I don't see how I can responsibly spend effort on developing an iPad app. The "approval" process is chaotic and arbitrary - witness intelligent cooperative people having their whole business shot down seemingly at random. I will develop for other platforms - the market leader Android for instance - which operate on the oldfashioned principle of "free market".
Technically, Symbian is still the market leader by a comfortable margin.
(The development options are fairly confusing though. For C/C++ development, the only Symbian dev avenue worth considering nowadays is "Nokia Qt SDK", which is surprisingly nice. Java seems to be essentially deprecated, but higher-level options like Python and JavaScript through Web Runtime are available.)
I agree that Qt is "surprisingly nice". Personally, I enjoy the iPhone UIKit framework, but the Qt SDK is almost as good (and in some areas better). I don't have much experience with the WRT, but in the N8 the demos I have seen are quite impressive performance-wise.
[disclaimer: I work for Nokia, take all I say (on this matter) with a grain of salt.]
Humans are fallible, and so you'll get false positives (and negatives) for what, in retrospect, seem like very bad reasons. However, the one thing you won't get are superstimuli—apps that the approval "algorithm" loves but people hate—because there are people inside the algorithm.
So? You can just sell your app on your webpage. The market is not that compelling; it's hard to search and it's hard to read real reviews on your phone, so most people that actually need some software are just going to Google for what they need. The market mostly benefits developers of paid fart apps.
The fact that I don't have to worry myself with payment processing makes it worthwhile.
Even before appstores, the most popular way to get software for a PDA/Smarthphone was with dedicated store sites, with the important difference that they bled you dry for cash.
Ebay uses this tactic too. Ebay is very good to their buyers but can be ruthless with their sellers. If you google "ebay VERO" you will find thousands of sellers complaining.
You're saying Windows' appeal to developers is mainly due to Steve Ballmer embarrassing himself onstage and little or nothing to do with how many users the platform has? I find that quite incredible.
Microsoft has a long history of bending over backwards for developers, even going so far as to put one-off patches in its own libraries to fix bugs in 3rd party applications.
No, I'm saying that Microsoft believes that by bringing the best developers to their side, good apps will be made, and then users will follow. That's why he was screaming that.
Now, you may disagree with the way that they're going about doing that, but from what I understand, tools like Visual Studio really are best of breed. I don't use IDEs or Windows, so I wouldn't know, but that's just what I hear.
Yes, they have really great development tools. They really do. But no sane person would look at Microsoft and say Visual Studio .NET is the reason they've dominated the PC market for almost two decades. People develop for Windows because everybody uses Windows. If nobody used Windows, VS would not be enough to keep people developing for the platform.
There are lots of complaints about how Android version incompatibilities makes it a pain for developers. The iPhone is a joy to program for, but the app store policy sucks. Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great.
> Android is a bitch to program for, but the app story policy is great.
The Android Market policy is only great if you are from one of the few countries that can publish app on it. It amazes me that this aspect is always left out while discussing the topic.
However, for someone like me who is starting to develop for a possible startup idea -- I'm starting with Android. If this doesn't pan out, then other dev will be on Android. I'll do iPhone next then others if it pans out, but if it doesn't? Back to Android...
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean you want to start with Android and if it doesn't work out, go with iPhone?
While I understand that currency power can vary quite a bit and have a huge effect here (and I don't know if that affects you), I would say it's generally not a big deal compared to other costs.
But another interesting point is there has been suggestions that the subscription fee be much higher, rather than remove it. I am supportive of this. The reasoning behind this is it helps to filter off a certain class of developers that tends to pollute the app store. Part of it is due to the poor discovery facilities of the app store, but making it more exclusive does have it's benefits, and drawbacks, naturally.
I am starting out using Android (getting an HTC Incredible soon as well). If I can get things working well with Android and want to start selling apps and/or start a software company for mobile phones -- I will start out with Android. If things go well enough that I am capable of pursuing another platform as well, then I would do the iPhone next but only after Android success. If I were to fail here, I would stick with Android because of the flexibility and I believe there are more opportunities there. I don't see Apple's ecosystem allowing business software to truly thrive on iPhone/iPad in comparison to Android and others -- I also believe this is intentional.
Basically this allows side loading of business apps to approved business of a large (500+) size. I'm not sure if the apps need to be approved by apple still, but I'm guessing they would.
That is true. I could be wrong, but I personally feel that Apple is being difficult on purpose. I do not think they want the iPad to become a business device (or be a company that produces primarily for businesses). I think they want to be recreational products company -- which works pretty well for them -- and not have to deal with similar problems that Microsoft with business issues.
I won't be at all surprised if the Android tablets have a similar look & feel to the iPad, but intended for specialized work as opposed to media consumption. I imagine the customization capability of an Android (or other OS) tablet would allow for simple, specialized devices that succeed.
