(Close Window)
Topic: App Compatibility
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 8, 2010 10:59AM)
Are there any good App's that are compatible to other touch type phones other than iphone's? I just recently got the EVO from Sprint which is awesome but iforce and others do not work.

Steve
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 8, 2010 11:36AM)
Currently no. The programing is specific to each Operating System. Sometime later this year there will be third party accessories which allow translation onto multiple platforms, but for now it requires a rewrite of the programming.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 8, 2010 01:19PM)
Even if Android or other devices get software that allows them to run apps from the App Store, that still leaves the problem of actually getting native iPhone apps.

I remember Palm released a device that was sold largely on the promise that you could use iTunes and iTunes music with it. That feature lasted for about a week, then Apple released a new version of iTunes that would no longer allow that, and took Palm to court.
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 15, 2010 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote:
Currently no. The programing is specific to each Operating System. Sometime later this year there will be third party accessories which allow translation onto multiple platforms, but for now it requires a rewrite of the programming.
[/quote]

Oh? Really? Sorry but I don't think so. I'd like to know where you heard this rumor, as it is NOT true.

[quote]
On 2010-06-08 14:19, Scott Cram wrote:
I remember Palm released a device that was sold largely on the promise that you could use iTunes and iTunes music with it. That feature lasted for about a week, then Apple released a new version of iTunes that would no longer allow that, and took Palm to court.
[/quote]

This was because Palm broke their own agreement with the USB Standards committee. In other words, Palm was illegally using Apple's USB identification code instead of their own, against the USB standards rules, to sneak into iTunes. Basically, tricking iTunes into thinking it was connected to an iPod.

This had nothing to do with Apple, but rather Palm's breaking their own agreement with the USB licensing committee. Apple "broke" it by simply enforcing the standard rules already in place.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 16, 2010 04:10PM)
Which part do you doubt? Since posting that I have learned that some android phones use compatible (amongst themselves) software while others require their own unique coding.
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 16, 2010 07:38PM)
Sorry. Should have been more specific. This is the part:
[quote]
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote:
Sometime later this year there will be [b]third party accessories which allow translation onto multiple platforms[/b][/quote]
Do you have any specific names of programs that do this, because Cocoa Touch is specific to the iPhone/iPad architecture and cannot be ported to/from Android's OS. And while you can go from Android platform to Android platform, you can't go from Android to iPhone with a click of a button, which is what Adobe was going to offer.

The problem with those types of translators is that there are APIs that are specific to Cocoa Touch that are unavailable to the Droid platform, which is why Jobs is not allowing third party translators to "write once, build often."

It creates ugly code. It's like writing a book, pouring over the best words to evoke an emotional response, and then using Google Translate to convert it to German instead of having a native speaker rewrite it by hand.

No hard feelings, it's just that this rumor isn't true in the context of this thread (going from other OS's to iOS4 (the iPhone/iPad OS).
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 16, 2010 08:06PM)
Unity has had this set for a summer release. Program in Unity, build in iPhone and or Android. The thing is all of a sudden Unity has gone silent about this and another issue. They had closed door meetings with Apple, but nothing has been said about the outcome. Right now wait and see is the best that I could say on this.
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 16, 2010 08:19PM)
They went silent for a reason. Because of this:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/08/iphone-os-4-0-dev-agreement-blocks-using-flash-or-unity-as-ides/

Section 3.3.1 of the iPhone developer agreement (according to this article and the one below) prevents Unity from doing what they wanted to do. Which is why they went silent. For a MUCH more in depth analysis into WHY Apple did this, I'd recommend Gruber's post:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331

I wouldn't recommend anyone "wait and see." The outcome is pretty clear: if you want to write for the iPhone/iPad, don't be lazy, just write it in Objective-C.

You just will not be able to convert software to iOS4. Again, it's a lazy way for programmers to create messy code and locks people into an older platform, and prevents developers from using the best features of a native OS (like many custom APIs in iOS4).

And, I'm not saying iOS4 is better or worse than Android. I just think programs written natively in any language will perform better and be able to make use of native APIs better than code that is cross-compiled, which has to be written to the worst-common denominator.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 17, 2010 02:57AM)
Quick semi-related story:

[url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/11/apple-eases-up-on-restrictions-on-interpreted-code-in-iphone-developer-agreement/]Apple Eases Up on Restrictions on Interpreted Code in iPhone Developer Agreement[/url]

[quote][url=http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/]Apple Outsider's Matt Drance reports[/url] on another change made to Apple's iPhone developer terms earlier this week that should please certain developers, a change which allows game developers in particular to continue to use interpreted languages such as [url=http://www.lua.org/about.html]Lua[/url] in their App Store applications.

