So, how about all those people that were supporting apples' right to run their app store the way they see fit and who said that there is no point complaining about it?<p>I think this proves that complaining about stuff like this is well worth the effort, assuming that that - and not some backroom pressure - is what caused them to back off. They mention it in their release so I figure it must have been a major factor.<p>edit:<p>the plaintext version of the appstore guidelines:<p><a href="http://ww.com/appstore.html" rel="nofollow">http://ww.com/appstore.html</a><p>I've been reading through the guidelines while fixing the markup and it seems to me that it's very reasonable the way it is worded and those terms that are left.<p>I'd feel pretty good developing under these terms.
Engadget.com posted an excellent summary regarding Apple's new App Store review guidelines:<p><i>"We have lots of kids downloading lots of apps, and parental controls don't work unless the parents set them up (many don't). So know that we're keeping an eye out for the kids."<p>"We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps."<p>"We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour."<p>"If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."<p>"This is a living document, and new apps presenting new questions may result in new rules at any time. Perhaps your app will trigger this."<p>"If it sounds like we're control freaks, well, maybe it's because we're so committed to our users and making sure they have a quality experience with our products."</i><p>More here: <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/09/apples-app-store-review-guidelines-we-dont-need-any-more-far/" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/09/apples-app-store-review-g...</a>
No one has mentioned what seems to be one of other most seemingly positive developments of this -- the App Review Board [1]:<p>"We’ve created the App Review Board to provide you the opportunity to appeal the rejection of an application if you believe that the functionality or technical implementation was misunderstood. You will be able to submit details that the App Review Board will use to determine if the rejection of your app should be reconsidered."<p>Of course it's unclear if this will actually work, but at least there's a seeming opportunity to make an argument compared to the previous "just resubmit it to the App Store" approach. Hopefully these decisions/adjudications won't be under NDA so we can see if this process actually works.<p>[1] <a href="http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html" rel="nofollow">http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html</a>
Now that MonoTouch appears to be in the clear on iOS...<p>It sounds like C# is going to be a viable language for 3 major mobile platforms this Fall. Windows Phone 7 supports C# by default. MonoTouch brings it to iOS and MonoDroid takes it to Android.<p>It sounds like there will be some really neat opportunities to reuse C# libraries across all three platforms, while dropping a native platform UI on top of them.
If you're a registered developer, you can read the just-published App Store Guidelines here:<p><a href="http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html" rel="nofollow">http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guide...</a><p>For those who aren't registered developers, it's basically a list of 189 rules, most in the form of "Apps that ... will be rejected"
I just had a quick read of the new sections of the agreement. As far as I can see all restrictions on the languages and tools have been removed. No scripts or executable code can be downloaded by the app (ie it all has to be packaged) with the exception of javascript in a web component. Really I guess the press release says all that, but there is no equivocation in the terms of the actual agreement which is nice. Great move Apple!
I applaud this. Yes, it might have been in reaction to the potential US Government anti-trust type probe. Yes, it effectively lowers the billable rate and billable hours of many iPhone developers. Yes, it makes it possible for almost anyone (using Titanium and tools-yet-to-come [wake up, Adobe!]) to make mobile apps.<p>However, I think its good because it allows developers to further differentiate themselves from the pack. What apps get featured? People bemoan the fact there is so many apps competing. But I believe that if you write a compelling app that stands out from the hum-drum tab-bar apps and, yes, glut of physics-based games, your reviewer at Apple will notice. They probably even get some kind of bonus for identifying the diamonds in the coal.<p>Thank you and muchos gracias, Apple. I believe that apps that push the limit of what an iPhone current generation can do - and do it beautifully - that is what will win in the marketplace. Uzu, that addictive slice a shape in half game, the render a photo like an oil painting. All require secret sauce - in development time, graphics, rendering.<p>Titanium mobile won't for a very long time be able to make a Uzu-type game. Or even a well-designed app. I hope...<p>Prepare to be flooded with ports of Flash games (I assume this makes Adobe's compile to Flash in CS5 feature a go, now)
my guess is the FTC investigation into Apple's practices got them nervous. better to just cave than deal with anti-trust issues: <a href="http://voices.allthingsd.com/20100611/ftc-to-investigate-apples-conduct-in-mobile-app-market/" rel="nofollow">http://voices.allthingsd.com/20100611/ftc-to-investigate-app...</a>
Just in time for me to start coding my first iPhone app!<p>I'd wanted to use Appcelerator's Titanium to avoid learning Objective-C and to keep my options open with respect to Android phones. I've sat on the development on this idea for a few months now wondering if Apple would finally reveal their hand. I'm glad they did but I'm honestly surprised that they've done "the right thing" and moved away from monopolistic tactics.<p>Wahoo! Coding starts on Monday :)
An important Caveat is Section 1 and 10.1: The Human Interface Guidelines. This is large document that describes in general the "look and feel" of apps that run on the iPhone. If you make something that doesn't fit with their long-term vision, or irks them in some other way, it is extremely easy for them to say "You are violating the Human Interface Guidelines," and leave it at that. This has prevented me from delivering innovative UI experiences on iOS, stifling creativity, and again, frustrating developers with wasted research and development time.
