I like Dan (we worked together, him as a contractor, a long time ago). He's first rate. But all that tells me is that "Dan Grigsby feels very strongly about something".
There are developers who care and developers who are in it for money. If there's only money left and no joy in iPhone development (when people who blogged, taught and promoted leave), the quality of apps in general might fall down a lot.
Yeah, but the ones who care seem increasingly likely to get violated by Apple. Thursday I was "someone who cared and was in it for the money", today I'm not. :)
While there are a lot of hobbyists on the app store, there are a lot of people doing actual business -- and they make up for a majority of the noteworthy apps (apps like Things, Tap Tap Revenge, games from EA come to mind). I doubt their quality would go down, as you suggest.
Tap Tap Revenge is written with Lua, which is now apparently forbidden by Apple. So, people doing actually business, making noteworthy apps are going to be hurt by Apple's policys as well.
It isn't a fringe group that uses languages other than Objective-C on the iPhone, it is a large group of people.
Excellent point. It's my strong hope that facts like this (major apps already on the store -- used in the announcement yesterday, in fact) will cause Apple to have to significantly rewrite this part of the agreement.
So they rewrite it? so what? the restriction they impose stem from their business model.
So you will write a Obj-C app, and then apple will deny it app store access, you cant sell it anywhere else, your effort and investment are worthless.
Developers shouldn't cozy up to this new restriction nor should they accept the app store arbitrary model. you accept one its no surprise that the other one comes down.
Bottom line, developers bending over for apple should not be surprised when they get reamed.
This is very signficant because Dan Grigsby makes his living off of teaching iPhone development courses.
Mobile Orchard, "the number-one ranked iPhone developer news site and podcast", was one of the first resources that made me comfortable with iPhone development, and I am sad to see Dan take this 'crossing the Rubicon' stance, especially since it is such a shock (one of the leading podcasts for indie iPhone devs).
I think Dan has an interesting point of view. Many startups are born through exploiting interesting new technologies or opportunities within an ecosystem. However, it does seem that Apple is making that increasingly hard to do. They want to ensure that you're locked into their platform completely.
To me, the iPhone as a platform is becomingly potentially more dangerous to make a living on. The application approval process has become increasingly arbitrary and it would really suck to lose your means of living because Apple decided they didn't like something you did.
Apple is really hurting themselves with the developer community. I don't know if it will matter (as pclark points out, they have millions of users willing to part with cash) but it is really painful for me as a fan and a developer.
Hi, My name is Just Letters and according to the mothership I'm no longer worthy to be part of your mobile experience. The powers that be have yesterday announced that only tools made by god himself shall be deemed worthy to build iPhone apps.
I'm sorry, but I was built using one such evil programming language which goes by the name of ActionScript. For this reason it is probable that I will soon be banished from the walled garden of Eden. How tragic.
Maybe this platform has not been the right place for me anyway since clearly the mothership believes games or my type provide no value whatsoever. And I agree - this platform adds no value to me either so I'll pack my bags and return to the wild wild web I came from. It was a lot cosier there anyway.
On that note, farewell mothership, and farewell to your products and services. May the walled garden of Eden take good care of you."
I'm sorry to hear about Dan, but I personally disagree about this crying about Apple decisions. Nobody complains about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo restrictions as far as consolle games.
Also if you are a really creative person, you should be creative enough to deal with restrictions. Good developers will pickup the obj-c (I know good AC3 developers who now develop just in obj-c).
It's against Apple's interest lower the entry bar to create their application, because that would mean make life easier of those people who focus on develop low quality apps. That doesn't mean that Flash developers are bad. But the good ones won't have problems learning a new language.
> Nobody complains about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo restrictions as far as console games.
People complained about Sony just last week killing Linux on the PS3, and have complained about breaking firmware cracks on the PSP forever. There was a minor amount of outrage when Nintendo broke some homebrew stuff with the new DS.
But it's funny you should mention Microsoft. They let anyone publish things in the Indie Games store for the Xbox, and distribute free dev tools. The approval process is run entirely by the community, and solely exists to rate apps (for violence, sexual content, etc), nothing gets rejected (within reason).
And while I may not have spent more money on indie games than disc-based ones (since I bought Dragon Age new) I bought my 360 originally in order to play them. Lowering the barrier has worked out very well for Microsoft.
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo didn't pull the plug 2 years after their consoles were released and screw over thousands of developers and numerous companies. The timing of Apple's decision plays a major part here.
And it has nothing to do with quality, but the ability to create a code base of high value. ie, a code base that can easily be used to serve more than just the iPhone. And for people complaining that cross platform oriented code bases just "water down" everything, not at all true when it comes to games, a major segment of mobile apps.
If this goes against his principles, then why did he start the site in the first place? It's hard for me to believe that the "only native apps" reason is what pushed it passed the line of being principle. I smell something else...
