I want to build an app that can communicate to some external third party hardware. I come to know that External Accessory framework can help me out in that, but I have few confusions……
Do I need to register ‘Made For iPod’ program before I start?
Do I need the third party hardware before I start, or I can start without hardware?
Is there any alternative to test the app, if the hardware is not currently available?
You could do that. But they don't approve everyone who registers like in the iOS program. It takes (in my experience) a lot of time and they have requirements that not everybody can met. You don't need to apply if the hardware is ready. The MFI program is for hardware developers. If you don't make hardware I wouldn't even try to get into MFI. It's a waste of time and money.
If you write an official app for the accessory, the company that makes it should give you a prototype so you can get started ASAP.
I would highly suggest to get the hardware. And if this is the first accessory project for you and the company then I would consider to go there and start writing the basic code on site, where you can get your hands on the developer.
The communication works with streams. I never tried it but I think you could write the whole protocol specific communication with network connections and then replace the networking stuff with the EASession once you have the hardware.
If you want to test the External Accessory framework you should have a look at EADemo. I never tried (and I don't have a accessory near me to test) but I think this should work with all accessories. But in my opinion everything EA Framework related is the easy part of the whole process.
Summary: Get the hardware. If you'll get the hardware in two weeks do the User Interface part now. If you can't get your hands on the accessory within two weeks you should beg for a prototype.
Regarding your comment to the other question: Test equipment is available when you are a member of MfI.
If you want legitimately produce and certify your third party hardware, you will need to apply for 'Made For iPod’ program. You will get and API and documentation to do that.
Unfortunately your chances to be approved are very low.
Related
I need to create and App that will run in the background and will monitor the user's behavior in term of applications installed, opened and deleted.
i.e Application will save the information in the database that at what time user has installed/opened/deleted an application in iphone.
I wonder if its possible and Apple will allow this??
I tried to google on it but did not get anything, i know if its possible then it would be possible by multiasking only??
Can any one please help me on the same.
Brn
Not possible. Your app can only run when the user chooses to (except for a limited sub-set of tasks like VoIP, etc).
Your app can know nothing about other apps.
iOS apps are sandboxed. I wouldn't say impossible but certainly not allowed. You'd have to find a security hole to give you root access first. Oh, and notify us when you do ;).
Edit:
Maybe it wasn't clear in my post but I was at least half joking. Not sure why you want to do what you want to do. I can imagine the following scenarios:
1) Your company wants to monitor everything their users do on their phones. In that case I would either
a) lock them down and only allow app installation through a company portal (enterprise distribution is possible in iOS) OR
b) forget about iOS alltogether. Blackberry would probably be closer to what you want, although I don't really have experience with that platform. Also, its future is not sure.
2) You're trying to do something illegitimate. Because of iOS's locked down nature it won't be easy. See how few successful attacks there have been in the last years - and that's for a highly successful platform where an attack could be high paying both in terms of money and reputation.
I am writing an iPhone app, and I have a remote server that will deliver content. I would like to have my app poll the server once per day to see if there is new content, even if it's not running or in the background. I would also like to do this without setting up an APNS. Any advice?
You can't do that, either when your 'not' running or if you are running in the background. The best you could do is to download once per day when your app is first run / pushed to the foreground.
You could use remote notifications to "prompt" the user to bring the app to the foreground so that it could download something?
With the current apple IOS guidelines, that is about the best you can do.
I read that you are trying to avoid using APNS, but I am wondering if you are trying to avoid it for the right reasons, especially when it is designed to efficiently solve the scenario you are describing. I've seen many developers seek alternative solutions to APNS simply because the technology appeared to be complex to use after looking at Apple's documentation. The online documentation does go into a lot of details, right down to the binary protocol level.
But just to be sure you know, there are open-source libraries whose only purpose is to shield you from all these technical details. Some libraries are more complex than others, but some are remarkably user-friendly. If you have not done so already, you might like to take a look at JavaPNS and other similar projects.
For the sake of coding itself, I know that I don't need to buy iPhone as there's pretty good emulator.
However, as I will develop iPhone apps for clients (will not have direct contacts to clients) via freelancers sites, do you think that I might get rejected (not chosen) by the contractor because I don't have iPhone at home?