What I find really funny is that a certain breed of fanboy applauded the restrictions in the first place, saying that they were needed. Yet I don't see anyone complaining now that the restriction is removed!
I think this is a big mistake from apple's perspective. Despite the noise, and the possible exception of a few games dev tools for which they could have made exceptions, there has been no serious evidence of people avoiding ios because of the toolchain. This will inevitably result in cross-mobile-platform apps which have non ios-like interfaces. At the very least it will give succour to developers who don't want to fully engage with the ios ui conventions and fully utilise the platform specific features.<p>Obviously, as on the mac, the market will ultimately decide. But remember these sort of cross-platform efforts are what has given us the UI abomination that is CS3 through 5.
This puzzles me. Why did they change them after a couple of months? I'm really wondering.<p>Maybe now they will raise the bar for quality rejecting apps that do not follow guidelines or do not provide enough functionality? Sounds strange, but I cannot think about any other reason.<p>EDIT: reading through the just published guidelines, it is exactly like this.
I'm skimming the guidelines, and I don't see a restriction on one of the most well-known app rejections: duplicating functionality of built-in apps.<p>I noticed that guideline 2.11 states, "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them", but that seems intended for preventing a bunch of near-duplicate 3rd party apps, not the "Thou Shalt Not Write a New Mail Client" commandment.<p>I wonder, does this "relaxation" include relaxing that restriction?
So now instead of developing for a platform run by a megalomaniac dictator who never listens, you can develop for a platform run by a megalomaniac dictator who rarely listens to the demands of developers. Sign me up!
Here they are: <a href="http://pastie.org/1148102" rel="nofollow">http://pastie.org/1148102</a><p>("Use Pastie for good, not evil." - I think this is for good)
Strange. Didn't Steve Jobs mention he doesn't want another software layer? Because it leads to bad apps and they can't push API changes as fast, because these third party layers have to update?
This is great news! I just bought an iPad yesterday, and I would like to do some development for it. Since I stopped paying attention to them when Apple added the restrictions, what are all of the tools which are now usable that were in a grey zone before? The Adobe one is the only one I remember.
So does this mean they'll actually follow their own review guidelines or is it going to mean you can read them but @#$%!, you're still at the whim of whomever gets your app?
<p><pre><code> 12.3 Apps that are simply web clippings, content aggregators, or a
collection of links, may be rejected
</code></pre>
Does this mean you can't just wrap your website in a native app and try to charge for it? What about feed readers?<p>Also interesting, they say the more you charge for an app the more thoroughly they review it. Maybe you can sneak things through if you make it free. :b
Some of the app review guidelines seem weird:<p><i>Apps larger than 20MB in size will not download over cellular networks (this is automatically prohibited by the App Store)</i><p>Don't many games cross this threshold?<p><i>Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript</i><p>Opera Mini - which was accepted by the App Store - would seem to fail this rule.
I'm still concerned about the "look & feel" problem of shoddy ports using Flash or whatever but rejecting apps with bad UIs on a case-by-case basis should protect users equally as well.
Wait, so does this mean Apple doesn't have a problem with a 3rd-party framework becoming the preferred API for iOS development? How does not allowing apps that download code prevent this?<p>Also, does this mean you can't download JavaScript from an external web page in your app?
It's 2010; is there any valid reason why a web page announcing a change to another document doesn't link to that document?<p>Assuming this[1] is it, what exactly counts as a "private API" per section 3.3.1. Isn't any code I write a private API, thus calls to it a are violation? And how is that compatible with the allowance in 3.3.2 to package an interpreter into the app?<p>[1]<a href="http://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/ios/standard/ios_standard_agreement_20100909.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/ios/standard/ios_s...</a>
I've got 5 apps which were submitted by not approved by the time this 3.3.1 rule was released. Those apps have been "In Review" for this whole time. I've got another couple dozen apps, which we have been preparing for android, but could easily submit for iOS. Most of these are unique games, but we've build a few on our own from scratch.<p>This is great news. But that said, we're still all at the mercy of Apple's changing the contract at any time without notice in future.
Hopefully the fulfill this promise of being more open. They accidentally leaked financial records of many app developers to their competitors. Nothing has been said about this.<p>Link to story: <a href="http://togapit.com/apple-leaks-sensitive-developer-data/" rel="nofollow">http://togapit.com/apple-leaks-sensitive-developer-data/</a><p>On another note, I believe they are relaxing the rules due to epic's involvement. A lot of there code uses Lua.
