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 at some level, the great glory of this glorious, epochal machine -- the "personal computer" -- is one's ability to program it and make it do something new. It is not just a machine; it's a machine for creating machines.
Take that away, and . . . to what shall I compare it? It's like giving someone a deck of cards and telling them that these cards can only be used to play blackjack. You can't invent a card game, or change the rules, or build a house of cards, or do card magic. Putting such stipulations in place isn't just annoying or inconvenient. It's a kind of basic betrayal of the concepts and affordances that underlie the thing itself.
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 was that Raskin was coming to the notion of an information appliance from the HCI perspective, and wanted to focus on simplicity and low cost. The UX he designed was text-centric and used high-speed incremental search as its navigation paradigm.
Jobs was infatuated with what he'd seen at Xerox Parc, and also wanted to build an information appliance, but he wanted it to be powerful and flexible and centered on the WIMP paradigm.[1]
Jobs was the boss, so Raskin left the project and the company. But Jobs never lost his vision that Apple should sell appliances, and people who wanted to "wrench their own devices" should buy PCs.
>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.
Back in the beginning there was lots of talk of "toasters" as an appliance every household has and even a child can use (to the point there was a famous screensaver of flying toasters).
The Mac 512, Plus, and SE were embodiments of this. (The Apple //c with LCD attachment and carry handle was an earlier attempt.) Note that all of those included portability as a feature, while the all-in-one Macs (not the Apple //c) emphasized usability by non-tech and non-tech job people. Their spiritual successor is the last 3 years of iPad Pro w/ magnetic magic keyboard/stand.
It's pretty clear there's only a relatively short period of time the hobby shop and hackers are "changing the world", while the real shift comes when "everyone" can access and leverage the new tech (like a toaster, or fluoride in water).
---
* There's another subtle difference between "bicycles for the mind" and "a computer on every desk and in every home." One of those is vendor centric, the other is user outcome space.
> Jobs never lost his vision that Apple should sell appliances, and people who wanted to "wrench their own devices" should buy PCs.
And honestly, I don't think information appliances are a bad thing to have in the world. It's not the kind of device I would choose for myself, but there's a class of users for whom a general computing device isn't just overkill, it's downright dangerous.
Android is fine for my use case, and while there are specific policies I wish Apple would change, I don't begrudge them the philosophy.
> offence against the entire notion of what a computer is
YES! I feel offended in Apple's ecosystem. Consistently.
When I can't upgrade, can’t even fix my own overpriced laptop because of soldered parts.
When I can't copy MY photos out of MY device, without uploading it to Apple's cloud.
When I can't buy OEM parts for older Apple devices because Apple put a noose around independent suppliers.
When (like the OP found) I can’t run MY CODE on MY DEVICE without notarizing and authorizing.
There's a much longer tail of issues I can fix and address myself.
These are fundamental, They eclipse all other (hard) things Apple deserves credit for like hardware quality and performance and integration with other Apple products. Despite their price gouging.
I am myself pulling away from Apple. I do not buy them any more. Don’t recommend Apple to any makers and hackers. The only persona I see happy using Apple laptops are ones who don't care about these. Those that got them handed down from work. They don’t tinker with them. They use them like appliances.
> 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 thing to tinker with, these new pocket devices are not for us. Too bad.
I've moved completely away from developing for "mobile". It's more of an afterthought for me at this point — "Hmmm, would this also make sense to port to mobile?" My thinking these days defaults to developing for the desktop and the web.
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.
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 device backup you have to pay Apple for the privilege, and even then you're completely crippled by your upload and download bandwidth. It takes a long damn time to back up 512GB of data at 10mb/s upstream. Nearly five straight days, in fact.
Yup, they are not "appliances", they are worse than that. My toaster doesn't care or complain at what I toast, my oven doesn't want $99 pizza baking license nor it doesn't want me to pay extra just because I cooked something for someone else in it.
A "personal computer" is a computer a person owns and controls. IMHO.
