3:54
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
>
>
>
>
>
> If that were the case, then OpenPlug wouldn't be able to to it with Elips
> Studio, but they are. They basically are providing a modified Flex 3.
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
If that were the case, then OpenPlug wouldn't be able to to it with Elips
Studio, but they are. They basically are providing a modified Flex 3.x SDK to
use within Flex Builder. Then their IDE exten
> Behalf Of *valdhor
> *Sent:* 13 April 2010 15:15
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I know that.
>
> What I was suggesting is that Adobe change the output from ARM code to to
> an XCode project. Wouldn't that get around the new Apple agreement?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mmmm. As Adnan said to me "Good luck with that" :-)
I'm sure MS has the same dream of "Silverlight everywhere". That ain't going to
happen either.
On 15/04/2010, at 1:42 AM, Gregor Kiddie wrote:
>
> I do agree that the main problem is that there isn’t really an excellent
> competitor to the
f market share unless Adobe adapts to
the new reality. That's my point.
Guy
>
> From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Adnan Doric
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:25 AM
> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Guy Morton
&g
I do agree that the main problem is that there isn't really an excellent
competitor to the App store. Once Flash is on absolutely everything, the
Flash Store will be that competitor. It doesn't matter what device you
use, mobile, PC, television, set top box, tablet, some future brain
implant, it's
___
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Adnan Doric
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:25 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Guy Morton
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
On 14/04/2010 13:10, Guy Morton wrote:
On 14/04/2010 13:10, Guy Morton wrote:
Flipping this whole discussion on its head for a moment
Adobe used to have the best SVG runtime player in the land. It was
fast, had good support for the SVG standard and it was stable.
Then Adobe bought Macromedia. They discontinued development an
Flipping this whole discussion on its head for a moment
Adobe used to have the best SVG runtime player in the land. It was fast, had
good support for the SVG standard and it was stable.
Then Adobe bought Macromedia. They discontinued development and support for
their SVG player because now
I do not think you read what i said...
Just add an extra step that decompiles the already created arm code to a
quite difficult to read but working objective c code.
And if that amounts to open sourcing the player what stops me for example to
get the arm bytecode decompile it myself? I do not see
On Tuesday 13 Apr 2010, Fotis Chatzinikos wrote:
> What about reversing the arm byte code to objective-c?
Read what he said. That would amount to open sourcing the Player.
--
Helping to centrally cluster seamless leading-edge users as part of the IT
team of the year 2010, '09 and '08
What about reversing the arm byte code to objective-c? I assume the
difficult part was to convert actionscript's virtual machine bytes to arm
bytecode...
h the player.
Gk.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of valdhor
Sent: 13 April 2010 15:15
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
Yes, I know that.
What I was suggesting is that
Yes, I know that.
What I was suggesting is that Adobe change the output from ARM code to to an
XCode project. Wouldn't that get around the new Apple agreement?
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Tom Chiverton wrote:
>
> On Monday 12 Apr 2010, valdhor wrote:
> > Just as a thought, couldn't Adobe
On Monday 12 Apr 2010, valdhor wrote:
> Just as a thought, couldn't Adobe output an XCode project that you just
> need to compile?
No. That's not how the system works, it outputs direct to ARM machine code.
See http://www.adobe.com/devnet/logged_in/abansod_iphone.html
--
Helping to heterogeneous
Just as a thought, couldn't Adobe output an XCode project that you just need to
compile?
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Tom Chiverton wrote:
>
> On Friday 09 Apr 2010, Battershall, Jeff wrote:
> > Reportedly Unity 3D was told that this new EULA would not apply to them,
> > yet on the face
On Monday 12 Apr 2010, Gregor Kiddie wrote:
> Doesn't matter, the wording doesn't mention XCode, just the languages
> it's originally written in.
That was my point; Unity uses Apple's C environment (almost like a macro
language), where as Adobe doesn't.
--
Helping to economically optimize exten
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Gregor Kiddie
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:53 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
Doesn't matter, the wording doesn&
m
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
On Friday 09 Apr 2010, Battershall, Jeff wrote:
> Reportedly Unity 3D was told that this new EULA would not apply to
them,
> yet on the face of it, it should.
Doesn't Unity work by using a real Xcode project ? Unlike CS5...
On Friday 09 Apr 2010, Battershall, Jeff wrote:
> Reportedly Unity 3D was told that this new EULA would not apply to them,
> yet on the face of it, it should.
Doesn't Unity work by using a real Xcode project ? Unlike CS5...
--
Helping to advantageously supply unique best-of-breed next-generation
PM
To:
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
> I'd love to see a source other than something that someone said in a
> comment on a blog post; about Unity3D being excluded.
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Battershall, Jeff"
> w
t; > > -Original Message-
> > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Jeffry Houser
> > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:53 PM
> > > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re:
; From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Jeffry Houser
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:53 PM
> > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
> >
> >
> > C
ups.com] On
> Behalf Of Jeffry Houser
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:53 PM
> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
>
>
> Can you provide a source for the "restrictions" not being applied
> evenhand
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Jeffry Houser
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:53 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: With the latest eula agreement from Apple
Can you provide a source for the "restrictions" not being applied
ev
Can you provide a source for the "restrictions" not being applied
evenhandedly?
As far as I know, Apple has changed their developer agreement for iPhone /
iPad / iPod Touch. They have not attempted to enforce the new restriction on
anyone, Adobe or otherwise.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogr
26 matches
Mail list logo