On Apr 18, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Ben Liong wrote: >> First, sending back the UDID is a violation of the new developer terms from >> Apple. >> > I didn't realize that. Live and learn.
Looks like I was wrong there, see the post from Dave Howell. it's hard to keep up with the continual stream of license changes from Apple... :-( >> Second, thats not how apps are supposed to work on the App Store. When the >> user buys an app, they expect it to work on all of their devices that are >> synced with their iTunes account. For example, I have an iPod Touch, an >> iPhone and and iPad. Not only would I be angry as a user because your app >> only worked on the first device I synced with, but there would be no way for >> me to even buy a second copy of the app for another device on my account. >> I'd guess you'd start racking up nasty reviews and Apple would pull your app >> for that. >> > True. I agree that it's not what the App store is designed to do. It felt > like Adam is writing an app tailored for a particular business and App Store > is the only way to distribute this app (if said business isn't willing to > enroll in Apple's Enterprise program). There's currently no good way for an > individual programmer to sell app tailored to a specific company. Yes, this is a large hole in the app store ecosystem and I find it comes up frequently with some clients. There is no way for companies to make "bulk purchases" of apps for employees (discounted or full price), and there isn't an easy way to write an app for a client that will only be used on their own devices without them joining the enterprise program (which has it's own set of restrictions). Dave
