Apple dictates that all new apps must fully support the iPhone X screen(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Apple dictates that all new apps must fully support the iPhone X screen
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/apple-dictates-that-all-new-apps-must-fully-support-the-iphone-x-screen/
64 comments
Meanwhile, Apples own iMovie app doesn’t support the iPhone X display yet.
> all new apps submitted from April 2018 onward
Presumably they're going to make their own apps compatible by then.
Presumably they're going to make their own apps compatible by then.
I hope so, but there's no guarantee, because that says "new apps", not "app updates".
Why is it new app? When will it apply to existing apps?
I don’t have a X but I have apps that still don’t support the iPhone 6 screen size. Not ancient apps that have never been updated.
TiVo updates their app regularly. Every 2 or 3 months. But it still doesn’t support the screen size released four years ago.
This is a good move but at some point it needs to apply to existing apps or you end up with an obnoxious loophole.
I don’t have a X but I have apps that still don’t support the iPhone 6 screen size. Not ancient apps that have never been updated.
TiVo updates their app regularly. Every 2 or 3 months. But it still doesn’t support the screen size released four years ago.
This is a good move but at some point it needs to apply to existing apps or you end up with an obnoxious loophole.
The problem is that some codebases are horrible. They assume a constant ratio or a constant width and it's pretty much a re-write if they want to support other orientations.
I’m sure that’s true. But would it be that hard for Apple to say “this applies to new apps today and existing apps in two years“? That way developers would have tons of warning, but they wouldn’t be able to sit on their feet forever.
And I’d only apply it to updates to apps.
And I’d only apply it to updates to apps.
Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable compromise. I agree with you.
Apple made a questionable design decision and people didn't want to play ball. Now they're trying to keep their customers happy (who paid $1k for a phone) by forcing everyone to design for it. Sounds like Apple.
If you sell 15 million of something (or whatever the actual number is - I've seen anywhere from 11 to 20 million) then where is the evidence that they made a questionable design decision?
My iPhone X is the best phone I've every used and the notch is a nothing burger except for folks that can only knock Apple.
Naturally they want software to play ball - what company doesn't want software to work well with their hardware?
Sounds like someone that has an agenda. And Ars' use of "DICTATE" is a loaded word they obviously used to boost click-ability. There are plenty of other words like requires, updates standards, etc that don't have the connotation of dictates.
My iPhone X is the best phone I've every used and the notch is a nothing burger except for folks that can only knock Apple.
Naturally they want software to play ball - what company doesn't want software to work well with their hardware?
Sounds like someone that has an agenda. And Ars' use of "DICTATE" is a loaded word they obviously used to boost click-ability. There are plenty of other words like requires, updates standards, etc that don't have the connotation of dictates.
The fact that they have sold so many phones may simply indicate that the other perceived benefits outweigh the poor notch decision. Plus, lots of mass market products are terribly designed. They sold over 3 million Ford Pintos.
The iPhone X is the best device I've owned. The notch quickly became unnoticeable but took a few days to get used to lack of a physical home button but that's also become natural to use and going back to use my wife's iPhone now feels more mechanical/primitive.
I tried an X, and bought a 7 instead. The notch was ugly.
So now we've shared competing anecdotes. We can conclude only that anecdotes aren't arguments.
So now we've shared competing anecdotes. We can conclude only that anecdotes aren't arguments.
I'm responding to the unsubstantiated claim that:
> lots of mass market products are terribly designed
Insinuating the iPhone X is terribly designed which isn't my experience (the only one I have). By definition all personal experiences are anecdotal, so no I haven't conducted any empirical studies (neither have you), but we can infer given the iPhone X is Apple's top selling phone that most people prefer the iPhone X despite its higher price.
> lots of mass market products are terribly designed
Insinuating the iPhone X is terribly designed which isn't my experience (the only one I have). By definition all personal experiences are anecdotal, so no I haven't conducted any empirical studies (neither have you), but we can infer given the iPhone X is Apple's top selling phone that most people prefer the iPhone X despite its higher price.
No, you aren't. You're saying that you liked the iPhone, which is evidence neither for nor against the parent's claim.
"we can infer given the iPhone X is Apple's top selling phone that most people prefer the iPhone X despite its higher price."
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what you said. You said merely that you liked the iPhone X.
"we can infer given the iPhone X is Apple's top selling phone that most people prefer the iPhone X despite its higher price."
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what you said. You said merely that you liked the iPhone X.
You're either very confused or trolling.
I have directly responded to the comment I've quoted, as evident by looking at the parent comment that my comment replied to.
> Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what you said.
That's exactly what I've said, you've even copied it verbatim, which was in response to your comment pointing out the very obvious fact that personal experiences are anecdotal, which you've somehow tried to contradict using your own anecdote. It should not surprise anyone that most comments are anecdotal (especially those beginning with 'I') but which should at least count for 1 data point with experience which is more than enough to respond to unsubstantiated claims.
