Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

iPhone OS4 today

Discussion in 'iOS and tvOS' started by maxfax2009, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. friken

    friken

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Posts:
    84
    I totally agree that the new TOS is exactly targeted at cross-platform IDEs and not only at adobe. I think apple could take the more honest road to get there though. For example, the default dev agreement could be for exclusive publishing rights for all games/apps, locking the IP to apple iDevices. Sure a few developers would go elsewhere, but not that many. It would be a honest way to prevent a large % of iphone games/apps from hitting other platforms.

    <begin mini rant>
    Hard not to take this latest blow and insanely over-crowded appstore and move onto something besides iDevices. I know some people are still making a great deal of money from their appstore games, but I'm seeing loads and loads of super high-quality games getting released with great press, great reviews, not making it into the charts... and we all know how much those games make. Calling the appstore overcrowded is like calling the sun warm to the touch.

    Time for the top 100 lists to turn into the top 20,000 lists :/
    <end rant>
     
  2. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    that would make any capable mobile dev to leave as mobile developing is about targeting as many mobile platforms as possible with the IP.

    Apple should just have enforced the dev contract since day one and it would be no problem at least to cut out flash cause flash violates several of them and any dev that sent in the beta builds listed on the lab page should just be kicked out of the dev program, point.

    I don't see a problem with cross platform development otherwise especially for stuff like Titanium that transfers "webapps to native" and does so only on OSX for the iPHone especially. They follow the requirements and they also follow the app guidelines otherwise they would be rejected all over.
    Where the stuff comes from can really not be a criteria, just that it uses the correct, legal paths to come to where it ends and that legal path is OSX + XCode and I'm fine with that (thats where Adobe or better any dev using Flash CS5 breaks the contract)
     
  3. podperson

    podperson

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Posts:
    1,371
    Cast your mind back to the adobe merger with macromedia. It bought the company with the top web dev tool (dreamweaver) and axes golive, the second ranking vector program ( freehand) and axes it in favor of illustrator, oh and thenumber 3 DTP program (pagemaker). And then it jacked up prices and bundled everything. That's two monopolies created in one swoop and immediate anti- competitive behavior with zero consequence.

    And you thnk apple with it's sub 10% market share of any market you can name is going to be treated like union pacific or standard oil ( both of which raped the public for decades before anything was done about them ).

    Yeah, right.

    I'm not saying apple is right or wrong or sane or insane, but don't hold you'd breath for antitrust laws to do anyone any good.
     
  4. ravens

    ravens

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Posts:
    125
    Count me in on this as well. Apple wouldn't be this stupid, would they? I'm ready to buy the iPad when it comes out on the ~24th this month but if Apple stays firm with banning all external tools like Unity3D, I'm done with Apple for life. There's control and there's being a bully. Apple is already compared to a fascist state, this cannot be for real!
    Games are what make the iPhone/iTouch/iPad popular, why kill it now?
     
  5. ravens

    ravens

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Posts:
    125
    Haha, can you imagine all the jailbreaking that will occur if Apple bans all but their own tools. OMG! :)
     
  6. podperson

    podperson

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Posts:
    1,371
    I think apple would expect anyone developing on a cross platform tool to target all the platforms they can whether apple does something to tick them off or not -- can you honestly say that you wouldn't click the compile to android Button if apple didn't do this?

    Personally I think apple is crossing the line here -- rejecting apps on the grounds of their internal workings vs end user benefit is simply retarded. Suppose i write an obj c library that simply makes life easier for obj c developers -- how is this really any different? Any such library is going to impose some kind of performance tradeoff, or increased code size. When apple started rejecting apps because they called private Apis, I gave them the benefit of the doubt -- you can make the argument that such an app may become unsupportable, and this would be to user determent down the line, but if my code is just plain not very fast but written in obj c, why should that be ok when code that is faster bug works through some kind of intermediate layer isn't?

    What's next? No code managed using git? No code compiled from source indented with tabs? No code that internally implements a scripting language (which would hose most serious games)?

    My hope is at this is the result of a F*** up in the legal dept -- someone incompetently or overzealously trying to implement something less idiotic in intention.
     
