fao spacemen : another ipad language killed off?

[whyterabbyt]

Sorry Yves, I've completely lost whereabouts in those iPad threads we were talking about what might happen with other 3rd-party compiler tools like Unity.

Anyways, Ive just come across this:

Despite jobs very recently saying it might be good if someone developed a hypercard style language for the iPad, it looks like one viable candidate has had to drastically reassess its plans.

Seems like their offer to rewrite it so that it generates proper native code has been knocked back by Jobs...

Thats pretty bad news for Unity and other similar projects too.

(A side-effect is that a government-funded multi-thousand-iPad project intended for teaching in Malawi will have to be done on a different platform)

In order to support our active and growing revMobile customer base, we submitted an in-depth proposal to Apple that we create an iPhone-only product that uses native Cocoa objects, supports 100% of their API, works perfectly with multitasking and battery life, but uses a variant of the revTalk language to use these objects and APIs, and then translates those into native code. While a significant engineering departure for us from the current revMobile path, this solution would have resulted in perfect-quality iPhone-only applications impossible to distinguish from native applications. It would have been impossible to tell these applications apart from native iPhone applications because they would be native applications..
.
.
Steve Jobs has now rejected our proposal and made it clear that he has no interest in having revMobile available on the iPhone or iPad in any form.

[Stupid American Pig]

I would ban it strictly because of its name

[spaceman]

It seems to confirm one thing already: Apple do not seem likely to change the SDK terms. Or to put it an other way, there won't be any room for 'alternative interpretations' of the SDK terms.

I'm having problems understanding what Apple is trying to accomplish with it. Clearly, the 'must be 100% native code' isn't the issue, as revMobile ticks all boxes.

So what kind of control is Apple aiming for? They can't suggest that developers using Objective-C or Javascript are 'good coders'? That clearly is nonsense. I'm under the impression now that this is just step one.

I'm expecting Apple to extend their SDK terms. Actually, I think Apple will eventually start an approval scheme for developers. You need to pass certain criteria or you're not even allowed to develop for their mobile devices. They can't make this strategy known in it's entirety because there would be so much outcry it would be very damaging and it simply wouldn't be accepted. But they do know that introducing more and more small steps toward this goal will work. They can justify each step using whatever rhetoric is suitable at the time. Apple will come out of it having a developers base they control completely.

I'm just guessing of course, but it sounds plausible to me.

[TristezaOrange]

I'm playing Day Of The Tentacle on my non-rooted Android phone!

[C00kie]

Why couldn't they simply keep schtumm that their "native" application was generated and not hand-crafted by native AppleTalkers?

[spaceman]

Why couldn't they simply keep schtumm that their "native" application was generated and not hand-crafted by native AppleTalkers?

Because all it takes is for one Apple guy to have a look at the software to figure out what it does. It's like saying 'why not paint an apple to look like an orange and be quiet about it'. I think people would find out once they bit into it.

[whyterabbyt]

Why couldn't they simply keep schtumm that their "native" application was generated and not hand-crafted by native AppleTalkers?

not the most tenable of subterfuges to gamble one's company on...

[dougsyo]

It seems to confirm one thing already: Apple do not seem likely to change the SDK terms. Or to put it an other way, there won't be any room for 'alternative interpretations' of the SDK terms.

I'm having problems understanding what Apple is trying to accomplish with it. Clearly, the 'must be 100% native code' isn't the issue, as revMobile ticks all boxes.

So what kind of control is Apple aiming for? They can't suggest that developers using Objective-C or Javascript are 'good coders'? That clearly is nonsense. I'm under the impression now that this is just step one.

Steve Jobs wants to own the mobile space. That means making it family-friendly, high-performance, crash-resistant, easy to monetize and difficult to commoditize.

This article gave me some insights into the how-and-why of some of Apple's decisions: http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/ ... -store-854

Doug

[whyterabbyt]

recant? respite?

http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/

[spaceman]

recant? respite?

http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/

Yeah, I read something about it. It remains to be seen whether their approval will depend on developer/company importance or on the actual code. I'm hoping their rhetoric about code 'quality' was genuine and that it will be the latter.

[whyterabbyt]

recant? respite?

http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/

Yeah, I read something about it. It remains to be seen whether their approval will depend on developer/company importance or on the actual code. I'm hoping their rhetoric about code 'quality' was genuine and that it will be the latter.

Nah, its gonna be a 'technology evaluation fee' or summat, ain't it.

[jupiter8]

According to one iPhone developer the OP is just uninformed nonsense by irrational Apple haters. He should know,he is a developer after all.

[penguinfromdeep]

Apple approves Unity

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2010/09/10/unity-and-ios/

[whyterabbyt]

Apple approves Unity

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2010/09/10/unity-and-ios/

Yeah, and they've more or less entirely gone back on the 'no cross compilation' clause 3.3.1, to the point where Adobe seem to be proceeding with their Flash compiler again...

http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/app_store_guidelines

[spaceman]

It's probably all the bitching on the interwebs that did it.