iPhone OS 4.0 dev agreement blocks using Flash or Unity as IDEs?

So...

What happens to the existing apps using Unity? I have one or two, which I don't use too often, but they're pretty fun when I do play them.

?

who cares, you have to play by the rules of the Steve.
enough said.
game over.
go home and re code.
have something to eat.
cry a little.
hate apple more.

Gosh, maybe Apple had a good reason for what they were doing?

Hmmmm, maybe, you think?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html

I don't think this has to do with Apple wanting to "lock in" developers to their platform. It's about preventing their platform from becoming a commodity.

For example, lets say hypothetically that this Flash porting tool becomes the de-facto standard for creating cross-platform mobile apps (which I'm sure Adobe would love and is certainly their plan). Developers become used to working in "Flash" to build mobile apps, and to them, iPhone OS is just an implementation detail, one more deployment target. Then one day, Apple ships iPhone OS 6. They add some new features, but this breaks all existing apps created with the current Flash tool. Now you've got a bunch of angry developers blaming *Apple* for releasing a "buggy" OS update, when in reality, it's the fault of the porting layer. At this point, people aren't "iPhone" developers, they're "Flash" developers - the iPhone OS has become a commodity.

This is exactly what Apple is trying to prevent from happening.

"having 'ported' apps in the App Store opens the door to bug-riddled apps with potential security holes"

How can you spout this completely inaccurate drivel. You really should remove that line or at least back it up with some references.

FYI any app on the iPhone - especially one written using a language that exposes pointers and has no garbage collection (thats Obj-C BTW) - can be bug-riddled and full of security holes. Providing a higher level language that runs in a sandboxed environment is often far more secure (thats Flash BTW).

What sort of security problems were you expecting from this.

I'm a huge fan Apple products, however, I believe they are asking for an anti-trust investigation in banning the use of Adobe's Flash-IPA converter tool and related development technologies. The isn't just spitting in the face of Adobe but all of the developers out there who don't have time in their busy work schedules to master Objective C just for one platform - there is nothing wrong with such code translators. My company (like many) has been building an iPhone/iPad app for months now in Flash for exportation with the Flash-to-ipa converter tool and, all of sudden, Apple renders it void out of spite towards Adobe. This would be like the US government banning the use of foreign language and interpreters in the US and only allowing citizens who speak native-level English to remain in the nation. Can you imagine the backlash? If a tech giant like Microsoft tried this on their platform, the courts would be all over this. Apple is taking it's ego too far in this decision and, for the first time, I hope someone steps in and slams them in court over their App Store approval practices (Adobe Converter Bans, Google Voice delay, Opera Mini delay, Web Albums HD pinch functionality, and many more). I don't understand how Apple has avoided litigation thus far.

"If Apple was simply interested in improving the quality or security of their apps then they would implement more stringent quality controls."

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Any app that performs poorly on the iPhone can be banned from the appstore, and I don't care if it's written in Flash or Objective C.

However, if you intentionally block applications just because they're Flash compiled, you rule out the possibility that Adobe will optimize their compiler (they will), and you also insult all the developers because well gee, they couldn't possibly be smart enough to use non-intensive animations and keep the performance constraints of the iPhone in mind. Heck, it's utterly ridiculous that they might specifically make less intensive versions of their apps for the iPhone.

Nonsense! If Apple blocks Flash compiled apps, the users lose and the developers lose.

It's funny to see people bashing Flash apps on an iPhone before the official release is even out. I mean if you want to have a debate about buggy slow apps on an iPhone lets talk about Safari. Apple's own native app written in Objective C crashes more than any other app on my iPhone. Second in that arena is probably Facebook another Objective C app.

In my opinion this decision has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with App store profits.

Personally, I would like to see the user community decide what is crap and what is exceptional, regardless of the development environment, tools, APIs, or somesuch that is used to create the product. If the product lags or crashes, then it will come out in the reviews.

My preference is that Apple would improve the commenting / rating system to allow the best apps to rise to the top. Currently any 9-year-old (or educational equivalent) can write the following: "Omw Funnest app ever!! Worth the money!! Get it plz" (And no, I didn't make that up. I'm quoting from the *first* review of the *first* app in the New section of the App Store this week, which happens to be The Sims 3).

As someone who has seen a Flash iPhone app port, this is great news, because the app ran like garbage. I think it is a smart quality control move from Apple's perspective. In the case of the Flash port, it is essentially an app within an app and therefore will never have the performance or resource efficiency of something written natively. So yes: i do think it is (at least partly) about quality control.