  7. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    That part, the usage of VM / Scripting Language actually was forbidden since day one.
    The apps / games that exist that use it do so on a gray area and on the "good will" of apple, otherwise Shiva, Game Salad and Torque for iPhone apps, as well as the C64 Game thingy and all SEGA megadrive / master system games would never have happened.
     
  8. mindengine

    mindengine

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Posts:
    114
    everyone email mr. jobs.

    apparently he reads email from the general public.
     
  9. neo

    neo

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Posts:
    167
    Standard Oil "raped the public" by driving* the cost of gas down to 1/20th of what it was when they entered the business, establishing national distribution and pretty much laying the groundwork for not only the industrial revolution, but the radical notion that individuals in the public-- and not just high falutin' employees of the government-- could own their own cars.

    The elites in government broke the company up for this "crime" and have been teaching kids nonsense about them ever sense.

    This is good advice, since the purpose of anti-trust laws existence is to do damage to people by creating government controlled monopolies. The politicians get their money by extorting industry to pay them of to keep "trust busters" out of their markets. It is quite a good racket.

    Anyway, if people want to talk about "anti-trust" being used against Apple, please don't refer to it as "legal" or "the law", as it is nothing of the sort. The highest law in the land is the constitution, and combined with the supreme court ruling in Mabury vs. Madison, all "anti-trust" regulations are null and void.

    If "anti-trust" actions are taken, it is politics, pure and simple.

    That said, maybe this news means Unity can jettison C# and move us onto the superior language of Objective-C!

    *they accomplished this by more efficient production methods, more efficient distribution, hard work, vertical integration (like Apple) and economies of scale. Their only "crime" was turning hard work into profits.
     
  10. neo

    neo

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Posts:
    167
    I think that by page 10, these threads start to get a little punchy and go off the rails.

    I don't think there's anything in this wording, or in apple's intentions, that would undermine Unity. Unity is complying with the "no interpreted languages" rule by compiling C# or Javascript into C/Objective-C. (Unless I'm misunderstanding.)

    And there's NOTHING in this that says "no frameworks". Thus if Unity moved their DLL code into a framework that was built with XCode then they'd be in compliance. (I don't even see anything that indicates they aren't in compliance with DLLs.)

    The rule is against translation layers. Thus you can't make a Java VM, or a wine type product. You cant' take complied code like a windows game and run it on the iPhone using a translation layer. Previously, you could have done this, in theory at least, because the code in question was not compiled.

    I do also think that it is high time that Apple ponied up the money and bought Unity. I've never known too companies that were so alike in a number of ways-- customer focused, rapid in rolling out features, and constantly extending their platform.
     
  11. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    You're misunderstanding...C or Objective-C is not something that you "compile into". It's something that is compiled. You could potentially translate C# or Javascript into Objective-C code, but Unity doesn't do that either.

    They could only do that if UT was for sale, and last time anyone asked that question, they said they weren't interested.

    --Eric
     
  12. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    Ya, after what they are going to do with there new license, why not let them buy unity. Ya that would be great. First thing they will do? Stop all development on windows and wii. After that they will stop the Xbox, PS3, and wii from coming, along with android because they have to control the future(need proof, this license agreement is just that).

    Sorry for the rant, that was me saying I don't want Unity to be bought by anyone ESPECIALLY Apple.
     
  13. codinghero

    codinghero

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Posts:
    450
    When I look at the way the AppStore has gone recently and the steps Apple is taking lately I start to realize they have a plan. In the beginning they needed indy developers. They needed us badly because their phone is a giant piece of crap as a phone, a camera, and a smartphone. The only thing it had going for it was the potential for 3rd party apps. They needed us to provide them with millions of low cost entertainment to draw in consumers. Once the tide was going their way the big companies jumped on board, and once they were in they got all the attention. They don't need us anymore so now they ban clones, "sexy" apps, API's, and anything else that could pull business away from the "big players." Of course I could just be a cynic. ;)
     
  14. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    @motojt

    Very interesting theory.
     
  15. bibbinator

    bibbinator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Posts:
    507
    The misunderstandings still seem prevalent.

    As Eric5h5, myself and others have pointed out, just because you compile and run your app with Xcode doesn't mean Unity complies. Objective-C, C and C++ isn't the real issue here.