The change eases up on restrictions implemented along with Apple's more highly-publicized [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/08/apple-blocks-adobes-flash-to-iphone-compiler-in-latest-sdk-agreement/]prohibition[/url] against Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone compiler as part of Apple's broader effort to keep [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/10/steve-jobs-offers-explanation-about-iphone-sdk-changes-restricting-adobe-and-other-cross-compilers/]third-party meta-platforms[/url] from eroding the user experience and stifling innovation as developers become reliant upon them to roll out support for new features introduced by Apple. Drance notes:

[quote]I've said before that Apple's aversion to interpreted code and external runtimes is the potential for someone else to take the platform over. That's not the whole story, though. Games in particular tend to use engines and libraries that leverage interpreted languages such as Lua. Many of these applications pose no threat, neither implicitly nor explicitly.

While explicit approval from Apple is still required, these new terms seem to acknowledge that there's a difference between an app that happens to have non-compiled code, and a meta-platform.[/quote]

The change comes alongside Apple's [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/08/apple-modifies-ios-developer-terms-to-allow-limited-analytics-data-collection/]further modifications[/url] 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.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 17, 2010 03:02AM)
On another tack, there's always [url=http://www.appcelerator.com/products/titanium-mobile-application-development/]Titanium Mobile[/url], which allows you to write your program in HTML/CSS/Javascript/jQuery/etc., and it will compile it to iPhone or Android.

I wrote my [url=http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/knights-tour/id361809390?mt=8]Knight's Tour+ app[/url] in it!
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 17, 2010 07:09AM)
Yes, I was going to bring this up but couldn't find the link. They do allow certain libraries, but that isn't the same as fully cross compiled programs like Adobe/Unity were trying to create.

And you are right about web apps running, bypassing the app store. But they still fall to the least common denominator as web apps cannot take advantage of most APIs. Which in the end, results in a slower program that can't do what a native app can do, like access the accelerometer for tilt detection.

Basically web apps are just fancy web pages stored on the device (not that there's anything wrong with that, as you've demonstrated with the Knights Tour).

I'm talking about things like Adobe and Unity.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 17, 2010 07:42AM)
I've certainly run into the limitations of Unity, but from what I'm told it allows 3D game building by very small companies.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 17, 2010 08:16AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote:
Currently no. The programing is specific to each Operating System. Sometime later this year there will be third party accessories which allow translation onto multiple platforms, but for now it requires a rewrite of the programming.
[/quote]

So, going back to the original question, in the near future there will be third party applications. It amazes me that no one has done this before.

Steve
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 17, 2010 09:00AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-17 09:16, Steven Conner wrote:
So, going back to the original question, in the near future there will be third party applications. It amazes me that no one has done this before.
Steve
[/quote]

To reiterate, it's because it is not possible. Apple's developer agreement forbids it (see my links above regarding Section 3.3.1) for the reasons I've been mentioning above, which is why Adobe, Unity, and others have dropped plans to try this.

I'll mention the book analogy again. It's like writing a book and then deciding on publishing it in German. But instead of hiring a native speaker to translate it and keep the emotion of the original, you use Google Translate to automatically do it.

Yes, the reader might still understand it, but it will be a difficult read. It's not the optimum way to write a program and why Apple forbids cross-compilers.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 17, 2010 12:00PM)
There already are third party apps. They load more slowly and don't take advantage of all that the OS can do. They do allow a team of two or three to build an app which in the native language would require a huge team of programmers.

The agreement change Apple made has been the buzz of the community, but everyone has become very tight lipped about the real world implications of the wording of the agreement. It states that third party apps are no longer welcome, but they are still accepting them. Apple could just as well decide to allow Unity built apps to continue, as it could decide that cross programing is not in their interest. Some of the top selling apps are built in Unity.
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 17, 2010 12:57PM)
They are allowing certain libraries in (as pointed out by Scott above), but this is much different from allowing full cross-compiled programs like what Adobe wanted to do:

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

And yes, there were apps accepted BEFORE Apple made the change in the agreement. As you said, they are slow and ugly (the code, not necessarily the UIView), which is why Apple no longer wants that.

Anyway, it seems we're just going around in circles at this point.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 17, 2010 02:44PM)
They are slower, and they are still accepting them. It will be interesting when the next OS hits to see what they do.
Message: Posted by: Scott Fridinger (Jun 21, 2010 07:35AM)
As much as I would like to try out iForce, I have decided that I will never buy an Apple product again. Jobs talks about the proprietary nature of Adobe, yet everything Apple is proprietary.
Message: Posted by: ScottRSullivan (Jun 22, 2010 06:54AM)
And it begins. Sigh.