Back when the iPhone Developer Program was first announced, developer provisions (the 'permission slips' that allow developers to distribute pre-release builds of apps in progress) lasted one year. It seemed natural to have a one year expiration, as our developer memberships also lasted one year.

Everything was all fine, developers created new provision profiles as they grew, and each lasted one year. However, sometime in May of this year, provision profiles seemed to start expiring after 90 days. At first, many thought this was linked to the expiration time of their iPhone developer memberships, which would decrease the time to use a provision.

However, it seems that it's been set that provisions are only going to last 90 days. Also, distribution provision profiles, which are needed to submit applications to the App Store or distribute applications via ad-hoc, now only last about six months instead of one year.

If your provisions are expiring, your iPhone will remind you to renew your provision, and will state when that provision will expire.

If this is the way it's going to be, we may have to live with it -- it's just something that I would like to stay consistent, rather than wondering every time I renew a provision whether Apple has swapped out its stopwatch again.

Back when the iPhone was first announced, there was no SDK, you'll remember. Jobs said that developers could just make web apps, and that they would be good enough. Of course, he was wrong -- given what you can do with your iPhone now compared to what you could do with your iPhone then, even Steve would be happy to say that yes, there is a native app for that. But let's not toss the projects out with the development platform, so to speak. Neven Mrgan, one of the devs over at Panic, has released Pie Guy, a free and surprisingly full-featured game for the iPhone that exists only as a Javascript web app. To play it, just point your iPhone 3GS (the page says you need one of those, and while I was able to play it on my 1G, it was too clunky to enjoy) to mrgan.com/pieguy, add that page to your homescreen, and there you go.

In case you haven't guessed from the pic above (or the name), the game itself is a straightforward Pac-Man clone. But what's most interesting here is the example this game sets. Think about it: a full featured, automatically updated game release, delivered straight to the iPhone without any approval required by Apple. The revenue model might need some work, but maybe we dismissed this whole "web app" idea a little too quickly. For devs looking to go around the App Store's process, maybe there's a solution here. Boy, Flash sure would help with that, wouldn't it?

Well here we go. Up until now, we've heard a lot from developers about how much of a mess the App Store's approval process is, from people who've been rejected outright to people who've been forced to resubmit to people who've just given up completely. But we haven't heard much from Apple, and now Phil Schiller has spoken with Business Week about what it is about the App Store's approval process that has devs pulling their hair out.

The verdict? Schiller says the process is in place for a reason. About 90% of the apps submitted merely have bugs or technical issues, and he says for the most part that devs are happy to get that feedback (though TechCrunch doesn't buy that for one second). But the other 10% of the apps Apple denies are simply what they deem "inappropriate," which could be anything from problematic coding (code that steals passwords or other private information), or app content that doesn't belong on the store, from porn to apps that help break the law or steal in some way. Apple is also vicious about trademark defense -- Schiller says that "if you don't defend your trademarks, in the end you end up not owning them."

That all sounds fine and dandy (ok, well, the "inappropriate" label is a little unclear -- that's broad enough that Apple could fit almost anything under that umbrella, which is a bit troubling), but what about all of those angry devs? Unfortunately, Schiller doesn't address at all the idea that Apple might someday allow devs to release apps that haven't been through their approval process, on the App Store or anywhere else. As far as Apple is concerned, it seems like they're keeping their grip on what gets released, and anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to go elsewhere.

[via TheAppleBlog]

OnLive is a company that has been claiming to do the seemingly impossible -- they plan to set up a sort of "cloud gaming" console, where instead of hardware in individual houses (like we have now; you buy a console for your home), they'll have hardware over the Internet, and stream your game to you like watching television. All of the processing and coding will be done on a remote server, but with signals flowing from your controller, it'll seem like you're just playing Xbox at home. It all works in theory, but in practice, Internet connections aren't solid or stable enough to send commands and full HD video back and forth without enough lag to make things unplayable.

Still, without actually releasing a product so far, OnLive claims they can do it, and now they're claiming to do it on the iPhone as well. AppleInsider reports that at a recent event in New York, OnLive showed off the same game service running on "2 iPhones, a tv, and a computer" simultaneously, with gamers on all the devices able to communicate and watch each others' gameplay. CEO Steve Perlman admits it's a "tech demo," but doesn't go into detail on what that means (it could simply be a demo running separately on the devices, to show what it would be like, or I've heard of OnLive events where the server is sitting in the room next door). And of course, there's no date or information on an actual release yet.

