Remove Reference to Xojo in Built Applications & Support Files?

well not QUITE “ALL YOURS” …

[quote=155259:@Dave S]well not QUITE “ALL YOURS” …[/quote]
More so than “real studio” could be
Those guys sent energy drinks to the conference in the past

Which is very true, some of the best selling apps on the Mac App Store are written using C with the QT libraries, which makes a simple app over 50mb of file size, terrible user interface and totally unprofessional. Yet your average Joe doesn’t give two hoots about how poor or good the application is, all they care about is that it does what it says it does (although I’ve downloaded plenty of Apple promoted apps that don’t, yet they get good ratings and Apple promote them).

[quote=155240:@Björn Eiríksson]I would say don’t worry about it unless your target sales group is developers.

If its something else than developers then they are not going to care and will not know the difference of Xojo vs something else.[/quote]
Which is ironic, considering I sell a tool written in Xojo to Li####de, ##leMaker and other app developers, they don’t care that it was written in Xojo (although some have mentioned they’ll investigate Xojo after using the app I wrote with it), as long as it gets the job done.

@Peter, Try not to worry about the cloners stealing your app and ripping you off. If your application is successful, they’ll do it anyway, using whatever tool they have. Nearly every single one of our successful apps has been cloned or has competitors. One cloning company (who clones everyones apps) even named their product so similar to ours. After inspecting their Mac application, it was written on a Windows PC and then compiled on a Mac, using the aforementioned QT libraries. All our software is written in Xojo.

How do you beat them, short of tracking down their company and breaking their fingers with a sledgehammer, there is nothing you can do. You have to accept that cloning is part of the industry now, no matter how heartbreaking it is to see your hard work in a competitors product. You just have to steal back and keep on working what’s true to you.

As for everyone here, come on it’s Christmas, lets not fall out please.

True Sam but what I was getting at was if there is flaming against Xojo then it could only be coming from developers. Since others really won’t know anything about Xojo. So the trolling would be coming from some purist developers somewhere I imagine.

Ah, yeah I understand. I have had conversations with Obj-C developers, where it’s gone along the lines of doing x in Obj-C is so much easier, but most of the time I can respond with doing Y in Xojo is so much easier.

For instance, I understand Xcode’s model of separating the interface to the code (more precision when targeting multi-languages), but nearly everyone prefers the ability to double click a button and enter the code directly there, rather than creating a delegate, binding the delegate and so on.

Developers are a very religious group - they worship at the alter of whatever language they prefer & everything else is a heathen belief system (or something like that) :stuck_out_tongue:

So far the solution appears to be…

  1. Open each dll file that has xojo in the file name in a hex editor (Hex Fiend) and replace “xojo” with a random four character string and save the file.

  2. Open the exe file in hex editor and:

A. search for each dll file name with xojo in it. Change the name of the external dll file and change it corresponding name in the exe file with the same random string.

B. Replace any other occurrence of Xojo with a random four character string.

C. Save exe file.

  1. Open each one of the dll files in the following shareware product:

Remove all text references to Xojo in each file.

Save each dll after changes are made.

Now the app runs on Windows. So much for pros.

You run the risk of this breaking the app entirely if you edit the DLL’s in this way.
You’ve quite possibly renamed symbols & other entry points in the DLL and this may result in the app malfunctioning.

I don’t see any technical reason why one would do such a thing like “remove reference to Xojo”.

Until now I only understand that someone has the concept of inferiority because of using a certain development tool. Feeling inferior is not something that can be solved by any engineers here, but there are other professionals existing elsewhere who might me of help. Shrinks.

Discussing this subject is a waste of time.

Your app should stand out on features, ease of use, design.

If it is successful two things WILL happen: it will be cloned, and it will be hacked.

In case you are unaware: when programming apps for a living, then you enter a race that you can’t win. You can only try to stay ahead. By putting too much emphasis on worrying about the tool or making your app “hack proof” you are only succeeding in loosing ground.

I agree with Oliver Osswald, discussing this thread is a waste of valuable time.

I never hided it that I was using RealBasic, Real.Studio and now Xojo. Nobody for whom I worked for made any negative remarks about using Xojo. So I am surely not covering up which tool I use.

If you create a very usefull application which is succesfull, it will be cracked one way or the other. Welcome in the real world as Markus Winter explained.

About the reputation of Xojo, it does not have any bad reputation. I did yesterday a google search and indeed found that particular blog by self claimed professionals. I do not claim that I am a professional far from it. The only fact I know is that Xojo let me do the job done within reasonable deadlines. I know that many others are also have very good experiences with Xojo and that they also succeed in creating much more complex applications than I do.

