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

Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

bennettnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 535 posts

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#141

Post by flohofwoe »

massysett wrote: post #93
sramsay wrote: post #68

What bothers me about this -- and it bothered me enough to leave the platform -- is not fees, or "hobby computing," or "it's just for my own use," or trying to figure out why this or that would be in Apple's interest. What bothers me is that it feels like an offense against the entire notion of what a computer is. I am, of course, aware that many (perhaps most) computers in the world are effectively appliances, but a…

I don't view the iPhone and iPad as "computers" or "personal computers" any more than I view my cable TV set-top box or Sonos speaker that way. Both are very powerful devices with Linux operating systems. But I don't expect to be able to program them. The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.

> When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.

That Macs are still somewhat open is just a happy historical accident. Enjoy it while it lasts :/

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#142

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

coliveira wrote: post #111

"I should be thankful they don’t make me pay a yearly developer fee for making python apps on my Macbook." Just wait a few years... I predict that they'll charge to develop anything.

It used to cost $1000 for the compiler for your Unix workstation. GCC helped kill that nonsense. I think you're right, in the general sense. I'm sure many people inside Apple are doing studies to figure out where they can extract more money from their users, and exercise more control over the ecosystem. One thing I think we can all agree on: it's not going to get more "free," in any sense of the notion.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#143

Post by smrtinsert »

bragr wrote: post #24

I doubt this is "Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps", so much as "Apple doesn’t want dev accounts to be an easy backdoor for sideloading apps" and hobby apps are an acceptable casualty.

Apologist reasoning imo. Developers experiment and there should be a policy that encourages experimentation on the platform.

Thanks apple for reminding me why I'll continue with the lesser evil for now.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#144

Post by tarotuser »

massysett wrote: post #93
sramsay wrote: post #68

What bothers me about this -- and it bothered me enough to leave the platform -- is not fees, or "hobby computing," or "it's just for my own use," or trying to figure out why this or that would be in Apple's interest. What bothers me is that it feels like an offense against the entire notion of what a computer is. I am, of course, aware that many (perhaps most) computers in the world are effectively appliances, but a…

I don't view the iPhone and iPad as "computers" or "personal computers" any more than I view my cable TV set-top box or Sonos speaker that way. Both are very powerful devices with Linux operating systems. But I don't expect to be able to program them. The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.

> I don't view the iPhone and iPad as "computers" or "personal computers" any more than I view my cable TV set-top box or Sonos speaker that way.

Why should your personal view obviate the devices' nature?

These are all computers. *Whose* computers is the more important question. And from a look at a lot of these 'narrow focused computer devices' have the company you bought it from still exert control years after your purchase... It's almost like you unwittingly agreed to a rental that was misclassified as a sale. How many times were features removed at a later 'update'? How many features did the device support but didn't make available? How many features were kept because it would keep you from prematurely throwing it away to get the new thing?

Or better yet, with devices that have user-reprogrammable hardware means that the ecological aspect of "obsolete" hardware is that the new feature makes it nearly good as new, all the while keeping it out of the landfills. Sure, stuff going obsolete will still happen... But with repair and upgrades as options means the "Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle" will lead to better outcomes for all. But that's not good for capitalism and profit.

> The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.

And, why is your opinion on what a "computer" is important? What criteria are you using? I ask this because we even have "Doom played on a pregnancy test" https://www.pcmag.com/news/yes-doom-is-playable-on-a-pregnan... . Basically any justification or rubric on what a computer is sure looks to me as artificial and gatekeepy.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#145

Post by ramkumar-kr »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #7
the_common_man wrote: post #2

One of the reasons I never buy apple products. They seem to control everything and cannot support such a company

How do you get around it though? Genuinely asking. I guess you try to source your own parts outside of controlling companies and only work on open source OS's and software run by super transparent groups? It just seems like a ton of work for something that might not even be viable. I don't know how I could possibly operate outside of apple, microsoft, google, etc. all of which have massive ethical issues. To be very…

> How do you get around it though?

In a limited capacity, web apps might help. They won’t be able to cover all cases, but to have a viewer or a remote access/control cases, they are free to use.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#146

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

flohofwoe wrote: post #76
PaulHoule wrote: post #25

When the mac came out in 1984 people had very much the same complaints as it was the first microcomputer to be released without software development tools.

There were hardly any free compiler toolchains outside the UNIX world in the 80's. But it's not the 80's anymore, time has moved on.

I remember C compilers costing $1000 in the 90's, before GNU software compiled with GCC came along to disrupt that nonsense.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#147

Post by [deleted] »

mmastrac wrote: post #89
flohofwoe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSL certificates are not the same thing as code-signing certificates. I'm not aware of any service which hands out free certificates for code-signing (and AFAIK on Apple mobile devices at least, you need to purchase the code-signing certificates from Apple only, via the $99 developer fee).

> SSL certificates are not the same thing as code-signing certificates. The parent post was arguing that they see it as an SSL cert, however. > I'm not aware of any service which hands out free certificates for code-signing. Once you pay the one-time fee, Google does, effectively.

[deleted]

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#148

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> So basically, I pay a yearly fee to get access to their SDK? Most manufactures provide that to you for free because they really want you to build apps for their platform.

That actually used to be the case with Windows. Windows SDK, MSDN, and Visual Studio we’re all paid options with prices greater than $100.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#149

Post by robertlagrant »

JohnFen wrote: post #133
robertlagrant wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a comment on the title of the posting. The title assumes an intention that's possibly incorrect. If intention doesn't matter, then why is it in the title?

I'm not the author, so I don't know. But I would say the title is intended to be provocative and, in terms of what this looks like from the outside, isn't an unreasonable supposition. But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.

I think intention is important, and in many ways more important than the end result, and it's worth highlighting potential mischaracterisation.

If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#150

Post by flohofwoe »

mmastrac wrote: post #89
flohofwoe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSL certificates are not the same thing as code-signing certificates. I'm not aware of any service which hands out free certificates for code-signing (and AFAIK on Apple mobile devices at least, you need to purchase the code-signing certificates from Apple only, via the $99 developer fee).

> SSL certificates are not the same thing as code-signing certificates. The parent post was arguing that they see it as an SSL cert, however. > I'm not aware of any service which hands out free certificates for code-signing. Once you pay the one-time fee, Google does, effectively.

> The parent post was arguing that they see it as an SSL cert, however.

True, I was mis-reading/mis-understanding the parent reply.

Post reply on HN