I just wish they'd release an LOC limited trial version. I'd love to give it a spin, but I'm not about to fork out that much money just to try it...
Can anyone confirm the 30 day guarantee?
RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
41–50 of 80 posts
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just smiling at the juxtaposition. It's amusing what in most circumstances would be a fact of life becomes a major sticking point. Apple doesn't take pull requests. I'm sure Google accepts patches, sometimes, but the process doesn't strike me as quite on the PR-level of ease. Is the alternative PhoneGap, and the hypothesis that they're more responsible with taking ownership of your pet features? Just curious.
PhoneGap works well so does Xcode or anything that doesn't aim to replace the typical processes. It's just such a stupid thing with their rake command, it checks to see if your device is provisioned to save you an unsavory error message. Since I have an Apple Enterprise account I am not subject to the 100 device limit and having to provision the device's UDID; so they're checking a non-existent array in the provision…
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#43Maybe it's petty but I've lost confidence in Ruby Motion since I've had a pull request open against it for whole year because they don't support enterprise deployment out of box. The fix is pretty damn simple too https://github.com/HipByte/RubyMotion/pull/64/files You'd think enterprise would be a prime use case here. Sucks to have to keep your own fork up to date. Moral of the story, if you have a Github repo please…
I'm just smiling at the juxtaposition. It's amusing what in most circumstances would be a fact of life becomes a major sticking point. Apple doesn't take pull requests. I'm sure Google accepts patches, sometimes, but the process doesn't strike me as quite on the PR-level of ease. Is the alternative PhoneGap, and the hypothesis that they're more responsible with taking ownership of your pet features? Just curious.
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#44I just wish they'd release an LOC limited trial version. I'd love to give it a spin, but I'm not about to fork out that much money just to try it...
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#45Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#46Is there something similar for other languages?
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
PhoneGap works well so does Xcode or anything that doesn't aim to replace the typical processes. It's just such a stupid thing with their rake command, it checks to see if your device is provisioned to save you an unsavory error message. Since I have an Apple Enterprise account I am not subject to the 100 device limit and having to provision the device's UDID; so they're checking a non-existent array in the provision…
It could be a bad sign, or it could speak to priorities, and your priorities are not their priorities it seems. Personally, I accept all pull requests that are solid, written to my standards, fix or extend a feature that is a priority, are accompanied with unit tests, and do not impact or impinge on another feature or future feature. I do not however accept all pull requests. Part of this is that if there is no deman…
It's one thing that my pull hasn't been accepted, the other bigger concern is the nature of the unpatched code that says to me that no one serious has used Ruby Motion. We aren't talking a hobbyist open-source project here, this is a partially open-source commercial offering.
Source: I am a Ruby developer who has to develop native on occasion... and I run a company who's job it is to deploy beta/in-house applications to mobile devices. I just ran a quick sql query and 43.7% of the hundreds of thousands of applications we host are deployed with enterprise provisioning. I wouldn't call this a personal edge case.
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#48I just wish they'd release an LOC limited trial version. I'd love to give it a spin, but I'm not about to fork out that much money just to try it...
Likewise. $200 is a lot of money to throw down on something sight unseen, money back guarantees or otherwise.
Somebody that doesn't want to spend $200 on a product with a complete-satisfaction guarantee probably won't be a very good long-term customer. The RubyMotion guys are filtering out the low-end of the market, which from a business perspective, is a good move.
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#49Maybe it's petty but I've lost confidence in Ruby Motion since I've had a pull request open against it for whole year because they don't support enterprise deployment out of box. The fix is pretty damn simple too https://github.com/HipByte/RubyMotion/pull/64/files You'd think enterprise would be a prime use case here. Sucks to have to keep your own fork up to date. Moral of the story, if you have a Github repo please…
Might I suggest posting a comment on that pull just to bump it?
Re: RubyMotion 3.0 Sneak Peek: Android Support
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. $200 is a lot of money to throw down on something sight unseen, money back guarantees or otherwise.
I disagree. Somebody that doesn't want to spend $200 on a product with a complete-satisfaction guarantee probably won't be a very good long-term customer. The RubyMotion guys are filtering out the low-end of the market, which from a business perspective, is a good move.
Besides, every crappy product advertised on TV ever offers a "money back guarantee", and some cursory googling should show that those often aren't worth the electrons used to transmit the image to the screen.
This is the internet age, and we're talking about software. You get paid after I see what you're selling, and not before. Code samples and writeups are nice, but it's no substitute for getting one's hands on the tool.
I'd also like to call out the rather annoying trend of any criticism of pricing being met with the "keeping out the low end market" dismissal. Sometimes, your product is just overpriced and your sales methods leave a lot to be desired.