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

291–300 of 535 posts

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#291

Post by phendrenad2 »

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…

> It's a kind of basic betrayal of the concepts and affordances that underlie the thing itself

The flaw here is you're assuming that true general-purpose computing is free when it is not. You've heard the saying "constraints free, freedom constrains"? It's true. Artists often set artificial limits on themselves (such as only using one color of paint) in order to try to bring forth pure creativity without the added stress of making choices. Or perhaps you've read the classic essay "worse is better"? If not, you should. It's thought-provoking.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#292

Post by bitL »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #168
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…

> What bothers me is that it feels like an offense against the entire notion of a computer is . Yeah, as others are also saying, welcome to the 21st Century where they're not really computers anymore that they're selling. Your mistake is to still believe that they are. I view the phone the way perhaps a ham (ham radio operator) viewed the transistor radio. For those of us where a computer is a tool to build with, a t…

That's why developments like PinePhone are important - just yesterday I played with booting 11 different Linux distros on it. The only limitation is battery life but I guess some backporting from Android should resolve that one as well.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#293

Post by jedberg »

causi wrote: post #288
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…

What bothers me is that it feels like an offense against the entire notion of what a computer is. Yep. One of the most glaring examples of this is the complete extinction of portable backups. Back when I was carrying around a PDA I could plug it in, hit one button, and have a total backup of everything on my device. Plug a blank device in, hit one button, and everything is restored. Today if you want a bulletproof de…

You don't need the internet to backup an iPhone. But you do need a ~Mac~ Computer.

Edit: Mac -> computer

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#294

Post by stakhanov »

ubermonkey wrote: post #267
stakhanov wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The whole article left me feeling a resounding "well, duhhhhhh". The author has simply chosen one of the least hackable compute platforms for his hacking hobby and is then complaining about it (I mean "hacking" in the original sense, not implying anything about illegal activities). If he were a farmer writing angry blog posts about how VW has made it damned-near impossible to plough a field with a VW beetle,…

It's entirely hackable for free if you don't want to use the Apple SDK, though. His complaint is pretty narrow.

But things are certainly moving in this direction, i.e. all forms of unsigned code, sideloading, and so forth being fully banned and devices flat-out refusing to run programs that didn't come from the store and where developers don't have commercial-grade relationships with Apple, with the commensurate amount of money and power being handed over.

Microsoft has been moving in that direction too, leaving the Microsoft store basically a ghost town. -- Maybe games are an exception to this, but even here, Microsoft is a distant second to Steam, who are putting as much of their weight as they practicably can behind Linux.

That's the power of the developer ecosystem. It wasn't users who did this to Microsoft, it was developers.

But, for some reason, developers seem to be unwilling to do to Apple and Google what they did to Microsoft, and I don't get that.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#295

Post by phendrenad2 »

PedroBatista wrote: post #128

The relationship some developers have with Apple should be a case-study with multiple PhD thesis in psychology. Not even in movies I've seen so many cases of children desperately chasing their emotionally unavailable parent. Apple is a trillion dollar company, it's the "parent" who sells you +$40 dongles for everything. "Hobbies" are only good if they make them money AND doesn't increase their risk or any liability.…

> desperately chasing their emotionally unavailable parent

God, could you be any more snide? Please keep your personal vendetta against off of HN.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#296

Post by simonh »

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…

You can program iOS devices to do something new, but there are a few limitations on how that is made available. You can develop full blown iPhone and iPad apps right there on the device on an iPad using Swift Playgrounds. There are numerous third party development environments available that run on the iPhone and iPad, in languages like Python, Lua and Basic, some of which you can even publish to the App Store. I’ve been programming little game in Pythonista for my kids for years. So sure there are some limitations, but also a lot of flexibility. These devices are actually highly programmable.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#297

Post by poulsbohemian »

a4isms wrote: post #97
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…

First, you are right. Jobs himself said that he wanted to go beyond selling computers, and sell information appliances. In that respect, he and Woz were diametrically opposed. When he was squeezed out of management in his own company, it is not a coïncidence that he elbowed his way into Jef Raskin's Macintosh project: Raskin was also interested in building information appliances, the difference between the two men wa…

>But Jobs never lost his vision that Apple should sell appliances, and people who wanted to "wrench their own devices" should buy PCs.

You present an excellent historical case of how Apple got here, but here's where I see a dichotomy: Back in the day, tools like RezEdit, Hypercard, AppleScript came included. There were countless "apps" to reconfigure how the Mac looked and felt to create a personalized experience. Average users had developer-like tools that enabled them to become producers. Even today, things like Swift Playground send a message that Apple wants a technically-enabled user base.

Perhaps this is really an issue like centralized vs decentralized computing, states vs. federal, IE: there will always be a fundamental fight where some people within Apple want a black box appliance, and others want a fully customizable hackable device.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#298

Post by behnamoh »

closeparen wrote: post #280
sublinear wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Nobody sane is arguing for a vulnerable computer. The desire is just less friction and fewer restrictions on what code can be written and executed by the owner on the device. Really this is what virtualization is for, and the only thing keeping mobile operating systems working as they do is that most consumers don't demand the same features as businesses, but in my opinion they shou…

Most malware is executed by the machine's owner in some sense. The level of friction that establishes that the owner knows what's going on and actually intends to execute particular code with particular privileges is not small. It's important that it be surmountable, but it's not small.

> The level of friction that establishes that the owner knows what's going on and actually intends to execute particular code with particular privileges is not small.

That level of friction is $99 :/

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#299

Post by bena »

mmastrac wrote: post #40
bena wrote: post #29

Something smells here. Does he or does he not want to publish to the App Store? And it is kind of weird. Apple only wants signed applications on their devices. They grant a one-week exception for developers because they expect that application to be in constant flux. You should never need more than a week. But you need to sign your code to run it on a more permanent basis. I look at it more like buying an SSL certifi…

> But you need to sign your code to run it on a more permanent basis. I look at it more like buying an SSL certificate. SSL certs are free now.

Just because the cost is baked in somewhere else, it does not mean you are not paying for an SSL certificate.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#300

Post by phendrenad2 »

The logic here if flawed. Here's the key point:

> 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.

This is a classic case of hyper-focusing on the bottom-line cost of something, and ignoring all of the other costs. Windows 11 comes with ads in the search box. Do you see how that's related to XCode costing $99/year? No? It should be obvious.

Post reply on HN