iPhone OS4 today

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

  1. polytropoi

    polytropoi

    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    610
    also from http://theflashblog.com/?p=1888 - I like it when he goes:

    "Many of Adobe’s supporters have mentioned that we should discontinue the Creative Suite products on OS X as a form of retaliation."
  2. EricJ13

    EricJ13

    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    318
    Congrats!
  3. Fireburst

    Fireburst

    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    I wouldn't be surprised if we do not hear from Apple until after the official CS5 launch (Monday). It would certainly screw the Flash CS5 party.

    All Apple have to do is sit back and watch the chaos. Even if they clarify or change the TOS to allow Unity they are showing all developers that they have the power to switch you off as simply as that.
  4. posimaster.andrew

    posimaster.andrew

    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    Awesome thanks for the answer Higgy, always nice to know you guys are working hard for us. I really appreciate it.
  5. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,737
    Dont forget about http://www.wooglie.com. If we want to diversify than we need to get a larger penetration rate for Unity3d games (the better the game the more people will get it). Imagine eventually something like Armorgames (for unity) where you get paid a few grand (maybe more for 3d stuff) for sponsorship.
  6. Jessy

    Jessy

    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,173
    Please, let this be done already. Forcing Apple to devote resources to getting their competitor to the Adobe CS out the door faster will bring me great joy.

    (And while I'm here, let me say that this is the most useless, speculative, negativity-to-other-Unity-users-filled thread I've ever seen in my three years on the forum. :x)
  7. galent

    galent

    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,046
    Congratulations! Good luck on iPad! ... ok, My son wants you to know he loves OMG Pirates btw... :)

    Now, that I've caught up to ... pg 27!!! Thanks for weighing in HiggyB (I sure don't envy you today bud ;) ).

    I can think of several ways around this (so I'm sure Unity techy folks are all over it :) ), but... I was thinking... even IF (and that's a BIG IF - as in H*LL NO!) I rolled my own Objective-C 3D game, I'd still basically end up creating something very much like Unity (or Unreal, or Torque, what have you). It's kind of the way game engines are made these days you know: editor, 3D renderer, physics, scripting language, so on... I haven't heard many examples of someone doing their whole game in a single language recently. Unless they're cutting backdoor contracts with the big boys, I suspect even EA, UBI, and THQ (to name a few) have exactly the same setup for their internal engines. I know someone at Apple understands this (they just hired some game developers recently), so... what's up?

    Just some random thoughts right now...

    Oh, anyone for more Nuts? :D

    Cheers,

    Galen
  8. rocket5tim

    rocket5tim

    New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    202
    I just received an email from apple informing me that my game, which I submitted last week, has been approved for sale. For what it's worth. [/b]
  9. MadMax

    MadMax

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    If adobe was smart it would threaten or even do this. Apple is 5 years away any kind of response. Sadly, Adobe is rather bloated and lethargic. By the time they act it will be many years too late.
  10. EricJ13

    EricJ13

    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    318
    Right on dude, good luck!
  11. maxfax2009

    maxfax2009

    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    410
    Unity is a great company and work VERY hard for us!


    Sure they will come up with a solution :)
  12. GhostDog

    GhostDog

    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    I've written several compilers, including a pascal one, so don't feel you have to make a simple example on my account. I understand what goes into building symbol trees, lexical analysis, and the roles of systems like lex and yacc (I have the dragon book on my shelf!). What fingerprints are you talking about exactly? If Unity or even mono generates PURE ObjC code, I open Xcode, making modifications or not, compile in XCode and generate ARM asm within Apple's tool chain. How would Apple ever know if that asm was procedurally generated or not? It all has to be syntactically correct in ANY case. How would Apple, using a procedural auditing system to determine if it's human typed or generated code. You just have to know they aren't going to reverse engineer and evaluate every app at a syntax level. And what if you change some functions or override a few with different signatures? Symbol tress would still have to be compliant in order to compile. How would that system work in detecting that? I'm not arguing, challenging, or disbelieving you...this is an open question. I'm just trying to understand how in the world are they ever going to be able to enforce this "Originally in language X" stance. Seems an impossible task given my current knowledge level, but I'm would love to learn more about this process.
  13. galent

    galent

    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,046
    Some folks have gotten a little tense, even found cause to work through some of their latent "evil giant business" issues, I agree. You must have missed a couple of topics in the Gossip thread a week or two back though, those were the worst exchanges I've seen here, nasty enough to get the threads deleted.