"Phones" can be beautiful appliances. We can admire them for many reasons. But calling them "personal computers" is a stretch, and honestly AFAICT no one does. FWIW, people refer to "phones" by other terms, such as "device". Mobile phones today contain computers, but that is about as far as we can make the comparison to the personal computer.
Arguably every new appliance does or will eventually contain a computer. That hardly means its owner will be able to control it. Good news is it's still possible to build a PC from parts and there are more small form factor development boards than ever before.
Apple reminds me of the diamond industry. How does it manage to charge such amounts of money for something that is so readily available. It sells people a story. De Beers is apparently now entering into the synthetic diamond businesss. Apple's next move should be similarly amusing.
An analogy to a deck of cards would have to include a means by which the company that makes the boxes for the playing cards collects data on how people use them, where the people travel with the cards, and so on, sending it to the box maker outside of the card owner's awareness because there is no longterm business viability for selling boxes to playing card companies, so the box maker becomes a front for a surveillance and advertising company.
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.
How does letting people freely sideload apps conflict with this philosophy? You can still use your iPad as the world's most expensive e-reader if you want, letting other people run Linux on it doesn't somehow ruin your experience.
> 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.
The problem is the computer has changed, it’s not a computer, it’s a node in a ubiquitous global network. 2003 and 2023 are very different and we’re feeling the negative impacts of global connectivity.
Look at the trackers like AirTag. A gadget to find your keys is incredibly useful, but can also turn into a device to aid criminal activity pretty readily.
any tool can be used for good or evil. To stop people from doing bad things we need to focus on correcting people's behaviors not on crippling our tools.
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.
I grew up at a time when a computer was a thing that any website you accidentally clicked on could totally and permanently hijack. I don't miss it. One-click zero-friction execution of arbitrary code with the full privileges of your user account was a bad and wrong design. Malware scanning, signatures, and heuristics were a hilariously inadequate answer to the risks. One of the best things that's ever happened in computing is moving beyond all this.
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 should.
let not be naive in saying that its still not possible. It is but a lot less. Companies have been getting better at bug bounties, education, and in general people working more with the technology
Those are the same concerns I hear from my grandma.
Fortunately systems are designed for multi users, with sandboxes and access controls and heuristics now, and it's less of a problem for most people.
Our ability to sideload apps, or install pwa that are full featured doesn't need to affect your safe little bubble of protection. You'll be ok, I promise.
Couple this with the apples current and incoming payment/banking/loan apps and you have some seriously malicious we will control what you do and trap you in a debt cycle business tactics. The companies gross and arguably malicious in its business tactics.
Don't even start me on the symbolism of their anti workers rights bs.
I'm there too. My first computer started with a beep and a BASIC prompt. That's still my standard. I can forgive my phone because the screen is too small to type on, but still, I can program my phone in JavaScript if I want.
iOS devices are not "real" computers. They're more comparable to game consoles or TV set top boxes. They're special purpose computing devices that can only run approved software.
Apple does sell real computers under the Mac line.
> iOS devices are not "real" computers. They're more comparable to game consoles or TV set top boxes. They're special purpose computing devices that can only run approved software.
You can use this argument to justify anything companies want to lock down.
iOS devices are running a derivative of straight up macOS that your MacBook is running too. As computers, they are as real as any.
The "only run approved software" part is a restriction imposed by Apple. It is not because of a physical limitation that makes them not real computers.
This is, in a way, both a statement of fact as well as sarcastic. There is a whole range of computer systems, from very open, general purpose, to closed. Apple thinks phones are closed special purpose systems, but like the OP, many of us don’t.
A more common and descriptive term for this is "general purpose computer", (as distinct from "special purpose computers", e.g. rokus, ATMs, and iphones).
> 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.
>> It's like giving someone a deck of cards and telling them that these cards can only be used to play blackjack. You can't invent a card game, or change the rules, or build a house of cards, or do card magic.
Millions of people buy cards that can only be used to specifically only play, say; 'Magic: the Gathering' (MtG).
