GothicJB

thanks for the info

Actually, I have a authorized pre-release of winmo 7 and 90% of the winmo 6.x apps work as is. The few that I have developed that don't didn't require too much in the way of porting. Android is eating up M$ market share like you wouldn't believe - but just as linux did at one point too, it will eventually find an equilibrium. As for the iPhone, they have a specific part of the market share that fluctuates within a couple of percent - not a concern. In any case though, for any business who could be making a profit off any significant market share without having to do much else besides allow someone to write an app for them or based on their specs and add a payment structure to provide for that app - it is just plain poor business sense to do anything but.

I too have enjoyed using this app, but I only started using it recently. So I don't have a strong attachment to it. I was trying to use it this evening to no avail. So I came here to see if I could find out why and it seems the answer is readily available - GC.com does not support the author's efforts and considers the program to be a violation of the terms of use. When I first used the app, I wondered if it might be a violation. The fact that you could actually log your find from within the application was surprising. It would not surprise me that the message I keep getting when I pull up GC.com on my smart phone is part of a continued effort to thwart the author's efforts to scrape data. Of course going through with the threat to stop supporting smart phone browsers will alienate an awfully large number of paying members in the process, so it's a big gamble on Jeremy's part to end support of smart phone based browsers. Here's the thing that those of you that think that it is a "travesty" that GCzII is not supported by GC.com should consider. Geocaching.com is a business. They are in business to make a profit. There is a reason why they recommend the Trimble app to those that enquire about GCzII. GC.com makes money from Trimble. It's a given that they make advertizing revenue from Trimble. In all likelihood they also make money by licensing database access to Trimble. That's why users of the app have to pay by the month to use the app. It's great that GCzII is free, but GC.com isn't making a dime off of the app like they are off of Trimble. So who should GC.com support? Like it or not, it's business. I'll never use the Trimble app, because it's not worth it to me. I just don't cache often enough. But I completely understand why GC.com is doing what they are doing. They are simply doing what they can to maximize their profit. While i recognize the rights of a business to profit, I'm a business owner myself, I think Groundspeak's stance on the issue is ridiculous considering the Trimble app (and all the others I've tried excluding GCzII) are barely adequate, cumbersome, lacking features or just plain over-priced. I could understand their stance if they were in fact attempting to build a winmo app that would be fully functional and feature rich that would be even remotely comparable to GCzII but the reality is that they are not. I saw the post above regarding "live.geocaching.com" and thought "hmm, maybe they had a reason" until i tried to go there and found out that the only support for winmo is just another mobile web page with no gps api even. I'm a programmer and could easily write something over a couple months that would be comparable and I would bet there are more than a few like me out here that would as well. I could also understand if Groundspeak charged an additional $15-20/year for the use of using a mobile app to connect to their site but the bottom line is they don't. We cannot even get a straight forward answer on why they are simply ignoring the winmo community of their member base. All things considered, while I respect a businesses right to profit, I think Groundspeaks stance on this particular issue is a very poor business AND member/community relations decision. Their are many possible solutions to make both sides very content AND that have the potential to be lucrative for Groundspeak. I'm available to be contacted at any point if a representative from Groundspeak would like to further discuss a lucrative and more member/community friendly decision.

I totally agree! I understand the intellectual property and unauthorized use of registered trademark issues. What I don't understand is the "automated" use issue. I actually would like clarity on this for 2 reasons. First, because I believe that statement is in error and if it is then the app should be allowed (assuming the first 2 issues are resolved) and Second, because I am a programmer and would be more than willing to build a winmo app that does the same or similar and is in accord with the TOU/EULA ... if someone from Groundspeak would just come out and say what the problem is so that I could avoid it in my development. Unfortunately it's pointless to develop a similar app that will ultimately fall to the same fate. If anyone can authoritatively clarify this situation on why GCzII is considered automated it would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure by far more people than just myself. Without that clarification is seems that the issue is merely one of the symantics of "automated" as opposed to one of actually automated. Thanks

So if it isn't an "approved" app does that mean that by default it violates the EULA? or is able to be used just not "endorsed"?