GLBasic forum

Hi!

New iPhone Developer Program License Agreement:

FULL at: https://developer.apple.com/iphone/updateAgreement.action (need Developer member).


I paste this point:

"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). "

And now?

GLBasic development for iphone can be rejected from Apple?

hmmm

:o

Hark0


[edit]
Official statement:
http://www.glbasic.com/forum/index.php?topic=4400.msg32882#msg32882 (http://www.glbasic.com/forum/index.php?topic=4400.msg32882#msg32882)

GLBasic compiles in C/C++ under the hood, which means your codes are actually converted to C/C++ syntax when you start compiling, I don't think this will be any problem...

This is Apples response to Adobe announcing that they will allow flash developers to develop flash iPhone apps on the PC. Using a compatibility layer on the iPhone to execute the flash apps, a bit like a JIT compiler for flash. This is just a sneaky way for Adobe to get flash on the iPhone.
Apple is stopping that.

Glbasic does not use any method between the generated C code and the documented API's to execute the code.

I think GLB will be fine.

Hmmm...

Are files in Xcode/GLBasic/Lib legally?

- libGLBasiciPhone-egl.a
- libpng-gf.a
- libPROGRAM.a

O_O

Quote from: bigsofty on 2010-Apr-09
This is Apples response to Adobe announcing that they will allow flash developers to develop flash iPhone apps on the PC. Using a compatibility layer on the iPhone to execute the flash apps, a bit like a JIT compiler for flash. This is just a sneaky way for Adobe to get flash on the iPhone.
Apple is stopping that.

Glbasic does not use any method between the generated C code and the documented API's to execute the code, it links directly via XCode on a Mac.

I think GLB will be fine.

Let's hope that god listens to you...  :P

GLBasic uses the most safe way available to make iPhone apps.
You just compile a C++ program on your mac. Instead of giving you the full source for the glbasic engine, you get a precompiled libGLBasic.a - perfectly safe!

Quote from: Kitty Hello on 2010-Apr-09
GLBasic uses the most safe way available to make iPhone apps.
You just compile a C++ program on your mac. Instead of giving you the full source for the glbasic engine, you get a precompiled libGLBasic.a - perfectly safe!

COOL!!!!

:good:

Also remember these are Beta terms, they are subject ot change. If you are not clear about their meaning, then let Apple know...

Contact here...

http://developer.apple.com/contact

Quote from: bigsofty on 2010-Apr-09
Also remember these are Beta terms, they are subject ot change. If you are not clear about their meaning, then let Apple know...

Contact here...

http://developer.apple.com/contact

I prefer not waking any monster up...  =D

Quote from: Kitty Hello on 2010-Apr-09
GLBasic uses the most safe way available to make iPhone apps.
You just compile a C++ program on your mac. Instead of giving you the full source for the glbasic engine, you get a precompiled libGLBasic.a - perfectly safe!

You might think that it is safe by the way you try to cover it. But the term "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++" states the facts clearly. Any GLBasic app is only particially written in OBJ-C,C or C++. The static libs you provide. The user writes it in BASIC. Any cross compiler and translator will be violating this license. Be it Corona SDK, Unity3D, ITorque or whatever. You just can hope that Apple won't enforce its license and let it go by. Or that they change it again. And the current change is not only affecting the OS4. I just had to agree to the license on the developer portal again to be able to create new certificates after the 20th of april.

I've been following monotouch forums about this and people are confused a lot as well. It seems that Adobe's action on creating their compiler and even some further things such as code signing in Windows environment pissed off Apple a lot. I still think that we are not in a bad condition, at worst, we'll get the libs in source code form and compile right inside the XCode, that's all. 

I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is.

QuoteI still think that we are not in a bad condition, at worst, we'll get the libs in source code form and compile right inside the XCode, that's all.

But it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09
I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is.

QuoteI still think that we are not in a bad condition, at worst, we'll get the libs in source code form and compile right inside the XCode, that's all.

But it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

The thing in here is that C/C++ is mentioned as one of the official languages and GLBasic libraries are C/C++ codes and at the end, you compile a C/C++ code in XCode to run on IPhone. There can't be any evidence whether you pushed a MAC keyboard while writing these codes or not, am I wrong? It might be only that instead of separate libs, we might need to compile all GLBasic IPhone specific code into our executables.

In any other case, I think nobody can use even any framework (box2D, etc. just an example might not be the correct one) in source form as it might be written in Windows and the sources merged in a MAC with a real application.

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09
I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is.

You don't think that any clarification should have been left to Kitty to get on behalf of all concerned parties? I'm sure it would have been very much in his interest to get us a swift and definitive answer.

Btw, chaps, if you're interpreting Apple's T&C's to the letter, then every one of you discussing this in a public forum will surely lose your Apple Developers License and it'll no longer be a concern for you anyway? No, I don't really think this will happen. And I don't think Apple will block GLB, Unity, Torque, GameSalad et al in one fell swoop. But I also don't think you should specifically poke the bear.

Quote from: jaywat on 2010-Apr-09

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09
I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is.

You don't think that any clarification should have been left to Kitty to get on behalf of all concerned parties? I'm sure it would have been very much in his interest to get us a swift and definitive answer.

Btw, chaps, if you're interpreting Apple's T&C's to the letter, then every one of you discussing this in a public forum will surely lose your Apple Developers License and it'll no longer be a concern for you anyway? No, I don't really think this will happen. And I don't think Apple will block GLB, Unity, Torque, GameSalad et al in one fell swoop. But I also don't think you should specifically poke the bear.

Dont worry. I didnt mention glb a bit. It is not my iphone tool of choice anyway. But as someone who is interested in develop legally for that platform, i would certain need a clarification on this subject from apple.

Btw. The nda about discussing the content of the sdk in public was lifted by apple a while ago. :)

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09
Btw. The nda about discussing the content of the sdk in public was lifted by apple a while ago. :)

I can't speak for the NDA on the content of the SDK, but it was exactly one month ago today that the world's IT sites were reporting with astonishment the contents of the then 'secret' iPhone Developer Program License Agreement (which is what this thread is directly quoting and discussing) after it was obtained under the FOIA from NASA. If they lifted the NDA on discussing the License Agreement since then, I guess I missed it.

QuoteBut it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

It shouldn't matter.

It's probably woth reading through the Unity thread about this.

http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=48795

I believe GLBasic and Unity are in the same boat and both communities are asking the same questions. The general consensus is this is to shut Adobe out because it is using an intermediate layer to run Flash apps, where as Unity and GLBasic both compile out to an actual iPhone app.

So basically, GLBasic is most probably going to be fine. And if it isn't then neither is the massive Unity community.

Quote from: MrTAToad on 2010-Apr-09

QuoteBut it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

It shouldn't matter.

I certainly hope that you will be right at the end.  :)

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09

Quote from: MrTAToad on 2010-Apr-09

QuoteBut it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

It shouldn't matter.

I certainly hope that you will be right at the end.  :)

+1  =D

I don't think we need to worry about it but what about OpenFeint? The 4.0 SDK has just been released and interesting to see the Game Kit Framework, which has leaderboards, matchmaker & voicechat.  :x

Voicechat is in 3.0 too.
Openfeint would let you combine OF data with gamecenter data. OpenFeint set for in app purchase and some other online related extra functions, so OF will be still alive.