You could probably invent some sort of new game with MtG cards, or do some sort of card magic with them (no pun intended); but MtG cards are very intentionally not designed to be 'general purpose' cards or tools to design new card games with. They have a very specific audience in mind.
Magic the Gathering cards are also much more expensive than a regular deck of playing cards I can grab from my local dollar store. They have a lot less utility than said cards I can acquire for a $1.15CDN, taxes in; and they also have a bit of a stigma from people who seem to not like MtG for various reasons.
Somehow, still; it's one of the largest and most widely played card or tabletop games in the world; easily - and it's got an enthusiastic community of passionate and fascinating people.
Is Magic: the Gathering ruining card games? It is 'an offence against the entire notion of' what card games are?
Fuck no. Apple isn't some offence to the notion of computers, either.
Maybe it's not to your taste, but just because a product is designed for a specific set of purposes or utilities that don't suit your preference doesn't mean you have to jump to the dramatic conclusion that these products are 'ruining' the entire notion of what a product is. It's just a different product. Get over it, and use a different one. Take a valium and realize people like and use different things, and that's okay.
On a side note, I develop hobbyist apps for WatchOS, iOS, MacOS, the web; and SEGA Saturn, all on my Mac; and I've never had any issues actually achieving the results I wanted.
> It is 'an offence against the entire notion of' what card games are?
It would be if a WOTC employee came to my table every time I tried playing, personally overseeing every turn of the game to ensure that I didn't break the rules, engage in unsportsmanlike conduct, use my imagination, taunt my opponent or profit unfairly with their platform.
> Millions of people buy cards that can only be used to specifically only play, say; 'Magic: the Gathering' (MtG).
I love that example, since I have thousands of Magic The Gathering cards, but I have never played the game ever. The cards are very useful and I don't care what game they are meant for. Like many others I use Magic cards for print'n'play card games. Print out cards on regular paper, cut out, and put in sleeves with a cheap Magic card behind as backing.
The above link is nowhere near close to exhaustive. Many of the formats on it were made up by fans, and then eventually made quasi "official" once a popularity threshold was reached, like Commander.
In fact, the entire premise, from the get-go of Magic: The Gathering was incredibly flexible modularity. Every time you change your deck, you're 'changing the rules' of the game. It's Turing complete, and people have made some really wacky stuff with MTG cards.
And, there's no small amount of proxying going on. Many, if not most Commander players allow a few proxy cards. High level tournament preparation involves 100% proxies. Online platforms allow you to play with any card in Magic's history for free, if you're willing to don the pirate hat; and if not, you can play MTGO or Arena.
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.
I've seen this developer-Apple dynamic at least since the late 90s. "Daddy Apple" was more available back then, but it's wasn't like it cater that much to the hobbyist-developer community ( unless we see the past with rose-colored glasses ).
The App Store is a multi-billion dollar business, like a moderately high-end mall, there is no place for hobbies in that world.
I hope for a time when developers understand this and stop feeding Apple execs for free. Ironically that would be the day Apple would be "nicer" to them.
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 wouldn't be any more absurd.
The simple truth of the matter is that Linux and other open source OSes are the only compute platforms that can still meaningfully be thought of as providing "general purpose computing". ...maybe the JVM does, too, but that's more like a general purpose computing sandbox within appliances that's under heavy guard and for some reason tolerated by appliance makers.
Why shouldn’t he complain about it though? If nobody complains there’s no chance things will change. Sure people could vote with their feet, but not everyone is willing to do that. They should still be allowed to ask for improvements.
It’s not just Apple. The same dynamic plays out with most other hyped technologies. Apple’s fans may demonstrate this behavior most clearly, but cults of sycophants exist for many different companies: Microsoft, Tesla, Google, … this list never ends.
> Apple’s fans may demonstrate this behavior most clearly
I think that changed years ago. The iPhone made Apple very mainstream, which dilutes the fanboy effect considerably.
Tesla fans are much, much worse at this point. I say that as a two-time (and current) Tesla owner who is decidedly not a Tesla fanboy (and in fact going the opposite direction a little more every day).