The way your application is working and your customer care is the key to success. That means you listen to your customers and give them the solution they requested, so they can finish whatever they want to do with your application in an easy and time saving way. When they receive a problem or a bug, you assist them and solve their problem without them to worry any more. That is what binds your customers to your application because that is something those cracked apps cannot give them.

@Peter Shultz,
I really cannot understand why your competitors would make so much efforts in breaking your application, see it is build with xojo and then clone it and give it away. Really where is the profit in it for them when they give it away. Everything can be decompiled, so I do not see your problem. It seems to me that you are not happy with Xojo, so why not choosing another development tool which suits your needs better? When developing in C, there will also be reference to it.

This thread is just a waste of time and somebody should close it. It went far enough and is running in circles.

“You run the risk of this breaking the app entirely if you edit the DLL’s in this way.
You’ve quite possibly renamed symbols & other entry points in the DLL and this may result in the app malfunctioning.”

The application is fully functional with no issues, even the cross platform transfer of files it generates works perfectly fine. Until Xojo removes its ads in the product I guess this will have to be the solution.

“About the reputation of Xojo, it does not have any bad reputation”

Having used the product since RB 3.5 I can easily provide you with links to hundreds of negative posts and blogs about the product. I don’t want my product branded as a RB, RS, Xojo product.

I also seem to recall someone making an application a number of years ago which prevented any compiled real basic applications from running on user’s computer by identifying code injected into each build by RB. I don’t want my application associated with Xojo branding.

“When developing in C, there will also be reference to it.”

Yes, but there will no reference to Xojo, which is much easier to use than C and only initially requires a free IDE to develop the application and $99 to later deploy it. Why would I want to advertise the process I used to make the application in the application itself? Why are these references to Xojo in the compiled application? There is no reason for them. This is exactly how I found Real Basic - I happened to look in the About Window of an application that had a Made with Realbasic logo and decided to learn RB instead of buying from the app publisher so why would I want to essentially screw myself my advertising how it was made in the application. If someone wants to use C to clone then go ahead, a much more difficult task according to Xojo’s own sales pitch. I certainly did not try to learn C after looking the About with the RB logo.

“Really where is the profit in it for them when they give it away.”

Without knowing what my app is for how can you say that? I could see someone giving it away just to drive traffic to their web site as its that valuable and then generating sales from the traffic directly or indirectly through sales of other items.

“It went far enough and is running in circles.”

No circles here. I found a solution on my own that works as opposed to bad advice such as application packers which can lead to anti-virus problems and costs that easily exceed the cost of Xojo.

Then stop posting.

Customer asks:
. Calls your program home?
. Are my data and private info kept secret?
. Are my data securely saved and in a interchangeable format?
. Is the program written in RB/RS/Xojo?

I will know which answers will be true!

I only know of one person who was ever this determined to hide what tools they used to create the applications for their products.
This person seem to use about the same language & arguments.

Anyone serious enough to want to clone their software would do so just as quickly with / without the Xojo names in the software.
Unless you obfuscate EVERY method name, symbol, etc there is still lots of information that gives away the tool used.
And even if YOU obfuscate YOUR method names there’s still information that gives away what was used.
Then you’re now having to obfuscate DLL entry points method names etc and the likelihood you break something when doing so goes WAY up.

Four day old sock puppet aside, the real issue is the license which nobody has mentioned in this thread:

My main customer is quite a large corporation who sell the product, badged as their own, and I never had a single query about which tools, I use.

In 4 years I have had no support issues attributable to Xojo - and not many to me :slight_smile:

No customer, as far as I know, has queried what tool was used to create the application.

The Libs folder not only contains the Xojo dlls, but some MBS ones too ( they have not even complained about shell.dll advertising a petrol company ).

The only reason I can think of that I might wish to hide that fact that I use Xojo would be to obscure that fact from other people who might be struggling to compete with my ability to provide an almost identical user interface on both Windows and Linux.

I accept that the OP’s situation may be different - but at the end of the day it’s the quality of the product you make, not the name on the box of tools.

I am quite shocked at the tone of this thread. I can only add.

If a carpenter builds a house using a specific hammer, nails, wood, etc. does that mean that another carpenter can duplicate that house IF he uses the same hammer, nails, wood, etc.? Without the blueprint, this is generally much hard than you might think.

[quote=155448:@John Fatte]I am quite shocked at the tone of this thread. I can only add.

If a carpenter builds a house using a specific hammer, nails, wood, etc. does that mean that another carpenter can duplicate that house IF he uses the same hammer, nails, wood, etc.? Without the blueprint, this is generally much hard than you might think.[/quote]

I agree…

Perhaps I should add that having said that…

I actually do not actualy wish to hide what tools I use at all. Just mentioning a reason why I suppose someone else might do so.