I could be entirely wrong about Apple's paradigm and the resultant prospects. I disagree with many of Apple's decisions, but no one can deny their success over the past few years (though their stock is overvalued right now imho).
I believe they're trying to make 100% sure there is not a legal way to get around the Appstore ecosystem, that way they keep their 30% of all sales. If they have to sacrifice b2b apps, I think they're fine with that.
I don't think these types of stories are scaring off anybody since we've been reading about App Store rejections for the last two years and it seems that companies and developers continue to want to make apps for iPad/iPod/iPhone.
It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines. Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively. They made an app that was too much like a desktop and got rejected. That seems entirely reasonable.
Trying hard not to downvote just because I disagree so strongly, I don't even know if it's possible to find some common ground for discussion.
It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines.
I'm getting really sick of that defense for Apple. How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"?
Yes, it's entirely the app developers' fault, and Apple can never be mistaken. The allmighty App Store Guidelines CLEARLY spell out for developers what they can and cannot do. They are immutable, all-encompassing, never vague, and impossible to misinterpret. If only developers would READ, we would never see any of these stories.
I'll concede that there may be a jump in logic. And it is upsetting that a developer that plays by the rules gets denied for some unforeseeable reason. But I am tired of reading the same Apple is screwing the developers story. Why so much negativity in this thread?
> How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"?
When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop.
I feel sorry for the guys, because it was certainly unintended. The path they took to adding value to their picture frame app unfortunately shifted the gestalt from picture frame to desktop, and when you're moving in that direction, you might fail to notice the shift. But it is entirely reasonable for Apple to disallow apps that can confuse the UI hierarchy for the user. Obviously, none of us on this site are going to be confused by it, but they have to take a much broader demographic of users into account.
>When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop.
Can you actually point me to anything in the existing developer agreements or interface guidelines that disallows this? I just looked, and I haven't been able to find anything - but it's not exactly hard to miss something.
From the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines - Creating a Great User Interface:
"As you design your application, be aware of the metaphors that exist in iPhone OS and don't redefine them."
I wasn't aware of this specific guideline/rule until just now, having looked for it in response to your question. But I do think it's an easily intuited rule, given a basic understanding of usability. Still, I don't think these guys knowingly violated the rule. It's a weird case.
Even while I think it's reasonable for Apple to reject the app on these grounds, they could certainly do a better job clarifying how rules are applied and reduce developer risk. The most effective way would just be to maintain a listing of all rejections and the rationale behind them.
I just don't see it. If I sat down today to make an app like this, and read the sentence you quoted, it wouldn't even cross my mind that I might get in trouble. What is the existing metaphor for "picture frame that shows the time, weather, and some other useful info"?
For that matter, where does it say anything about desktops?
It's about as useful as a Rorschach test, or staring at the clouds to understand the shape of Apple's intentions.
Yes, again, Apple's platform means Apple's rules - developers have little to no bargaining power. I just don't want to pretend that the rules aren't completely unpredictable at times.
Edit: I've run afoul of HIG violations before - it's usually relatively minor stuff that can be fixed and should get approved once it's resubmitted. Even "redefining a metaphor" can usually be fixed by changing to more standard controls. It doesn't sound like there's any UI change these guys can make to their app to make it acceptable.
> What is the existing metaphor for "picture frame that shows the time, weather, and some other useful info"?
A desktop with a customizable background and widgets. Seriously, if you take a screenshot of that app and go around showing it to your friends, do you think their first impression is going to be, oh, it's a picture frame with widgets?
> For that matter, where does it say anything about desktops?
The "desktop" is a metaphor. You don't have an actual, literal desktop on your computer.
>Seriously, if you take a screenshot of that app and go around showing it to your friends, do you think their first impression is going to be, oh, it's a picture frame with widgets?
Actually, yes, especially if they're less tech-savvy (part of the assumption underlying this whole discussion is that Apple is trying to protect users from getting confused). It doesn't look like you can interact with it much - you certainly can't put icons on it and use it to launch programs, or have it run in the background and become visible when you close everything else. But that's not even really my point.
>The "desktop" is a metaphor. You don't have an actual, literal desktop on your computer.
Thanks, I managed to get that far on my own. My point is that I still don't see anywhere in the agreements that you can't make an app that looks, if you squint hard enough, like a desktop.
This isn't really going anywhere, and I don't want to spam this thread more than I already have. If you want to continue this discussion, there's some contact info in my profile.
I don't know that this discussion has anywhere left to go, but I thought I quoted the relevant part in the HIG already. The desktop is a metaphor. HIG says don't redefine iPhone OS metaphors. The picture frame app invokes the desktop metaphor. The iPhone OS already has a desktop metaphor, in the form of Springboard. Therefore, picture frame app is redefining an iPhone OS metaphor, and the app gets rejected. This is a reasonable application of the rules. You could certainly quibble with it. But reasonable does not imply optimal, or that the rules couldn't stand revision.