> this list never ends
The list is different for everyone. Everyone thinks their own choices are the only rational ones.
Agree, Apple is the poster child, Tesla a close second because it targets most of the same people and markets.
I still remember when Satya Nadella went "all-in" with Linux and Open Source, the whole "running Linux on Windows", etc. Many people went nuts and in a matter of months Microsoft was the hot new "hip" company. Which anyone looking into Microsoft's business for 5min would laugh at all that non-sense. Just an example: MS makes around 2 billion dollars every year in software patents/royalties, and the list of Microsoft being Microsoft goes on.
My point is: This behavior is something more to do with the people than the companies themselves, they mostly cater and exploit it.
Do you realize how smug and condescending this comment is? As if everyone who happens to disagree with you is psychology broken and utterly stupid?
Let me give you another perspective as an apple user - I don't think about Apple at all.
I have a glass brick that sends 20 - 30 text message a day and a couple times I'll use GPS to go to a new restaurant. Sometimes I'll do crossword puzzles. This brick happens to do it best.
I agree, but... in my experience Android and Android devices suck in comparison to iOS and iPhones. Why can't anyone else create a true competitor to iOS and iPhone that is as open as Android? Is it because of Apple patents? Is it because they assume that if a company as large as Google couldn't do it then nobody can do it? Is it just developers are such a small part of the general populace that there is no money in creating something that will most appeal to them? That is, apple devices already have the mindshare of people who have no interest in creating their own apps and Android already has the rest of the populace, who can't afford apple products, tied up? So, creating a phone that is open while being as nice as iOS/iPhone just isn't a profitable endeavor?
> in my experience Android and Android devices suck in comparison to iOS and iPhones.
I wonder how much of this is "the thing I'm used to is the best thing?" every time I hear this sort of comparison (regardless of which type of machine the commenter thinks is "best".)
The thing that makes me wonder is because my experience is the opposite of yours -- I think Android is much superior to iOS. But I suspect much of my opinion is because I'm much more used to Android than iOS.
> Why can't anyone else create a true competitor to iOS and iPhone that is as open as Android?
Nokia tried in 2009/10 with the N900 running a Linux-based OS. It flopped, partially because Nokia was about to jettison their entire software stack to shack up with Windows Phone OS. But also partially because it came way too early, at a time when Apple and Google were spending millions to tell consumers that smartphones without app stores were useless and dangerous.
> Why can't anyone else create a true competitor to iOS and iPhone that is as open as Android?
What is it about Android and Android devices that sucks? Does this apply to all Android devices? For example Samsung and Pixel phones get regular updates but the others don't.
Yes, Great analogy. Remember the 2017 "Apple Commits to Pro Users" exercise? They flew reporters out for a boondoggle, gave them a tour of 'secret labs. With fresh competitive hardware coming 'real soon now'. Just spin.
It would be easier for me to leave Apple if only their hardware wasn't so damn nice. I am so spoiled by these M1 (and now M2) Airs, they are the best machine I've ever bought and I've had quite a few! They do make incredible hardware, even if the dongles can be expensive, unfortunately.
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.
The casual use of the word "sideloading" is dangerous to society. It is literal newspeak with the intent to eliminate even the idea of "installing" and make it so people cannot even think of applications outside of a corporation (or institution's) walled garden.
Users installing applications is the default. Walled gardens are the weird dangerous thing.
Even the concept of 'installing' is rapidly disappearing. Most smartphone users aren't installing new apps or downloading music files. Most computer users don't install anything besides Microsoft Office, and in a lot of cases, it comes pre-installed and only requires activation.
Video games seem to be an outlier, as the enormous size of most games means it can't be streamed well just yet.
The difference is that not being able to develop hobby apps is a side effect of that policy, not that the policy's main aim is to prevent hobby apps from being developed.
Trash apps according to whom? Apple considers all browsers that don't use WebKit as "trash" as well as other entire categories.
Apparently the nanny state is repugnant to many, but nanny corporations that don't trust us to make our own choices, or have our own tastes and standards, is much more acceptable. The huge loss of customer freedom doesn't actually achieve the exclusion of "trash" apps nor malware.
