What is Digg?73 Comments
- vrikis, on 05/09/2009, -1/+38i don't see why this would be a bad thing. would you really want to buy something and then not have it run because the developer didn't make it work on the current platform?
- adremali, on 05/09/2009, -0/+20good thing they thought of this now instead of letting 3.0 launch and realizing half the apps don't work. this sucked when it happened to all the jailbreak apps after 2.0 was released.
- gllopc, on 05/09/2009, -0/+15It was probably submitted by a couple of Diggers, but since they weren't power diggers, it didn't hit the front page.
- swmbuk, on 05/09/2009, -2/+13I wonder how it will be in years time when they have version 9 or something, at the moment you buy an app and expect it to last forever, but I just don't see that happening...
- darksydxx, on 05/09/2009, -6/+15Apple is Microsoft 10 years ago.
- Alphab, on 05/09/2009, -1/+10If the developer coded his apps properly and did not try to do what apple especially told him not to (use private framework that may change), or made stupid assumption (like the first element of a table row is always the label), the old apps will continue to work just fine on OS3.
Apple will enforce the 3.0 compatibility on the store so that the user never have to worry. Imagine how you would feel having just paid app to see it doesn't work on you brand new phone...
Apple is doing the right thing. - jptolife, on 05/09/2009, -0/+8So wait... are they supposed to make JUST enough money to survive? I didn't think so. Everyone wants to make money dude, it is what it is.
- IHateRegisterin, on 05/09/2009, -1/+8I don't know about compatibility but I've noticed an unusually high number of updates to my existing applications. I suspect developers were told to recompile their applications with the 3.0 SDK.
- ricopicouk, on 05/09/2009, -3/+10Does this mean that there is the pottential for apps not to be compatible?
So there *could* be apps that I have bought for my iphone, that will not work after FW3 releases?
Come on apple, this CANNOT happen. - dagamer34, on 05/09/2009, -1/+8If you have only one device on which to test your apps, then that means you have to install beta firmware on your primary device, which Apple suggests you NOT do. This is the problem most indie developers have, they can't be expected to have multiple units to test on.
- UmarSajid, on 05/09/2009, -0/+6Any backwards compatibility?
- Angostura, on 05/09/2009, -0/+6Sorry, it's a nice soundbite, but what *exactly* is your point?
- dagamer34, on 05/09/2009, -0/+5Not recompile with the 3.0 SDK, just make them 3.0 compatible. That means building against the 2.2.1 SDK, but if you're using some private frameworks that break your app in 3.0, you'll have to remove them if you want Apple to approve new updates.
- dosher199, on 05/09/2009, -0/+5I may be getting picky, but they did a really ***** job of making a graphic for this article http://www.techradar.com/images/zoom/iphone-3-0-on ...
- gllopc, on 05/09/2009, -4/+9Isn't that the risk you take on any OS?
- gwinerreniwg, on 05/09/2009, -0/+4I am curious: in the new SDK, (or perhaps even the old), how does Apple handle screen resolution? what would happen to iPhone apps if they were suddently running on a 5x8 display? There's been all this speculation about a "tablet" style iPhone, and I wonder if there's any clues one could derive by looking at how the new release handles screen resolution and real-estate. Any iPhone developers who know the SDK care to comment?
- bilbohicks, on 05/09/2009, -3/+7I can't believe people are whining about this. Apps will get updated and there will be no problems for 99% of stuff I should think.
- atgmac, on 05/10/2009, -1/+5Just like Microsoft is in BIG legal trouble if previously bought software no longer functions on Windows 7.
- Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -0/+4Yes, given the current framework its not possible. This is one of the reasons I laugh at the "iPhone nano" speculation. Every app would need to be re-written for that to work.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/10/2009, -1/+5"having trouble not getting your app ready for 3.0, you are dumb."
"majority of apps that don't work in 3.0 are poorly written"
"No programmer worth any salt at all will have trouble with this."
Buried for being an ignorant ass. - MacParrot, on 05/09/2009, -2/+6And Apple is Microsoft now. These are all big companies that need to make a profit to survive. They will do whatever is in their best interests to separate money from your wallet. However in this particular case they are telling developers to get on board with the new OS or they won't release their apps through official channels.
The developers knew all about the potential profits and dangers of being so tightly wound around one outlet for their software, but did it anyway because there was a lot of money to be made. Hmmm, sounds like the developers made the same type of decisions that the big corporations do when deciding where to put their resources for maximum profit. Imagine that. - MrSkills, on 05/09/2009, -1/+5No. Google took special precautions with Android to avoid steam roller accidents.
- Pardis, on 05/09/2009, -0/+3for that theory to work Windows would also to make all application and game developers update their product to only run on the new OS with no backward compatibility, And also not let any non new OS app run.
- gllopc, on 05/09/2009, -2/+5So you've never used an operating system before?
Windows gets updated, too, and applications get updated along with them.
