Will RunRev be Allowed for iPhone/iPad?

[hliljegren]

Even if Apple unfortunately made it clear for Runrev that their product isn't "allowed" I still find it strange. A lot of large companies use LUA for their games, and Corona is totally LUA based, "compiles" for both Android and the iPhone. You never have to touch Objective-C to get your Corona app running on the iPhone. Apple even changed their rules to allow for some scripting (read lua and Unity). So what is the difference? I think that Apple want to ensure that there is no scripting that can change when on the phone, so that apps can't download content that modify the behavior of the program, and thus maybe the stability of the phone. In my ears it sound like that if Runrev could guarantee that the scripts doesn't change after the app is deployed (i.d. "set the script of ..." and similar constructions can't be allowed) Revolution should be on the same ground as Corona and others.

Of course it can be some inner workings in Revolution that Apple doesn't like and that I doesn't know of, but if I were Runrev I should ask Apple to explain the difference between developing with Revolution compared to Corona, iPhone Wax, Unity etc... (especially Corona and Unity that now days also cross-compile for other targets.)

[InfoCentral]

I see the FTC is still pushing ahead in its probe of Apple's iOS SDK rules.

BTW, wasn't RunRev 2010 canceled and now I see its back on again? What's going on here?

[Simon]

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from RunRev Ltd.
"...iPad, as well as deploy applications internally on devices registered under the Apple Developer Program and Apple Enterprise program..."
After speaking with Heather (of RunRev) my understanding is yes, we still can develop for the iPad for internal distributions but we cannot use the App Store.

Because this is such a thorny topic can someone direct me to a legal(ish) document defining this?

Thanks,
Simon

[FourthWorld]

Yes, Simon, thorny indeed.

The full text of iOS SDK license is available through the iOS dev center at Apple's site.

The relevant portion is Section 3.3.1, which reads:

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).

Emphasis mine, to draw attention to the portion RunRev sought an exception for from Apple. As Kevin noted in the RunRev blog, his proposal -- to deliver a system that allows users to write in a language other than one of those four required ones but which still meets all technical specifications -- was soundly rejected by Apple on the grounds of that "originally written in" claus:
http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-bl ... -agreement

To Kevin's credit he is to the best of my knowledge the only CEO to have proactively pursued clarification on this matter from Apple. Other tools vendors have been advertising acceptability to the App Store based on little more than anecdotal evidence that some apps in which their users write in a langauge other than the required four have slipped through Apple's review process.

I've seen no vendor who's been able to get an explicit exemption from Apple on this to date, but I've seen many examples of it's enforcement, including Adobe, Squeak, and Rev.

The degree to which Section 3.3.1 relates to the somewhat looser restricitons on "organization use" may be difficult to say without thorough legal review of the license. While I haven't seen the full text SDK 4.1 (released about six weeks after v4.0, and which reserves the right to change further at any time), earlier versions provided somewhat clear definitions of such use, but they were too limited to be of much use to my clients so I haven't pursued it since.

All that said, a growing number of developers are proceeding with unapproved languages in the hopes that their app will slip through Apple's review process undetected, as other apps have managed to do.

This seems risky to me, not the sort of thing my clients would want to invest in.

But for those who don't mind taking on such risk, it would be interesting to see how it plays out.

[FourthWorld]

Simon, I found some additional info on the differences between the Standard, Enterprise, and University iOS dev programs which may be helpful:

What are the primary differences between the Standard, Enterprise, and University Programs?

The Standard Individual and Standard Company Programs are intended for developers who are creating free and fee-based applications for iPad, iPhone or iPod touch and want to distribute applications on the App Store.

The Enterprise Program is intended for companies with 500 or more employees with a valid Dun & Bradstreet (D-U-N-S) number and who are creating proprietary, in-house applications for iPad, iPhone or iPod touch that are for internal deployment within the company only.

The University Program is a free program designed for higher education institutions looking to introduce curriculum for developing iPad, iPhone or iPod touch applications.

http://developer.apple.com/support/ipho ... l#programs

[Simon]

Hello Richard,
Thank you for this information but I might not have been clear or your answer to subtle.
I do not want to distribute via the App Store but distribute iPad apps within Enterprise clients.
No, I'm not trying to sneak anything past Apple, to risky as you say. But the email and Heather said it was legal within a corporation to distribute an iPad application made with RevMobile. I just wanted to see if there was a document stating this.

Thanks again,
Simon

[FourthWorld]

That may be covered under Apple's Enterprise Program. You may need to contact Apple to get clarification on specific terms.

Let me know if you get an answer. I've submitted a couple of license-related questions myself, but after a month have still had no reply other than an acknowledgment that my request had been received.

[edgore]

This looks like excellent news for Revolution!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/09/appl ... s-will-al/

[hliljegren]

So, Revmobile is back on track again! Glad to hear, but I hope runev also check their competition on their current price policy. Corona $99 / year, GameSalad $99 / year (dropped from $499 / year). For a casual developer $799 is out of reach even though it is a one time cost, but with a subscription model like above I think runrev will attract a lot of new developers. It is of course runrev's task to decide on the price point they believe will give them most revenue, but I strongly believe that a lower entry point would drive a lot more users to their product.

[edgore]

A lower entry point for revMobile (even if it was limited to just allowing creation of iOS apps) would be reason for me to buy an iPad!

[paul_gr]

Have to agree on the price point.
Especially since most of us are already paying for Rev Studio or Enterprise.
A discount for existing customers might be a good idea...

Paul

[Jedt3D]

Good to hear that because I'd expected RevMobile in my roadmap before. So, it'd be a shinny day for RunRev to kick it out asap.

Bad thing..
- It may made RevEnt/RevStudio slowly dev again.... I expected a full Unicode support for RevEnt in the next version..
- It's true that the price point is a bit expensive. Since RunRev have to fight with each other. Lower/Comparable price for entry point shouldn't be that high. Feel a bit wow after I've paid for RevEnt also..

[InfoCentral]

So, Revmobile is back on track again! Glad to hear, but I hope runev also check their competition on their current price policy. Corona $99 / year, GameSalad $99 / year (dropped from $499 / year). For a casual developer $799 is out of reach even though it is a one time cost, but with a subscription model like above I think runrev will attract a lot of new developers. It is of course runrev's task to decide on the price point they believe will give them most revenue, but I strongly believe that a lower entry point would drive a lot more users to their product.

What I like about RealBasic is that they are working on supporting the mobile platform within the application instead of producing another product. The last release, 2010 Release 3, included a beta of Cocoa for development. Nice to know that I will soon be able to build mobile applications without having to break the bank to do it. Best $99 I ever spent.