Do contractors accept this way of working:
I develop the app, test it in the emulator and send it to them
They test it in iPhone and send me the list of the bugs
I fix the bugs and send them the app back
They find new bugs and...
Yes, or at least an iPod Touch.
To clarify:
Yes. You really need one. Debugging the kind of errors that cause it not to open on the device at all, for example, can be mind-numbingly tedious if you don't have the device handy.
For most purposes, of course, an iPod Touch should do just fine, but the crux of the matter is that the testers can only test what they see; only the developer can actually test crucial stuff, most of the time.
So to repeat. Yes, you'll need a device. A thousand times yes.
Your client may have something of an issue paying money for software that was never tested on actual hardware. No matter how good an emulator is, you should always try the software on the real machine your program will be running on. The emulator will simulate the way the API responds etc, but you could be blindsided by things such as interference from other running applications, subtle timing bugs, interaction between different versions of the firmware or hardware, etc.
In short, I don't think there is a legal reason you have to test on a real iPhone, but from a Q/C point of view, I think there is no question you need the real hardware to run it on.
Paying customers generally dislike being treated as a beta tester.
I don't think that you won't get the clients - but I do think its a terrible idea not to have a device to test on.
There are many things that won't work properly in the simulator. For instance you can't simulate a camera function, you can't simulate GPS (properly - it always sets you at the apple HQ), you can't simulate sound recording, or test with a real contact address book or a real set up. You can't test whether there is an internet connection or if there are any iphone specific bugs.
On the other side of the coin there are loads of things that will work in the iphone simulator that won't work on the device itself. For instance NSXML and such won't work on an iphone, but WILL work in the simulator.
If you can get hold of one of the new ipod touches they do pretty much most things you will need, and you don't have to get into a data plan or anything. I would suggest AT LEAST getting one of those. You can't make apps if you can't test them properly.
Other things:
In app purchases - #Stephen Darlington
Whenever working for clients, the clients do not pay you for having an iphone or not... or being able to test it on a actual iPhone. The clients pay you for the product you deliver. They expect it to work on the device.
My recommendation is to get yourself an iPhone 3, 3gs and 4 if you want the best results. But, if money is a object here... try developing minor projects which are reliable in the simulator. AND ask friends/family which do have iPhones to test it for you on their device. Its better to ask mates to do this, then ask the client, this way you have a better comunication with your client, your client has more faith in you and... well lets face it, it is the developers responsibility to deliver quality code. Right?
There are some tests you cannot perform in the emulator.
And I am not sure contractors will like this ping-pong test approach (somebody will get tired after couple passes).
You can get an old second-gen iPod touch at a very good price since there are many people who would like to get rid of it. And Apple advices to test apps on older hardware to achieve the best performance. So you'd better get something 'hard' to play with.
Another aspect is performance. The simulator (running on a powerful Mac) will be much faster than a device. This was a huge difference with the original first iPhone.
As an alternative to the iPod: look for a cheap original iPhone on eBay or so. But remember that this will not run iOS4.
I am pretty clear about the fact that I build software to leverage hardware devices that they work with the iPhone thru EAAccessory and bros.
What I am not clear where do I get the hardware specifications if I want to connect an Arduino project with the iPhone?
Everything you need can be found here
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/accessories/
The process is fairly straightforward.
-t
You join the Made for iPod and Works with iPhone Licensing Program - it involves a few NDAs and legal documents, then they give you the specifications for connecting with and communicating through the i/o port or bluetooth.
Here's a blog post detailing what one person went through to get into this program and gain access to the documentation:
Part 1:
http://www.stackoverthrow.com/?p=97
Part 2:
http://www.stackoverthrow.com/?p=100
It looks like there's no extra fee (above the usual $99 developer program fee) but there's a lot of back and forth paperwork, including faxes, mail, etc which stretched the process out for him to nearly 2.5 months.
He hasn't given much of the nitty-gritty details, so there may be more to it (ie, you may have to disclose your intended application, and if they don't like it they may turn you down) but it gives the process from a recent program applicant. Would be nice if it changed so it was all online, but I'm thinking they may still require all the paperwork.
I've been doing mobile app development for a long time (2001?), but the systems we worked with back then were dedicated mobile development environments (Symbian, J2ME, BREW). iPhone SDK is a curious hybrid of Mac OS X and Apple's take on mobile (Cocoa Touch).