    It's really what the code Unity generates does. If all those static bytes in the .s files are creating a mini VM and running binary state machines to call the underlying APIs, then Unity is not complying with the terms.

    If the bytes are actually pure ARM assembly that call the APIs directly, then it should be okay. Importantly, if it's not okay, it's solvable. They could instead output Objective-C, C or C++ and we could compile that. They may choose to obfuscate the code, but it's guaranteed to be okay.

    Code gen is fine, VM is seemingly not.
     
  16. ravens

    ravens

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Posts:
    125
    @motojt: Don't get my 'inner Che' all worked up now or I'll declare war on the Apple capitalist pigs. :D
     
  17. Mandrake

    Mandrake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    56
    From 3.3.1

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

    What part of "originally written" works with code generation? This clause is specifically designed to block code development with anything other then C/C++/Obj-C/Javascript as run on WebKit. It explicitly states this...

    ???
     
  18. codinghero

    codinghero

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Posts:
    450
    @Mandrake, but there's no possible way to prove I wrote a piece of code originally in C/C++/ObjC. I can write a C# app or PHP script to dump some ObjC code to a text file in Windows, copy it over to my Mac and compile it in XCode and no one would be the wiser. What can be proven is whether or not the code is running a VIM.
     
  19. mindengine

    mindengine

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Posts:
    114
    code generator can originally write code. no dna test required
     
  20. Mandrake

    Mandrake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    56
    That isn't exactly the point and it is a little tricky selling a solution based on no one being able to prove anything :)

    I wouldn't put it past Apple to start requiring source code to review for submissions to the App store :/ Seriously obnoxious moves in the last couple years...
     
  21. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    I hope Steve retires. I also hope everyone flies to the apple HQ and riots.
     
  22. jitsua

    jitsua

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    20
    What's with all the adobe hating on Apples part? I bet they would loose a lot of customers if adobe pulled all Mac support/applications. :D
    seriously if mono/3rd party compilers are banned, I'm sure UT would come up with a workround or give free sidegrades to android Unity. :roll:
     
  23. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Have you ever tried the flash player on osx at all?
    If not, you naturally can't understand.
    If you did you know where the hate apple vs flash player comes from.

    Apple has nothing against the rest, its just and fully against the flash player and thats understandable.

    It performs on a dual core 2.4ghz as if it were run on an 800mhz single core and it crashes the browser more regularily than bad drivers crashed my win95
     
  24. ravens

    ravens

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Posts:
    125
    Anyone ever think that maybe Microsoft is behind the whole 'flash runs like mud' on Macs issue. I don't understand why a huge corporation like Adobe would even allow their bread and butter product: i.e FLASH to be so bad on Mac OSX unless they were getting kickbacks by someone. I'm pointing a finger at you, Bill "Satan-himself" Gates. :twisted:
     
  25. ej2009

    ej2009

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Posts:
    353
    so much stuff has been said already on this thread, and while it is fun to discuss about it, do you honestly believe Apple will ban Unity?

    Not going to happen.
     
  26. bibbinator

    bibbinator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Posts:
    507
    Exactly. It's the fact that there's a VM which essentially creates a platform within a platform.

    As I also said, and Dreamora and others, the reason Flash runs so bad on Mac is because of their VM. The Tamarin project is when Adobe "open sourced" parts of Flash to help with development.

    Go to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/, download the Tamarin project, and try to compile it. Step through the code, see all the gymnastics it does executing the code. Then you will understand why Flash runs badly on Mac, and why it's going to be bad to have thousands, or tens of thousands, of apps on iPhone trying to run this.

    Shudder.
     
  27. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    It could...they've done it before, regarding the private API usage back in Unity iPhone 1.5.

    --Eric
     
  28. Mandrake

    Mandrake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    56
    The wording on 3.3.1 just blows my mind. It really comes down to how serious Apple is about enforcing C/C++/Obj-C as the sole language/environment for the iPhone OS and how much this may just be a sloppy/thorough blocking of CS5 which will get addressed by separate deals/EULA fixes.

    Apple could certainly detect generated code binaries... and regardless, they would simply have to look at a Unity iPhone deployment session to see what was going on. If they're serious about this flying under the radar isn't an option. Does anyone seriously think Unity would dump resources into a C# -> ObjC codegen in the hopes that Apple didn't notice?