Our phones are no longer static devices. They are more and more like our PCs. - piratebr0adcast, on 05/09/2009, -0/+3For the curious: I am a developer and have tested my "old" (read: 2.0 apps) on Beta 3.0. They are both very simple "menu navigation and text apps" (reference materials) and they both work fine. That leads me to believe that most apps will still be backwards compatible. Certain more complex calls (shaking the device, possibly camera calls) may be a different story.
- gllopc, on 05/09/2009, -4/+7Your device isn't subsidized, and so you pay for the upgrades. Do you get the latest versions of Windows for free (In theory)?
- Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2No, there is an automated scanner as there are specific things you are not supposed to do with your app. Previously developers found workarounds, but 3.0 changes most of them which means if you weren't following the rules some of your hooks and calls will no longer work whatsoever.
- gllopc, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2Do you think they'll fix it, or go out of business?
- mattharvey716, on 05/09/2009, -3/+5good?
- Grazzit, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2pretty lame to charge the ipod users 10 bucks for a firmware update though
- RobSaint, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2It stands to reason that Apple would want all apps to work in 3.0 . As a consumer you'd be really p'ed off if half your apps stopped working after the update!
- Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2The only thing the developer can do is release a new "3.0" version separately as a separate app, but whether or not Apple would allow that is anyones guess.
The developer does not have the ability to charge for an update to an existing app. The most they could do is change the pricing of the actual application which would not affect people who already purchased it. - Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -1/+3Most worthwhile apps would be kept up to date.
This is no different then any other software platform, occasionally software has to be slightly modified for it to continue working. - Angostura, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2Or possibly apps that use non-standard hooks or private APIs
- haentz, on 05/09/2009, -2/+4No. They may stop working after the developer releases a 3.0-compatible update. And yes, that sucks big time! But since the update to 3.0 is free for iPhone useres, I wouldn't worry so much.
- rebotfc, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2I know that Virtual Pool does not run properly under iPhone OS ver 3.
- Omicron, on 05/09/2009, -6/+7is Twitter sending Digg the way of the newspapers? This news was all over Twitter 2 days ago...
- macslut, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1If you re-install your OS, of course you'd need to re-authorize your computer. It's essentially a new computer from the perspective of the store. Is it really that hard to enter your username and password in iTunes each time you re-install your OS?
"This is stupid. Basically, Apple is saying I must upgrade to 3.0 just to use any apps."
Where does this come from? Apple is only saying that new apps submitted to the store must be 3.0 compatible. You don't have to upgrade to 3.0 unless you want to use an app that is 3.0 only. This of course won't occur until 3.0 is released, and should be pretty rare since it's easy to make apps 3.0 and 2.x compatible.
"The ones I paid for are rightfully mine and should not be disabled."
The won't be, but like any other OS, new versions may mean that old software will not be compatible. You'll need to upgrade your software IF you decide to upgrade the OS. There's nothing new here except for the fact that very few iPhone app upgrades cost anything. - Gibletoid, on 05/09/2009, -5/+6If, as a programmer, you are having trouble not getting your app ready for 3.0, you are dumb.
The class inheritance used in Objective C means that it easy to program for 3.0, and to keep your code separate from Apple's.
I would imagine the majority of apps that don't work in 3.0 are poorly written. No programmer worth any salt at all will have trouble with this.
Why you wouldn't already be working in 3.0, when it's included if you are a developer, is a mystery to me. - dagamer34, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1@Qumahlin
1) Making assumptions is what causes a lot of trouble in this world.
2) The simulator is good for finding bugs, but not performance testing (it runs too fast). Also there's plenty of stuff that requires actual hardware because support isn't on the simulator. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1You can't expect people to have unlimited time and money to keep iPhone apps up to date with "latest firmware". It's nice that many people do keep up to date, but some people don't have the ability to meet those demands.
- t0ny, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1How would you read anything on a 5x8 pixel screen!?!?
- Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Have you ever used the iPhone dev kit? He may be an ass about it, but everything he said is pretty much spot on.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Apple only provides access/support for their latest product.
- Rudegar, on 05/09/2009, -6/+7the problem is if the developer of an app you love and use a lot
get run over by a steamroller and stop all new developing of the app
and you can't find alternatives to this app - supersteve, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1you will burn in the pits of hell
- Qumahlin, on 05/10/2009, -1/+2"No. Google took special precautions with Android to avoid steam roller accidents."
Really? What would that be? You really think that every possible Android app will be unaffected by software updates? I know Google is great and all, but they aren't clairvoyant and no matter how many precautions you put in place you can never 100% guarantee all applications will work after a OS software revision. The only way to do that is to never ever upgrade any framework that an app can access...which means you then have a stagnant unevolving platform. - jpop, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1I wonder how they're going to "test compatibility". I doubt they'll have some automated scanner looking for "incompatible code", so it'd probably have to be someone going through the app to see if anything funky happens.
- AmazingSteve, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1I'm pretty sure that's the way to LOSE customers.
- MrSkills, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Oh for goodness' sake. It was a silly joke. About steam rollers. WOOOOOOOSH.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is