I have directly responded to the comment I've quoted, as evident by looking at the parent comment that my comment replied to.
> Maybe, maybe not. But that's not what you said.
That's exactly what I've said, you've even copied it verbatim, which was in response to your comment pointing out the very obvious fact that personal experiences are anecdotal, which you've somehow tried to contradict using your own anecdote. It should not surprise anyone that most comments are anecdotal (especially those beginning with 'I') but which should at least count for 1 data point with experience which is more than enough to respond to unsubstantiated claims.
"That's exactly what I've said, you've even copied it verbatim"
No, I didn't. But I will now:
"The iPhone X is the best device I've owned. The notch quickly became unnoticeable but took a few days to get used to lack of a physical home button but that's also become natural to use and going back to use my wife's iPhone now feels more mechanical/primitive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16403374
No, I didn't. But I will now:
"The iPhone X is the best device I've owned. The notch quickly became unnoticeable but took a few days to get used to lack of a physical home button but that's also become natural to use and going back to use my wife's iPhone now feels more mechanical/primitive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16403374
Yes you actually did copy what I've said verbatim, now you're showing you're able to copy entire comments as well, congratz, which you may think was pointless, but it does answer whether you're confused or just trolling.
Come on you guys, please don't sink into pointless tit for tats.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So you reply with another anecdote? The sales figures prove that it has been seen as largely successful.
I'm pointing out that my anecdote is no more or less relevant than anyone else's anecdote.
"The sales figures prove that it has been seen as largely successful."
Demand for the X has actually been pretty weak:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-produ...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/26/investing/iphone-x-weak-sale...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphone/apple-suppli...
https://mashable.com/2018/01/22/iphone-x-discontinued-predic...
"The sales figures prove that it has been seen as largely successful."
Demand for the X has actually been pretty weak:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-produ...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/26/investing/iphone-x-weak-sale...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphone/apple-suppli...
https://mashable.com/2018/01/22/iphone-x-discontinued-predic...
You've successfully referenced rumor sources with click bait headlines published before Apple announced their actual results:
> “We’re thrilled to report the biggest quarter in Apple’s history, with broad-based growth that included the highest revenue ever from a new iPhone lineup. iPhone X surpassed our expectations and has been our top-selling iPhone every week since it shipped in November,”
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/02/apple-reports-first-q...
> “We’re thrilled to report the biggest quarter in Apple’s history, with broad-based growth that included the highest revenue ever from a new iPhone lineup. iPhone X surpassed our expectations and has been our top-selling iPhone every week since it shipped in November,”
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/02/apple-reports-first-q...
iPhone sales were down 1.24 percent year over year. They made more money because the phone is more expensive. Also, nothing in that statement negates anything said in the links I posted.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16961562/apple-q1-2018-ear...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16961562/apple-q1-2018-ear...
Yes unit sales were down 1.24%, which is contributed by Q1 2017 results reporting 14 weeks instead of 13 weeks this quarter, the iPhone X being supply constrained and basic economics 101 law of supply/demand when raising prices.
Since you're quoting percentages to justify your insistence of "Demand for the X has actually been pretty weak", here are some more percentages you've left out:
> The Company posted quarterly revenue of $88.3 billion, an increase of 13 percent from the year-ago quarter and an all-time record, and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $3.89, up 16 percent, also an all-time record.
Since you're quoting percentages to justify your insistence of "Demand for the X has actually been pretty weak", here are some more percentages you've left out:
> The Company posted quarterly revenue of $88.3 billion, an increase of 13 percent from the year-ago quarter and an all-time record, and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $3.89, up 16 percent, also an all-time record.
I have an iPhone X. I barely ever notice the notch. And the screen looks amazing.
That's not actually an argument against saying the notch was a bad design decision. Just because people can tolerate it in order to get access to an iPhone with an OLED screen (or other X features) doesn't make it a feature that users see as a positive.
I've never seen anyone say they like the notch, only tolerate / ignore it.
I've never seen anyone say they like the notch, only tolerate / ignore it.
You will find people who say they like Face ID, though, and there’s no way to have that without the notch. It’s not like apple woke up one day and said fuck it let’s take a notch out of the screen for no reason.
> and there’s no way to have that without the notch.
There is, the notch could instead be a black bar that extends across the width of the screen. whether that's a better decision is arguable, but it's definitely possible.
There is, the notch could instead be a black bar that extends across the width of the screen. whether that's a better decision is arguable, but it's definitely possible.
I wouldn't have been so annoyed if it was actually treated as the engineering concession that it is. From a user experience POV, the obvious thing to do with an OLED screen would have been to make the notch the same height as the status bar, and have the status bar white-on-black.
Instead, they chose to rub the user's face in it as a marketing ploy.