OpenFeint and gamecenter data integration is great. :)

QuoteI just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is.

You do realize that you do not work for or are in any way connected officially to GLBasic?  It is not your place to do this, and although I now agree 100% with your issues in the past with other languages, this really isn't the place for those issues to be repeated.  Gernot isn't Paul, Bob or Tom  ;)  Gernot actually has ethics and integrity, is not a liar or scam artist and is actually a very good guy  =D

I actually applaud Apple for the stance they have taken.  They have a reputation (justified or not) for security and stability and that would be greatly compromised by allowing utter garbage like Flash on their hardware.

QuoteBut it is still not originally written in their languages. That's the point.

I think something is being lost in the translation.  Nowhere does it say it has to be written in their languages.  They specify the languages allowed to be used, they do not say who has to make the languages. 

Example, GCC supports all of those languages named.  GLB isn't a compiler in traditional sense, isn't GLB itself really just a front-end (preprocessor/precompiler) for GCC?  For iPod, GLB doesn't even compile for iPod does it?  Doesn't is just export the code which you have to compile with Apple's compiler on OSX?

Yes, Apple is changing the rules in the middle of the game (more like clarifying the rules for companies looking to cheat), but it is their game and they own the ball and it is their right to do it.

Apple just modified the terms because Adobe announced export function in flash that will create iphone .ipa files. Thats the thing why apple reduced language support too objc/++, c/++ and JS. nothing more.
private apis are in private framework folder and hidden in public frameworks. apps would be rejected bbecause using frameworks or methods apple has hidden.

Very interesting (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html).  This has a ring of truth for me.  Given Apple's history of only approving apps that support the new versions, it sounds like people may very well be not approved if their programs do not take proper advantage of multi-tasking.  I am assuming (and I know the joke) that the multi-tasking was introduced to take advantage of the new iPhones ready to hit that have dual core ARMs?

@Kuron: Come on. You do not really think, that apple is doing all that for their reputation. They blocked flash on the iPhone browser from the beginning. It canÃ,´t harm the phone, itÃ,´s running in a sandbox. ItÃ,´s about earning money with apps. ItÃ,´s the lock-in-effect that matters.

Everybody can and should ask apple. The more mails they get the better. They cannot just change their politics in that way. Even though I donÃ,´t think that it effects us.

... I know ... a little bit off-topic

true it can run in a sandbox but apple block flash because high use of resources. flash for mac takes much cpu power and on iphone its the same.

Quote from: jaywat on 2010-Apr-09

Quote from: MikeHart on 2010-Apr-09
Btw. The nda about discussing the content of the sdk in public was lifted by apple a while ago. :)

I can't speak for the NDA on the content of the SDK, but it was exactly one month ago today that the world's IT sites were reporting with astonishment the contents of the then 'secret' iPhone Developer Program License Agreement (which is what this thread is directly quoting and discussing) after it was obtained under the FOIA from NASA. If they lifted the NDA on discussing the License Agreement since then, I guess I missed it.

You are right Jaywat. They have a chapter in there now that doesn't allow to discuss details of the license. Not sure if it was there before.

monono:  I do not like Apple, but I dislike Adobe and their shoddy products and technology even more.  Apple's reputation is multifaceted, it is not just about security, it is also about performance.  Nothing will bring a mobile device (phone, video or gaming) to a crawl faster than trying to run a flash game on it while watching it eat up your batteries.  The iPhone and the iPad are mobile devices. 

I am not sure where you live, but here in the USA in some major cities like New York, if you have an iPhone with 3G, you usually need another phone to actually reliably make calls, because the iPhone has been locked to AT&T's shoddy 3G service, that is already overwhelmed by the bandwidth iPhones consume.  These are not just phones, people use them for browsing, downloading things, playing online games, etc.  It would be even worse if people could play flash based games online or browse flash based sites.

Apple's decision to block flash almost makes me want to put a Mac Mini on the list for Santa.

Hi there,

Certainly is a very worry decisition from Apple for this developer community. But the resolution of, so much speculations, can be really fast. If the new agreement has been ammended allready, let's see what happen with the next GLBasic App that someone send to Apple for review.
I really hope that Apple don't close doors to GLBasic!!

King Regards, fjsantos.

QuoteItÃ,´s the lock-in-effect that matters.

I do not follow.  They named the languages:  Objective C, C, and C++.  These are not proprietary to Apple and are among the most common cross-platform languages.

Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine

QuoteThats the thing why apple reduced language support too objc/++, c/++ and JS. nothing more.

By accident, you changed what Apple said.  Apple did not say "and" js, they said "or" js and specified js only for browser based apps. 

My reading, is normal iPhone apps can only be written in Objective C, C or C++, not JavaScript.  JavaScript can only be used if the app will be executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine (which is what the iPhone's browser uses).

GLBasic probably never would have had an issue with the changes Apple made.  However since we have had a user go rogue and "I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is." you can be sure the s-stirrer may very well have opened up a can of worms for Gernot to deal with.  I am not sure how this user expects Gernot, the folks at Unity or any other product to automatically be in compliance with a change Apple made to their license just yesterday.  Under the terms of Apple's license, it would not apply to GLB, anyway.  It would apply to the developer who actually uses GLB to make games for the iPhone.  It should have been left up to Gernot to consult his lawyer to clarify the situation that Apple has presented.

Frankly, since GLB is just acting as a preprocessor and not a compiler, I do not see any issue for GLB.

I tend to agree with this comment from another site:

QuoteWhat Apple is saying here is, if youââ,¬â,,¢re going to write a native iPhone app, then you need to target our platform (which GLB does); if you want to do something else, then target the iPhone with an optimized web app (Apple's javascript reference). I.e., the iPhone OS supports two software platforms: Cocoa Touch and the web. Apple isnââ,¬â,,¢t going to let anyone else build a meta-platform on top of Cocoa Touch (what adobe was trying to do).

Words in italics in the quote above were added by me for clarification.

they said javascript must be run in webkit, so you can write your app in javascript, with a new JS lib from apple you can use all frameworks.

on my list for Santa is a new ipod :) and a mac for kittie :D

Quote from: fjsantosb on 2010-Apr-10
let's see what happen with the next GLBasic App that someone send to Apple for review.

Well, don't know if you can extrapolate anything from this, but we submitted our v1.1 update before the License change, and it went into review after we signed the new agreement, and was duly passed in hours.

And don't know if you can extrapolate anything from this, but we submitted our free version before we submitted the 1.1 update, and it went into review a full 24 hours later, and has been 'in review' for, well, about 15 hours now. But they could have just gone home for the weekend, I guess!

Quoteis it difficult to use plain ANSI-C on a platform whose API is predominantly Objective-C?

Objective-C can compile straight C code with no problem, and you can include C code in an Objective-C class.

QuoteWell, don't know if you can extrapolate anything from this, but we submitted our v1.1 update before the License change, and it went into review after we signed the new agreement, and was duly passed in hours.

