Apple Application Form Blank: Fill & Download for Free

Look in the package content for iTunes. On a Mac, secondary-click the icon and choose "Show Package Contents" then select Contents and lastly Resources. For most Apple applications that folder will include the images and other information the app needs to run.

From an Engineering perspective, WatchOS is a still a relatively new platform and needs more support. Here are some areas that support is needed:1. Tools: WatchOS needs to support some functionalities on the development tools side. Apple needs to provide Autolayout support for developing Watch Applications. Currently UI Elements on the Watch can only be placed in a horizontal or vertical layout manner. However, you cannot specify constraints or customize locations to place components (Buttons, Labels, Alerts, etc.).2. Language: Language support is an issue that has yet to be fully resolved on the Apple Watch. As of WatchOS 2.0, there is no good way to display content for Right to Left Languages (Hebrew, Yiddish, etc.).Update: watchOS 2.1: Support for Right To Left Languages have been implemented.3. Sticky: Certain Applications on the Apple Watch are considered "Sticky". The Health App and Maps on the Watch are sticky apps such that when you lower your wrist for a minute or so when wearing the Application, the Watch Face will go blank, but the Application will immediately appear on the foreground when you raise your wrist back up.With Non-Sticky Applications, the you will see the Standard Clock Face instead.This is great for 1st Party Applications developed by Apple, but this definitely needs to be released to 3rd Party Applications for Watch Developers to use. One definite use case for this would be Cooking Recipe Apps.4. Pairing: There are no APIs for pairing and unpairing watches to their respective companion devices. To develop more complex Applications using the Watch, this will be a definite feature that developers will request.5. Accessibility: While, Apple Watch does support a variety of different Watch Faces, even Complication where you can customize Watch Face to an application of your choice. It lacks accessibility options to more than 1 application on the Watch Face at a time.6. Data Sharing: While Apple has built their company around the ability to create an ecosystem around all of their devices, they have yet to fully include the Apple Watch. While you can back up your Watch Content and Applications to your Companion IPhone, Apple has yet to provide a reliable way to sync content between the WatchOS, IOS, and OSX.7. Multiple Pairing: What happens if you want to share an Apple Watch across multiple IPhones? What happens if you own more than 1 Apple Watch? What happens if you want to share content on the Watch with the OSX? What happens if you lose your IOS Device paired to a Watch?Currently, in order for an Apple Watch to work, it must be paired with 1 and only 1 companion IPhone device. As soon as you unpair, all content is erased and the Watch requires a new pairing to function. Ironically, the Apple Watch was originally designed to be a stand alone rather than accessory device, but it's over reliance on the IPhone will definitely be an issue.8. WatchKit: IOS is famous because it provides a platform for developers to write their own IOS applications. Apple provides frameworks such as MapKit, PushKit, PassKit, UIKit to give users accessible APIs to build their Applications. WatchKit needs to grow and provide more API's for developers.Some of Watch's Current APIs include:HapticsAnimationsAlertsVideo PlaybackAudio PlaybackRecordingWatch ConnectivityDon't get me wrong, these APIs are great and work well on the Apple Watch. But a lot more are needed in order for the Apple Watch to become the Platform like IOS.While these are just some improvements from the software side, I am sure a lot of progress can be made from the hardware side on: Battery Life, Processor, Memory, Bluetooth / Wifi Connectivity.

No. The companies have drastically different interpretations of customer needs. Put another way, Wacom technology addresses an issue that Apple thinks can be made obsolete. Wacom focuses on interactions using an extremely pressure-sensitive stylus. Apple focuses simplified gestures and basic touch (and is moving towards voice commands).What's the difference between these approaches? A stylus focuses on precision and accuracy whereas gestures focus on speed and ease of use. The Apple hardware model is focused on minimizing friction with an application by assuming that an app developer will understand their customer's needs and reduce those needs into choices that can be addressed with a few buttons.Let's think of a practical application. When I go in for an annual check-up at the doctor's office, the nurse could record my basic statistics. Wacom would address this problem with a variety of fill-in-the-blank boxes for blood pressure, height, weight, pulse, etc. Apple would have some simple sliders or dials to record this information (or allow for input via voice commands).Wacom does serve a legitimate use for certain highly specialized fields where touch sensitivity could be important (i.e. art or basic design). Robust apps will probably be developed to serve these fields. Nevertheless, Apple generally targets mass market customers over niche or specialized customers.