Almost everything associated with the iPhone is a casualty of "We need to collect our 15-30%".
They apparently strive for a superior user experience, and then go about destroying the customer experience of what they seem to consider is their phones.
Yes, Apple wants their piece and I for one would like to see it at least reduced. I would also love to see an option to opt-in to at least sideloading personally built apps.
That being said, what customer are you referring to when you talk about "destroying the customer experience." Hundreds of millions of users express very high customer satisfaction with the experience. The vast number of users have no interest in sideloading and they love the simplicity of the app store. Apple is bringing in about 85% of the smartphone market profits and they have huge repeat purchase numbers. That is not because those billion users are unsatisfied or feel the experience has been "destroyed." The numbers are just too overwhelming.
Many HN readers are not the target market if openness is of paramount importance to them. It is hard to avoid, but we need to try and avoiding generalizing our preferences to the broader definition of "customer."
+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
The latest saga with Twitter's API going paid is a whole other can of worm, but APIs everywhere have been closing down and becoming more restricted in the past few years.
I guess the bot and scam usage of APIs cause more headache for companies than the hobby usage benefit they get.
I’m not defending this, but after 15 years, I don’t see the point in complaining. We complain (rightfully) about the amount of crap in the App Store and Apple's capricious review policies that don’t stop the scammers, but for better or worse, the $99 fee IS a barrier to entry that I would argue has made the iOS ecosystem better than Android.
I’ve been paying $99 a year for early access to iOS betas and for my own test apps since the program debuted in 2008. I’ve never published an app in the App Store under my own account. But if I’m honest, I do feel I’ve gotten value out of that $1500 or whatever.
If it isn’t worth $100 a year to you, that’s fine. Plenty of people will sell you a slot on their account for less and give you a signing key. Or you can choose not to play. But it seems silly to bitch about something that has literally been the status quo since the inception of the App Store back in March 2008, when the iPhone SDK was released.
I should also note that the $99 in 2008 was significantly less than Apple used to charge for student access for Apple Developer Accounts for Mac before that. (Although those gave you nice Apple hardware discounts).
I wrote an Android app for my little programming news aggregator, and published that on the Play Store because it was basically free (IIRC there might be a one-time signup fee). $99/yr is a ridiculous sum for the "privilege" of publishing in Apple's walled garden, and it's just not something I'm willing to do.
The arguments for paying for review, distribution, advertising, search, etc feel so disingenuous when the company is worth so much money and these apps are contributing to its bottom line.
I really hope that the EU is the one that finally breaks down this annoying wall. I might consider using an iOS device at that point, but absolutely and definitely not before that.
I don't know where Apple went wrong -- third-party software made them as big as they are today, and they decided to turn on developers at some point and make them jump through hoops for nebulous "reasons". And yet the app store is still just filled with so many low-quality apps, scams and the like. They just look semi-pretty on launch and don't crash within the first minute or so.
Are they, though? If you don't have the $99 for a dev account, you don't have a marketing budget either, so your app won't make money, so Apple doesn't care.
I think the best argument to be made for catering to hobbyists is to attract new developers to the platform, but I doubt Apple cares about that any more. Apple wants developers who care about making money. Developers who care about making money will come to Apple because of how much Apple users spend on apps.
> $99/yr is a ridiculous sum for the "privilege" of publishing in Apple's walled garden
It’s a token amount, just enough to prevent spammers from creating thousands of accounts. It’s $99 for your entire organization for a year. Go check what Microsoft charges for a Visual Studio license per seat, per year.
$99 doesn’t even buy you 1 hour of a developer’s time. Even if you develop apps a a hobby, this is not a large amount of money. Few hobbies are a cheap as this.
> It’s $99 for your entire organization for a year.
This seems reasonable when you look from the point of view of a corporation. But hobbyists are single individuals, not corporations. So this basically makes development a privilege for corporations or for people in the first world for whom $99 is nothing.
> Even if you develop apps a a hobby, this is not a large amount of money. Few hobbies are a cheap as this.
