>ou do realize that Windows Mobile 7 has similar policies as the iPhone. Apps need to be written in Silverlight (a Flash competitor), XNA (games), or .NET. I'm not sure if Adobe can manage yet another cross-compiler (if that's how CS5 works).
You're confusing two different types of restrictions.
The restriction on using silverlight/.net stems from the how the platform was designed.
If you were to write, say, a compiler that takes O'Caml code and spits out .NET IL instructions, then you could use that to write your apps.
Apple is saying you have to use whatever higher level languages they approve of regardless of what the final binaries look like.
And Android requires thing to be written in Dalvik/java. Apple requires thing to be compiled with their tool chain, which means that you needed to compile to C or objective c first.
Each of the platforms has their preferred languages.
With android, you can just include a jar for your language (jython, scala, etc). But it has to be supported by the dvm. Same with .NET IL.
My point being, that if your language isn't the main one, you'll be a second class citizen. Now, if accept the current apple line (not that I do), that the restriction is because of their multitasking requirements, you can see how either Microsoft of Android could implement similar restrictions. Not that they would... Because they are vm machines, they don't have the same restrictions that Apple does (dealing with straight c code).
You're confusing two different types of restrictions.
The restriction on using silverlight/.net stems from the how the platform was designed.
If you were to write, say, a compiler that takes O'Caml code and spits out .NET IL instructions, then you could use that to write your apps.
Apple is saying you have to use whatever higher level languages they approve of regardless of what the final binaries look like.