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

81–90 of 535 posts

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#81

Post by rockbruno »

frankus wrote: post #61
rockbruno wrote: post #10

> Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with this idea when it comes to apps that I plan to distribute. I’m using their servers, and their infrastructure to handle updates, reviews, payments, etc. Even when you do plan to distribute it it's hard to justify that it's for a good purpose. The review process is so broken and infuriating that I often find myself thinking that _they_ are the ones who should be paying us to…

Does the new(ish) “unlisted apps” feature allow for apps that aren’t useful to anyone outside a very specific audience?

Yes, but IIRC they still need to go through the regular review process.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#82

Post by ravagat »

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.

+1 people who are largely consumers and not producers don't seem to understand the facets of filtering as a business. A necessary but practically essential part of staying successful as a business

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#83

Post by sneak »

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 bicycle for the share price.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#85

Post by sneak »

taraharris wrote: post #77

I poured a year of my life into an app written in Swift for iOS before I ran into a brick wall trying to figure out how to use Apple's stuff to encode frames into an mp4 video. It's a pretty slick thing that uses low-level APIs like Metal, Core Audio, CFRunLoop, etc. https://github.com/realtaraharris/arezzo I accidentally spilled a latte into my M1 MacBook Pro, which cost me $2000 to buy. At that point I decided to j…

There is an argument that making and publishing free macOS apps is a lot more "contributing to the commons" than writing C++ for Haiku that will be used by 100 people maximum.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#86

Post by flohofwoe »

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.

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).

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#87

Post by mmastrac »

unxdfa wrote: post #84

I’m running two hobby apps and I don’t have a paid developer account. You can sign a limited number of apps without one. There’s a hell of a lot of misinformation in here and the original post.

Don't you have to re-upload the app every week as this article is complaining about?

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#88

Post by sneak »

_boffin_ wrote: post #60
Robotbeat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently Twitter plan to allow limited API access for $8/month? Still kind of silly, but more defensible.

I really don't understand your take. not one iota. To me, it seems that you're complaining about something that was once free, isn't anymore. It's a business and it's their data, electricity, servers, users, etc...

They're not Twitter's users. They are independent publishers publishing their information on the open web, and Twitter is rentseeking.

It'd be the same as a web host prohibiting certain browsers, or trying to block you from publishing RSS.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#89

Post by mmastrac »

flohofwoe wrote: post #86
mmastrac wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Post reply on HN