    As for useless, well, I don't know... most of us are alone (or in small groups) scattered around the globe. It's not like we can get together in a coffee shop and hash this Apple development out or even vent some fear/fustration. (unless you're fortunate enough to have someone right there you can have a peer discussion on the topic with... more power to you :) My wife just says "so, I thought you were working on that thing for PC" :roll: *sigh*

    Might as well let (reasonable) thoughts roll here (where HiggyB and crew can strike infidels) than let folks go nuts stewing in their own panicked iPhone dev h*ll.

    Cheers,

    Galen
  14. Melonsoda

    Melonsoda

    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    I can't wait for Android support in Unity 3.0
  15. maxfax2009

    maxfax2009

    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    410
    Maybe after Adobe Press Event (April 12) the TOS may get changed for good - who knows!

    I can't see Apple stopping tools that make games for their platform - THATS just bad business!

    Just Adobe Windows Tool - thats build Mac iPhone apps - they are trying to stop.
  16. MadMax

    MadMax

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    I am sure that something could be worked out. Nevertheless, you may still be violating the EULA. In other words tricking Apple are you really ok with that kind of solution?

    It is going to escalate into a full-scale hack war.
  17. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    25,575
    I'd be interested to see what would happen to a game submitted today. Too bad I don't have something ready to go right now.

    All things considered, I knew there was a good reason I was holding off on the iPad...potentially $500 saved right there, in the worst-case scenario....

    --Eric
  18. maxfax2009

    maxfax2009

    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    410
    Yes was going to buy iPad in the next 2 weeks - will put that on hold!
  19. joew

    joew

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Kevin Lynch from Adobe made a statement online now and of course he dragged in Unity saying it would no longer be allowed on the iPhone. Before people get riled up about that just realize that he has no idea if Unity is allowed or not, he just wants to try to gain more support behind him.

    Secondly all the talk I read above regarding Adobe discontinuing CS for the Mac is actually quite funny. Maybe people underestimate the level of piracy on Windows because Mac sales accounts for 40% of their revenue, by discontinuing those sales they effectively fold and bankrupt the company. There really is absolutely nothing they can do, their hands are tied. Remember that Apple doesn't need Adobe at all, Adobe needs them.
  20. GhostDog

    GhostDog

    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Good question man. I don't know. On one hand, I would be OK with it if it were the only (best) solution for my company to grow and succeed. I'm not so principled in that way that I would short myself. If I was stealing or doing something immoral as part of the solution, then I wouldn't accept it. Tough one.

    Holding off on the iPad as well.
  21. Gaspedal

    Gaspedal

    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    351
    somebody here that has accepted the new agreement and submited a new game after this ? I would like to know what happens.
  22. Bampf

    Bampf

    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    366
    Just want to reiterate a point that I haven't seen discussed much, which is that even if Apple thinks they are just targetting Adobe (and for you conspiracy theorists, Unity as well), it's a fact that other game developers write games using scriptable frameworks of their own devising. It's how companies like Popcap publish casual games for so many platforms so quickly.

    So you'd better believe Popcap and other companies are trying to get answers from Apple as well.

    I see this going one of three ways.
    1) Apple will backpedal and allow some or all technologies in. I view this as likely but it could take a while.

    2) Apple will stand by their restrictive language but it will just be an excuse to reject Adobe apps and anything else they feel like, while letting others through. (Even if Unity apps tend to be allowed, I dread this one because it will make the acceptance process even more arbitrary.)

    3) Apple actually means it, and Unity iPhone is down and out. I personally think #3 is the least likely, for reasons I posted earlier.

