Qt Apps banned from Mac App Store?

[jfk]

Steve Jobs has recently unveiled his new Mac App Store including a list of restrictions.

Especially jarring are restrictions such as:

• Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected.
• Apps must be packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – no third party installers allowed
• Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
• Apps that do not use the appropriate Mac OS X APIs for modifying user data stored by other apps (e.g bookmarks, Address Book or Calendar entries) will be rejected
• Apps that change the native user interface elements or behaviors of Mac OS X will be rejected

The full list of restrictions can be found at cultofmac.

Does this affect Qt (C++) software?

[wysota]

Yes, it does.

[jfk]

Does that mean Qt 'Apps' are completely out of the question? Where has Apple drawn the line? After all they distribute Python and Ruby with their Operating System. Surely Objective-C can't be the only guest to the new App Store!

[wysota]

Does that mean Qt 'Apps' are completely out of the question?

Officially, yes.

[squidge]

It's probably more like: Apps that look like standard Mac applications & behave like standard Mac applications will be accepted. All others will be rejected.

So Qt applications will be permitted as long as your careful, but they really want you to create native applications using Cocoa so they can ensure to keep control of the look and feel of applications for their platform (eg. if too many people switch to Qt, people ignore the Apple API and Apple lose control of their own platform, so they keep it on a tight leash)

[wysota]

It's probably more like: Apps that look like standard Mac applications & behave like standard Mac applications will be accepted.

Qt is an "optional library", if at all you can install it through App Store. I doubt they will accept any application that depends on a library you can't install through App Store. Of course when speaking about desktop Macs. For iPhone there is no official Qt port anyway.

[jfk]

It's probably more like: Apps that look like standard Mac applications & behave like standard Mac applications will be accepted. All others will be rejected.

That's what I'm hoping for! On the other hand, I'm already worrying that my App-to be gets rejected according to:

Apps which appear confusingly similar to an existing Apple product will be rejected.

Apps which appear confusingly similar to an existing Apple product will be rejected.

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

In any case I'll give it a shot!

[SixDegrees]

Also, Apple is a notorious for closed systems. Apart from keeping control of the look and feel, this also allows Apple to charge inflated prices for the "official" development toolkit, charge high annual fees for developer "licenses" and otherwise squeeze cash out of their customer base in every way possible.

[jfk]

Also, Apple is a notorious for closed systems. Apart from keeping control of the look and feel, this also allows Apple to charge inflated prices for the "official" development toolkit, charge high annual fees for developer "licenses" and otherwise squeeze cash out of their customer base in every way possible.

True. If they want to reject an App they will - wether it complies with the App Store Guidelines or not.

The dilemma is this: If an indie software developer wants an entry to the market placement in an App Store is almost a necessity.

[SixDegrees]

I'm developing an interest in tablet computing. I may pick up a cheap tablet just to goof around with. If and when I develop apps for it (Apple is attempting, by the way, to copyright the word 'app', another example of massive overreach) it won't be for any Apple products. I have issues with Google as well, but Android is a developer's dream come true - free, well supported by a huge community, and spreading like wildfire.

[ChrisW67]

For the Mac there's nothing stopping you distributing the Qt-based application yourself. As an added bonus you get to keep the 30% Apple tax. Of course, if Apple try to make the App store the only distribution channel for applications on the Mac then that's a different proposition.

I am routinely asked when the iPhone/iPad (and soon Android) versions of my products are due. Notice the absolute assumption that there will be a iPhone/iPad/Android versions.. like it is some deity-given right and as easy as flicking a switch. It is a shame that Qt cannot get me to those platforms.
Some of the Apple store restrictions are also potential show stoppers for me:

• Apps that are “beta”, “demo”, “trial”, or “test” versions will be rejected. Would you buy an app for more than a few tens of dollars sight unseen?
• Apps containing “rental” content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected. My app would depend on periodic updates of the data contained within but this is not a free exercise for me. Apple wants you to sell the application over again in order to collect another 30%. To make this work I need to drastically drop the application price thereby devaluing the product on other platforms.
• Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store
• Apps that present a license screen at launch will be rejected

[d_stranz]

If Steve were 200 lbs heavier, he could take off his shoe, pound it on the podium, and scream "We will bury you!" at the next press conference. He apparently doesn't read history, at least not the histories associated with other centrally-controlled, dogmatic dictatorial enterprises like the (former) Soviet Union.

The Apple Store restrictions sound to me like an excellent way to reduce your market share in deference to the more open models of other mobile OS platforms.

[wysota]

Well, so far they are successful so it seems the approach was a correct one from a business point of view. They can always change their rules should some other scheme become popular enough.

[serkol]

Qt is an "optional library", if at all you can install it through App Store.

Do you really have to "install" Qt? It does not have to be "installed". Qt is just several files inside your application bundle.

By the way, is it possible to compile a Qt-based application for Mac OS X in such way, that the application file contains all necessary parts of Qt? I'm new to Qt (I'm finishing my first app, targeted to Windows and Mac OS X).

[wysota]

Do you really have to "install" Qt? It does not have to be "installed". Qt is just several files inside your application bundle.

So if you have 10 Qt-based applications you get those "several files" ten times each, right? I know disk space is cheap but is it really a good approach?

By the way, is it possible to compile a Qt-based application for Mac OS X in such way, that the application file contains all necessary parts of Qt? I'm new to Qt (I'm finishing my first app, targeted to Windows and Mac OS X).

Yes, you can compile it statically which makes your application really huge.

[SixDegrees]

Yes, you can compile it statically which makes your application really huge.

Also, you open yourself up to additional licensing issues when you create static builds. The GPL and many of it's variants consider your application to be derivative when statically linked, but not when it is linked dynamically. In general, when you statically link another library you are actively bundling and using it from a legal standpoint, and not simply taking advantage of an existing environment. You run a much higher risk of losing control over your own source code when you statically link, especially with large, complex external libraries whose dependencies may be difficult to discern.

[john_god]

Bought myself one mac some months ago, thinking in giving a shot at iphone development. I'm somewhat disappointed with the xcode tools developer, it doesn't have c++ and compared to Qt, seems like I walking backwards. I really enjoy Qt development, and besides with new technologies there's always a learning curve one has to cross. So for now, I will postpone my i-phone development and keep on playing with Qt. Apple, being the major app store player in the market, for now can afford all the restrictions. Nokia just recently released the ovi store, android market is running wild, so let's see what the future will bring, if with all the competition Apple will keep their restriction policie.

[serkol]

I keep programming my first Qt app (Mac/Win). I try to make the Mac version look as much "native" as possible.

I've came across 2 Qt/Mac bugs that bother me. If they bother you too, could you possible vote for my bug reports, so that they are fixed sooner?

http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-15474
http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-15475

[wysota]

And how is this related to the discussion in this thread?

[serkol]

It is related. I don't see any technical reasons for Apple to reject a Qt app that includes Qt framework inside the bundle, UNLESS the app does not look like a native Mac OS X app - breaks the GUI guidelines. One of the 2 bugs - modal dialog that permanently loses its focus - is definitely one of those bugs that can be a reason for Apple to reject a Qt app.