Actually, the license hasn't changed yet, so you are safe.  The new license and the 4.0 version of the SDK are both beta and will not be made final until sometime this summer.

Quotehow difficult is it to use the various iPhone APIs (those written in ObjC) when I'd prefer to use plain 'ol vanilla C for my own developments?

I do not develop for the iPhone, but since Apple is recommending C as a language to use for development, I do not imagine you would have any problems at all.  It is my understanding that Apple has designed the APIs to be equally accessible for C, C++ and Objective-C.

Actually, even when using Obj-C, some frameworks need to be used with with procedural-c, OpenGLES, OpenAL for example and can't be used be used directly by obj-c.

Unfortunately, I think the Unity guys will have more problems than GLB will have with this new license, Unity uses .Net Mono as their main cross-platform API, GLB does not use any middleware API like this, as it accesses the XCode SDK frameworks directly.

Come to think about this, it may be advantageous, to have an all 'C' GLBasic project setting in GLBasic...  :noggin:

QuoteHowever since we have had a user go rogue and "I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is." you can be sure the s-stirrer may very well have opened up a can of worms for Gernot to deal with.

If you'd read his message:

QuoteDont worry. I didnt mention glb a bit. It is not my iphone tool of choice anyway. But as someone who is interested in develop legally for that platform, i would certain need a clarification on this subject from apple.

Quote from: okee on 2010-Apr-10

QuoteHowever since we have had a user go rogue and "I just emailed to Apple to see what their official word on this is." you can be sure the s-stirrer may very well have opened up a can of worms for Gernot to deal with.

If you'd read his message:

QuoteDont worry. I didnt mention glb a bit. It is not my iphone tool of choice anyway. But as someone who is interested in develop legally for that platform, i would certain need a clarification on this subject from apple.

Yes, I did read his message.  He should have let Gernot handle it.  For Apple to answer any question like this, the only way they could provide an accurate answer is to ask him which product or tool he was using.  Also, as you quoted, he made the insinuation GLB may not be doing things legally.  Gernot isn't the slime on a slugs butt that Mike is used to dealing with in other communities.

Interesting info quoting Steve Jobs (http://www.neowin.net/news/steve-jobs-on-sdk-complaints-intermediate-layers-produce-sub-standard-appsquot).

That link seems to imply that GlBasic is an issue. If it output the c code so we could finalise our apps in xcode and add in the features directly within xcode without having to wait on Gernot adding them perhaps that would allow us to continue.

I say the above because Steve Jobs directly states that this link (http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331) is very close to the reasons and I quote this - "And, obviously, such a meta-platform would be out of Appleââ,¬â,,¢s control. Consider a world where some other companyââ,¬â,,¢s cross-platform toolkit proved wildly popular. Then Apple releases major new features to iPhone OS, and that other companyââ,¬â,,¢s toolkit is slow to adopt them. At that point, itââ,¬â,,¢s the other company that controls when third-party apps can make use of these features."

I know I can view the c code generated by GlBasic so is it possible when creating the xcode project to have it fully viewable and editable in xcode when opened in xcode? That way I have the benefit of creating the base application in glbasic and the speed it allows this and the ability to add features directly afterwards in xcode so as to add whatever new features Apple release whenever I need them?

I guess this would also allow me to test directly in the simulator as well then.

Cheers

Mike R

Hi Gernot...

Any official new, comment...???


TIA from Barcelona.

There is no compatibility layer API, no .Net Mono or its equivalent, GLB convert to straight C static libs (It could easily allow for the user C code to be left uncompiled too) which are then linked in XCode on a MAC.


What worries me more, is the long term consequences of TOS change... whats next, "All Apple developers MUST prove to have been wearing a tin hat during the development of their app!". Joking aside, it looks like Steve says "Jump!" and from now on we ask "How high?".


Also, the argument that, its there game, we play by their rules is also invalid IMHO. How many people here have out-laid a tonne of money to get their iPhone development up and running based on their previous TOS? I don't think these kind of changes are completely legal for an established developers currently contracted with Apple. New developers, have the choice of examining a problematic TOS before investing money into a venture. But old ones, who signed up under different TOS, do no have the luxury of choice, esp. when the rug is pulled from beneath them in this manner.

I would also love to hear Gernot's thoughts on this issue?

The TOS can be interpreted so elastic that even some strict IPhone/Objective-C frameworks, such as Cocos2D, can be count as middle layer as they prevent the users to directly work with OpenGL for graphics, etc. and put a layer to achieve things that are not available out of the box in the IPhone API itself.

Also in the current state of the generated files, there is even no need to check the function calls, etc. as the file names directly tells that they are created in something called "GLBasic" :).

there is no compatibility layer or something else only a precompiled static lib (it can be compiled under mac os and xcode) you can simply add features in given xcode project by adding new .m files.

straight objc/c++ in this lib, the only thing could be the windows thing :/

have to wait for 4.0 in summer.

P.S. Kittie is not available every weekend - family reasons..

Quote from: trucidare on 2010-Apr-11
you can simply add features in given xcode project by adding new .m files.

Is there somewhere I can read exactly how I would do this? e.g. How do I call these new features at this point?

Cheers

Mike R

Just read the GLBasic Docu how to import functions and something else

Ah ok. Not quite what I thought you meant. :D I thought you were saying we had the ability to add them in xcode itself not glbasic.

Anyway nothing is set in stone at the moment. We still don't really know whats happening other than that hint from Steve Jobs and his comments as I stated above.

It wont stop me continuing to create in GlBasic. I'm hoping everything goes fine as we are well into our second game and really don't want to have to do a rewrite.

Also there is no waiting till summer. Check your account yourself as to when it must agreed to by any developer.

Cheers

Mike

Quote from: trucidare on 2010-Apr-11
P.S. Kittie is not available every weekend - family reasons..

Thanks!

I wait for a Kittie comment....

All we have own home responsibilities.

;)

QuoteAlso, the argument that, its there game, we play by their rules is also invalid IMHO. How many people here have out-laid a tonne of money to get their iPhone development up and running based on their previous TOS?

Isn't the developer license around $100?  That is hardly a ton of money.

QuoteI don't think these kind of changes are completely legal for an established developers currently contracted with Apple.

I do not develop for the iPod, but I feel safe in saying that a developer refusing to keep their apps updated to work properly on new hardware when it is released is not Apple's fault (if anything those developers should not only have their contracts voided, they should be blacklisted from developing for the platform in the future).  I doubt that Apple is giving the developer the right to dictate what hardware Apple is allowed to improve or what changes they are allowed to make.

There is nothing keeping you from supporting those soon to be legacy devices.  You just won't be able to do it via the App store, and rightfully so.  Very soon, there will be no economically viable market for those legacy apps. 

Besides protecting their platform, Apple is protecting you and your app's reputation from you (developers can be lazy and apathetic).  When the new iPods hit, the existing apps in the App store will not work properly on the new devices.  These existing apps were not designed or compiled for a multitasking OS on hardware with a dual core processor.  These current apps will be hogs on the new iPods completely using up system resources and will not only make Apple look bad, they will make the person who wrote them look foolish because the apps do not work properly (not to mention this would kill off repeat customers). 