    This could be a roller coaster ride, and we will probably continue to hear contradictory stories for a while before its resolved, so I advise people to "stay frosty."
  23. lesfundi

    lesfundi

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    628
    how much % of the unity user (of paid version) did it for iPhone? I think quite a lot?
    I hope the android will be the solution for us
  24. CMoss

    CMoss

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    75
    I'm down for tricking Apple, in fact I'd almost prefer it after all this.
  25. posburn

    posburn

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1
  26. phelgo

    phelgo

    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    I'm sending positive vibes to the Unity team and hoping everything turns out fine :)
  27. lesfundi

    lesfundi

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    628
    i cross my fingers too.
    I just started a private school based on unity3d and autodesk entertainment product.
  28. Redbeer

    Redbeer

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    401
    Well, this is at least a good chance for Unity to prove their worth and show that they really are the great company I've been lead to believe, by quite a few other people.
    I'm fairly new here, I just bought iphone basic in December. I was hesitant to buy this product, mainly because I'm hesitant to buy "any" middleware, and I'm about as close to the definition of "little guy starting out with a lot of personal expenses, minimal disposable cash, and a tight schedule" as it gets.
    I'm not a big fan of the concept of middleware in general, and have avoided it, if at all possible, my entire engineering career. That said, it seemed an almost necessary step for what I'm trying to do, simply from the standpoint of time, so I took the "risk", hopefully it won't end up being a bad decision. I was and still am a bit miffed about the upgrade at a lower price than I paid on sale only a few months ago...unfortunately, and this is not Unity's fault, this whole Apple EULA thing isn't helping to raise my confidence level or giving me that "warm fuzzy feeling".

    I was hoping to put a good three months in this summer to get an iphone game out. I've been developing game models and textures for a few months now. If that doesn't happen, then this has really been money thrown in the garbage for me. That said, if this Apple deal goes south, I'd be happy to accept a free Android 3.0 or Unity Pro 3.0 license as compensation for my investment to try and get at least "something" to market. I'd like to be able to "at least" make my money back for my investment in a Mac, Unity iphone basic, and an itouch, none of which I would have purchased if not for development reasons. The Mac I bought doesn't do anything my quad core PC doesn't do better, and I don't have any use for an iTouch personally.

    Hopefully Unity will figure something out relatively soon.

    Good luck.

    I wasn't a big fan of Apple before (or Microsoft), I'd use all Linux if key pieces of software I use would run on it. I'm even less enthusiastic about Apple now. One poster asked if I/we owned Apple would I/we do the same thing, my answer to that is, simply, no. I've worked for and with plenty of companies, large and small, that don't feel the need to try to corner markets with all these "licensing tactics", they just focus on making a good product, and innovate when the competition starts creeping up on them. They do "just fine", in fact far MORE than "just fine". Why do companies have to try to be a "Juggernaut" to be considered successful. As long as people are employed, customers are happy, and people are making good money, shouldn't all be well? Apple sells itself as such a "great innovator", surely they shouldn't need these types of tactics if they have a product that truly stands on its own? Food for thought when you consider purchasing your next Apple product...
  29. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    6,186
    Gamebryo/goat thing? Did I miss something in this thread that I should respond to? If so then fill me in on where it as my eyes are getting blurry and my brain woozy after all the emails/IMs/etc. today.


    And again, everyone, chill out with the "so and so is out for sure", the license terms are for the current 4.0 build and just like in the past they might change so there's still room to move. Let's settle down a bit and let us, and other companies like us, work our channels before any "this is how it is" talk brews up. :)
  30. lesfundi

    lesfundi

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    628
    it is very great to see the official response from Untiy. I am sure that unity and any other software developer has gone trough those kinds of uncertain time. most of them have always find solutions. I am positive about it.
  31. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    6,186
  32. Ro

    Ro

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60
    Risky for Adobe . What if Apple has a 64 BIT Cocoa version of GIMP developed and is just waiting to release it?
  33. redd

    redd

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    122
    I think the best thing that can be done, the only thing that can be done, is to just get back to work making the best games and apps possible, hope for the best and wait it out.

    Like many here, I've been sweating out the details on my app for coming up on 8 solid months, and falling into despair about the possibility of all that work being for nothing is tempting and easy. Anger, very justified frustration and fear is normal but it goes nowhere and is counterproductive.

    I have faith in, and appreciate the efforts of the good folk at Unity being our collective proxy and well representing all of our hard work, and frankly I have faith in the people at Apple coming to their senses. It's in everyone's best interest that Unity remain a tool available to iPhone developers.

    Personally, I believe this crisis will ultimately pass and therefore I'm getting back to work. I would suggest that people keep a positive outlook on this. Where there's a will, there's always a way.