OnLive's service definitely sounds possible someday -- as Internet connections get faster and hardware gets even cheaper, it's not a stretch to think we'll eventually move the heavy processor lifting to another location, leaving much tinier consoles and PCs taking up space on our desks and TV stands at home. But so far all it seems they've got is an idea (and the money that excited financiers have put into the project). We'll have to believe it works when we see it.

iPhone developer Dan B. wanted to know if Apple would reject his application based on the name he wanted to use for his app.

So he did what you'd expect a sane developer to do. He wrote Apple. He used one of his technical support incidents to speak with the Apple Developer Technical Support teams and waited for them to reply.

They were quite prompt in answering, redirecting his question to the iPhone App Review Team.

Thank you for contacting Apple Developer Technical Support. We provide support for code-level questions on hardware & software development, and are unable to help you with your app naming question.

Please contact the iPhone App Review Team for assistance. You can contact them directly at [address redacted].

While you were initially charged a technical support incident for this request, we have assigned a replacement incident back to your account.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

So Dan contacted the App Review team. And they wrote back too.

Thank you for contacting the iPhone Developer Program. This email address is for inquiries regarding status of application submissions.

Apple is not able to provide pre-approval to developers for proposed application submissions.

We ask that you please review the Program License Agreement details against the specific application you wish to develop and submit any applications for App Store consideration in line with the application submission processes for the program.

If your application does in fact get rejected by the app review team, then we will notify you on what appropriate corrections/changes should be made.

So what's a developer to do? It seems like the only way to vet an application (let alone an application name) is to submit it and see whether Apple rejects it or not. If the name is used in the application art, you might have to redesign your screens. If the application idea is not okay, you might end up throwing away all your development costs because Apple would not give a preapproval before starting serious development.

Dan's problem reflects a wider problem with Apple's App Store black box. Developers should be able to pay for support incidents for exactly this kind of situation. It appears that Apple does offer this high level of consultation to partners and other companies that they work with (even to the point of having Phil Schiller call Google directly to discuss the progress for the Google Voice app review). Shouldn't they offer a similar kind of service to smaller developers?

Have you been able to get these kinds of answers out of Apple? If so, how did you approach the matter? Let us know in the comments...

So there's still no Flash in Safari, but once Adobe hatches Flash Professional CS5 you'll be able to port your wacky Flash games or animations out to real, live iPhone/iPod touch apps. Yep, ActionScript 3 nerds rejoice: that tasty App Store pie will soon be yours, never minding the whole plug-in debate.

This is truly quite awesome in one regard, as it lowers the barrier to entry for some app developers, and will ease the port of some cool online games that we've seen floating around the interwebs. Then again, if you've spent a little time at places like Newgrounds.com, you will quickly see the dark side to this announcement from Adobe. All those crummy Flash toys online just got one step closer to coming to life on the App Store (we're guessing most will sell for the low, low price of $.99). At this rate there will be more apps than iPhones!

Still, back when I taught animation and game design, we had a lot of fun playing around in Flash for the powerful prototyping capabilities, if nothing else. It would have been cool to test games on the iPhone so easily. The video on Adobe's site looks pretty cool, with them touting the "responsiveness" of apps. Yeah, unlike the slowpoke performance my kids suffer on our G4 Mac when playing Flash games, eh? I get it -- when Unity 3D for iPhone came out there were problems with performance (it has matured nicely now), and any tool that exports in this way (turning an .fla into an .ipa, essentially) is bound to suffer from performance. Does anyone else find it ironic that a plug-in that was designed to make multimedia on the web lighter has become one of the most bloated? I digress.

No word on what SDK features are supported yet, but you can sign up for the demo when the beta starts. Those SDK features could be a killer, of course. If you can't leverage some of the features on the iPhone (multi-touch, GPS, camera, etc.) these may be relegated to the Entertainment category. One other thing to note about all the CS5 applications: they will be Intel-only, Cocoa and 64-bit native.

Update: Well, lookee there, apparently some games in the store have been using this already. Did you know South Park Avatar Creator was made using Flash? Amazing.

As part of Apple's efforts to make the ins-and-outs of the App Store more clear to everyone, Apple has just Introduced the App Store Resource Center. Apple states this new site is "a single destination where you can find everything from how to prepare for submitting your app to managing your app once it been posted to the App Store."

Basically, this new site offers an easy way for developers to read over and learn the many different policies and details about the App Store. It covers app submission, the App Store approval process and managing your app details, among other things There's really not much new, but you maybe able to find stuff easier now instead of looking through large PDF App Store guides.

