Talk:iOS SDK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Restrictions imposed by iOS Developer Program License[edit]

This paragraph is outdated and wrong since minimum 5 years. There are no restrictions like that anymore active. 20:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Apple on App Store Review Guidelines[edit]

The App Store has revolutionized the way mobile applications are developed and distributed. With over 250,000 apps and 6.5 billion downloads, the App Store has become the world’s largest mobile application platform and App Store developers have earned over one billion dollars from the sales of their apps.

We are continually trying to make the App Store even better. We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year.

In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code. This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need.

In addition, for the first time we are publishing the App Store Review Guidelines to help developers understand how we review submitted apps. We hope it will make us more transparent and help our developers create even more successful apps for the App Store.

The App Store is perhaps the most important milestone in the history of mobile software. Working together with our developers, we will continue to surprise and delight our users with innovative mobile apps.

Improvements to the Article[edit]

The Article is well done. One suggestion is that the Category list at the bottom says 'IOS (Apple)' rather than 'iOS (Apple)'. When you click on the category, IOS (Apple), the title of the category page is 'iOS (Apple)' which is correct. On this category page, you will see the upper-case 'I' improperly used instead of the proper lowercase 'i' seven times. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Corrected. Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

free download?[edit]

The SDK itself is a free download Could you provide a link?--78.48.96.85 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to the Article[edit]

This article is out of date. Apps not written originally in Objective-C/C/etc were approved by Apple in Sept 2010, allowing Adobe Lab's packager as well as Corona SDK which use ActiveScript and LUA respectively compiled into OC are available and apps produced in Corona have been accepted in the AppStore. I came to this article hoping to find a list of such 3rd party IDEs. If someone possesses a good knowledge of this subject, it would be greatly appreciated if this list were added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.109.120 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Java controversy[edit]

Oracle, which acquired ownership of Java after its purchase of Sum Microsystems, sued Google over the unauthorized Java interface in Android Linux. (C.F. Microsoft Java Machine lawsuit by Sun as being unauthorized.) Probably another reason we won't see Java on iOS. Shjacks45 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move version history of iOS sdk[edit]

Hi I propose that we move the iOS SDK version history into iOS version history because there is no point on just having a version history of betas release so it should be included in the full releases too 90.214.234.17 (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

iOS SDK version history[edit]

Hi or we could move iOS sk version history section to an article of its own called iOS SDK version histoyr because it would be better on its own 90.201.78.163 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Two developer costs[edit]

The Apple website: "Which Developer Program is for you?"

DETAIL: For those individuals and company teams developing for the Apple Store the annual fee is $99. (I think it is annual). For inhouse 'enterprise' development for inhouse use, the fee is $299. For scholastic use, SDK is free. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IOS SDK. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Table[edit]

Why are all the names in the first column of the table level 4 headings, except at the end? They look the same except the headings have an edit and an edit source button next to them when I am logged in. PiGuy3 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

History table[edit]

Hi everybody! I am going to remove the History table, and I want to explain my thoughts here in more detail, since the edit summary can only have limited text. There are several, major issues with the History table in its current form.