Why would Apple want to allow software on their new systems that they know will not work properly becacause they were not designed for the new hardware or APIs?

Apple did something similar when 2.0 hit.  Unless Apps were recompiled against the new 2.0 APIs, they were not allowed to be sold via the App store.


This is not directed at you, and is just a generalization based on some of the nonsense I am seeing on blogs and other forums.  Many seem to be out of their league when it comes to iPhone development.  They have no experience developing for hardware platforms and only have experience developing for software platforms like Windows.  Many of these folks also seem to be too young to remember similar issues with Windows back in the day where MS was quickly changing things (including APIs used for games) and your game or program would suddenly not work on the new version of Windows because hardware was changing too quickly and Microsoft was playing catch-up in the beginning.

Many people keep trying to compare iPod development to development on Windows.  You can't compare the two.  iPod is also a hardware device, not just an "OS" like Windows.  Unlike Microsoft, Apple has full control over their hardware, so they never have to play catch-up.  The iPod is due to see a major hardware release upgrade and all exsiting apps will not work properly on the new iPods unless they are recompiled for it.

Apple's new ToS is quite fair IMHO.  If they do not protect the buyers of iPods against "meta platforms" like Flash or Mono (which are like the Borg and literally take over and destroy any platform they come in contact with), people will start leaving the iPhone due to the performance issues and bugs they will encounter and buy a CrackBerry.

iPhones and SmartPhones in general are a constantly changing technology.  From the actual hardware, to the software, to the signal carrying and processing technology.  If a developer can't keep up or is unwilling to keep up with the changes, s/he needs to take a bow and leave the show because there are plenty of developers ready to take their place who are dedicated to the platforms.

Personally, I do not see a problem for GLB or any legitimate development platform that supports iPods via a similar method.

$100? I'm down over $1500 (iPhone+iMac) + $100 all based on their hardware+O.S. requirements for their previous TOS.  :puke:

I just double checked and the license is for the iPhone Developer license is still $99.  This is the same price as the Mac Developer license if you want to develop software for OSX. 

Yes, is you want to develop for a Mac you need a Mac computer.  If you want to develop for an iPhone you should have an iPhone (although you could skip that).  If you want to develop for Linux you should have a Linux machine.  If you want to develop for Windows, you should have a Windows machine.  Those aren't expenses, it is just common sense.  If you want to write software for a computer, you need a computer  ;/  Trying to write software with a pencil and paper will only get you so far  =D

It's C/C++ code you compile. You have the source code in %TEMP%\glbasic\ . It's all safe.

Hello Gernot,

Yes, we know it's C/C++ code we compile but in the TOS it's mentioned that things should be written in the mentioned languages originally and there should be no middleware to interact the IPhone API. In here, we use GLBasic commands which might be count as middleware. This statement is so elastic that even IPhone centric frameworks like Cocos2D might be interpreted in a way as middleware if wanted if you ask me.

It's also interesting that I've checked every major IPhone development kit solution forums to see what they say about that and the funny thing is that most of them think they'll be ok :), only some which use C# think that converting that part to Objective-C would solve it, which I still think won't help. 

Ãâ€"zden

QuoteYes, we know it's C/C++ code we compile but in the TOS it's mentioned that things should be written in the mentioned languages originally

You do realize that C and C++ are two of the languages mentioned?  As I mentioned before, GLB is not a compiler, it appears to be a preprocessor for GCC.  GLB being a preprocessor for C/C++ code is fundamentally no different than using macros in C++.

You should read Steve Jobs' comments which I linked above to understand what his intent is.

Quoteand there should be no middleware to interact the IPhone API. In here, we use GLBasic commands which might be count as middleware.

Perhaps we could stick with facts.  3.3.1 makes no mention of middleware.  GLB does not meet the definition of middleware.  You are not using GLB commands in your C/C++ code.  C/C++ will not compile GLB commands, the C/C++ compiler would generate massive syntatical errors if you tried.  GLB does not compile code for the iPhone.  It is simply a preprocessor that generates the code in the format that even the new license specifies is required for compilation for iPhone and you have to use those required and license specified tools to compile the code which GLB generates (which is generated in the exact format the new license specifies).

Quote from: Kuron on 2010-Apr-12
I just double checked and the license is for the iPhone Developer license is still $99.  This is the same price as the Mac Developer license if you want to develop software for OSX. 

Yes, is you want to develop for a Mac you need a Mac computer.  If you want to develop for an iPhone you should have an iPhone (although you could skip that).  If you want to develop for Linux you should have a Linux machine.  If you want to develop for Windows, you should have a Windows machine.  Those aren't expenses, it is just common sense.  If you want to write software for a computer, you need a computer  ;/  Trying to write software with a pencil and paper will only get you so far  =D

No this is not correct, GLB is quite capable of programming the iPhone without a Mac or OSX at all, again another Apple TOS forces developers to use their hardware for the final unnecessary XCode compile stage. This is the only reason I have a Mac sitting beside my computer now, I was forced to buy it or I would not get my game released on the App Store.

Its a very badly worded TOS, as even the O.S. can be seen as an intermediate API... :P

Quote from: bigsofty on 2010-Apr-12This is the only reason I have a Mac sitting beside my computer now, I was forced to buy it or I would not get my game released on the App Store.

This comment should be included with anything you sell, and displayed before the sale.  The fact that you do not have enough pride in your own work or respect for your customers to actually want to test what you write on its target platform speaks volumes to not only your capabilities, but your inexperience and lack of professionalism.

Quoteagain another Apple TOS forces developers to use their hardware for the final unnecessary XCode compile stage.

Nobody is forcing you to support the iPhone, and what you are crying about only applies if you want to release your games via the App Store.

At the end of the day, it comes down to: if you want to be a grown up and play store and sell things, you will have expenses.  That is part of running a business.  The great thing is since you are running a business, those expenses are legitimate business expenses and are generally tax deductible, so the expense is not even a legitimate gripe at the end of the day.

Complaining that you actually have to buy a certain computer to develop computer software for it is one of the most bizarre and ridiculous things I have ever read.

QuoteIts a very badly worded TOS, as even the O.S. can be seen as an intermediate API...

I thought it was pretty clear.  The only people really having an issue with it are the kids on blogs and forums spouting off about how this is the end of the world for iPhone development, when they clearly have not read the new ToS, or if they have, they lack the reading comprehension skills (and development experience) necessary to understand it.

Quote from: Kuron on 2010-Apr-12
Complaining that you actually have to buy a certain computer to develop computer software for it is one of the most bizarre and ridiculous things I have ever read.

He never said he didn't want to buy an iPhone. He doesn't want to have a Mac to be able to compile and run programs on the iPhone. I can't help but agree on this. Just because I want to develop applications for GP2X does not mean I have to install a dedicated linux computer since GLBasic can crosscompile perfectly fine. Why is this not possible for iPhone when you can compile for all other platforms on windows? Even OS-X applications can be compiled on windows and then tested on OS-X. Well, it's because apple don't want you to. That is what he is griping about.

Quote from: Moru on 2010-Apr-12

Quote from: Kuron on 2010-Apr-12
Complaining that you actually have to buy a certain computer to develop computer software for it is one of the most bizarre and ridiculous things I have ever read.

