Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

Andre Garzia andre at
Sun May 9 18:09:33 EDT 2010


What you fail to see again despite our insistence to tell you is that such
tool to generate C code from Rev Stacks is precisely what is now forbidden
by the new agreement. I am beginning to think that you can actually speak
English or that my English is surprisingly awful because I've told you maybe
SEVEN TIMES THIS WEEK ALONE that the new agreement prohibits generating C
code from anything. The clause says "originally written in Objective-C" and
not "Cross compiled into Objective-C".

The source of all this mayhem is the exact fact that we're legally bound to
an agreement that prevents using any kind of generator program. Generators
are not Apple Compliant no matter how many emails you send to this list,
they will still be illegal. No matter how many times we tell you that you
can't and you tell use that YES RANDALL CAN or that you know better, you
still can't. There's an agreement, a contract and developer sign that thing.
You can't go against an agreement not matter how much you dislike it.

think you read anyway, because you keep repeating) it is not a technical
problem, it is a legal problem. Right now, unless Apple calls Kevin and the
dialog goes like:

Steve: "Yo, Sup?"
Kevin: "Sup, Steve, whats up?"
Steve: "I've seen RevMobile, launched it and BOOM in 10 minutes I got a
running iPad thingy. Which was wonderful. It really empowered me, since I
can't code in Objective-C either"
Kevin: "Oh, that's good to know. By the way Steve, thanks for this wonderful
oportunity to make your life easier. Is RevMobile allowed then?"
Steve: "Yes it is, oh, and one more thing, I think we should bundle RevMedia
with all new macs"
Kevin: "Thats bloody good, mate!"

Unless the piece above happens, then, we CAN'T GENERATE ANYTHING and be
approved for the app store. I hope we're clear.

Now, since I am a nice chap and I don't believe you read my emails at all, I
am going to repeat myself in some other languages, maybe, one of those will
ring a bell and unlock your memory and you'll recall some days ago when I
said the precise same thing:


Thanks, I hope we're now over this subject.

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Randall Lee Reetz
<randall at>wrote:

> Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way
> comparable in this context.
> To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to
> build flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!
>  But the discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C
> source from rev stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the
> apple blessed IDE.  No harm, no foul, no secret sneak.
> Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party
> protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and
> sketch helper tool.
> Huge and incomparable difference!
> Randall
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chipp Walters <chipp at>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at>
> Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone
> Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the
> consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify
> Flash apps created from C ported to Xcode.
> The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they
> have to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries
> have unique footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is
> easy to conclude they are in violation of SDK 4.0.
> And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot
> dot revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why
> this concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to
> develop on their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up.
> Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later
> someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev
> environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones
> and ipads.
> My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I
> couldn't believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have
> it rejected based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they
> can pre-accept your idea and the final check is only a QA one.
> Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can
> change their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill
> your company plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you
> to what "original programming language is used." Who ever heard of such
> draconian development terms?
> Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business
> indeed.
> On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker <josh at> wrote:
> > Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there,
> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode.
> Text is text.
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:

-- All We Do Is Code.

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list