|
|
|
|||
Steven Conner Inner circle 2724 Posts 
|
Are there any good App's that are compatible to other touch type phones other than iphone's? I just recently got the EVO from Sprint which is awesome but iforce and others do not work.
Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
Currently no. The programing is specific to each Operating System. Sometime later this year there will be third party accessories which allow translation onto multiple platforms, but for now it requires a rewrite of the programming.
|
|
Scott Cram Inner circle 2678 Posts
|
Even if Android or other devices get software that allows them to run apps from the App Store, that still leaves the problem of actually getting native iPhone apps.
I remember Palm released a device that was sold largely on the promise that you could use iTunes and iTunes music with it. That feature lasted for about a week, then Apple released a new version of iTunes that would no longer allow that, and took Palm to court. |
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote: Oh? Really? Sorry but I don't think so. I'd like to know where you heard this rumor, as it is NOT true. Quote:
On 2010-06-08 14:19, Scott Cram wrote: This was because Palm broke their own agreement with the USB Standards committee. In other words, Palm was illegally using Apple's USB identification code instead of their own, against the USB standards rules, to sneak into iTunes. Basically, tricking iTunes into thinking it was connected to an iPod. This had nothing to do with Apple, but rather Palm's breaking their own agreement with the USB licensing committee. Apple "broke" it by simply enforcing the standard rules already in place. |
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
Which part do you doubt? Since posting that I have learned that some android phones use compatible (amongst themselves) software while others require their own unique coding.
|
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
Sorry. Should have been more specific. This is the part:
Quote:
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote: Do you have any specific names of programs that do this, because Cocoa Touch is specific to the iPhone/iPad architecture and cannot be ported to/from Android's OS. And while you can go from Android platform to Android platform, you can't go from Android to iPhone with a click of a button, which is what Adobe was going to offer. The problem with those types of translators is that there are APIs that are specific to Cocoa Touch that are unavailable to the Droid platform, which is why Jobs is not allowing third party translators to "write once, build often." It creates ugly code. It's like writing a book, pouring over the best words to evoke an emotional response, and then using Google Translate to convert it to German instead of having a native speaker rewrite it by hand. No hard feelings, it's just that this rumor isn't true in the context of this thread (going from other OS's to iOS4 (the iPhone/iPad OS). |
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
Unity has had this set for a summer release. Program in Unity, build in iPhone and or Android. The thing is all of a sudden Unity has gone silent about this and another issue. They had closed door meetings with Apple, but nothing has been said about the outcome. Right now wait and see is the best that I could say on this.
|
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
They went silent for a reason. Because of this:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/08/iphone-os......as-ides/ Section 3.3.1 of the iPhone developer agreement (according to this article and the one below) prevents Unity from doing what they wanted to do. Which is why they went silent. For a MUCH more in depth analysis into WHY Apple did this, I'd recommend Gruber's post: http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_ap......tion_331 I wouldn't recommend anyone "wait and see." The outcome is pretty clear: if you want to write for the iPhone/iPad, don't be lazy, just write it in Objective-C. You just will not be able to convert software to iOS4. Again, it's a lazy way for programmers to create messy code and locks people into an older platform, and prevents developers from using the best features of a native OS (like many custom APIs in iOS4). And, I'm not saying iOS4 is better or worse than Android. I just think programs written natively in any language will perform better and be able to make use of native APIs better than code that is cross-compiled, which has to be written to the worst-common denominator. |
|
Scott Cram Inner circle 2678 Posts
|
Quick semi-related story:
Apple Eases Up on Restrictions on Interp......greement Quote: Apple Outsider's Matt Drance reports on another change made to Apple's iPhone developer terms earlier this week that should please certain developers, a change which allows game developers in particular to continue to use interpreted languages such as Lua in their App Store applications. |
|
Scott Cram Inner circle 2678 Posts
|
On another tack, there's always Titanium Mobile, which allows you to write your program in HTML/CSS/Javascript/jQuery/etc., and it will compile it to iPhone or Android.
I wrote my Knight's Tour+ app in it! |
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
Yes, I was going to bring this up but couldn't find the link. They do allow certain libraries, but that isn't the same as fully cross compiled programs like Adobe/Unity were trying to create.
And you are right about web apps running, bypassing the app store. But they still fall to the least common denominator as web apps cannot take advantage of most APIs. Which in the end, results in a slower program that can't do what a native app can do, like access the accelerometer for tilt detection. Basically web apps are just fancy web pages stored on the device (not that there's anything wrong with that, as you've demonstrated with the Knights Tour). I'm talking about things like Adobe and Unity. |
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
I've certainly run into the limitations of Unity, but from what I'm told it allows 3D game building by very small companies.
|
|
Steven Conner Inner circle 2724 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-06-08 12:36, Tom Cutts wrote: So, going back to the original question, in the near future there will be third party applications. It amazes me that no one has done this before. Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-06-17 09:16, Steven Conner wrote: To reiterate, it's because it is not possible. Apple's developer agreement forbids it (see my links above regarding Section 3.3.1) for the reasons I've been mentioning above, which is why Adobe, Unity, and others have dropped plans to try this. I'll mention the book analogy again. It's like writing a book and then deciding on publishing it in German. But instead of hiring a native speaker to translate it and keep the emotion of the original, you use Google Translate to automatically do it. Yes, the reader might still understand it, but it will be a difficult read. It's not the optimum way to write a program and why Apple forbids cross-compilers. |
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
There already are third party apps. They load more slowly and don't take advantage of all that the OS can do. They do allow a team of two or three to build an app which in the native language would require a huge team of programmers.
The agreement change Apple made has been the buzz of the community, but everyone has become very tight lipped about the real world implications of the wording of the agreement. It states that third party apps are no longer welcome, but they are still accepting them. Apple could just as well decide to allow Unity built apps to continue, as it could decide that cross programing is not in their interest. Some of the top selling apps are built in Unity. |
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
They are allowing certain libraries in (as pointed out by Scott above), but this is much different from allowing full cross-compiled programs like what Adobe wanted to do:
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/ And yes, there were apps accepted BEFORE Apple made the change in the agreement. As you said, they are slow and ugly (the code, not necessarily the UIView), which is why Apple no longer wants that. Anyway, it seems we're just going around in circles at this point. |
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5935 Posts
|
They are slower, and they are still accepting them. It will be interesting when the next OS hits to see what they do.
|
|
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts
|
As much as I would like to try out iForce, I have decided that I will never buy an Apple product again. Jobs talks about the proprietary nature of Adobe, yet everything Apple is proprietary.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|
ScottRSullivan Special user 874 Posts
|
And it begins. Sigh.
|
Posted: Jun 8, 2010 03:59 pm 