

Apple's prohibition of Flash-built apps in iPhone 4.0 related to multitasking - swombat
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html

======
daeken
Bullshit. Any software running on the iPhone has to be running in the same way
that 'native' apps are, whether or not they're running through an intermediary
layer; they interact with the system in the exact same way.

If iPhone applications ran on a layer like the Dalvik VM or .NET, allowing
reflection to do things like suspend and restore applications automagickly,
this argument could hold water, but we're talking about unmanaged code with no
real metadata (outside of the obj-c interface metadata) to speak of. This
argument is completely and utterly nonsensical.

~~~
timdorr
This is an Apple Insider article. They are wrong so often that I get the sense
they might just turn into an Apple-focused version of The Onion at some point.

Just without the humor.

~~~
jfoutz
i dunno... "The system will now be evaluating apps as they run in order to
implement smart multitasking. It can't do this if apps are running within a
runtime or are cross compiled with a foreign structure that doesn't behave
identically to a native C/C++/Obj-C app."

is pretty darn funny.

------
PunchAndPie
"The primary reason for the change, say sources familiar with Apple's plans,
is to support sophisticated new multitasking APIs in iPhone 4.0. The system
will now be evaluating apps as they run in order to implement smart
multitasking. _It can't do this if apps are running within a runtime or are
cross compiled with a foreign structure that doesn't behave identically to a
native C/C++/Obj-C app_ "

Wow...that is incorrect on so many levels... starting with the fact that it's
not possible for Flash authored iPhone apps to run inside a "runtime". The
whole trick in CS5 is to compile actionscript and FLA projects into native
iPhone apps... The author is little drunk on the koolaid I suspect.

Between that and the several mysterious unattributed appeals to authority,
followed by a big apple marketing pitch... is this from a gossip column or
something?

~~~
jonknee
> Between that and the several mysterious unattributed appeals to authority,
> followed by a big apple marketing pitch... is this from a gossip column or
> something?

We are talking about AppleInsider here...

------
mrcharles
If this were true, then there would be no problem with languages that compile
to C or Obj-C or whatever, which were then properly compiled by Apple's tools.
There would be no call for the "Original Language" wording, it could simply
say "all apps must be compiled from X" and that would be that.

------
growingconcern
OMG. The stupid hurts.

------
jrockway
Sorry in advance for the meta comment.

I read the article, saved the text "...cross compiled with a foreign structure
that doesn't behave identically to a native C/C++/Obj-C app." to my paste
buffer, and came here to rip that argument to shreds.

Two comments, with a combined total of 85 points, already did this. Thank you,
HN, for saving me some time :)

------
KirinDave
The article's reasoning is obviously nonsense. But...

I wonder if there are technical concerns? If AI got this from a real source
and just botched his explanation, there could be something there. I'm trying
to imagine would it could be...

Perhaps there is a compiler you will be required to use because it structures
code in a specific way?

------
tvon
Daniel Eran Dilger always seems to be reaching quite a bit with his Apple
conclusions...

------
s3graham
I'll believe it when the agreement instead says that developers must, ya know,
"conform to the ABI" rather than hocus-pocus language.

