Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Ilya L. <ily...@gm...>]

i was reluctant to chime in, but it seems to me that one essential question
to ask is whether it is actually possible for apple to determine if the code
of a submitted app was created using XMLVM or any other tool that outputs
native code. at first glance, it seems unlikely to me. in which case it is
largely irrelevant what position apple adopts, especially when it comes to
smaller developers. though of course it could still pose problems for larger
outfits, which run the risk of facing litigation and so on if it violates
apple's license agreement and apple feels the violation is grievous enough
for them to take action.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mark Wolfskehl <ma...@ma...> wrote:

> >
> > Apple is free to write whatever they want in their license
> > agreement. It
> > is a whole different question whether their license
> > agreement complies
> > with various national laws. There are some stories that
> > Apple may face
> > some antitrust inquiry in the US:
> >
> http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/05/03/1952258/Apple-May-Face-Antitrust-Inquiry?art_pos=28
> >
> > What Apple is doing right now is to create FUD (fear,
> > uncertainty,
> > doubt). There is little point to debate what they mean by
> > "originally
> > written in Objective-C". I refuse to even speculate what
> > they might mean
> > by that, because I don't want to succumb to FUD. At this
> > point I am not
> > aware that Apple has rejected any application written with
> > the help of
> > XMLVM. Our own showcase application Xokoban is certainly
> > still in the
> > AppStore:
> > http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xokoban/id322302746?mt=8
> >
> > Arno
> >
> Hi Arno,
>
> I understand your frustration, as I'm sure Apple's new policy is throwing a
> whole business model into question.
>
> I don't like the policy myself, but I wouldn't go so far as terming it
> illegal.  The fact is that Apple is providing a proprietary product, in this
> case their iPhone SDK, under certain terms.  Nobody is being forced to
> accept those terms - they are free to walk away and say 'no thanks' to the
> SDK.
>
> Apple is making a calculation that people will not walk away from the
> platform.  But if people find that the terms are too onerous, they should
> walk away and prove Apple wrong.  If they do not, then they are agreeing
> that the terms are in fact acceptable when considering things overall and
> they are freely accepting the terms.
>
> So, from my perspective, if developers don't like Apple, then they should
> vote against them by walking away from their platform.  If not, business is
> business and since their acceptance means even under the new terms they
> think they can make money, that's all there is to it.
>
> I myself own an Android phone and not an iPhone.  I'm happy with it, and
> its open nature and Google's willingness to accept most applications into
> their store should make it attractive to developers.  So, there is an
> alternative.
>
> As for XMLVM, I do think it is very interesting just from a technology
> perspective, and it might not be a bad idea to just apply the technology to
> a different platform.  There must be businesses out there who would welcome
> the opportunity for compiled Java on their servers or other infrastructure
> for added performance - just to throw out an idea.
>
> Personally, I think it would be useful to translate JVM bytecode to .NET to
> be able to deploy Java  programs on Windows without requiring the user to
> install the JRE.  I know that's the opposite direction from what has been
> implemented, but I just wanted to put it out there as a suggestion.
>
> I hope you're able to find a profitable market for XMLVM.  There should be
> other applications out there, so I'm sure you'll work through it.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>