Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OS X Isn't for Developers

zachholman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 252 posts

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#101

Post by dekz »

holman wrote: post #54
otterley wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "XCode 3 is still free" do you not understand?

I was more reacting to the common argument that "$5 is not expensive". My apologies if that's not what they were addressing in this comment. That said, Xcode 3 doesn't satisfy the requirement of being easy or quick to install for a casual user.

What isn't easy about installing from the disc given when you bought the mac? Don't have a your mac discs anymore? Download it or borrow someone elses. If you don't want the extra crud of iOS firmwares, disable it. To be honest it's quite "easy" to install for any user.

Quick on the other hand, how many 4.5gb installations are quick?

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#102

Post by dedward »

Let's be honest - it feels like an insult. It's not an about face where they are charging something like $100 or more for their previously free development tools... which would anger people for different reasons, but make some sense.

It's $5....... it's like saying, hey, after that super expensive $300 restaurant meal you just ate and paid for? We're tacking on an extra $2 if you want to leave the restaurant.... you can buy tickets over there.

Apple better watch it, or they may lose some loyal customers....

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#104

Post by adsr »

telemachos wrote: post #99
adsr wrote: post #31

It's a ridiculous argument, first of all that $5 would deter anyone, secondly the clang/llvm binaries are available freely, which is the default compiler in Xcode. http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8 GCC is freely available in source form.

> GCC is freely available in source form. But of course, source code is useless to you if your computer has no compiler . I was pretty sure that at least part of Holman's argument was that Apple could easily do all of us a favor and just ship with gcc pre-built. ("All of us" meaning the devs who do all this for a living as well as the casual coders who might want to install a Ruby library with C extensions.) How woul…

Then compile it with llvm (if you absolutely must have GCC specifically), llvm is the new default compiler in Xcode. The link above has binaries both for clang and the GCC front end.

Xcode 4 is still a pre-release, normally Xcode comes with the default OS X install disk. To make it available to non paying developers, it's been put on App store just one day ago. This is not a present problem, only a hypothetical future problem. That is another reason the argument is ridiculous. Apple do ship GCC pre-built, it's on the OS X install disk.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#105

Post by dgallagher »

statictype wrote: post #88
thought_alarm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OS X ships with XCode. Apple has never released a major XCode upgrade in-between OS releases until now.

What about iTunes? Why don't they have to charge for iTunes?

You make a great point; there appear to be some contradictions in their accounting policies. The "App Store" didn't come with OS X, but was free. iTunes and Safari get major updates all the time, yet remain free upgrades. On iOS, you have iBooks, Remote, Find My iPhone, Apple Store, MobileMe Disk, and MobileMe Gallery, all free.

We're not sure what the litmus test is for their accounting practices. We're not even sure if Xcode falls into that category (e.g. maybe they're charging $5 for it now because they want to). It would be nice if Apple shared their accounting algorithm as that would clarify things.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#106

Post by scott_s »

tvon wrote: post #43
kluikens wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming no other available build toolchain (e.g. Xcode 3), you won't have macports installed. How will you compile gcc, ruby if you don't already have a compiler?

Well, I'm pretty sure gcc can bootstrap and self-compile, but I don't know if macports is setup for that. edit: apparently it's not self-compiling, at least not in the way I was thinking.

You need an initial compiler for the boostrapping process.

Obvious question: how did the first C compiler exist, then? Answer: it was implemented in assembly. And the first assembler was written in machine code.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#107

Post by nl »

geuis wrote: post #62

I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…

Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws... Its rather obvious its about SOX.

No, it's not at all. The only "evidence" for that is a bunch of uninformed developers speculating about things they know nothing about.

OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence that this isn't the case:

1) Why didn't they charge before? They've used the same accounting standards since the iPhone was released, so if they "suddenly" discovered they'd been doing the wrong thing, they can't just fix it going forward. At the very least they would need to make a statement to the stockmarket they had discovered a problem.

2) There are a huge number of companies that have similar accounting practices to Apple and yet manage to give away their tools. RIM & Nokia are two obvious ones.

3) It would be trivial to work around the problem, if there were one (which I don't believe there is). For example, they could spin off developer tools into a wholly owned operating company that would receive income from Apple and release free tools. The accounts would be separate, and this wacky SOX accounting theory would not apply.

Edit: 4) (from further down the thread): Why don't they charge for iTunes?

I don't know why Apple pulled this move, but it's not about SOX compliance.

Edit 2: I think I might be wrong on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2311934

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#108

Post by tomkarlo »

This whole Xcode/$5 topic (which seems to be getting unnatural air time on HN) reminds me of an old joke:

A mom is at the beach with her child. Child gets swept away by a wave.

She says "God, if you just bring him back, I'll [insert long set of promises]!!!"

The next wave tosses the kid back on the shore, unharmed.

She looks up and says "he had a hat!"

How easy our lives have become that we can spend all this ink griping about $5, or a 15GB download that has to be done twice a year over our very fast broadband connections.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#109

Post by bonch »

dedward wrote: post #102

Let's be honest - it feels like an insult. It's not an about face where they are charging something like $100 or more for their previously free development tools... which would anger people for different reasons, but make some sense. It's $5....... it's like saying, hey, after that super expensive $300 restaurant meal you just ate and paid for? We're tacking on an extra $2 if you want to leave the restaurant.... you…

Give me a break! $5 for accounting legislation compliance is a personal insult to you? How is it at all comparable to selling tickets to leave a restaurant? You have to leave a restaurant. You're perfectly free to download the Xcode 3 developer tools, which are still available on the developer page.

The melodrama from people criticizing this is embarrassing to read. People on Reddit were acting like it's some huge scandal.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#110

Post by nl »

statictype wrote: post #88
thought_alarm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OS X ships with XCode. Apple has never released a major XCode upgrade in-between OS releases until now.

What about iTunes? Why don't they have to charge for iTunes?

Because the whole "SOX accounting theory" is made up by people who don't know what they are talking about.

In its defense it was initially put forward as speculation ("what about this theory"), but now is being taken as fact.

Post reply on HN