Also, this is the sort of issue we can obstinately disagree over without consulting data, but I really doubt that even non-tech savvy users are going to identify a screenshot of this app as a picture frame. I've never seen a picture frame with a bunch of widgets on it, at least until I saw this app. I'd consider it far more likely that non-tech savvy users have seen a computer desktop with widgets on it and a picture for a background.
It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines.
The app was accepted, and for sale in the store, and only then did it get pulled - so says the article. Not even the unnamed app store reviewers spotted that this app went against the guidlines.
I've already decided I'm waiting for the Android hardware/software platform to stabilize before buying a smartphone, due to Apple's policies, but I was really looking forward to buying an iPad this summer. Yes, the policies are the same, but it's got no reasonable alternative and it looks so sexy and useful.
However, reading this article outraged me so much I changed my mind. As a developer I don't want other developers to have to put up with Apple's 1984 policies, so I'll wait for an Android based device on the tablet front too.
I can't help but wonder why this keeps happening. Rejecting this app seems a bit ludicrous to me. But I have to wonder if this has anything to do with Steve Jobs and Apple policies, or just some of the people who work at Apple enforcing the "Apple-way".
There are quite a few Apple fanatics out there. The ones who say Apple can do no wrong and the Apple way is the right way. They would do most things to make Steve Jobs happy. So it's not a giant leap to think some of those people have made it on to Apple's payroll and possibly hold senior positions at Apple.
So is this a case of Apple being a bit ridiculous with its policies, or people within Apple following the Apple-way and policies a little too closely? This might just be a staffing problem.
The developers sent an email to Steve Jobs about the removal of the app, and he replied "We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops. Sorry." If you think that's a staffing problem, the problem staff is Jobs.
This is starting to sound like some kind of monarchist apology -- "the King always makes the best possible decision, but sometimes his flawed underlings provide him with bad reports".
Right. For me, it's not that they're instituting restrictive policies (which I can sort of understand in some cases). The problem is that it seems to be a moving target. If I was an iPhone developer I would feel like I was being toyed with.
I think its as simple as someone at Apple seeing that and thinking "I don't want our iPad to be used like a picture frame". And if Apple doesn't like how you use their product in your house, they'll do something about it.
Apple puts a button for 'picture frame mode' right on the lock screen of the iPad. So, no, it's not because they're offended that people might use it as a picture frame.
The picture of the app on the dev's website doesn't look like a 'desktop'. Surely there is some other component in the UI that does resemble a desktop. Anybody have a link to a better screenshot?
So it's okay to make VNC, Citrix and other kinds of apps that can connect you to remote Windows and Linux desktops, but any app that looks too different from or too similar to Apple's Springboard faces automatic bannination? At this rate, Apple is going to need to start employing teams of Theologians and Talmudic scholars to interpret and administer the Kafkaesque Laws of the App Store. Never mind the fact that Apple, nor any software company should ever be in the position of censoring the content of any software that runs on their machines.
What did Steve say on the D8 video yesterday—"companies don't have to be rude to other companies" That's the Apple we want, not the Sith Inquisition.
Big corporations bend the rules all the time to help other big corporations—everyone knows and accepts this. But when big corporations make the rules secret, and then use them to help each other while hurting the little guy, well, that's just as rude and arrogant as it gets from a company!
Never mind the fact that Apple, nor any software company should ever be in the position of censoring the content of any software that runs on their machines.
Some viable arguments lost in a tirade of hysteria. I've never written an app for the iPhone/iPad, so I have no first hand experience with the approval/rejection nonsense. I do however own an iPhone, and I love the fact that I can expect a certain level of quality in the applications I buy. One thing that makes me snicker about the article in question is the purpose of the app. Why the hell would you want to waste an iPad on using it as a picture frame? With Twitter overlays? Anyway, each to their own. My main point is that so long as the people bitching publicly are gibbering loons like the idiot-in-charge at the linked blog, very few folk will pay attention.
Why the hell would you want to waste an iPad on using it as a picture frame?
Why the hell would you want to use an iPhone to make farts? But the app store is full of them.
I, as an iPhone developer (reconsidering the thing every time I read news like this one) don't see all that quality in the app store. Sure, there are a lot of high quality apps, but there is a lot of garbage that just piles up hiding worthy applications.
And the iPad appstore app is hideous for browsing, so you have to wade through all the crappy apps to see anything, and whenever you look at an app, you get put back to the beginning of the category.
Downvoted. This article (and the one from the developer that was posted yesterday) indicate that this isn't about quality. By all accounts it was a well-done app. Rather, the problem was that Apple dislikes its functionality -- but in a way that they refuse to define, so the developer has no way to "fix" it.
> Why the hell would you want to waste an iPad on using it as a picture frame? With Twitter overlays?
When you're at your laptop/desktop computer on your desk. It's handy to have a dedicated display for twitter/other dashboards, if you like keeping up on that stuff while you work.
