5 ms·
The author doesn't seem to be aware that there are already applications created this way that have been approved for sale by Apple. Given that it does not trigg
by GHFigs 17y ago
The author doesn't seem to be aware that there are already applications created this way that have been approved for sale by Apple. Given that it does not trigger any of the objections Apple has previously had about Flash on the iPhone--which universally revolve around the Flash runtime, specifically in the browser--I don't see why anybody should be surprised by that. It only seems improbable if you make a lot of second-guessing about their motives rather than taking them at their word.
- jeremychone 17y agoTo my understanding most non-XCode iPhone solution requires XCode at some point. Adobe is the only one that goes directly to .ipa. See John's comment: http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-apple-allow-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4494 http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-appl...
- GHFigs 17y agoHow is that relevant to what I said? Why would Apple have a problem with people not using Xcode? As long as you're delivering an appropriately signed binary, I don't see how it would make any difference to them what IDE you used.
- jeremychone 17y agoTime will tell. Right now Adobe is bypassing entirely Apple workflow to produce a iPhone Apps. Other tools play along. Will see what will happen. I would be happy to be wrong on this one.
- GHFigs 17y agoYou are wrong, that's what I'm saying. Apple has already approved applications built with Flash CS5. I don't understand what your basis for thinking they would have a problem with it is. Adobe is producing native ARM code, not including a separate runtime, you still have to be in Apple's developer program, and still have to use Apple-issued code signing certificates. You're not bypassing anything that Apple actually cares about.