I can't speak for Grigsby, but many of us have been waiting to see whether Apple would eventually loosen restrictions as the platform matured, or tighten them further.
The new SDK agreement and other recent changes (like the removal of "adult" content except for select companies like Playboy) make it clear which direction Apple wants to move. Now we know their vision for the future is more centrally controlled than the present, not less.
Avoiding speaking for Dan too far, as the co-founder of Mobile Orchard (though I gave it over to him when I got bored of iPhone development), I can at least say that he's been a bit cautious/worried about Apple's platform for a while now so this isn't a massive surprise to me.
(And as to why I started Mobile Orchard with Dan, it's because I already have other similar sites - Ruby Inside, for example - and wanted to just expand my miniature "media empire." Turns out you need passion for the topic, however, to do it right ;-) Dan had that more than I did. The funny part is now I'm the one more optimistic about the iPhone/iPad platform :-))
I subscribed to his blog, and looking at the very low posting frequency, and the fact that the blog in recent times offered very little insights or new information, I thought he had quit a long time ago.
While I understand his arguments, I fail to understand how not letting people use x or y language hinders innovation. If they were blocking people from using certain APIs (which they are btw, but its their platform -- they do what they want), I can understand that you wouldn't be able to make so and so products...but not letting people use .NET or actionscript, I dont see how it really affects people's creativity.
I think what you mean is "productive" not "creative." If thats what you mean, I am with you. Obviously the more abstracted out low level details are, the more easier it is to churn out code, thus making you more productive.
But, given that you are using the same APIs (or using wrappers that utilize the same API, which is the same thing), I fail to see how you can do things differently in Scheme or some other language that you couldn't do in objective-c.
Objective-C is a just a tool, and most of the time it is overkill for creating apps. If you are just creating a single app, you are right, it is not a big deal. But if you do iPhone contracting for a living, and the money you make correlates to how quick you can create an app, Objective-C isn't always the best tool for the job.
Also Dan isn't saying "I'm too lazy to learn Objective-C", he is saying "I don't want to be forced to use Objective-C"
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people unwilling to learn 'Objective-C' are lazy people. Instead, my argument was that if someone is so keen on developing apps for the platform, learning Objective-c (or C, C++ for that matter) is a no-brainer. Plus, chances are, you could make far better quality apps using QuartCore or CoreAnimation than you would using any Flash API/feature.
However, I do acknowledge the fact that objective-c, given its verbosity, is far from ideal for someone who is looking to churn out multiple apps every other week.
If you are only able to make a profit by cutting corners on app development time, perhaps that means you aren't charging enough for your services.
At least one benefit of this change is that it levels the playing field for developers such as yourself - all of your competition is in the same position as you are, and you can't be undercut by someone who is building their apps using a Flash compiler or whatever.
If you need Lisp, Python, or Ruby to increase your productivity to cut corners on web development times, perhaps that means you're not charging enough for your services.
Yes, just completely change the context from one where the code runs at the user's expense, to one where it runs at the developer's, and my comment sounds like nonsense. Aren't you the clever one.
This assumes that a non-apple compiler will yield an inferior result. Unity3D is one example to the contrary. ActionScript may or may not be another, but efficiency is our secret sauce as developers. It is our inherent value.
I'm pretty certain that ActionScript is not an example to the contrary, and I'm fairly fond of it as a programming language.
I'd go so far as to suggest that the majority of the non-Apple tools that people are proposing to use instead of Objective-C will produce an inferior result, and that's why Apple is clamping down on them.
(BTW, love the kneejerk downvoting in this subthread, keep em coming.)
Do you believe that Electronic Arts would use LUA if it produced an inferior result? Do you think it would harm their efficiency and portability if they weren't mystically "excepted" from the policy?
Firstly, that's a call to authority argument, so automatically suspect. Secondly you don't present any evidence that EA uses Lua on the iPhone or that it receives an exemption from Apple to do so.
Maybe, maybe not. A common case I can think of is that it's easier for cross platform development requirements to not use Objective-C.
In any event, it's absurd to put in the user agreement. It seems like a rather transparent blow in the Apple vs. Adobe war in which developers and end users are caught up in the cross fire. It's obvious that Steve Jobs thinks very little of Adobe, but he's making his platform notably worse in the resulting ego war. Everyone loses.
Objective-C is inefficient to develop in. I ported my app from Objective-C to Titanium, and there was no loss in speed or functionality, only wasted developer time. I am reasonably sure I can write comparable javascript ten times faster than Objective-C.
On top of that, Objective-C isn't a portable skill. It's pretty much only used with Apple products. They should really drop this old, crufty NeXT baggage and develop something that doesn't suck to work with.
Maybe I'm in the minority here but I'm a developer who works on iPhone & iPad apps, loves Objective-C & the Cocoa frameworks, loves the App Store, makes a decent amount of money from iPhone & iPad apps, and doesn't have much of a problem with Apple's latest restrictions.