He never said he didn't want to buy an iPhone. He doesn't want to have a Mac to be able to compile and run programs on the iPhone. I can't help but agree on this. Just because I want to develop applications for GP2X does not mean I have to install a dedicated linux computer since GLBasic can crosscompile perfectly fine. Why is this not possible for iPhone when you can compile for all other platforms on windows? Even OS-X applications can be compiled on windows and then tested on OS-X. Well, it's because apple don't want you to. That is what he is griping about.

I totally agree - surely this is anti-competetive? Ford (etc.) don't impose restrictions on what people do with their cars or state that only official Ford parts can be used to modify/improve/alter/repair them. Microsoft don't state that only Windows software can be used to create Windows software etc. etc. etc. If they did people would be shouting from the rooftops.

Developers should say a big "F U APPLE" but they won't because many of them are reliant on selling their software via the only "legally" available and route to the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad. Maybe a class action against Apple could be called, using its monopoly against users.

CodeMasters developed games for SEGA and Nintendo systems (using their own reverse engineered code) without licences back in the 90s and successfully won court cases against both (brought about by said companies). the case here wouldn't and shouldn't be too different as long as no Apple code was used to develop for the iXXX machines.

LOL, Kuron did I insult you personally? If so I did not mean to?

If you want to flame, knock yourself out,feel free... it will be a single sided argument though.  :-*

Its all pretty silly. I have read things like "There will be no exceptions to the rule" apparently from someone in the know to everything is fine and dandy etc.

One thing I can say is that I sent our free version of our app an hour before the update version. The update version sailed through the review and is available on the store. In the meantime the new tos needed signed and I duly signed it and following that the free version went into review and I have been waiting since with no hint of movement.  All sorts of things are going through my mind now... Things I cant discuss on an open forum.

Cheers

Mike

Quote from: Ian Price on 2010-Apr-12
CodeMasters developed games for SEGA and Nintendo systems (using their own reverse engineered code) without licences back in the 90s and successfully won court cases against both (brought about by said companies). the case here wouldn't and shouldn't be too different as long as no Apple code was used to develop for the iXXX machines.

hmmm

Maybe Apple wants = Sony (PS platform) = Microsoft (360) = Nintendo.... very CLOSED licenses?

:whistle:

QuoteMaybe Apple wants = Sony (PS platform) = Microsoft (360) = Nintendo.... very CLOSED licenses?

Just because Apple wants something its way, it doesn't mean its way is legal...

Quote from: Ian Price on 2010-Apr-12

QuoteMaybe Apple wants = Sony (PS platform) = Microsoft (360) = Nintendo.... very CLOSED licenses?

Just because Apple wants something its way, it doesn't mean its way is legal...

Apple must charge the license and to allow that the people should develope with what wants.
;/

God, I hope the Pandora is successful!  :D

QuoteApple must charge the license and to allow that the people should develope with what wants.

Apple don't HAVE to charge licence fees - they make money from the sale of every piece of software that appears on iXXX. They choose to, because they can. And yest this is similar to every console manufacturer ever. But this is NOT what the discussion was/is about. You've missed the point completely.

They charge, because they can, no other reason. And if they want to charge more...

Then again you do get the XCode("GCC!" *COUGH*)... :P

Well I have been playing around in xcode and while I could use it... I don't want to. lol. The GameSalad folks seem to be happy enough for now anyway.

http://gamesalad.com/forums/topic.php?id=5498

Cheers

Mike R

Quote from: Moru on 2010-Apr-12He never said he didn't want to buy an iPhone.[/quote

I never said he did, please do not put words in my mouth, capice?

Quote from: Moru on 2010-Apr-12Why is this not possible for iPhone when you can compile for all other platforms on windows?

Apple has never said you can't do this.  They have only said you can't do this if you want to sell apps via their app store (ie you want to use them as the distributor and seller of your software).  Do you really expect them to put their reputation online for anybody too lazy to follow the standard practices in Q&A?

Quote from: mykyl66 on 2010-Apr-12
Its all pretty silly. I have read things like "There will be no exceptions to the rule" apparently from someone in the know to everything is fine and dandy etc.

I think Steve Jobs was pretty clear, but it has been interesting reading the blogs where people think Steve Jobs doesn't understand things.

Quote from: Ian Price on 2010-Apr-12Developers should say a big "F U APPLE" but they won't because many of them are reliant on selling their software via the only "legally" available and route to the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad. Maybe a class action against Apple could be called, using its monopoly against users.

If you choose to use Apple as your distributor/publisher, then you do need to follow their rules.  Even a ditch digger has to follow the rules of the man who is paying him to dig the ditch.

People are too willing to bash Apple, but I have yet to see one of the loud mouths step forward with the millions of dollars needed to invest in the infrastructure to set up an alternative to the App Store.  Of course that would be the easy part, you would actually have to convince developers with hard stats that you can do a better job of distributing and selling their software than Apple can. 

Unlike some companies, Apple has actually set up a distribution/publishing system for the iPhone so that developers can easily get their games on the iPhone, something that indie developers would never be able to afford to do otherwise.  Like any legitimate publisher/distributor, Apple does have quality control since they actually need to be able to sell the Apps they carry.  Unfortunately, those who are not capable of meeting the quality control standards seem to be the most vocal on the blogs and forums.  Big shock, huh?

Quote from: Hark0 on 2010-Apr-12Apple must charge the license and to allow that the people should develope with what wants.

They can do this, there is just no guarantee that Apple will invest their time and money in your software and not only distribute it, but sell/publish it in their app store.  Apple is no different than any publisher in this aspect.  They are not going to publish and distribute junk that may not work properly, or that is not marketable due to looks, etc.  I do not think any publisher wants a catalog of Candy Worlds  =D  Publishers have and always will be very picky about what they will accept and represent.

Quote from: bigsofty on 2010-Apr-12
LOL, Kuron did I insult you personally? If so I did not mean to?

If you want to flame, knock yourself out,feel free... it will be a single sided argument though.  :-*

What I said should not be taken as a flame, I simply do not agree with your comments ;) 

For proper context keep in mind I detest Apple and do not use Apple products.  However, that doesn't mean I can't agree with them on some things.

Quote from: Ian Price on 2010-Apr-12

QuoteApple must charge the license and to allow that the people should develope with what wants.

Apple don't HAVE to charge licence fees - they make money from the sale of every piece of software that appears on iXXX. They choose to, because they can. And yest this is similar to every console manufacturer ever. But this is NOT what the discussion was/is about. You've missed the point completely.

You have not understood me...

It seems to me likely that Apple charges his license and his percentage for every app...

BUT.... That leave me to develope with what me of the desire!


(Sorry for my bad english... I use a Google translator this time).

:P  ;)

QuoteBUT.... That leave me to develope with what me of the desire!

It (Apple)  leaves you to develop pretty much  whatever you want (within Apple's own restrictions - they have recently removed a ton of apps that no longer conform to their ever-changing wants/conditions), but it doesn't allow you to develop what you want HOW you want ;) That's the issue.

IMO, we are very dependant on what Apple dictates us if we want to develop for their device.

