xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Mark W. <ma...@ma...>]

> 
> 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

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

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

sounds like there might be another worthy project here -- cleaning up
tool-generated code to make it look man-made so as to avoid detection by
over-reaching, hyper-controlling corporations.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Of course it is. To an expert, it shouldn't be hard to recognize
> patterns in the object code produced from source code generated by
> XMLVM. (Or other similar tools.) After all, if you look at the
> Objective-C output by XMLVM, it is easy to recognize. It doesn't look
> like something a human would write, does it? Sure, an optimising
> compiler will hide some of that, but still, I would be surprised if it
> wasn't still recognizable on the object code level.
>
> --tml
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

as a matter of fact, we will soon add an optimizing post-processor to 
XMLVM. Of course, its intention is purely for optimizing purposes, but 
as a nice side effect, it will be *a lot* more difficult to detect that 
the application was created by XMLVM.

Now as Tor pointed out, what men can do, men can undo (of course the 
same is true for women). The question is, how much effort will Apple put 
into detecting such usages. My belief is: none at all! With the fear, 
uncertainty, and doubt they have been spreading with section 3.3.1, 
Apple effectively killed commercial products such as Adobe's CS5 or 
Novell's MonoTouch. XMLVM however is an open source project and it is 
your choice whether you use it or not.

Arno


On 5/23/10 9:34 AM, Ilya Lyashevsky wrote:
> sounds like there might be another worthy project here -- cleaning up
> tool-generated code to make it look man-made so as to avoid detection by
> over-reaching, hyper-controlling corporations.
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...
> <mailto:tm...@ik...>> wrote:
>
>      > 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.
>
>     Of course it is. To an expert, it shouldn't be hard to recognize
>     patterns in the object code produced from source code generated by
>     XMLVM. (Or other similar tools.) After all, if you look at the
>     Objective-C output by XMLVM, it is easy to recognize. It doesn't look
>     like something a human would write, does it? Sure, an optimising
>     compiler will hide some of that, but still, I would be surprised if it
>     wasn't still recognizable on the object code level.
>
>     --tml
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Tor L. <tm...@ik...>]

> sounds like there might be another worthy project here -- cleaning up
> tool-generated code to make it look man-made so as to avoid detection by
> over-reaching, hyper-controlling corporations.

Is it sensible to discuss on a public mailing list how to
intentionally mislead one's contract partner? On the contrary, if one
wants to show that Apple's fears are unfounded, shouldn't one be
perfectly open about the technology used for a produce a well working
and behaving iPhone app? (Like XMLVM is with Xokoban, for instance.)

Also, please spare us the paranoid "evil corporation" stuff. Remember,
nobody is forcing you to agree with Apple's terms. There are other
equally over-reaching hyper-controlling corporations that have
competing mobile device application markets with less restrictive
terms.

--tml

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

I agree. This list should focus on technical discussions around XMLVM 
and not Apple's business practices. I myself am an academic and my 
interest is to create new concepts and push the envelope of technology. 
As a variation of Tor's words: no one forces you to use XMLVM. I wish 
someone would comment on the amazing work that Panayotis has contributed 
this weekend.

Arno


On 5/23/10 10:38 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> sounds like there might be another worthy project here -- cleaning up
>> tool-generated code to make it look man-made so as to avoid detection by
>> over-reaching, hyper-controlling corporations.
>
> Is it sensible to discuss on a public mailing list how to
> intentionally mislead one's contract partner? On the contrary, if one
> wants to show that Apple's fears are unfounded, shouldn't one be
> perfectly open about the technology used for a produce a well working
> and behaving iPhone app? (Like XMLVM is with Xokoban, for instance.)
>
> Also, please spare us the paranoid "evil corporation" stuff. Remember,
> nobody is forcing you to agree with Apple's terms. There are other
> equally over-reaching hyper-controlling corporations that have
> competing mobile device application markets with less restrictive
> terms.
>
> --tml
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

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

since we're talking sensible, one feels it would not be out of place to
remark that it would also behoove the participants to retain -- on a public
mailing list -- a basic level of courtesy in their posts. there is an
unfortunate tendency in electronic communication to allow one's passion to
spill on the screen where it would be kept in check during a face-to-face
interaction. this tendency is further aggravated by the absence of cues such
as tone and body language -- particularly if one is averse to emoticons --
to indicate subtleties of meaning (e.g. sarcasm), which contributes to
private misconstruction of what is said (e.g. over-reaching,
hyper-controlling corporations = "paranoid 'evil corporation' stuff"). all
that brings us back to the indeed very sensible call to restrict the forum
to technical questions not likely to cause discord and contention.

