You know, I have to say, that given what we know now, even without clarification, it is clearly risky in the short term and dangerous in the long term to be using tools like Unity. That is, if you plan to base a business on the iPad, iPod, iPhone platform.
It's also a somewhat stunning to see people pondering whether or not Apple can be sued. Clearly most people here are unfamiliar with the licensing terms of other mobile gaming platforms. The terms for Nintendo, for example, are far more egregious. And if the mobile gaming terms scare you, then you should refrain from even looking at the terms for big three console development.
My point is that if this is to change, it will not be in court that the change happens. Running to the government should, in general, be avoided in all entrepreneurial activities. It invites 'help', of the kind that may be unintended.
Vote with your IP on this issue. If you think these terms are bad, don't develop for Apple's platform. If enough developers stop developing for it, things will change.
If you try to get around it by using something like Unity that compiles to C, Apple is just going to gain access to Unity, ascertain the 'fingerprints' if you will, and ban you on that basis. Software forensics has been around a good deal longer than Unity, so I would not bet against it. The only question is whether or not Apple cares to be strident about these rules. And if I am investing my money, I wouldn't bet against that either.
And really, why play cat and mouse, when you can develop elsewhere? For web, or for Android, if Google ever figures out how to deliver a package attractive to consumers.
I realize I am proposing that we engage in a massive game of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but talking to Apple won't work. They may be willing to accept something now, but not in a year. So you're still screwed.
You know, I have to say, that given what we know now, even without clarification, it is clearly risky in the short term and dangerous in the long term to [...] base a business on the iPad, iPod, iPhone platform.
Elided for clarity, like a MAD Magazine fold-in. :)
Well, I never want to discourage an entrepreneur, but I do like what you did with that. These people that make Twitter and iPhone businesses should realize that, sooner or later you will need to 'pay tribute to Big Paulie'. Or Big Paulie may just decide he wants your business. No sense complaining about it, just know that going in.
Again if you want to make iPhone apps, I think you should. Just stick to Apple's rules while you do it.
I think we should think of it like doing business in a totalitarian state. Expect them to play nice so long as it suits them, play it safe and by the rules, but don't be surprised if they ever send the police to close your shop.
Wrong. Nintendo doesn't tell you what language to think in. Neither does MS, or even Sony. This is way, way worse. I hope it's just a blunder on Apple's part, and the clause is quickly revised.
Nintendo has other restrictions -- like a prohibition on using open-source code in your project, and a requirement that you have an office outside your home -- that Apple doesn't have.
It would be difficult to argue that Nintendo's developer agreement is more lenient than Apple's.
Stop spreading FUD. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony allow you to use open-source, if BSD/MIT/public-domain or the likes of the licenses are used - that includes - SQLite, Lua, ZLib, and many others.
I did not mean to spread a mistruth. Perhaps they meant GPL specifically when they said open source? I expect it runs contrary to the "Confidentiality Agreement" clause.
Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are very clear about their restrictions up front and enforce them consistently among licensees. It is very difficult when developing for console platforms to get yourself into a position where you have spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on development only to be told that your game has been rejected.
The problem with Apple in this case and in many others is that they do not enforce every app's compliance consistently and see no problem with the fact that they don't.
"Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are very clear about their restrictions up front"
This is the crucial point. You can talk to a human at those companies if you have any doubts whatsoever about what is allowed and what isn't, or if you're trying something that sails a bit close to the wind. They do occasionally change their rules, but there is usually some wiggle room, and they give you notice. The changes are generally also not as drastic as this. With Apple you don't find out until after you're done and have submitted your app.
Besides, the rules tend to be fairly obvious and predictable stuff, with the occasional technical subtlety, not the kafkaesque nightmare that is the iPhone SDK Contract.
The Nintendo developer newsgroups are pretty friendly and staff (real humans!) are very keen to help you out - I guess the barrier to entry is also somewhat higher than to iPhone development, but it's much more pleasant and predictable than Apple, which only ever seems to act as one faceless corporation.