You don't have to do that, but then you're out of the App Store. You can't develop for a Samsung Mobile phone, too. And if you want someone to sell your program, you sort of have to play by their rules.

I'm not a great friend of the Mac, of OS-X nor the license Apple forces us to obey, but I'm a great fan of getting 15,- EUR a day (every single day since Dec 2009) for these tiny iPhone games I made. I get more money from crap than from GLBasic. Thus, I play by the rules. (BTW: GLBasic is my favourite project. I'd not drop it even if sales were zero, mind!) I also am very happy about the copy protection Apple offers through the app store. I think about 50% of all devices _must_ get software thought the legal App Store. That's nice. And if the Pandora will ever come, I doubt that the sales will come even close to what we can earn on the Apple App Store. True facts.

Long speech, short conclusion: Apple is never able to distinguish between an objC XCode game and a GLBasic game. If they sued me, you'd still be legal. And if they'd really bug us, you'd get the source for the engine.
As long as there is an official GCC for iPhone, there will be GLBasic for iPhone.

But let's take a close look at the requirements:

• only use Documented APIs check
• originally written in Objective-C, C, C++ check (see below)
• only code written in C, C++ ... may compile and directly link ... check

There's no difference if you write:

#define IF if(
#define THEN ){
#define ENDIF }
IF a>5 THEN
PRINT(5,5,5);
ENDIF

or have GLBasic translate your code into C++. Also, what you copy to the Mac _is_ C++ code, only. Noone can proof you did not write that with your hands. The library you link against (libGLBasic-EGL.a) is C++ code that's pre-compiled for your convenience. No tricks, no interpreter, no hidden API, no other language involved when you boot your Mac.

Naturally you will make more money if you sell games for the platform that has 20% of the handheld game market in USA. I don't think you will make much money on selling games on the Pandora :-)

Thank you Kitty.

Cheers

Mike R

+1

;)

Meow  :D

It's really unfair and most importantly UNPROFESSIONAL from Apple to change the rules halfway through the game when they're winning. Really reminds me of spoiled kids from primary school playground.

As Gernot said, we have to play by the rules, but be sure those rules wouldn't stand a chance in any court if they decided to sue anybody. No way. Their requirements are as close to racism as it gets in software development. 
What are they going to require next? That we should all wear skirts while developing in Objective-C?

Quote from: Kuron on 2010-Apr-13

Quote from: mykyl66 on 2010-Apr-12
Its all pretty silly. I have read things like "There will be no exceptions to the rule" apparently from someone in the know to everything is fine and dandy etc.

I think Steve Jobs was pretty clear.

So, there's no doubt where they stand, but you could also view this as primarily done to shut Adobe out.
...they may not take action against the likes of GLB and Blitz. We don't know yet.

Quotebut be sure those rules wouldn't stand a chance in any court if they decided to sue anybody. No way. Their requirements are as close to racism as it gets in software development.

Seriously how old are you?  You are one of the ones who do not seem to comprehend the fact that they are not making any restrictions on developing for the iPhone.  The restrictions apply only if you are using them as your publisher and distributor for your games.  Lets take Apple out of the equation.  Lets say you make a game for the PC, and you want to use EGames as your publisher.  They refuse your game because it is a porn based game.  Are you going to throw fits how they are being racist or not allowing your games on the PC (even though you are free to self-publish)?

Seriously, have you ever worked for or dealt with publishers before?  Based on many comments here, on other forums and blogs, I think Apple really needs to redo their ToS to eliminate those of the "script kiddie" mentality.  If Apple blocked all game makers and gaming themed languages, it would eliminate the majority of those causing the "heat" in the various outlets.

Quote...they may not take action against the likes of GLB and Blitz. We don't know yet.

Do you have any proof that Steve Jobs is wrong, and that they will take action* against any company who is 100% following the rules of the ToS.


*I have no idea what action you are referring to.  There is no legal action possible.  If the ToS is violated, Apple simply will not publish the App in question, they are not and will not and can not sue you.


I seem to be missing something.  Could somebody please explain to me why a publisher should not be allowed to pick and choose what software they decide to invest time and money into and not only publish it, but distribute it and promote it?  Like it or not, this is what people are crying about.

QuoteCould somebody please explain to me why a publisher should not be allowed to pick and choose what software they decide to invest time and money into and not only publish it, but distribute it and promote it?  Like it or not, this is what people are crying about.

I'm not sure that is what people are cryting about tbh. I think that it's being told what they can and can't make the software with. Nobody has complained about the content of the software at all.

Your example earlier of being told to dig a ditch by your boss doessn't hold water (:P) - it's not about the ditch itself, it's about the tools used to dig the ditch in the first place. If your boss told you to buy a Slazenger size 16 pick-axe to do the job when you already own a Reebok size 14 (that you've owned for years and is comfortbale and reliable as hell), then you'd complain to your boss. That's all the moaning is. You are blowing this out of all proportion. You aren't an Apple employee are you? ;) :P

This matter seems to have been settled by Gernot, in that GLBasic is safe and sound (for now, anyway).

QuoteSeriously how old are you?

I'm 31. Architect by profession. Worked few years as a game designer on several titles for PC (casual portals), Nintendo DS, Wii and Sony PSP. I am quite informed about each publisher's TOS and requirements.

Does this make me more qualified to participate in this discussion?


Now, let's continue....

This isn't about whether you are trying to publish a porn game or not, but whether the publisher is dictating you HOW you should develop your product.

Console publishing behemoths like Nintendo and Sony require you to have their expensive devkits, agree to NDA's that disallow you to even discuss stuff about their consoles and development process, but none, NONE of them places requirements on WHAT OS or language you should use for development. Nintendo's own bloody devkit installs Cygwin on Windows!

They don't care HOW you developed the game as long as you're registered developer!
Many GBA games were actually developed with unlicensed dev software by licensed developers.
Some DS programmers I've met consider official Nintendo DS libraries crappy and have developed their own routines which allow them to do their work easier. Some of those routines are written in ARM assembly and some are written in Python!

Unity game engine runs on PC, Mac, Wii, PS3, Xbox360 and it ran on iPhone until this stupid prohibition.

Casual PC publishers have all kinds of ridiculous requirements, but as long as your game works on their test configurations and conforms to their view of what PC game should look like, they don't care HOW you developed it. There are games on BigFish that are developed in BlitzBasic, C++ with SDL, C++ with DirectX, even exe-wrapped Flash games!

And what Apple wants?
If they wanted to improve general quality of apps in the appstore, they should've made minimum app price at $4.99, increased yearly developer membership from $99 to $1499 and be done with it. Lots of script kiddies would be scared away by that and the developers would be left alone to do their job any way they like.

But no, Apple wants you to drop Microsoft. Apple wants you to drop Google. Apple wants you to drop Adobe, Linux, scripting tools. Apple wants you to develop only using Apple. Apple DOES NOT WANT YOU TO THINK DIFFERENT!

What's next? Apple bans all game engines on OSX and only allows pure Obj-C? Apple bans Python and only allows Applescript?
Apple bans Photoshop and only allows GIMP for raster image manipulation (see how stupid THAT sounds)?