    One thing is that if Apple allows others to slip under the net, but blocks Adobe. Adobe could possibly sue for discriminatory business practices.

    Interestingly, Microsoft is actually doing a very similar thing with WinPhone7 in that applications are purely Silverlight/XNA. However, they aren't making this decision retroactively
     
  29. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    4,835
    What this means to me is that is banned.
    The people screening it probably gets paid minimum wage or so, some people are going to be thorough and ban it but others simply let it through (because they dont care). What that means is you have to keep sending it back until you hit the guy who doesnt care :)
     
  30. mindengine

    mindengine

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Posts:
    114
    motojit wrote:
    Unity apps for external API's a few months ago? Yes, it's obviously a shot at Adobe, but if it turns legal we're sure to be affected.


    Unity wasn't banned for an external API but rather a private API. That affected phone number harvesting, correct?
     
  31. mindengine

    mindengine

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Posts:
    114
    motojit wrote:
    Unity apps for external API's a few months ago? Yes, it's obviously a shot at Adobe, but if it turns legal we're sure to be affected.


    Unity wasn't banned for an external API but rather a private API that affected phone number harvesting, correct?
     
  32. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    for the private api you didn't get a warning that it has passed although being forbidden. Those were really all directly rejected
     
  33. NicholasFrancis

    NicholasFrancis

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Posts:
    1,587
    @mindengine
    Nah - what happened for Unity was that we were (without being aware of it) using another private API. Another company was using a private API to harvest phone numbers. The media got this mixed up since they both happened on the same day.


    @motojt: "I have read that Mono gets converted to ObjC at build time, but like I said, if that's the case then why is the Mono runtime required in the final build?"

    the runtime contains various standard classes like string, array, memory handling, etc. Even if we convert all the .Net code into assembly, they still have a large library of classes that people expect to just work. That's what's in the runtime
     
  34. Foxxis

    Foxxis

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,108
    I haven't followed all twists and turns regarding Unity apps and rejections (purchased Unity iPhone advanced yesterday, the irony).

    However, it seems to me from what I have read that Unity apps have been in the grey zone for quite some time and what has now changed is that the legal language clearly bans it?

    What I don't understand is what it would serve. Gruber has a point about developer lock-in since cross-platform dev would be quite a bit harder, but it is still very much possible. Also, why on earth would Apple want to ban powerful middleware such as Unity...and Unreal Engine?

    Rather than focusing on technicalities I wish Apple would review apps based on actual performance and quailty. Let's face it, I'm sure there are tons of Unity games that could be assigned to the shovelware category, and there would have been a few truly awesome flash-games through the Packager.

    Well, back to agonizing some more about this over a coffee...
     
  35. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Only if they would want to kill the platform as a gaming platform just as it takes of as middleware is the very backbone of any gaming platform

    Fully agree. Like for the other two app types, apple should add guidelines for immersive type apps which include performance and responsiveness. That would not only cut flash but some very craptastic games that have 1 star ratings with many pissed users for fair reasons.
     
  36. Foxxis

    Foxxis

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,108
    If I understand correctly, the above is more or less confirmation that - in its current state - Unity is banned? There is a runtime layer, something which is clearly prohibited?
     
  37. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Not really as the part was runtime layer to call into the api, but this "runtime layer" is just a static library that offers its own functionality. As such its not directly affected unless apple goes into the nitty picky detail dissection of what iphone api means (enforcement of using NSString instead of your own etc).

    I doubt that apple will go as far as banning Unreal and Unity just for the sake of banning adobe and only banning adobe without the later two would bring apple into the "sue to hell" grounds
     
  38. Foxxis

    Foxxis

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,108
    And that's the kicker, isn't it? Apple has to ban Unity and Unreal if they want to ban Flash apps? As a business decision, maybe they think it's worth it.
     
  39. trench

    trench

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Posts:
    1
  40. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,292
    I suspect in the end all will turn out fine, at least for the Unity developers, as their maintarget is Adobe. This is about interpretation and with the right intention you can alwas find a somehow logical hole, believe me as i'm quite good at this. :O)

    What worries me is the style Apple deals with it. I always had the feeling that they could be more awful than Microsoft when having the power. It makes you hoping for a strong Android/Windows 7 Mobile market.
     
