|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 2
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 2
|
In the new version of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement released by Apple today (and which developers must agree to before downloading the 4.0 SDK beta), section 3.3.1 now reads:
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
I also stumbled over this - at the very moment (a lot of tweets were made about it).
The one and only question - is this the end?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/15/2010
Posts: 3
Location: US
|
I think it's game over folks. I asked this before in this forum and not responses.
Apple will punish the developer and not the company creating the tools... so pretty much if you want your app being publish we/you have to obey that. I don't know if you can be kicked out as a developer If you don't follow that, so it's more risky for people making money from apps. Darn it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
pic.micro23 wrote:
I think it's game over folks. I asked this before in this forum and not responses.
I searched your post - but I can't find where you've asked this before.
Your only other post is a question from March 15th about what may happen.
The current situation is brand new - and very unclear.
Clear is that apple want's to fight Flash - if this hits us and Uni.. developers is a question.
Of course I'm also curious about what's going on, but on the other hand what do you expect?
An imidieate answer "Sorry we have to clear the things" or what?
I guess something like this must be evaluated, checked, asked...
And this takes time.
I agree - a little "we are behind it" would possibly cool down our "burning nerves" 
And about your other post - I had apps in the store after 2 days review - and there has never (AFAIK) been a problem like with other tool which use (internally) "private APIs" or things like this.
So till this new agreement I saw no problems at all with MonoTouch.
And the bad thing (also related to your last post) - you've been talking about the 400 bucks there.
My problem is - 3 Months of work...
Regards
Manfred
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/17/2009
Posts: 15
|
Manfred, why are you thinking that Flash is the only target? I think it's more likely that Apple's targeting everything equally. If they had wanted to target flash, they could have done something more selective.
I don't see how to keep going with MonoTouch at this point without something from Novell saying in some way that they've communicated with Apple and things are OK.
This is not a good situation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 1
Location: Bracknell, UK
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/17/2009
Posts: 15
|
Doesn't solve the problem. The badness is the language: Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
You are right banshee,
I should have written this better - "I think they are targeting Flash" is what I ment.
And that idea is just because there have been a lot of (and some of them very logical) rumors that apple will do something against the "Build iPhone apps on your PC screamings".
Anyhow - until we have news from Novell we must think about if we should further invest time in MonoTouch.
Our specific problem - we spent hundreds of hours in infrastructure code for the use in future apps.
So what to do?
Write some more apps till 4.0 is out (or at least till apple enhances this agreement from beta / 4.x to all versions),
or better stop imideately.
Or hope (as seen before) that the agreement changes till release.
Or (possible in my case) hope that my bad english made me understand the apple statement wrong and that MonoTouch is not covered 
Totally agree: this is no a good situation!
Manfred
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/17/2009
Posts: 15
|
ManniAT wrote:
Or (possible in my case) hope that my bad english made me understand the apple statement wrong and that MonoTouch is not covered
Manfred
Unfortunately, your English on this one is just fine - the language is pretty clear.
Is there a Austrian/German version of the agreement? If so, what does it say?
- James Moore
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
That's what the guys at Unity3d are arguing at the moment.
And (I would say that's common at the moment) John Gruber is alos unsure about it.
Quote:I originally thought this would ban games written using Unity3D, but perhaps not — Unity3D produces a complete Xcode project and Objective-C source files, so it’s more like a pre-processor than a cross-compiler. Hard to tell. If you forced me to bet, though, the fact that developers are writing C# code puts Unity3D on the wrong side of this rule.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
Do you have a link to the agreement (or a hint where I can find it in dev-portal)?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
I looks as if the thing is gone ASA you click agree.
I found no link which let's me review the agreement.
And YES there was a language selection on top of the post.
So if someone didn't already accept - maybe he could look if there is a german version.
If the one doesn't speak german - pls PM or email it to me.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrators
Joined: 10/6/2009
Posts: 354
|
Hey everyone, unfortunately due to the nature of Apple's NDA, we cannot comment in public about terms in the new developer agreement as it falls under that NDA.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
Hi kangaroo,
NDA is OK - but I guess there is no NDA which keeps you from telling - YES it affects us - or NO there is future.
Manfred
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/17/2009
Posts: 15
|
kangaroo wrote:
Hey everyone, unfortunately due to the nature of Apple's NDA, we cannot comment in public about terms in the new developer agreement as it falls under that NDA.
Interesting business problem.
In the age of twitter, not responding isn't one of the possible options. You have to figure out what to do, you have to convey it to your users, and you have to do it in public. You also have to do it quickly - hours count. Don't think you have days.
Hopefully you guys have a good relationship with Apple and this will all get sorted out. But the fact that it's happened at all isn't exactly a good sign.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/9/2010
Posts: 3
Location: Austin
|
banshee wrote:
Doesn't solve the problem. The badness is the language: Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.
This is such a weird, vague requirement. Theoretically, I can't port something from some other language (say Lisp) to Objective-C, because it wasn't "originally written" in Objective-C.
What if I write the code in Objective-C, then port it to Monotouch, then compile to Objective-C? At that point, the code was originally written in Objective-C.
In any case, if it is compiled from Objective-C, how can they tell whether it was originally written in C# or not?
Does anyone know how the Flash tool works? Does it compile to Objective-C, or direct to binary?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Austria
|
Alex Kilpatrick wrote:
In any case, if it is compiled from Objective-C, how can they tell whether it was originally written in C# or not?
Does anyone know how the Flash tool works? Does it compile to Objective-C, or direct to binary?
I would say they can detect "signatures" a generator always produces in code.
For question 2 - no, I don't know exactly - but they say "build iPhone Apps on the PC" - which means - no XCode involved.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/12/2010
Posts: 9
Location: Gold Coast
|
kangaroo wrote:
Hey everyone, unfortunately due to the nature of Apple's NDA, we cannot comment in public about terms in the new developer agreement as it falls under that NDA.
Well it sure would be nice to know whether or not MonoTouch is still a viable path forward or not.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/9/2010
Posts: 1
Location: Zurich
|
ManniAT wrote:For question 2 - no, I don't know exactly - but they say "build iPhone Apps on the PC" - which means - no XCode involved.
Right they have written an LLVM based ARM compiler (its an alternative compiler in xcode too though I've not had much success to compile anything with it). That part already breaks the contracts of every single iphone dev.
But Adobe even went a step further (thank the USA for its legal reverse engineering green card otherwise all this trouble wouldn't even exist!) by not only compiling the ARM application but also by packaging and signing it and building an IPA ready for upload.
Surely, anywhere else than in the USA Apple could have sued them for clear break of law for the reverse engineering of these processes and commercially missusing them, in the USA it seems like they are forced to hurt all not just Adobe to get rid of them.
|
|
|
|
Guest
|