If you're one of those developers who feels lost around iTunes Connect, you'll probably want to look over the guides in this new site. Anyways, if you're a registered iPhone developer, check out this new site, you just might learn something, maybe.

So here's something interesting, if you're curious to know what features might be in iPhone OS 3.1. It seems YouTube is chock full of videos shot in what seems to be defiance of Apple's NDA for 3.1 features. A couple of gems hint at expanded copy/paste functions, and there's one video which we could swear might hint at a real-time zoom... perhaps not just for photos but for framing video?

Anyway, it's a bit of a mining expedition, as searching for specific [REDACTED] methods or properties yields best results, so don't get all hot and bothered thinking you'll peep an iPad by searching for "setAppleTabletSize" or something. In fact, all of these could be fake, although the sheer number of videos seems to suggest something other than a grand deception.

Apple's iPhone simulator built into Xcode is nice, but it doesn't completely replicate the actual feel of playing with an iPhone (not to mention that things like multitouch and accelerometer info can't be tested on screen). Enter iSimulate, a new app from a company called vimov. In conjunction with a program on your Mac, it allows you to take the input (including multitouch and accelerometer) of an iPhone, and wirelessly connect it to an app running on your monitor. The effect, as you can see above, is basically an iPhone controlling a big-screen app.

Which has all sorts of possibilities. Developers can use it to both test and show off their apps, which is nice. But perhaps more importantly, (assuming it works smoothly -- we haven't tested it yet) it will let people use apps on their big screen monitors. Playing on the iPhone's screen is fun and all, but wouldn't it be nicer to play on two big screens at the same time?

The app might not quite be ready for that use quite yet -- not only is the app for your Mac called an "SDK" (which definitely means it's meant for developers, not gamers), but the price might be prohibitive as well. They launched it at $2, and the price is going up exponentially (it's now $8) until it arrives at its final price of $32. But this is definitely a great idea. And it if happens to be popular even at that price (for consumers and developers), we wouldn't be surprised to see Apple finally "get it" in terms of bringing some of the App Store's offerings to their own big screen.

Apple has just released Beta 3 of iPhone OS 3.1 for iPhone developers. As this remains under NDA, I cannot post any details about changes to the OS. The updates include the OS for the device, as well as the SDK used to develop iPhone applications. If you're a registered iPhone developer, head on over to the iPhone Dev Center to download your updates.

Developers whose apps meet the criteria for a 17+ rating in the App Store are now running into yet another roadblock, but this time it's not about getting their apps approved, it's about distributing them. Or, more specifically, distributing promo codes for them.

Typically, when a developer uploads a new version of an application to the App Store, they have the ability to create up to 50 promo codes, which they can then provide to media outlets for reviewing the application, give away to users in a contest, etc. Aside from some reasonable restrictions on their usage (you can't sell them, they expire after 28 days and are one-time use only), promo codes provide quite a bit of flexibility to developers of paid apps who wish to freely distribute their app to select individuals without having to worry about the hassles of exchanging device information and doing special ad-hoc builds.

So where is the problem? It's in the new app rating system that was released a few weeks ago. As it stands, neither the 3.0 software nor iTunes display parental warnings when using a promo code to purchase apps with a mature (17+) rating, so Apple has made the promo code functionality unavailable for apps that fall into that category. We were informed of this condition by a developer who prefers to remain anonymous.

This obviously puts developers of these apps in a bit of a bind, as well as eliminates the potential amount of sales that could come from being able to distribute promo copies. Developers in this position may be stuck doing ad-hoc builds or going back to the questionable practice of sending iTunes gift cards to reviewers.

And if you're thinking this just applies to the massive number of adult-oriented apps that have recently poured into the App Store, you're wrong. Apple specifies that any application that may contain high levels of offensive language, violence, sexual content, or references to drugs or alcohol receive a rating of 17+. But, according to Apple, apps that feature an embedded web browser or provide access to 3rd party content also automatically require the 17+ rating, regardless of the application's content or intended audience.

Here's hoping that Apple is already working on a solution to this, as the lost potential sales caused by this not only affect the developers of the individual apps, but the overall success of the App Store as well.

Update: Several developers have reported that they are now able to request promo codes for their 17+ rated apps. We have an updated post with details here.

The social gaming market on the iPhone has taken two sharp turns recently. First up, right after announcing that their system hit a full million users, OpenFeint announced that their social gaming platform has gone completely free for developers. Originally, the SDK was free to download, and then there was a small cost-per-user fee for developers, but with this new change, that cost is gone, and OpenFeint will now make all of their money, as we were told by Peter Relan, from referring users to other games and in-app purchases, and then taking that cut from Apple.