    Oh, and just in case, I sent a email to Steve Jobs putting in the good word for Unity.
  34. billyzelsnack

    billyzelsnack

    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    92
    You're thinking about this too low level. All Unity apps will contain large portions of similar code. If you wrote your own code generator/translator outputting obj-c or c++ it would be just about impossible for Apple to detect. However when 10,000 apps are using the same code generator/translator it becomes trivial for Apple to detect it.

    Of course Unity could do some random rearranging to make it more difficult for Apple to detect, but that'll just piss Apple off more.
  35. neo

    neo

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Messages:
    167
    I've studied Apple for a very, very long time. Longer than, I suspect, many of you have been alive. Yes, even in the 1980s Apple was as inscrutable as it is now.

    Actually, they aren't really inscrutable. They just are careful about what they say, but they mean what they say. The problem is, they don't speak so very often, which leaves a lot of room for people to make up stuff and attribute meanings to Apple's actions. It's become like the kremlinologists in the cold war. Yet Apple is actually pretty clear if you take them at face value. I think this is hard because there are so many theories about apple that people have accepted as fact and so they look for second or third order meanings when the first order meaning is what was actually meant.

    Apple cares about one thing, above all, and to the exclusion of everything else: User experience.

    If you keep this in mind, everything they do makes sense. All their "draconian" actions are really about preserving the best possible user experience for their customers, most of whom, it is worth noting, are not technical users.

    This issue, and the wording change, is about user experience. While getting rid of flash* is a user experience issue (as flash sucks) there is no flash on the iphone, and there never will be a flash interpreter on the iphone. This was already taken care of by the "no interpreters" rule, that Unity went to AOT to comply with.

    This new change is all about multi-tasking. I believe that Apple wants to know the state of your application so that when it needs to go into the background, Apple can put it there.

    It can do this by watching your API calls to some extent. But the solution has to work with applications that were written before 4.0 came out, and written with no knowledge or support of multitasking. There are many apps out there written which are now abandoned and won't be updated for 4.0, but which have users.

    Apple doesn't want those apps to start behaving badly when put into the background.

    A VM prevents their ability to know what the app is really doing. While looking at API calls is imperfect, it at least gives them the chance to try and suspend the app gracefully.

    I think that is all this is about. I don't even think Flash is a target of this change.

    But, as with anything Apple, they make an innocent change in language that is still under NDA and it turns into a huge kerfluffle with rafts of people calling them the antichrist.

    Does anyone wonder why they are so secretive when this is what comes of trying to ensure that they can safely suspend apps?


    --

    * Apple doesn't really want to get rid of flash. Apple just wants a good user experience. Adobe is keeping flash proprietary and at the same time, putting out crappy code. This is Apple's concern.

    Adobe could solve this by simply making flash a standard that anyone can write an interpreter for. Apple would then start working on making the best flash engine they could-- like they did with Java, and are doing now with Javascript and Webkit for html.

    Adobe doesn't need to be proprietary-- they'd still have the best flash authoring tools in the world if they did this, and they'd have broad adoption of flash. It might even become a (real) standard.

    Thus the cause of all of this is Adobe insisting on keeping flash proprietary.
  36. neo

    neo

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Messages:
    167
    No, MR. Adobe, don't you throw me in that briar patch!
  37. codinghero

    codinghero

    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    On an individual level sure, but I've never worked at a company that pirated software. Ever. It's more likely that these hypothetical once-time Apple customers would either switch to Windows 7 or use Parallels.
  38. joew

    joew

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Actually it's not likely at all and they would stay on the same platform using the current CS and never upgrade. Why? Adobe would have a negative cash flow and BK within a year without supporting the Mac platform, it's nearly half of all their revenue, they would have worse than zero profit, they would be at a loss. And there are a lot of companies that use pirated software, I've worked at a few and consulted for many over the years.

    I was amazed when Kevin Lynch actually brought up that line as he knows that without the Apple platform he doesn't have a company.
  39. MadMax

    MadMax

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    Does it matter if it is you are making the API calls or if you go through Unity? I doubt multitasking is the whole reason for this change.
  40. MadMax

    MadMax

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    If Apple is really gunning for Adobe then Adobe has no idea what Apple will pull next. Likely, a competing development suite that will undercut them; it may make sense to try to switch over as many developers as possible before that happens.