Instead, they chose to rub the user's face in it as a marketing ploy.
It’s your opinions vs Jony Ives whether its good design or not. Most people here seem to side with Jony and not you, of course you are entitled to your opinions.
Why not leave that choice up to the developer? If the new phone is so awesome then other developers will make awesome apps for it and if you don't support it your app will not succeed. Apple is threatening the revenue of companies and forcing them into spending their resources to support a product which they had zero say in. Anyway, why is dictate a loaded word here? Can an app maker say 'no'?
It's in Apple's interest to enforce proper support. Otherwise devs would just rely on compatibility and people would get used to the idea that iPhone X is the one where apps don't really work that well. Almost nobody would question whether that's dev's or apple's fault.
Exactly. Look at the unbelievably pathetic Android Tablet apps! Except for top 10 games and some of the video streaming apps, most of the apps look like crap.
My comment was just about Apple/dev/customer interaction. What you're describing does not match my experience with Android tablets.
Oh it's certainly in Apple's interest. I don't really care about their interest though. They have a large enough megaphone to take care of their own issues. I prefer to support the other side in such matters.
>Otherwise devs would just rely on compatibility and people would get used to the idea that iPhone X is the one where apps don't really work that well. Almost nobody would question whether that's dev's or apple's fault.
Microsoft spends their own money to make sure apps work with a newer version of Windows. I'd say that is the right choice given the enormous disparity in resources.
>Otherwise devs would just rely on compatibility and people would get used to the idea that iPhone X is the one where apps don't really work that well. Almost nobody would question whether that's dev's or apple's fault.
Microsoft spends their own money to make sure apps work with a newer version of Windows. I'd say that is the right choice given the enormous disparity in resources.
John Siracusa said something years ago that’s often repeated. Apple’s priorities are Apple first, customers second, developers third.
I’ve read on the official Microsoft blogs how many special case hacks are in Windows just to maintain compatibility with one app. Can you imagine how horrible that code base must be?
I am a developer and have been one professionally for 20+ years. I have a hard time for feeling bad for developers who have to actually do their job and keep up with technological changes.
I’ve read on the official Microsoft blogs how many special case hacks are in Windows just to maintain compatibility with one app. Can you imagine how horrible that code base must be?
I am a developer and have been one professionally for 20+ years. I have a hard time for feeling bad for developers who have to actually do their job and keep up with technological changes.
They would have sold 15 million of whatever was in the box labeled 'iPhone X.' Especially given the absence of competition in the all-important "Just sell me a phone that doesn't completely suck" category.
The notch was a disturbing design decision not because it was all that awful, but because it was a run-of-the-mill faux pas that should have been obvious. You don't have to be an expert at human psychology to realize that people won't see the extra pixels you're giving them on either side, they'll only see the "missing" ones in the middle.
It seems that Apple is so focused on the details that they're starting to overlook obvious things. Ever proofread a long document, combing through the footnotes and spending hours on the spelling and grammar minutiae, only to realize later that you overlooked a glaring typo in an 18-point subheading? That's the notch.
The notch was a disturbing design decision not because it was all that awful, but because it was a run-of-the-mill faux pas that should have been obvious. You don't have to be an expert at human psychology to realize that people won't see the extra pixels you're giving them on either side, they'll only see the "missing" ones in the middle.
It seems that Apple is so focused on the details that they're starting to overlook obvious things. Ever proofread a long document, combing through the footnotes and spending hours on the spelling and grammar minutiae, only to realize later that you overlooked a glaring typo in an 18-point subheading? That's the notch.
Apple is forcing devs to support their customers. I wish more companies were like Apple.
> Now they're trying to keep their customers happy (who paid $1k for a phone) by forcing everyone to design for it. Sounds like Apple
It does, because this is not a new phenomenon.
Apple regularly enforces that Apps are built to support the latest versions of its phones and OSes.
It does, because this is not a new phenomenon.
Apple regularly enforces that Apps are built to support the latest versions of its phones and OSes.
It's how we got 64-bit apps!
Things change and developers are lazy. Apple gave them quite some time and now time’s up. Sounds like what I’d do.
iOS Developers have well known that in order to develop apps for Apple, you play by their rules. Why is this a surprise to anyone?
They always have done this.
When the larger screens came out (from 3.5 to 4' to 4.7'), new apps had to support them as well.
Also, when iOS 7 was released it introduced major changes to the full screen layouts, and manny apps had to deal with it. (in order support both iOS 6, and 7).
So, nothing new
When the larger screens came out (from 3.5 to 4' to 4.7'), new apps had to support them as well.
Also, when iOS 7 was released it introduced major changes to the full screen layouts, and manny apps had to deal with it. (in order support both iOS 6, and 7).
So, nothing new
>So, nothing new
The notched screen and rounded corners makes it a different beast.
The notched screen and rounded corners makes it a different beast.
