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

211–220 of 535 posts

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#211

Post by actionfromafar »

KerrAvon wrote: post #177
flohofwoe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 :/

This is slippery-slope fearmongering. In reality, Apple has gone out of its way to ensure that Apple Silicon Macs can boot other operating systems if the user so desires, and can do so without sacrificing security.

I wonder why they do this. But regardless, it's much more interesting how open MacOS is than that some tiny fraction of a fraction of Mac owners may run Linux on their Macs.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#212

Post by orangecat »

KerrAvon wrote: post #177
flohofwoe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 :/

This is slippery-slope fearmongering. In reality, Apple has gone out of its way to ensure that Apple Silicon Macs can boot other operating systems if the user so desires, and can do so without sacrificing security.

This is slippery-slope fearmongering

Apple has publicly said that macOS is unacceptably insecure because users have the option of running unapproved software (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-...). It's not unreasonable to think that they'd be interested in fixing that "problem".

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#213

Post by brewdad »

rektide wrote: post #139
gretch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My philosophy is that Apple can do whatever they want (as long as legal and ethical). They made a thing, and you bought it. Why would anyone with a bent on free computing walk into what they know to be a closed ecosystem. Just buy an Android phone. It’s like flying to a foreign country and expecting everyone to English to you imo…

The excuse that freedom exists because one other market player is not a tyrant skates extremely thin ice. If Android went dark side too, where would we be? This excuse is exhausting, lacks any principles whatsoever; these are general purpose devices, browsing the web & allowing arbitrary apps to be developed & squeezed into the world, if they pass through the tyrant's gauntlet. That one company offers some modicum of…

The market has no interest in your individual freedom. If the citizens don't demand it,there is zero incentive to provide it. Don't try to convince Apple or Google or Microsoft or whomever to not be evil. Convince your fellow persons of the need to demand open devices.

Good luck.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#214

Post by toyg »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #22
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

It sucks because in so many other ways they're the least evil, but somehow I have a harder time tolerating: > You can't do that When the others are all shouting: > Hey do this irrelevant thing

You have a harder time tolerating the first option because the power is taken away from you, whereas in the second it still lies with you.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#215

Post by actionfromafar »

flohofwoe wrote: post #167
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On the Amiga it was a bit better, I bought my first C compiler (DICE-C by Matt Dillon of DragonFly-BSD fame) for something like $99 in the early 90's.

Matt Dillon has done a lot of great stuff, but to me he is somehow still Matt Dillon of DICE-C fame. :-)

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#216

Post by Sargos »

rektide wrote: post #139
gretch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My philosophy is that Apple can do whatever they want (as long as legal and ethical). They made a thing, and you bought it. Why would anyone with a bent on free computing walk into what they know to be a closed ecosystem. Just buy an Android phone. It’s like flying to a foreign country and expecting everyone to English to you imo…

The excuse that freedom exists because one other market player is not a tyrant skates extremely thin ice. If Android went dark side too, where would we be? This excuse is exhausting, lacks any principles whatsoever; these are general purpose devices, browsing the web & allowing arbitrary apps to be developed & squeezed into the world, if they pass through the tyrant's gauntlet. That one company offers some modicum of…

>If Android went dark side too, where would we be?

Android went dark long ago too. All of the open source apps are abandoned and unmaintained replaced by closed source versions. The Play Store takes a 30% cut of things like Apple. Google decides what kind of apps are available on the app store and it closely matches Apple.

Not arguing but rather expanding: You may be thinking "He just ignored sideloading get real" but tell me, are there any porn apps? No there aren't. They have no distribution channel and are banned on 100% of the computing devices people run their lives with which is their phone. "But porn works just fine in the browser" well so does pretty much anything else even on an iPhone so why are we even chatting in this thread? To end users Android sideloading does not exist.

Apple and Google control what types of software humanity gets to use and there are no viable alternatives. Apple has fully embraced 1984 as these recurring threads keep pointing out but Google follows Apple in lock step on nearly every decision. There is no third choice except the increasingly crippled web.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#218

Post by aksss »

PinguTS wrote: post #70

I am fan of the philosophy free for personal use and money for professional use. Because, when I make money of somebody else work, I should give some of that somebody else (what ever 'some' means). That said, there is a lot to consider for companies like Apple in this world. Yes, it is not only Apple that does this. Apple is just apparent as with the iPhone it became so ubiquitous. Apple wants to be known for a clean…

> the [Apple] tool chain is free of charge

I don’t see it that way for iPhones specifically. If I want to build an iPhone app, I’m technically required to have Mac hardware and MacOS, so that’s a pretty hefty cost barrier if I otherwise have no need for that platform. Yes, there are virtualized, rentable, and legally dubious workarounds to this, but on paper the requirement is still there. And it’s entirely a case of vendor lock in, right?

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#219

Post by grishka »

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.

Sideloading should be allowed — that's non-negotiable for me. That's the main reason why I ended up with the configuration I have, a Mac but an Android phone.

Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the relationship between the app developer and the user because they made the iPhone and iOS, when in fact, for most developers, the necessity to publish on the app store isn't the godsend Apple thinks it is. It's an asinine obstacle they have to clear to get their app out to the world. I've seen Apple reject iOS apps for nonsensical reasons on many occasions. For most developers, the discovery aspect of the app store is, in fact, irrelevant. They do their own marketing and user acquisition anyway.

Mac shows this very clearly. There's the same app store, with the same rules, but with one exception: its use is not mandatory. So most developers end up simply ignoring it and doing their own app distribution. In other words, this model doesn't work very well when it's not the only distribution channel and when there's no draconian lockdown on the OS level. The notarization requiring a $100/year account is also optional. So you can, if you wish, distribute a Mac app without any Apple involvement whatsoever.

Post reply on HN