There's a huge problem with your argument regarding the Apple situation. First off, most every vendor who creates cross platform binaries for the iPad has confirmed they can incorporate any of the features which Apple's toolset requires-- no problems. This is not a technical issue.
But the much larger issue is one of trust and intent. Clearly, Apple does not want third party toolsets writing binaries for their platform. Jobs has stated such. Their license even states what they want the "original" code to be programmed in. What would make someone like Adobe, or RunRev want to invest even more dollars 'getting around the license' when Apple could just as swiftly revise their license terms once again? While one could not and should not blame Adobe or RunRev for the first mistake of trying to comply, only to be thwarted by totally unexpected changes in a 4.0 (not 1,2 or 3 vers) SDK license, I'm sure shareholders and BOD's would not look too kindly at a management who continued on such a mission, only to be thwarted again by more new changes in Apple's license. "First time-- shame on Apple. Second time-- shame on you!" Chipp Walters CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc On May 6, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Randall Lee Reetz <rand...@randallreetz.com> wrote: > Yes, this is why I am suggesting that rev output C source that can be opened > within the blessed IDE. Apple wants control at that level. I am sure this > is so that its compiler can insert com checks and interrupts for ads and > tracking of monetary unit exchange. So if that is what apple wants, give it > up. An xtalk to C source translator presents soooooo many opportunities. > Endless. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
