121–130 of 152 posts
Oh? Raganwald seems to be ok with this, especially since he does his iPhone development on the web platform and doesn't need Apple's permission.
"Any real developer would not in good conscience be able to support this."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know i will get downmodded for saying this, but the blog entry is from 2008 and and the faq you linked to speaks only of a debatable possibility of possible restrictions in Adobe's then EULA. See http://www.openscreenproject.org/about/faq.html to see how much Adobe has opened up since. Also, it is worth noting that Adobe has never gone after these open source swf player projects.While i agree that Adobe is not as o…
> I know i will get downmodded for saying this I hate when people say this. It's like saying "my point is valid, but people on HN are too stupid to get it".
One place where I do have issue with this policy is in the case of game engines/middleware (ie. Unity). Due to the complexity and development requirements of game middleware I think an exception, or a more refined policy, is required to allow middleware to give the required 'leg-up' to game developers. Additionally, while Apple has provided an awful lot of what developers need to create great View-based applications for the iPhone with Cocoa Touch (within the constraints what third-party apps are allowed to do, at least), they haven't done so for games. This is understandable, again due to the aforementioned complexity of game engines, but it makes games a special case.
Honestly, I still think people writing native code and using the native APIs for a platform like the iPhone is something worth enforcing. On the desktop multiplatform development toolkits consistently fail to deliver a user experience that is seamless and on par with apps built with the native APIs (especially on a platform with different interface conventions and guidelines, ie Mac OS) and for a platform such as the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get paid to try and convince a judge or jury that their client's interpretation of the document is the correct one. You think it's a mistake the text is a bit vague and not everything properly defined ? Legal texts aren't software; it's actually in the best interest of Apple to define things as broad and vaguely as possible so they cover a large spectrum. I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person re…
I think Gruber's interpretation is one that any person reading the document will have. Not necessarily. See: http://andreyf.tumblr.com/post/508678742/stop-interpreting-l...
But if the author is counting on "not using the SDK" altogether then basically your whole developer agreement with Apple is void since the whole purpose was to develop "applications". And if the agreement is void there is no reason for Apple to accept your stuff on AppStore.
So, there are a couple things here that jump to my mind. 1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. They're pretty close to a monopoly on their type of software and charge dearly for it (their Creative Suite costs as much as a MacBook Pro). They've done a lot to make sure there are no non-Adobe Flash players even when that's just hurting customers and not costing them money since they don't sell the player. They're not exac…
The Flex SDK is free, you can develop and compile Flash apps and web apps without buying any of their software. And they don't require a $99 fee just to have the opportunity to sell your work, or take 30% of the cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because that was the only thing possible at the time.
Not really. Native third party apps were originally a concession to demands from users/developers by all accounts I've heard. Regardless, the original strategy was to encourage web-based apps.
So, there are a couple things here that jump to my mind. 1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. They're pretty close to a monopoly on their type of software and charge dearly for it (their Creative Suite costs as much as a MacBook Pro). They've done a lot to make sure there are no non-Adobe Flash players even when that's just hurting customers and not costing them money since they don't sell the player. They're not exac…
The Flex SDK is free, you can develop and compile Flash apps and web apps without buying any of their software. And they don't require a $99 fee just to have the opportunity to sell your work, or take 30% of the cut.
I too don't like what Apple did, but you are comparing different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Native third party apps were originally a concession to demands from users/developers by all accounts I've heard. Regardless, the original strategy was to encourage web-based apps.
Do you really think they are that stupid and applications were not planned since day one? Come on. They even have games on plain old iPods.