Filed under: Bad Apple, Apple, iPhone, SDK
Breaking News: No new app submissions unless they run on OS 3.0
iPhone OS 3.0 beta 5 was only released for general consumption yesterday, and already Apple is rocking our collective faces off with big news. While a cool new feature being uncovered would be great, what Apple has in store for would-be iPhone application submitters is a bit more challenging."Beginning today, all submissions to the App Store will be reviewed on the latest beta of iPhone OS 3.0. If your app submission is not compatible with iPhone OS 3.0, it will not be approved."While this may make sense at first glance, consider that OS 3.0 does not yet have a release date and developers might be pushed to spend time and energy tweaking apps against an unstable OS base.
Further, it seems that Apple might be removing existing applications from the App Store, once iPhone OS 3.0 is released, if it is found that they are not compatible with the new operating system. So grab your Twitter clients and flame-throwers, it's gripin' time!
Update: iPhone Developer Program enrollment is required for App Store application distribution; regardless of whether the application is free or paid, the enrollment fee applies, and any developers with apps in the store have already paid their $99 for access to the beta. Thanks goes to our intrepid commenters for reminding us.
Thanks to everyone who sent this in.
[via @razorianfly & the Loop Blog]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Brandon said 5:25PM on 5-07-2009
Umm... EVERY dev has to pay $99 to join the program to submit ANY app, free or paid.
Reply
TheCheapGeek said 5:29PM on 5-07-2009
Thanks brandon, you beat me to it.
Reply
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 5:30PM on 5-07-2009
Good, because i have apps that won't work under 3.0 because the developer used coding hacks to make it run more smoothly outside of the APIs.
Reply
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 5:32PM on 5-07-2009
... so hopefully any updates for existing apps will also have to work under 3.0 before being allowed.
Brandon said 5:33PM on 5-07-2009
This doesn't sound like that big of a deal to me. The beta OS is becoming more and more stable...which is probably why they waited until beta 5 for this requirement. Developers already know the 3.0 OS will be out next month at which point their apps would need to run on it. I don't think enforcing that rule a month early a big deal.
Not to mention most apps work on OS 3.0 without making any changes.
Reply
punkassjim said 6:55PM on 5-07-2009
Hear hear. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would be surprised by this news, since this is kinda the whole reason for the existence of a pre-release SDK.
The thing I find laughable, though, is that they think they'll suddenly be able to enforce the rule. It's been about two months since an update to Tideapp completely broke it. I liken it to all the space junk that we just leave in orbit around Earth.
NotVeryPC said 6:43PM on 5-07-2009
You only pay to have access to the Beta SDK & Firmware.
A free Dev account allows you to release Apps but only using the released SDK & Firmware.
Reply
justflybob said 7:14PM on 5-07-2009
How many times do you need to be told?
What you are implying is incorrect. If you want to release any app to the App Store, you need to have a certificate. Certificates are only sent upon request to those that have access to that process. The $99 fee provides that access.
That's it. End of story.
scw said 5:36PM on 5-07-2009
Properly written apps should work on 3.0 - the email doesn't say you must use the 3.0 SDK or test against 3.0 - just that the application will be rejected if it doesn't work on 3.0, which is perfectly reasonable.
Reply
Glenn Rempe said 5:39PM on 5-07-2009
You know I am disappointed how TUAW's quality of coverage has been declining precipitously in recent months. This article is just the latest example.
- ALL iPhone developers must pay the $99 fee for access to the beta iPhone OS as well as to submit ANY free or paid app. It has always been that way.
- The current beta's are not 'unstable'. They are quite the contrary.
- This is GOOD news for iPhone owners. It means that they won't have to figure out which apps are compatible or not. They will ALL be compatible. Wouldn't you be pissed if in a month from now you spend $9.99 on an app only to find that the developers were too lazy to keep it in sync with the latest release of the OS and thus the app crashes and your money was wasted?
This is a developer concern, and end users should rightfully just expect that their purchased apps 'just work'. Apple is taking steps to ensure that they do for ALL apps, and for ALL users. Good for them.
Stop trying to create linkbait (which you are just echo'ing from another linkbait site) and take a little pride in your reporting.
Reply
Dave said 9:20PM on 5-07-2009
Spot on Glenn Rempe!
Level 5 said 5:42PM on 5-07-2009
Is this news? The 3.0 OS revamps SO much, and is a huge, huge deal. Of course new apps need to run in 3.0 this far before its public release. Was this not the case with 2.0 or something? Let's look at the large percentage of people that had 1st gen iPhones that jumped on the 2.0 bandwagon day one. Alot of folks, yes? Might we expect a similar percentage going to 3.0 just as quickly, considering that it IMO has more to offer than the 1.x - 2.0 upgrade? Yes. Plus iPT owners have to pony up $10 for it, so if these folks shell out money and then find out the new apps they downloaded that day are busted, that'd be a facepalm. Apple's smarter than that, thus the requirement. Still don't know how this doesn't fall into the "No Shit?" bin.
Reply
Andrew Timson said 12:17AM on 5-08-2009
It wasn't the case with 2.0 because 1.0 didn't support apps.
Glenn Rempe said 5:45PM on 5-07-2009
@NotVeryPC
You are incorrect. ALL iPhone developers who wish to test their applications on their iPhone/Touch device or who wish to submit their application as a free or paid app must be paid registered iPhone developers.
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/apply.html
"Standard Program $99
For developers who are creating free and commercial applications for iPhone and iPod touch and want to distribute applications on the App Store."
Reply
Gregory Pierce said 5:46PM on 5-07-2009
TUAW I think you guys are sounding an alarm that doesn't need to be sounded. Most applications that run on 2.x of the SDK will run on 3.x. In fact the only applications that I've seen blow up have been my own 3.x applications from earlier betas.
Apple isn't being unreasonable here IMO. The transition to OS 3.0 is happening and new applications for the store should have to be vetted to ensure that they work on the new OS. They aren't saying that YOU have to run it, they are saying that if they test it and it doesn't work - they will reject it which is reasonable (though I'd imagine is horribly inefficient for Apple to take on themselves).
Hopefully soon Apple will let us start submitting applications for the store which are built using the 3.0 SDK - something they haven't come out and said they'd do just yet.
Reply
Matthew said 6:47PM on 5-07-2009
I've run into many 2.x applications that don't work 100% in the 3.0 betas.
I think it's unreasonable for Apple to make these demands without announcing a release date for 3.0 and/or how many more betas will be released- and what SDK changes will be made before release. No reason to modify your app to comply with 3.0b5 when the next beta could break it.
Ryan said 5:47PM on 5-07-2009
how is this bad news? apps that HAVE to be compatible the new OS. is whoever wrote this new or something? jesus.
Reply
Taylor said 7:26AM on 5-08-2009
Very odd journalistic bias.
If an app conforms to the standards of 2.0 without using "hackery" it should work fine in 3.0.
Frank III said 5:47PM on 5-07-2009
agreed. this is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Reply
urf said 6:39PM on 5-07-2009
This is excellent news! Every single app should be taken out if it doesn't work with 3.0, that makes complete sense to me. Kudos to Apple for starting to enforce this early.
Reply