But it is missing some stuff that other mobile systems have, IMO. Specifically:
Application background processing
SMS/MMS application routing (send an SMS to my application in the background)
API for accessing phone functions/call history/call interception
I realize that Apple has perfectly valid reasons for releasing the SDK the way they did. I am curious what people on SO think the SDK is missing and how would they go about fixing/adding it, were they an Engineering Product Manager at Apple.
The biggest shortcoming in my opinion is support for separating licensing from distribution.
What I mean by this is that it should be possible to download a trial version of an application and later purchase a license for that application (from an API call inside the application or from the app store). This would make it much easier to try-before-you-buy and get rid of the current duplicates of many applications with 'lite' versions.
I think lack of push notifications for apps is the big thing we're missing right now. With push, you can register your application to perform a task (like getting the most recent data from a web service) even when it's not running, at a time and frequency the OS decides is best. In an ideal world, along with the existing concept of iPhone apps loading quickly and resuming where you last left off, this solves the problem of not running in the background. I know some tasks will be more difficult or maybe impossible with this strategy, but it's still a pretty good compromise between third party applications and the iPhone's limited hardware.
Originally push was scheduled for last September, but it was removed from the beta SDK and not spoken of since then.
API's I'm personally looking for:
Apple80211 as a public API (private, current API is fine if documented)
Access to Volume buttons (semi-accessible via Celestial, private, needs new API)
Access to Calendar (private, API status unknown)
Access to Bluetooth + SPP profile (status unknown)
Access to Camera (directly, API status unknown)
Access to JavaScript runtime (directly, not through UIWebView, API status unknown)
WebKit access that's lower-level than UIWebView (private, current API is fine)
Access to Music Library (private, current API is fine)
Garbage Collection.
CoreData is missing.
You've mentioned some of the big ones - copy & paste (or in fact any way for apps to collaborate) is another huge omission.
It also seems to lack a desktop synch framework (at least if it exists I can't find it).
Language independence and especially lack of scripting is another pet peeve - objective-c is all very well but more languages to choose from would be good.
Inability to dynamically extend apps, via scripts or otherwise, is another big omission. This is partly an SDK/OS issue, partly licensing.
My list ordered by priority:
Mapping abstraction (the MapKit looks awesome), but that would require a new Google Maps TOS
Music library
Camera (photo + video) Access to more
UIViews, Apple designed some pretty nice custom ones for their apps
Better UIWebKit abstraction
The features I see missing that it should have is
Access to SMS
Direct Access to Google Maps App. You should be able have access to this so you could extend your application to use the built in features provided by Google Maps.
Access to the Bluetooth functionality of the phone.
Access to the Calendar. Why not allow access to simply post a calendar event for the user.
Access to Active Sync. It would great if we could directly access this and communicate back to the Exchange Server.
Core Image. They provide Core Animation but Core Image is missing. I hope that this is added to the API soon.
These are some of the features that my clients have access for in the past and are supprised when they are not available.
We definitely miss a Calendar API and SMS access. So many applications could leverage such APIs. The iPhone allows users to have everything in their pocket, but it's almost useless as long as developers cannot leverage this integration in their apps.
A language with proper namespaces.
A limitation that bugs me is lack of access to system features that require root or setuid. For example: opening privileged IP ports.
I'm not sure there is a good solution to this, as long as Apple's policy is to keep the device locked-down.
Allow program to set some kind of local timed event for your application to bring up an alert and launch your app if the user agrees (like any calendar app). You could do that with push notifications but there are many cases I'd hate to have to rely on a whole server infrastructure and network connectivity just to basically do some timed thing.
Some idea of what direction the user is facing. I cannot believe the GPS chip the newer iPhones use are not capable of reporting direction.
I would personally love to see
Access to the CoreTelephony Framework (Currently private). Which allows access to all the phone functions (Especially sending MMS / SMS).
Some sort of ability to run stuff in the background. While push notifications is ok for most things, but it is a bit hard to leverage CoreLocation (i.e. have the app show a notification at a certain location). Of course this would probably need an on/off button or app specific like push is.
animation view which will be reduce developer to make a cool app , of course the core business local still need consider more , but the view layer could more easy to use ....