The popular publisher Chillingo has also announced a newcomer to the social gaming scene: they're planning to introduce another system called Crystal SDK, that will presumably both be free to all developers, and automatically included in most of Chillingo's games. Their release specifically tells us that "Crystal is iPhone's answer to Microsoft's Xbox Live," so they're officially throwing their hat in an already crowded ring.

With a million users, OpenFeint is still the biggest network going, but obviously Chillingo believes there's still many more to pick up. Should be interesting to see, as always, what users decide to do.

Everyone's favorite battling invertebrates are coming to the iPhone and iPod touch very soon -- the game was actually announced a little while ago, but Team 17 now says the game has been sent off to be examined by Apple's eyes, and so, as long as it doesn't have any objectionable content (you can't object to exploding sheep, right?), we'll see it up for download very soon.

Exciting. Unfortunately, I'm coming off of a Worms 2 purchase on Xbox Live, so I'll probably be passing on this one, but if you haven't had a Worms fix in a while, the video on the next page shows what Team 17 is saying over on their Facebook page: it's "a full console-style experience," with extra options, including probably the ability to play your own music as you play. Multiplayer will only be pass-to-play to start with (bummer!), but they're hoping to add in both Internet and Bluetooth local multiplay at a later date. And there's no official word on price yet, but we should know it soon: look for Worms on an iPhone near you.

We've talked about OpenFeint quite a few times on the site before (and even interviewed the creators), but while they're definitely one of the biggest names in creating gaming communities for the iPhone, they're not alone. A company called Scoreloop has today announced a service called "Scoreloop Community," made up of two different features: a web presence, and a downloadable application for the iPhone that hooks right into other developers' games and apps and allows players to create avatars, view friends and their activities, and share challenges and high scores with others. Just like OpenFeint, Scoreloop says they're offering an easy-to-implement solution for push notifications, letting players send and receive messages (as well as promote and encourage usage of games in the service) and earn achievements and tokens.

Of course, the real test for services like this will be in the implementation -- while OpenFeint claims a nice stable of developers, we still haven't seen too many apps take advantage of the latest and greatest versions (Pocket God is an extremely popular app that has implemented OpenFeint, but they use an older version of the software that doesn't have nearly as many features as the latest). Scoreloop says they've got over 50 game commitments from third-party developers already (it sounds like Zombie Pub Crawl is their biggest title yet), but even then, it remains to be seen exactly how devs will implement their functionality, and how players take to the service.

If you're a developer looking to implement push notifications and social challenges and networking in your app, it seems that there's no shortage of companies willing to step in and help you do exactly that (you can download the free SDK, if interested, on Scoreloop's site). But in terms of how consumers view and will use these networks, it's still a very wide open field.

Last week, TUAW showed you how to sign iPhone applications for informal developer-to-developer distribution. That approach lets you share applications between members of the iPhone developer program by using your signing credentials to authorize the application for use on your development units.

iPhone applications compiled for the Intel-based simulator can also be shared between developers. And, since the free developer program offers access to the simulator, the apps can be distributed even more widely than with the re-signing approach.

Simulator testing does not offer the full suite of device-specific capabilities. You cannot simulate the onboard camera or retrieve proper accelerometer feedback. The simulator does not vibrate or provide general multitouch input. (You can pinch, but that's about it.)

The strength of simulator-based distribution is that it lets you send out applications for early testing and feedback. Sim-only tests strengthen the preliminary design process; this approach helps solicit feedback on user interface and general program layout before the main development push gets underway.

Simulator-based apps are easy to transfer and easy to use, cutting out a layer of overhead that's needed for when you go to a full ad-hoc beta.

To distribute a simulator application, go to the Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/User/Applications/ folder in your home directory. There you'll find the application sandbox folders that are currently installed for your simulator. Each folder is named with a unique id (i.e. 56E66CE5...DC028F) that does not reflect the folder's contents.

You'll have to peek inside to determine which folder is which.The folder contains the application, and three sandbox directories: tmp, Library, and Documents.

To share a simulator folder compiled for 2.2.1 and earlier, you must zip up both the folder with the application and the .sb (sandbox) file that shares the same name as the folder. 3.0 and later applications do not use a .sb file. Just zip up and share the folder.

Install the shared app by decompressing its sandbox folder (and, for 2.x, its .sb file). The recipient must have installed the iPhone SDK. Drop it into the simulator's Applications folder on another machine and launch the simulator. The app should appear in the simulator, ready for testing.