QuoteThis isn't about whether you are trying to publish a porn game or not, but whether the publisher is dictating you HOW you should develop your product.

This is what you are complaining about though: You seem to think a publisher has no right to pick and choose what they want to publish.

Publishers are picky.  They have ways they want something done.  This is the way it generally works.  When I worked for Microprose, I had a little creative input, but I was a contracted employee and didn't have a lot of say in what tools I used.  The same when I worked at Martin (now Lockheed Martin), HP, GTE and a half dozen ofter tech companies I could name. 

Heck, back in the late 90s, I had a trilogy of 3D DOS games that were selling well here in the states.  I was also running a shareware distribution company at the time and I had retail space for our floppies at every Rite Aid, and other chains in a three state area.  I knew marketing.  But, it wasn't easy to market shareware to the UK back then.  The main online distribution was still AOL and CompuServe, and the UK were paying outrageous access fees and didn't have unlimited access.  Not to mention sending the registered version on floppies overseas and having them arrive undamaged after being held up in customs for weeks at a time.  I signed with Springfield Publishing to handle my UK interests back then.  Even for games that were already done, established and actually selling, there was much I had to change to suit Springfield, including having my artist redo some graphics as the pixelated blood spatter was too extreme for their market.  Yes it was a pain, but they were the publisher and they know their market better than me.  Afterall, that is the reason I was going to them, for their expertise in their market.  And they had done quite well for others using the same 3D engine as me.  It was an easy decision for me to make.

QuoteConsole publishing behemoths like Nintendo and Sony require you to have their expensive devkits, agree to NDA's that disallow you to even discuss stuff about their consoles and development process, but none, NONE of them places requirements on WHAT OS or language you should use for development.

Why would they?  Those requirements are generally put in place by your publisher, not the console maker.

Unfortunately, in this case Apple is the "console" maker and is the publisher, even though many can't fathom that and can't differentiate between the two.  The problem people are griping about is caused by Apple "the publisher" but they are directing the complaints towards Apple the "console maker". 

What people are griping about has nothing to do with the hardware side of the iPhone.  There are not any limitations.  The problem people have is with Apple's publishing policies, of which there are limitations and requirements, and rightfully so.  Apple is no different than any other publisher in this matter.

QuoteThey don't care HOW you developed the game as long as you're registered developer!

Why would they?

The App Store is no different than dealing with any publisher targeting any platform.  Any publisher has rules you have to adbide by in order to be published..

QuoteUnity game engine runs on PC, Mac, Wii, PS3, Xbox360 and it ran on iPhone until this stupid prohibition.

I do not have or use Unity, but I do know this isn't the first time they have had to rewrite things to comply with Apple's ToS and it won't be the last time.

QuoteCasual PC publishers have all kinds of ridiculous requirements, but as long as your game works on their test configurations and conforms to their view of what PC game should look like, they don't care HOW you developed it.

Yes, but the average game being sold via any of the casual portals isn't aimed at extremely limited hardware, it is aimed at PCs/Macs.  I can't help but wonder how people would be griping if the casual game publisher also made the hardware the games had to run on?

Yes casual game publishers are not overly picky about what language is used to produce the games they sell.  Although I have mixed feelings about that (and casual game publishers in general), the casual publishers have very high Q&A standards and their games target very forgiving platforms, unlike embedded devices which are not very forgiving.  However, I can remember when any publisher that represented games made by indie developers would rarely touch something if it wasn't written in C++.  The "any development languages is olay" idea is fairly new, and really doesn't carry over very well to limited/embedded devices where there is no margin for error.

QuoteAnd what Apple wants?
If they wanted to improve general quality of apps in the appstore, they should've made minimum app price at $4.99, increased yearly developer membership from $99 to $1499 and be done with it. Lots of script kiddies would be scared away by that and the developers would be left alone to do their job any way they like.

This would work now, and it would work very well.  But, it would not have worked in the beginning.  The iPhone isn't that old, and besides creating a device that was extremely unique when it first came out, Apple also had to not only create a market for the device itself, but they had to create a market for the software for the device.  This is why they had to create the App Store and act as the publisher for people wanting to get their software on the device.

QuoteApple wants you to drop Microsoft

This isn't true, and Apple would be dead if it wasn't for Microsoft, but if it was true, how is that a bad thing?  Any company wants people to use their products instead of the competitors.  In general, I think dropping Microsoft for anything is a good idea.  Unfortunately, Microsoft is like a mother-in-law: Whether you like the beast or not, you have to learn to live with it, because it is going to be there lurking around the corner no matter what and it will devour you any chance it gets.

QuoteApple wants you to drop Google

Not true, but again, how is this bad?  Google is the largest company who only exists to track internet usage data on every computer user they can.

QuoteApple wants you to drop Adobe, Linux, scripting tools. Apple wants you to develop only using Apple. Apple DOES NOT WANT YOU TO THINK DIFFERENT!

This isn't Miracle on 34th Street.  In the real world Macy's isn't going to make a profit by telling their customers to go to Gimbels.  Nor would Microsoft turn a profit by telling people to use competitors products, Apple wouldn't turn a profit by sending customers to competitors, etc.

QuoteApple bans Photoshop and only allows GIMP for raster image manipulation (see how stupid THAT sounds)?

Since Photoshop is an Adobe product, then I am all for it.  However, there are much better alternatives that GIMP.  Paint Shop Pro was great until Corel bought it and destroyed it, but there are other tools out there that are good.

Out of all of those griping, how many of you have made the changes to your iPhone games so they will actually work properly with multitasking and the new dual core processors?  Anybody?  Please do not tell me you also expect Apple to quit releasing new versions of the iPhone because you don't want to update your software to support improvements in the hardware.

Out of all of these companies like Unity, Adobe, how many have updated their languages and third-party libs to support multitasking and the new dual core processors?  Or do they also expect Apple to quit releasing new versions of the iPhone because they can't keep up with the hardware changes.  Unlike Adobe, Apple's techs have actually tested Adobe's offerings on the new multitasking platform. 

Given that Apple's does actually believe in innovation (unlike most companies), and part of that innovation also includes the innovation of hardware, and Apple's hardware products usually see at least one major hardware update per year, perhaps using the tools Apple recommends to be able to keep your software for their devices current, compliant and competitive is actually a good thing.  Apple does know their own market and platform better than any of us.  That is unless you enjoy purposely releasing software that may not work properly on the latest hardware devices. 

This isn't like developing for Windows where things rarely change over the years and backwards compatibility is a must.  Smart Phones and portable media devices are rapidly changing technology and if you can't keep up with the necessary hardware changes, you really shouldn't be trying to develop for the devices.  At the very least, you should not be trying to use Apple as a publisher if you want to release substandard and outdated software.

I think Apple (as a publisher) has been very fair.  A whole bunch of apps are going to be removed from the App Store very soon because they are too outdates.  Shouldn't be a major issue for anybody because if the software was any good, and people actually used/played it on a regular basis, they will happily buy a new version.  Apple users are like that.

