views:

166

answers:

4

Hi,

I have a C# application which needs to be ported to several Smartphones. Monotouch looks like the best choice for the IPhone, if there wasn't section 3.1.3 in the new developer agreeement.

Now the Monotouch website lists 3 Monotouch apps that were allowed to the App store after the new agreement was put in place. Was it just pure luck for their developers, or is Apple actually not enforcing section 3.1.3 except with regards to Flash applications?

Thanks,

Adrian

+4  A: 

The only people who can actually answer this question work for Apple, and they're not going to tell you.

I believe that MT is compiled to native code in such a way that it's not possible (within reason) to determine that it wasn't written in native obj-c in the first place.

And I haven't heard of any MT apps being rejected specifically for violating 3.1.3.

Jason
+1  A: 

Apple amended 3.1.3 to allow you to ask for an exception for your application. That might be what is going on, or architecturally it may not matter to Apple.

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner
3.1.3, after all, was probably intended to stop people from porting apps in Flash or other languages that didn't look like iOS apps. Apple has usually been very insistent on look and feel.
David Thornley
+2  A: 

As a MonoTouch developer with apps in the iTunes store (for example http://escoz.com/cracklytics), I can tell you that Apple is currently accepting MonoTouch apps normally. They approved 2 recent updates I did to the app with no issues.

Regarding new apps, lots of people in the #monotouch irc channel also have their new apps approved every other day, with no issues. Nothing changed because of 3.1.3 so far.

I wrote more about it here: http://escoz.com/monotouch-is-alive/ . Neither Apple or Novell have really mentioned anything regarding an agreement, so nobody really knows if they now have one or not.

Eduardo Scoz
Thanks, that's all I needed to know :-)
Adrian Grigore
+3  A: 

allow me to end this for all of you!!!

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/09statement.html

cvista