  41. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Well even apple is not god :)

    1. They are leaving the minority market as company. That means that they will soon find themself in the same fine EU - US sueing round as MS for cross financing their endevours. Especially iDevice -> software development will surely soon get their ass

    2. Jobs won't life forever and I would suspect a fair amount of that paranoid, "binky and brain" class actions root there.
     
  42. atsd

    atsd

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Posts:
    73
    I hope this is just a nightmare. I spent my last 3 months to develop my new unity game. I hope It wont waste.
     
  43. designxtek

    designxtek

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Posts:
    147
    I spent the last 7 months on mine. I hope Apple updates their Agreement to let Middleware like Unity pass through.
     
  44. cwflyer8

    cwflyer8

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Posts:
    18
    Yes indeed. I've been an Apple fan boy since the original Mac. I own three Macs, including a 6k nehalem.

    But I'm starting to think that Jobs is more of a monopolistic megalomaniac than Bill Gates ever hoped to be.

    Jobs would love to crush the interactive, lively beauty of the web (which Flash has been very much a part of) and instead get us hooked up to apps for each of our favorite web sites. If he can build up an army of 100 million devices that can't play Flash--he'll break Adobe's vision of Flash as a lingua franca tool.

    As a Unity developer AND a Flash developer...I'm reconsidering my allegiance to Apple.
     
  45. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Ah well on the Flash side I'm with apple.


    Adobe had too much joy and freedom for a too long time.
    Silverlight / Moonlight is not gaining enough attention but with HTML5 and WebGL there is finally a base to break Flash neck, scatter it and burn each part individually on a different demon shrine and thats what it deserves.

    Not because flash per se is bad, but because Adobe made it bad. Scaleform shows what flash could be if Adobe hadn't decided to take a break once they had monopol control.
    Now its time to break them and burn em to ashes at least on the flash end, half a decade of doing nothing to get the stuff on a current level is just 5 years too much to be entitled to anything but get lost.


    I've actually enjoyed apples Web App WWDC 09 vids, showing what you can do with HTML5 - CSS3 and how much it kicks Flash.
     
  46. giyomu

    giyomu

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,094
    i can understand the fear of some here , but rather than be a bit "speculative" and let go all the negativity blahblah..etc..

    let just UT staff comeback with some more info on that and/ or clarification..
     
  47. middayc

    middayc

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Posts:
    2
    It's funny to see some people here ditch flash. So what's Unity3d? It's a plugin, it's (I suppose) proprietary, it's not HTML5.

    I was raving against Apples iP* locked-up platform for long time. This is what you get in such locked up platforms.
     
  48. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    The difference is that flash is slow, damned instable, a security hole like no other and on osx a major stability problem for browsers.

    Also Adobe does not give the flash player much love be it bug fixing wise (there are still fatal bugs and vulnerabilities reported 3 years ago in the thing) nor performance wise.

    Unity on the other side makes quantum jumps and by Unity 3 has no direct competition.
    WebGL will somewhen be a nice thing but never even remotely compete with unity as hundreds of thousands of line of JS code don't run performant.
     
  49. Foxxis

    Foxxis

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,108
    Let me get this straight. You write on a discussion forum encouraging us not to speculate, but simply wait for the official answer?

    Do you have any stake in the outcome of this? Any business plan that would be undone if Unity would no longer be a viable option?

    If you did, I think you too would dissect the news as it appears even without any official word?
     
  50. Phil W

    Phil W

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Posts:
    231
    I totally agree.

    Adobe are a strange company, with little regard for their userbase. You hear people cry foul over Apple, but Adobe showed their true colours a long time ago.

    And I can't take anyone seriously who thinks "hey, let's make a new language! And let's make it so you have to write it in XML! So it's bulky, slow and inhibitive! We can call it something ironic, like... Flex!"

    I have a deep loathing for Flex. And so should anyone who used to love it, after Adobe raised the cost of developing data services to $30k (or whatever it was).

    Once upon a time, Photoshop was the de facto bread and butter for a lot of people. These days, that's a tenuous tether. There's a lot of smart developers around now, and I'm hoping someone takes up the challenge.