solutions - they allow e.g. spotify, wimp, netflix and many more. The latter is definitely one of their targets - not because they don't want things to work on Android, even though not being able to share the costs might be a fringe benefit now that the iPhone app market is so dominant. Their real goal is to avoid development environments that abstracts away their platform - and target the lowest common denominator, and won't give access to new iOS features when available.

As an iphone user, I really hate and love their approach. I dislike that I can't develop what I want. On the other side, the quality of the apps is higher - and I prefer a phone experience with no flash. Probably without iAd too, I don't want rich, intrusive ads.

What scares me more than their technical requirements, is their content censoring. I don't want a walled, Disney-like "think of the children!" world.

Re:Today they allow it, tomorrow it will be forbid

[blackraven14250]

Guess what?

Anyone writing an app that takes more than 1 person two weeks to create, like those real, groundbreaking apps that aren't rehashes of another app that's already been done, aren't going to waste their time with a company as inconsistent as Apple when they have other platforms to develop for.

Especially when there's reason to believe that Android is beginning to exceed the iPhone.