I don’t really get this? If you’re using a sane library for layouting, updating your app to support the new frame isn’t too much of a struggle.
Having overseen the update of an app to support the new layout I disagree with you. The main issues we found is the virtual home button that could fall in the locations where you have buttons (allegedly is not a problem with built-ins like navbars, but still an issue on some screens).
Another issue we found is support for the overflow when hiding the top bar on scroll and other minor issues that I have no time to tell.
But the real problem is that you need to test and test all screens, something difficult in a complex app. Especially since the X was released in late November and difficult to find for some time.
That does not mean that having a compatible app by April, 6 months later is a hard requirement. But updating the support requires a good amount of work, it is not trivial and could consume a good chunk of time to do that.
Another issue we found is support for the overflow when hiding the top bar on scroll and other minor issues that I have no time to tell.
But the real problem is that you need to test and test all screens, something difficult in a complex app. Especially since the X was released in late November and difficult to find for some time.
That does not mean that having a compatible app by April, 6 months later is a hard requirement. But updating the support requires a good amount of work, it is not trivial and could consume a good chunk of time to do that.
What app are you testing? Most of the UI can be perfectly tested on the simulator. In fact the iOS UI guys on my project never see the app on native hardware until release.
That's pretty much what he said: "So, nothing new" VS "Sounds like Apple."
The alternative is one-shot set-and-forget developers that just dump software on a marketplace/store somewhere and ignore whatever happens next. (i.e. Android)
And yet my Android apps have often stayed working long past when they stopped being supported, and rarely seem to suffer from the quantity of layout problems iOS does since Android has always had to deal with devices of variable sizes and ratios.
I'll grant the low end of Android apps is probably much worse than the low end of iOS apps, but I generally don't use those apps in the first place.
I'll grant the low end of Android apps is probably much worse than the low end of iOS apps, but I generally don't use those apps in the first place.
Seems like that's actually unclear, from the article:
> The email didn't clarify exactly what support for the iPhone X's "Super Retina" screen means—does it just mean the resolution and aspect ratio must be supported, or do developers also have to update their apps to respect the rounded corners, sensor array (which many people call "the notch"), and the home indicator?
Requiring support for the aspect ratio and resolution alone would hardly be unreasonable. It's their flagship device and a taller aspect ratio is becoming common everywhere.
Sounds like the "home indicator" is the trickiest thing for some full screen apps? Without having an iPhone X it's hard to know for sure, but is that similar to how Android apps have to respect that swiping up on the lower portion of the screen on a Pixel or such is interpreted by the OS as bringing up the on-screen buttons instead of going through to the app?
Does anyone have more concrete info on what "supporting" means for the X?
> The email didn't clarify exactly what support for the iPhone X's "Super Retina" screen means—does it just mean the resolution and aspect ratio must be supported, or do developers also have to update their apps to respect the rounded corners, sensor array (which many people call "the notch"), and the home indicator?
Requiring support for the aspect ratio and resolution alone would hardly be unreasonable. It's their flagship device and a taller aspect ratio is becoming common everywhere.
Sounds like the "home indicator" is the trickiest thing for some full screen apps? Without having an iPhone X it's hard to know for sure, but is that similar to how Android apps have to respect that swiping up on the lower portion of the screen on a Pixel or such is interpreted by the OS as bringing up the on-screen buttons instead of going through to the app?
Does anyone have more concrete info on what "supporting" means for the X?
It's supported by default. You just need to hook up your buttons correctly. Games may have a problem though.
This was always done like this. It's even the same timeframe. Absolutely no surprises for anyone who has been on the Apple platform for more than two years.
No, it's just Software Engineering 101. Really basic and mundane stuff, actually.
[deleted]
This is a non-story. Company who owns app store places requirements on apps in said app store. Has been true from day one, and will be true until app store no longer exists.
That's a ridiculously simplistic and incorrect way to think. The fact that apple makes the rules doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss our opinion of said rules. Also, they control the entire ecosystem. Do you remember how that worked out for MS and IE? The fact that it's their app store is not the only relevant details, and using that as a reason to ignore what they do is just lazy.
Does that fact make the requirements uninteresting?
What if you support it, but you display black in the notch?
At the design phase for FaceID, competing designs are presented, each with their own tradeoffs. These are then culled further for a manufacturing phase, where the design is further iterated on. Finally, they are presented with the limitations of supply-chain and engineering.
Why would a company at Apple's scale not test out many different variations and ask the question: why the notch > black bar on the top (or even embedded into the device itself)? From a marketing perspective, a black bar would have been worse - less distinctive, less screen, potentially more noticeable in a bad way ("the screen you don't have", "wasteful"). The complaints may have been similar. Given the compromises between the target device size, actual requirements of FaceID, and distinctive look, I'd say Apple hit their goals and the market is mostly receptive.