That's like the difference between enterprise and small business sales. Apple could in no way afford to offer that level of handholding to all its tens of thousands of app store developers under the current arrangement.
I'm under the impression that the bigger name developers do have more contact, and if you have the budget to develop something big, you probably have access to them as well. If this is not the case, this is clearly something they should do, because otherwise it will stunt the development of big software projects on their hardware.
I get the impression you have to be a lot larger to be in Apple's special club than you need to be to be a Nintendo developer - I know studios with <5 permanent staff who are doing DS & Wii dev. With Apple it doesn't seem to be a matter of "pay us $X and we'll help you get your title published", it's more of a "you have to be big enough that we can even see you from our ivory tower, and only if you bend over". Don't forget Google Voice on iPhone isn't happening, and neither is Opera. Does Nintendo let you publish a game that competes directly with Mario? Yes.
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 43.6 ms ] threadIt's also a somewhat stunning to see people pondering whether or not Apple can be sued. Clearly most people here are unfamiliar with the licensing terms of other mobile gaming platforms. The terms for Nintendo, for example, are far more egregious. And if the mobile gaming terms scare you, then you should refrain from even looking at the terms for big three console development.
My point is that if this is to change, it will not be in court that the change happens. Running to the government should, in general, be avoided in all entrepreneurial activities. It invites 'help', of the kind that may be unintended.
Vote with your IP on this issue. If you think these terms are bad, don't develop for Apple's platform. If enough developers stop developing for it, things will change.
If you try to get around it by using something like Unity that compiles to C, Apple is just going to gain access to Unity, ascertain the 'fingerprints' if you will, and ban you on that basis. Software forensics has been around a good deal longer than Unity, so I would not bet against it. The only question is whether or not Apple cares to be strident about these rules. And if I am investing my money, I wouldn't bet against that either.
And really, why play cat and mouse, when you can develop elsewhere? For web, or for Android, if Google ever figures out how to deliver a package attractive to consumers.
I realize I am proposing that we engage in a massive game of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but talking to Apple won't work. They may be willing to accept something now, but not in a year. So you're still screwed.
Best to vote with your IP.
Elided for clarity, like a MAD Magazine fold-in. :)
Again if you want to make iPhone apps, I think you should. Just stick to Apple's rules while you do it.
It would be difficult to argue that Nintendo's developer agreement is more lenient than Apple's.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Atari-settle-over-Scu...
http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...
I did not mean to spread a mistruth. Perhaps they meant GPL specifically when they said open source? I expect it runs contrary to the "Confidentiality Agreement" clause.
The problem with Apple in this case and in many others is that they do not enforce every app's compliance consistently and see no problem with the fact that they don't.
This is the crucial point. You can talk to a human at those companies if you have any doubts whatsoever about what is allowed and what isn't, or if you're trying something that sails a bit close to the wind. They do occasionally change their rules, but there is usually some wiggle room, and they give you notice. The changes are generally also not as drastic as this. With Apple you don't find out until after you're done and have submitted your app.
Besides, the rules tend to be fairly obvious and predictable stuff, with the occasional technical subtlety, not the kafkaesque nightmare that is the iPhone SDK Contract.
The Nintendo developer newsgroups are pretty friendly and staff (real humans!) are very keen to help you out - I guess the barrier to entry is also somewhat higher than to iPhone development, but it's much more pleasant and predictable than Apple, which only ever seems to act as one faceless corporation.
I'm under the impression that the bigger name developers do have more contact, and if you have the budget to develop something big, you probably have access to them as well. If this is not the case, this is clearly something they should do, because otherwise it will stunt the development of big software projects on their hardware.
Apple is aware of this - they briefly rejected all Unity games in November of last year for unpublished APIs before an update brought Unity back into compliance. http://toucharcade.com/2009/11/12/ravensword-and-many-other-... http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=35744
I'll be very surprised if this language isn't modified to give Unity a pass, or to relax this rule for games.