LocalNet, your logic is solid, but I found this table to be wonderfully useful. :( #1 and #3 could be addressed with some effort. Maybe we can keep it more high-level such as Java version history or even break it out to its own article? What are your thoughts? Ckoerner (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Ckoerner: By all means, it is fully acceptible to find the table to be useful. But there can be a difference between being useful and being encyclopedic. For the same reason that verifiability doesn't guarauntee inclusion, information that is very specific, in this case SDK version history, would be more suitable to a dedicated technical website rather than Wikipedia. A counter-example for you: I am a tech-savvy person, but I am not an extremely technical person, if you understand what I mean. When entering a page for an SDK, I want information on what an SDK is and its purpose. A looong, extremely detailed list of its version history is of no interest - or even understanding - for me. Now think about those who aren't tech-savvy at all, who still visit Wikipedia. I just want to make sure Wikipedia is kept to its policies, and that, in technology articles, it doesn't stretch into the technical world too much, but sticks to relevancy, verifiability, and most of all, notability. However, if you still want the information, it is in the page history. LocalNet (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@LocalNet: Fair enough. If you think there's no place here then I won't push on it. :) Thanks for the kind and informative reply. Ckoerner (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ckoerner: Thanks for engaging in a good discussion on it :) LocalNet (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
While you make valid points, this table has been very useful and valid to a wide variety of users including external audiences who use it. I understand our fundamental policies and several of the reasons cited could be fixed (or at the very last tagged so that they can be fixed). WP:IAR may even apply here i’d argue on such a highly useful article with lots of traffic. I would push for the inclusion of this with either tags or fixes in place. -- Dane talk 05:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Dane: You mentioned that there was a "wide variety of users including external audiences" who used the information, but you didn't include any examples or sources for that information. I am against placing banners on articles, as (in my experience) they don't get fixed and look horrible. As I wrote in another reply, I don't want Wikipedia to suddenly become an expert territority in technology articles. This is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia with guidelines, policies and principles that is read by the entire world. Wikipedia should, as much as possible, suit a general audience. If the information is very valuable, it can still be found in the page history, and the information can be copied and added to other websites as long as the licenses are uphold. Furthermore, had the table been filled with sources, I might have agreed to spin it off into its own article, but it didn't. It violated WP:V almost completely, and since many of the fields in the table were empty, it pretty much also violated WP:N. Sorry for this, but I am against adding back the information. It remains in the page history, though! LocalNet (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ckoerner and Dane: I have an alternative proposal for you. If you really want the information to be here, which it seems like you do, how about you create a new dedicated article for the table ("History of iOS SDK versions" or something along those lines) and we'll use the article text "New SDK versions accompany new iOS versions" as a link to the main article? I won't have anything to do with that page, and strictly speaking, I don't even support its creation. But that would perhaps be an acceptable compromise? It would mean that page gets its own article, where those specifically interested can find it, whereas it doesn't impact this article or any others regarding the general understanding. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I sincerely appreciate the offer to come to a compromise here, but personally I'll pass. I'm afraid creating the new page would be frustrating as it would most likely be quickly marked for deletion given your solid advice. If Dane or others wish to make an attempt, I encourage them to do so. However, I'll put my efforts elsewhere. ;) Ckoerner (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that thousands of people will find the information very useful I've submitted it as its own page. Wikipedia won't let me stay logged in with Chrome so I guess I'll be anonymous (used a different browser to submit under my username). 24.17.47.128 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd love to know how you know that "thousands of people" will find the information very useful. But if you're already in the process of creating a separate page, then I'm not going to argue against that. As long as this page stays the same, I'm happy. Good luck! :) LocalNet (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Well the page draft was rejected couple days ago.. not gonna waste any more time on it, I guess the Wikipedia bureaucracy wins this round in its campaign against information and social contributions. Not sure who benefits from removing useful information but I guess some people get off on that. 24.17.47.128 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to contain every known fact or history of a topic. That doesn't mean it has a "campaign against information and social contributions". I understand you wanted the information to stay, and I've been in your position myself in the past, but it's important to try to change the perspective and see this page as other people do, in which an almost endless version history table doesn't add anything to understand a topic and might actually just confuse people. LocalNet (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I made it as its own dedicated page so it wouldn't have cluttered this page or confused anyone. 24.17.47.128 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that. In fact, using a dedicated page with a subtle link is what I wrote earlier here as a compromise that I would personally deem acceptable. However, the table had issues far beyond just being overly detailed, having a significant lack of verifiability, notability and being a changelog, all of which are parts of Wikipedia's guidelines. I fully understand the frustration that guidelines can prevent useful information from being present, but sometimes we just have to accept the sad fact that it's not appropriate and move on. LocalNet (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a great example of bureaucracy getting in the way of genuinely useful information. Any way you slice it, it's a sad day for WP. (As for people who use this data, obviously you have this site, which has been running for years: http://www.thinkybits.com/blog/iOS-versions/). Although I agree with your points, and think it needed a change, there was no need to delete. WP:IAR exists to try and mitigate this sort of damage. 217.138.91.230 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)