I think we all should calm down a bit here.
Like it or not, legal or not, true fact is, we can't do anything against Apple's rules if we want to App Store our games. so any complaining and talk about that won't help us but only start a quarrel, which I don't really like.
:booze: :coke:

I agree, one of the reasons I stay away from the Blitz forums is that its mostly people shouting at each other. The GLBASIC forums dont have this type of degenerate person, it would be HORRIBLE if we started having these problems. Please moderators stop this from happening.  :'(

The way I see it is if Apple block GLBasic written apps then I have 2 choices, learn objective C or stop writing stuff on the iPhone and Apple lose a tiny developer. Objective C is not a problem, their stupid interface builder is my main stumbling block. Im a "give a graphic an x,y location and smack it on the screen" programmer (any video stuff i have done in the past in C has been like this and makes conversions much easier). I dont want to link objects to an interface builder. I want to hit the screen direct like GLBasic does.

I have just about covered my cost of the GL licence, and the apple dev licence, not covered the cost of the mac mini but it gives me a nice portable(ish) computer and a very good programming language I can knock up quick test programs in (and of course there is the GP2x option for my own handheld stuff). And I would imagine that those of us who have produced commercial software have covered a fair bit of our costs as it doesnt matter what you try to sell on the app store, someone will buy it :)

Kitty, Is an android build option in the offering? there is our back up plan should Apple turn round as say thanks but no thanks

Quote from: codegit on 2010-Apr-14
I agree, one of the reasons I stay away from the Blitz forums is that its mostly people shouting at each other. The GLBASIC forums dont have this type of degenerate person, it would be HORRIBLE if we started having these problems. Please moderators stop this from happening.  :'(

+1 in agreement!

Debating and arguing are two different critters.  I think all here have stuck with debating, which is quite refreshing considering the debate is about a company that nobody appears to like, just varying reasons for the dislike  ;)

Quote from: Gary_Leeds on 2010-Apr-14Kitty, Is an android build option in the offering? there is our back up plan should Apple turn round as say thanks but no thanks

Their requirements for the Android Market are so simple by comparison:

If you plan to publish your application on Android Market, you must make sure that it meets the requirements listed below, which are enforced by the Market server when you upload the application.

Requirements enforced by the Android Market server:
Your application must be signed with a cryptographic private key whose validity period ends after 22 October 2033.
Your application must define both an android:versionCode and an android:versionName attribute in the <manifest> element of its manifest. The server uses the android:versionCode as the basis for identifying the application internally and handling updates, and it displays the android:versionName to users as the application's version.
Your application must define both an android:icon and an android:label attribute in the <application> element of its manifest.

Personally, I am hoping Gernot can find a way to get GLB games on Chrome OS  =D

Unlike a few folks I actually DO prefer Osx to windows. :). I have used pc's since the late 80's and windows regularly since v 3. About 2 years ago I decided to try out Osx and bought a laptop from Apple and well I never looked back. My pc was dumped in the junk room and I bought my dad and myself an imac each.

I have windows xp in vmware fusion for those apps I don't have mac version for. GlBasic, Xara and Curvy 3d are the only apps I need windows for.

So although I dont like certain things to do with Apple there OS I would not live without now.

Mike R

Quote from: mykyl66 on 2010-Apr-14
Unlike a few folks I actually DO prefer Osx to windows. :). I have used pc's since the late 80's and windows regularly since v 3. About 2 years ago I decided to try out Osx and bought a laptop from Apple and well I never looked back. My pc was dumped in the junk room and I bought my dad and myself an imac each.

I have windows xp in vmware fusion for those apps I don't have mac version for. GlBasic, Xara and Curvy 3d are the only apps I need windows for.

So although I dont like certain things to do with Apple there OS I would not live without now.

Mike R

Totally agree, OSX was a very pleasant surprise, even though I did not like the way I acquired my Mac, the O.S. is a joy to behold.

+1

I'm are "found" the OsX now... for last 3 weeks.

I have old experience in computers since 80's....


:good:

Quote from: mykyl66 on 2010-Apr-14So although I dont like certain things to do with Apple there OS I would not live without now

I just wish you could get the OS (legally) without the pricey Apple hardware (which is where my issues with Apple are).

Don't know why they don't sell their OS to PC users now that Apple has been using Intel processors for X amount of years.  Apple is a funny beast.

Quote from: Scott_AW on 2010-Apr-15
Don't know why they don't sell their OS to PC users now that Apple has been using Intel processors for X amount of years.  Apple is a funny beast.

I have never bought the "hardware issue" reason for them not doing it.  Motherboards aside, any hardware I buy, even some specialty hardware for music recording/production comes with drivers for OS X.  The motherboard issues would disappear overnight, because the manufacturers would jump at the chance to turn out OS X compliant motherboards.  Apple could never replace Windows in the business sector, but for the home market if OS X was released for all PCs, Windows would be in a world of hurt within three years and would lose the home market lead within five years.

My beef with Apple is many years ago, I had saved up for almost two years for a Macbook, right before or right around the time the iPod first came out.  They were still PPC back then, unfortunately, they had major issues with the logic (mother) board design.  They had to replace the logic board three times, and the fourth time they wanted me to pay to replace it.  I look at it that I paid $12000 for a 30GB Toshiba HD, as that is all I was every able to use from the system.  As a disabled vet, money is extremely hard to come by and to waste it on something that doesnt work is depressing.  It is even worse when it was a known issue at the time and Apple would not stand behind their products and give you a different model that didn't have the flaw in the motherboard, instead Apple just kept replacing the flawed logic board with a new flawed logic board that would work for a couple of months just to wait out the warranty so they didn't have to deal with it anymore.

Just when I think I might give Apple a try again, they do like they did with the last round of releases of iMacs and they were shipping with cracked, shattered and broken screens and taking months to fix them when they were brought in for repair.

I can see myself maybe buying a Mac Mini in the future, but by the time you pay for the memory upgrade, you could buy a very nice PC (including monitor) that would be more powerful and throw a *nix dist on it.

QuoteDon't know why they don't sell their OS to PC users now that Apple has been using Intel processors for X amount of years.  Apple is a funny beast.

But who would buy a Mac then?

But I do agree. The more OS options available to pc users, the less dominant Microsoft will become.

If the leaked photos of the new 4th gen iPhone are legitimate, people should be applauding the ToS changes.  Apple may be doing Adobe a favor on this one.  I normally think Apple products are nice looking, but these photos are not appealing (and not just because of the poor image quality) to me.  If I has an iPhone, I would definitely be skipping the 4th gen and waiting for the 5th gen, even if it meant going to a competing product for the duration of the wait period. 

HI there,
I write this lines because, from Unity 3D another platform for developement on Iphone I received this cooments:

http://blogs.unity3d.com/author/david/

They comment what in his case look well the continuty of developement whit unity 3D, but my question is?Ã,¿

If Unity, what I think in more big than GLbasic(in enterprises terms!!!, not because UNity is best than Glbasic, or inverse, they are very different), have troubles whit the new Iphone OS, Glbasic will be equal?Ã,¿.


WeÃ,´ll be wait a little time, I hope what GLbasic donÃ,´t have any trouble whit this stupid action of Apple.

Note: In the mail heÃ,´s comment what his users donÃ,´t have trobles uploading applications.

Best Regards.