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...> wrote:

> > sounds like there might be another worthy project here -- cleaning up
> > tool-generated code to make it look man-made so as to avoid detection by
> > over-reaching, hyper-controlling corporations.
>
> Is it sensible to discuss on a public mailing list how to
> intentionally mislead one's contract partner? On the contrary, if one
> wants to show that Apple's fears are unfounded, shouldn't one be
> perfectly open about the technology used for a produce a well working
> and behaving iPhone app? (Like XMLVM is with Xokoban, for instance.)
>
> Also, please spare us the paranoid "evil corporation" stuff. Remember,
> nobody is forcing you to agree with Apple's terms. There are other
> equally over-reaching hyper-controlling corporations that have
> competing mobile device application markets with less restrictive
> terms.
>
> --tml
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Erol F. <er...@li...>]

As a developer, the point of this discussion is to determine whether XMLVM
is a dead end for anyone wanting to create an AppStore app. FUD is a real
concern with Apple right now as they want to kill off any dev tool other
than Xcode. I can think of no other company that is deliberately trying to
kill any other tool than their own, rather than simply make a superior tool
through engineering competition.

So the question is, is XMLVM going to be a dead end? Will we invest time
simply to find after months of waiting that the app is killed in the store
and must be written all over again? This is my question. Politics isn't
important.

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

Apple is in *complete* control and they will only accept applications 
they deem acceptable. Look at this story:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/mark-fiore-can-win-a-pulitzer-prize-but-he-cant-get-his-iphone-cartoon-app-past-apples-satire-police/

Even if you use Apple's Xcode tool, there is absolutely no guarantee 
that Apple will accept your application. If you are concerned about not 
losing your investment, the answer is simple: don't develop for the iPhone!

Arno


On 5/23/10 10:31 PM, Erol Fox wrote:
> As a developer, the point of this discussion is to determine whether XMLVM
> is a dead end for anyone wanting to create an AppStore app. FUD is a real
> concern with Apple right now as they want to kill off any dev tool other
> than Xcode. I can think of no other company that is deliberately trying to
> kill any other tool than their own, rather than simply make a superior tool
> through engineering competition.
>
> So the question is, is XMLVM going to be a dead end? Will we invest time
> simply to find after months of waiting that the app is killed in the store
> and must be written all over again? This is my question. Politics isn't
> important.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

> As a developer, the point of this discussion is to determine whether  
> XMLVM
> is a dead end for anyone wanting to create an AppStore app. FUD is a  
> real
> concern with Apple right now as they want to kill off any dev tool  
> other
> than Xcode.

Just to remind...
XMLVM does use XCode for developing.
The problem is that the code is not originally written in objc
:)

Probably next time Apple will request us to originally think in  
English before writing code, and not in our native language ;)

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

Probably everything is fine now?

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/11/apple-eases-up-on-restrictions-on-interpreted-code-in-iphone-developer-agreement/

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Joris V. <jbv...@gm...>]

Sort of.. you'll need approval. Which you probably get when using one
of the bigger gameengines?


On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:46, Panayotis Katsaloulis
<pan...@pa...> wrote:
> Probably everything is fine now?
>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/11/apple-eases-up-on-restrictions-on-interpreted-code-in-iphone-developer-agreement/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
> lucky parental unit.  See the prize list and enter to win:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Sascha H. <sa...@xm...>]

Good question. As always it's kind of hard to interpret what they actually
mean and want.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Panayotis Katsaloulis <
pan...@pa...> wrote:

> Probably everything is fine now?
>
>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/11/apple-eases-up-on-restrictions-on-interpreted-code-in-iphone-developer-agreement/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
> lucky parental unit.  See the prize list and enter to win:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>

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
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Tor L. <tm...@ik...>]

> 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.

Of course it is. To an expert, it shouldn't be hard to recognize
patterns in the object code produced from source code generated by
XMLVM. (Or other similar tools.) After all, if you look at the
Objective-C output by XMLVM, it is easy to recognize. It doesn't look
like something a human would write, does it? Sure, an optimising
compiler will hide some of that, but still, I would be surprised if it
wasn't still recognizable on the object code level.

--tml

Re: [xmlvm-users] Apple agreements

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

I did not call Apple's practices illegal. I was merely pointing out the 
fact that the US justice department is considering an anti trust case 
against Apple. You are perfectly right: Apple can do whatever they want 
with their platform. Its a little sad the way Apple is treating 
developers considering they are contributing to the success of the 
iPhone platform with all these AppStore applications.

However, I will say that just because Apple says so, it doesn't make it 
right. I know for a fact that XMLVM applications are being accepted by 
Apple although the submitters have agreed to the latest SDK license 
agreement (which from my perspective only underlines the fact that 
Apple's argument for poor performance are just a distraction).

I would urge you to read this story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704688604575125510326010610.html

Some laws just don't make any sense.

Arno


On 5/22/10 10:20 PM, Mark Wolfskehl 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