I am using Maximo anywhere 7.6.3 and wanted to know if we need an apple account to customize (i.e add new fields) to existing application. The customization guide of 7.6.2 says it is needed for building iphone applications, but then not sure if it is required for the latest version. The modifications that i made in dev. work as expected though.
in order to compile to IOS, you don't need a developer account, just XCODE and a MAC. In order to distribute the app via the app store, you would need a developer account.
IBM publishes out of the box Anywhere applications to both the Google Play and Apple app stores, so you can point them at your Anywhere server and deploy a lot of changes that way without the need for an Apple account.
If you want to make changes to the iOS apps like custom app icons, custom app names or baking in the server url and then distribute the app either publicly or within your organisation, then you will need an Apple developer/enterprise account.
Related
we have an app that is used by providers for TV. We do not have Operator tier yet since there requirements are really high..
The issue we have is we use a commercial Android Tv box provider and they have a similar panel(like tier) for us to manage the device like remote buttons..
In order to facilitate the user experience we need to enable the app as a laucher for Home button to load our application.
But to get to that, we need to enable developer mode and then debug... A big process for common users to manage if they factory reset there boxes..
Also we do not want that dialog to show all the time that asks if we want this application to be set as default laucher..
Is there a way with android 10 and up to have our app as a default laucher?Without playing arround with ADB and developer settings?
Thx!
I've looked around for answers to my question, but most are actively trying to do what I don't want which is why I'm asking.
An app I'm developing for the company I work for has gone live, and so to further develop I need to use Firebase preview channels.
I've looked over the documentation and it states that channels use the same resources, which I find a little unclear.
Does this mean that preview channels are UI only and using an app on a preview channel will still write to the live database (Firestore) that customers are currently using?
If you're talking about Firebase Hosting preview channels, the only difference between each channel is the web content (html, css, js, images) that you deploy to it. The configurations for the other Firebase products (database, analytics, etc) don't change at all. You can see this for yourself by printing the active Firebase configuration in JavaScript - you should see the all the same values.
If you want to build against a different database before you push updates to production, you should instead use completely different Firebase projects to keep them separate. It's common for developers to keep multiple projects for multiple environments, such as development, staging, and production. This is the formal recommendation.
Bottom line: A Firebase Hosting preview channel just lets you try out different web assets against the same backend services. If you want different working environments to avoid disturbing customers in production, you should use different projects entirely.
So Firebase has these Dynamic links, which if you click in your Android / iPhone you get redirected to your app instead of the website. So when you want to invite your friends to join you in the app (game, group chat or whatever) you just share this link with them.
I was wondering if this was achievable with UWP. I watched a video about project Rome where they talk about AppUriHandlers which seem to do the job. HOWEVER they require you to have a json file at your web server root which would identify your app, saying "yea, this app is allowed and me are associated, open this app when someone launches this link".
The problem with that is that the Firebase dynamic link points to a google endpoint, e.g. https://aaxy2.app.goo.gl/?link=redirect_here and naturely there is going to be no json file just sitting there.
Is there some other way how to have users redirected to my app just via a link (it needs to be an http link because that's what the Android and iOS versions of the app will be using).
It's not going to be possible; for this exact reason. To ensure that web links aren't hijacked by third parties (for potentially malicious reasons), only the owner of a domain (or more accurately: the person/people with access to the storage where the domains points) can "approve" an app.
Update:
After actually doing my job and properly reading your question, I can give you a correct answer; sorry :/
Linking to UWP apps will work similarly to how it's described for iOS apps in the first section here:
You can do the iOS 8 way and support a uri scheme as described in the Windows docs here.
With the Anniversary Update you can also support AppUriHandlers by directing your users to a web link that will launch your app instead (as described in the Dynamic Links docs for iOS 9).
It looks like, however, that you need to register an iOS or Android app to get going, so that might give you some trouble.
I have iOS developer team and all of they want to install their app into the real device and I want to give them all a single provisioning profile so they need not to change the bundle id of the app. For example, there are two apps say helloWorld and myFirstApp and I want that both these app should use the same profile (without replacing each other).
I know we can create a developer profile having * bundle id which has this same features whatever I'm looking for. Now my question is how to create that profile? Please explain me in little bit more detail.
I know we can never submit an app with such profile i.e. we have to use separate profile for all the app but it can be done for development purpose.
There are two options.
First, if you have a limited set of devices that you need to install to that are known ahead of time, you can use the standard Ad Hoc distribution profile. This allows you to build on your local Mac to up to 100 devices that have to be defined in the profile ahead of time. This does not require an Enterprise account - so any Apple developer account can do this.
Second, if you need to distribute your test apps outside of your team, and the devices will change, Apple has an Enterprise Program (your company must have a DUNS number, I believe), that will allow you to create enterprise distributions that can be deployed on any device. Those builds still have a limited expiration on the provisioning profile and certificate, so they must be re-built / reinstalled occasionally. In general, this is the method used for broad distribution / beta tests.
For a single team to use a single provisioning profile, I would choose option 1, create the provisioning profile on Apples developer site with all of your devices, and then add all your developers to the team in the dev portal. Xcode 5/6 will take care of the rest for you if you go into preferences, and add their accounts to the "Accounts" tab.
In older versions of Xcode (4.x and before), you could have one developer create the provisioning profile, and certificates, then export out a .developerprofile from Organizer that would package up the certificate and .mobileprovision files needed to build to your team's devices.
My Client wants a native iPhone App that displays their mobile site optimized for iPhone developed using asp.net and ComponentOnes Studio for iPhone. i was planning to use a PhoneGap app which calls an external URL using JavaScript and do it after showing the splash screen. but according to phoneGap FAQ its most likely to apple to reject an app that loads external URL ? just need somebody to clear me on the whole process. isnt it possible to create an app like that ? i've seen various iPhone apps that do this (eg: cydia).
else what care should i take if i'm to develop such an application.
I think you have answered your own question, while it is completly possible to create such an app with Phonegap, Apple isn't going to approve an app that doesn't have functionality when running unconnected (though how much functionality with Apple is never clear). In fact, there have been at least one report on the Phonegap google groups list of app's being rejected because it was just a "web clip", meaning that the app could have just been done as a website, apparently you have to add some functionality, my guess being services exposed by Phonegap, that you wouldn't be able to do on just a website..
And it is more to the point that the app that you chose to use as an example of a "web app", is only available on jailbroken phones.