Will RunRev be Allowed for iPhone/iPad?

[Yves D]

"end of the story"...

They want to kill creativity. But they just can kill creativity on iphone and ipad. In fact it is their problem.
The world is vast and moving, RR are creative people...
I just wanted to develop for Iphone, so now, I "think different", I'll do it for Androïd and Windows mobile. Androïd technology may blow Iphone's one in just some months...who knows ?

Sure, the "beginning of a new story"

Yves

[iFrodo]

@Malte

The only way runRev could be in agreement with the 3.3.1 clause would be to be a pure 100% Objective-C/C/C++ framework, written in these languages and usable only with these languages, meaning that you'd write your app directly in Objective-C/C/C++ and runRev would only add features (and not replace or wrap) to the original SDK. That's the only thing accepted I think.

Maybe a runRev that is indeed written in Objective-C/C/C++ but provide tools to translate revTalk code into Objective-C/C/C++ (and not directly in native code contrary to what the runRev team proposed to Steve Jobs, which what obviously refused) and create a real XCode project with Objective-C classes and code from the revTalk original sources, that the user have to compile using XCode (and nothing else), maybe that could be accepted. But that would certainly be a lot of work.

[el_stupido]

It's too late.

Helllo Android?! Come on Rev! It might be a better market for Rev anyway?

I had a look at Objective C.

Put "Ouch my brain doesn't work the way that language wants it to." into TheMigrane
Answer TheMigrane

[FourthWorld]

Helllo Android?! Come on Rev! It might be a better market for Rev anyway?

Yes, RunRev is joining the thousands of other developers who are doing what Steve Jobs suggested, focusing their development and marketing efforts around Android:

http://www.runrev.com/newsletter/may/is ... W092S29875

[Shultz]

Simple question...

The admins at gamesalad.com have stated that Apple will NOT reject apps made with Game Salad. Why would they reject apps made with RunRev and not GameSalad?

[InfoCentral]

Because like Unity they are selling their product and will continue all the way until Apple officially pulls the plug. Unity is basically saying they may have a way around all this but at the same time has hinted they may give partial refunds based on the amount of time you have purchased the product. You purchase it a week before Apple officially closes the door and they may give you all your money back, a few months maybe half your money, more than a few months...you either did or should have gotten your moneys worth. No firm commitment on returning anything or if they do how they will base it. Playing the wait and see game! Not a nice thing to do to customers.

[Cyberqat]

Whats interesting is that Apple just slipped in a change to the next paragraph... 3.3.2, very possibly to gvie them room to allow people like Unity and other's hand-picked by them...

"Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing, no interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, with Apple’s prior written consent, an Application may use embedded interpreted code in a limited way if such use is solely for providing minor features or functionality that are consistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application."

But its kind of meaningless in that to use ANY interpreter you have to write to the interpreter's API, which violates 3.3.1

Point of fact is that technically, 3.3.1 makes calling ANY library or linked file, even one thats part of your app, illegal.

Which is insane. I wonder which med Steve forgot to take...

[paul_gr]

All of the changes lately are polarising developers that were experimenting with cross platform applications...

It's working for my company -- we have gone back to concentrating on .NET and maybe Android once it settles down...
At the moment no-one in the office can mention "i" anything in front of management.

This latest clause change (it probably won't be the last one) is probably to let in large game players like EA that use LUA, and Unity because it has a strong following.

Nothing like consistency to help you plan your future direction...

Paul

[ooper]

Apple has lightened up the rules for developers. See:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20007 ... lMediaMain

The timing of this announcement makes me think that rumors of Apple being under investigation for anti-competitive practices has played a role. Wondering if the new rules will now permit RunRev apps to play in iOS (iphone).

/Carl

[DaveyJJ]

@InfoCentral ... Unity apps have continued to be approved by Apple for the App Store since even the original announcement. Given that several of the current and former top ten games have been made with Unity, and that studios like EA use the engine, it's a good bet Unity apps, if they work as advertised and provide the entertainment/gaming value that can be delivered, will continue to be accepted by Apple. That said, I'm really disappointed that Revolution Mobile won't be available.

[InfoCentral]

Yep, it appears that Apple is lightening up on the restrictions. Users of both Unity and Corona have reported no problems getting their games through the approval process. It seems like if RunRev went forward with their proposed plan to let users write the program in Rev and then compile it to native objective C they would of been OK. I don't know why they didn't go that route when I first read it. If Apple wouldn't be able to tell if I wrote it in Rev and compiled to objective C from writing it in objective C from scratch then why didn't RunRev pursue this route?

[FourthWorld]

I don't know why they didn't go that route when I first read it. If Apple wouldn't be able to tell if I wrote it in Rev and compiled to objective C from writing it in objective C from scratch then why didn't RunRev pursue this route?

http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-bl ... -agreement

[WaltBrown]

I would bet Apple already has some kind of Android solution in the wings, they are tactically driven as a large corporation to a) get max revenue ASAP from their current business models, b) increase other footholds in the mobile market, and c) create new value props before it happens, as commoditization and deconstruction driven by Android (and modular sourced single hardware solutions) will slowly compress their slice of the vertical. It won't happen for a while, though, so it's still strategically important to try to push RevMobile into both the Apple and Android (and maybe even Symbian) ecosystems.

I would think the Rev direction should be RevServer, RevClient, and RevMobile having some kind of shared JIT compiler capability so individual module execution can be carried out in the most appropriate location (say, by event type) for any given connection/device/service/profile combo, which might make it more usable as the various value players in the connection chain move the fences between their gardens. Execution and intelligence can then be pushed up and down the value "stack" (no pun intended) as optimum service execution demands, as they are each hosted in different providers' play pens, i.e. Rev carving out not only UI but also event primitive value spaces horizontally at multiple layers in the value chain.

Just brainstorming....
Walt

[InfoCentral]

http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-bl ... -agreement

Yep, that's the blog article I was talking about. If Apple wouldn't be able to tell the difference between our Rev compiled version from someones Cocoa version. I say then go for it and let Apple figure it out. Now it appears that Apple is letting other players into the mix. OTOH, these mobile development tools are too expensive. I think the deal for me, if I were to venture into it, would be the Corona for $99/year. I always hate subscription plans but this one is pretty cheap compared to others and at $99/year it would take a lot of years to reach the buy in price of other development tools and by then probably a few upgrades along the way too.

[FourthWorld]

Apple has made their intentions clear, and violation of their terms is not a civil offense but defined as a criminal act.

If one can't do business with Apple honestly, better to do honest business elsewhere....