    Adobe can start by delaying CS 5 for Mac for a few months.
  41. Troy Dawson

    Troy Dawson

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    117
    I doubt the new multitasking OS functionality is any reason for this change.
  42. MadMax

    MadMax

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    Agreed
  43. aaronsullivan

    aaronsullivan

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    Why doubt it? It's easier and more fun to imagine a giant company like Apple making stupid angry moves like a infant in a tantrum, right? It makes you far easier to manipulate when you think that way, believe me.

    Here are the remarks from the rumor channel that suggest it's in relation to multitasking:
    http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html

    Here is some thoughtful evidence from someone who has experience in the area of question (serializing is probably the key, here):
    http://blog.rlove.org/2010/04/iphone-os-4-and-multitasking.html

    Neo's post lacks some healthy skepticism, but I mostly agree with him. (Plus, the briar patch joke made me lol.)
  44. yellowlabrador

    yellowlabrador

    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    562
    Agreed with this one.

    Since I'm no programming guru,
    If VM prevents this ability, can it be used as a backdoor to hack the device?

    Ray
  45. jerrodputman

    jerrodputman

    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    The problem with all of this talk about VM and multi-tasking is that that sort of stuff was already banned in the developer agreements. 3.3.2 has always been there, since the 2.0 days, hence why Unity needed to be AOT.

    If you're an approved Apple developer, go and read the documentation on multi-tasking. You'll then know that there's no way that this is about multi-tasking.

    edit: Personally, I think this was just a goof-up by some legal intern, and that the wording is unintentionally targeted towards Unity and everything else (except Flash... oh, it's definitely about Flash). But if it comes down to it, I'm sticking with Unity. I love the iPhone and iPad platforms, but as a developer I don't like getting slapped around just because Steve Jobs is having a bad day. I know when I'm not wanted.
  46. aaronsullivan

    aaronsullivan

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    I did. We can't discuss it, but seeing it from the developers point of view reveals nothing. Apple must be doing some nice automatic stuff out of reach of the developer for holding on to the state of your app when switching apps (you can gather this from a link I posted above). It's possible that it is relying on certain consistencies coming from the approved development path.

    Just sayin'.
  47. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    25,575
    Good question. Personally I hope UT doesn't get too big; I like the way it is now...their world domination plans are refreshingly evil-free. ;) What a concept: gain marketshare by making something good, without strong-arm/slimy/backroom-dealing/illegal/dictator-like practices. Maybe it'll catch on. :roll:

    "As is so often the case with “legalese,” the new ToS are difficult to parse with certainty and open to broad interpretation – not least by Apple itself."

    Indeed....

    --Eric
  48. Troy Dawson

    Troy Dawson

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    117
    Lemme backtrack a bit. If I were Apple I wouldn't want users to start downloading and running dozens of apps each with their own private runtime environment complicating the new backgrounding behavior. This just bloats up the global runtime for everyone, at the cost of app developers taking the time to target UIKit natively and not via a pushbutton compatibility tool.

    IOW, they want native apps that use the iPhone OS runtime and not some other private runtime that is bundled into every app.

    But IMO Unity is in a gray zone since users wouldn't normally want to run multiple unity-based games at the same time under 4.0.

    I'm very unfamiliar with the unity engine's footprint within iPhone OS, but I don't think its VM is that big a deal, unless their engine code too is being run in a VM, which is dubious. If it's just the scripts, then the bulk of the calls into the OS will be OpenGL and OpenAL entries, things that are already multithreaded.
  49. codinghero

    codinghero

    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    @joew, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one... unless you've got a crystal ball I don't know about. And if you do, well I'd like to borrow it for a couple hours. ;)
  50. funxed

    funxed

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    The idea that this is related to multitasking is stupid. Hosting things in a VM environment would actually HELP with that sort of thing, not hurt it, because you'd have much more easily identifiable hooks to tie into the app than you do with true native code.

    Seriously, the idea that it is easier for them to hook into native C/C++/Obj-C code than it is for them to hook into other languages also compiled to native arm assembly is just completely ridiculous. The guy who wrote that article has no idea what he is talking about technically, but I guess he managed to get a whole lot page views today as this item got reported and re-reported, so good for him on that I guess.