What's with 4.2 and 4.3?<p>I can't build an app that lets my app drive a toy car around via GPS? (That would actually be pretty cool!) I can't build an app that taxi drivers can use to interact with their dispatchers and report their location via GPS?<p>I can see that those sorts of apps would be likely to run afoul of some other problems, but I don't see how that in and of itself should be a reason for rejection.
Definitely a positive step, but doesn't make (some of) them any less weird. The one about not using GPS to control remote planes and following one about not using for dispatch seems very odd. I'm sure there are plenty of people that could make use of this, and hardly seems harmful.<p>Likewise the kids-only attitude - why bother having ratings at all? Do we really have to confirm 18 years old for a dictionary and yet be forbidden adult material? But strangest of all that I've read so far:<p>"Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected<p>Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected"<p>Doesn't this ban all real-world purchases? Ordering books from Amazon App...?
I just submitted this as a separate link, but engadget is hosting a copy of the new guidelines (opens a PDF):<p><a href="http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guide...</a>
What happened ? Did Adobe poke some government officials and Apple was starting to get bothered by that ?<p>It just seems incredibly stupid to first ban all tools -- just to mess with Adobe basically -- and then do an 180 and remove said restriction.
I don't think this actually changes anything? Apple still bans under section 1 and I think 10.1 any app that don't have a consistent iOS look and feel and behavior. The requirement to only use native widgets is still enforced.<p>So, either <i>the app developer</i> gives the app a native user experience; Or <i>the middleware developer</i> makes it so that any app using his middleware is always conform the guidelines? As far as I can tell this still rules out any simple use of the simple and generic cross-platform middleware layers?
I make Flash games, about 5 months ago I asked <a href="http://www.oneappatatime.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.oneappatatime.com/</a> to port one of my games, just before the shit hit the fan.<p>It actually got approved today too!<p><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/square-there/id367085960?mt=8" rel="nofollow">http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/square-there/id367085960?mt=8</a>
Does anybody have the links to the actual rules, since this press release, through welcome, is extremely light on details.<p>If not, can we please not post something this light on content to HN in the future? Maybe instead wait for somebody who knows something to blog about it? I would hate for this to become a place to just post press releases.
I've seen a lot of messages saying Apple "crumbled" to Adobe (pun intended).
While the initial implementation of the rules may have been a knee jerk reaction to Flash, I think its more likely Apple relaxed the specific rules to allow Unreal Engine powered games.
Thus allowing themselves to fully compete against the PSP & DS.
I hope they add searchability to in app purchases soon. If you make travel guides for many countries, it looks like you can't sell them as separate apps easily anymore. If someone searches for Bali, it's going to get missed if you make a travel guide for Bali and 50 other regions.
What is the pros for Apple beside being able to fend off FTC probe? If company starting to look at cross-platforms tools (such as one that develops for iOS, Android and Windows Mobile), and abandon Obj-C and XCode, will this weaken Apple strategically?
I wonder if this will have a psychological effect on using other dev. environments for Apps.<p>It almost paints a Flash-compiled app as being "legacy" when a company opens it up after demonstrating it's case against alternatives.
This may be a move by apple to keep the influx of apps available to iOS, as developers move into the Android space. Given Androids growth, this may be a way for Apple to avoid what happened on the PC platform in the 80's/90's.
Is this just a press release that changes are coming later today, or are the actual changes also published? If the latter, is anyone able to summarize what they are?
I <i>really</i> hope this doesn't result in a flood of Flash-based apps.<p>And I say that as someone who's been developing Flash content for the web for quite some time.
Well, I've spent the last six months learning the shitiest language and libraries with the most backwards arse tools. What a total waste of my time.<p>Can't decide whether I'm furious at this loss of time and destruction of my competitive advantage, or deliriously happy at the thought of being able to use proper tools like Resharper and IDEA.<p>I suppose the fact is I still have a competitive advantage. I have one client purely because they tried middleware and it ran like ass, so they wanted a native app.<p>Time to get Java installed on the iPhone. I'd prefer Monotouch, but the editors on OSX suck compared to Resharper.
I think this yet another step in Apple's progress in refining the App Store for both the consumer and the developer. Every thing Apple does with the App Store is taken one baby step at a time, but their baby steps have added up. If you look back at how different the App Store was when it came out, you'll notice how far it's come since then.<p>These review guidelines that Apple recently posted were not needed by most developers, and will still only be relevant to those 1% of developers whose apps are controversial or unlucky enough to get rejected. However, since this has been covered so much by the publicity (just like the iPhone 4 antennagate issue and Adobe-Apple war), Apple felt the need to succumb to the media. Sure, it was not that big of a thing in the first place to just publish their review guidelines, but isn't it unusual that Apple is having to quiet down the media more and more often these days? Apple shouldn't have to do this, but with people taking everything out of proportion (all these issues only affect the small minority), it's hard for them to ignore it. What do you think?
Was this story broken here on HN? I can't find any other stories on Google News.<p>If so, well done jakewalker. Makes me wonder if HN can become a primary source for news in addition to an aggregator.