Let me guess, you’re from a 1st world country and probably make 6 figures a year (pre tax), likely working in FAANG?
As a guy in a 3rd world country, $99 is a hell lot of money. Your comment comes across as quite tone deaf. If you grew up middle-upper class and relatively sheltered that’s not necessarily your fault, but trust me in many parts of the world $99 is worth much more converted.
Visual Studio Community Edition is free and quite capable for the individual hobby developer, same with VSC. Compared to developing for iPhone, which requires me to still have macOS (and legally Mac hardware) at my disposal somewhere to even get the app built completely, right? That would be the proper comparison between their approach to enabling developers on the tooling side, not the App Store fee. What’s the barrier to entry for the Windows App Store? I think it’s like $25 bucks and $99 for an org, or something very similar.
Obviously the glaring difference is that you can side load apps on Windows without using the app store at all. The day that becomes a serious barrier is definitely a line too far in the history of computing. But Apple has always been a very closed off ecosystem - going back to the nineties they were never very friendly to developers or third party hardware. To me this is just Apple doing Apple - their phone, IMO, is still miles ahead of anything else, though.
They "went wrong" to the tune of being a 2.4-trillion dollar company. If that's what going wrong looks like, I'd love to know what going right looks like. $100/yr may be too much for you, but there seems to be plenty of crap in their app store so it could be argued that it should be higher.
>> The arguments for paying for review, distribution, advertising, search, etc feel so disingenuous when the company is worth so much money and these apps are contributing to its bottom line.
No, they are not. We are talking about hobby apps and maybe free ones. Those don't contribute to their bottom line.
We might say they contribute to the platform. For hobbyist they make it viable. But for paying customers maybe they add a lot of low value junk to the store. If a developer doesn't feel their app is worth a few dollars, maybe it's not worth having on there at all.
This is the same disingenuous argument. The $99/year isn't preventing junk from showing up on the AppStore, and a lack of $99/year payments doesn't make the Google Play store a dumpster fire of garbage apps. [1]
The AppStore is currently filled with low-value junk published by people paying $99/year (1.8 million apps out there, of which most outside of the top X lists are terrible). Will hobby apps really decrease the average quality? I highly doubt it.
[1] I'll admit that this appeared to be the trend early on, but in the long term both platforms have converged to something similar.
> That they hurt developers that got them there in the first place? Who cares.
I mean this fee has been there since forever no? Early on not even the iOS updates were free. You can argue about the merits of the fee but don't frame it as some recent change that disparages early adopters.
I'm not an apple fan. Most of my personal devices run Linux, but I feel essentially trapped on an iPhone. It doesn't seem like there's a truly useful open phone out there. I don't like Apple, and I don't trust them or their ostensibly pro-privacy stance much, but I want as little privacy invasion and as little advertising as possible on my phone, and I think as bad as Apple is, they're still better than a fully Googled version of Android. Unfortunately, a lot of people, myself included, need at least some apps that require either an iPhone or a fully Googled version of android.
I suppose there's always the option to dual-wield and use a Linux or de-googled android phone for daily use and keep a second device around for the apps that won't run there, but that is both a pain I don't expect many people to buy into. I'm just about at the point of going this route for myself, but it does feel more like admitting defeat than anything else.
The solution is a de-Googled Android running an AOSP-derived distribution with an enclave (or 'second space' or 'multiple personalities') for those few Google or Google-dependent apps. You can either use one of the second space/enclave/container apps to create such an enclave or you can enable and disable the apps before and after each use (which is what I do). It is always worth trying those apps on a Google-free device since many of them work fine without having any Google services installed even though the complain loudly about GSF needing to be installed for them to work correctly - the Swedish BankID tool is one of the latter, it always produces a popup telling me it won't work without Google Services but does its job once that popup is dismissed.
Eventually there may be a non-Android 100% free software alternative but as it stands now the above solution works fine and keeps the data vampires from your door.
My question, building on that one, is: Can there be a true alternative?
This is a genuine question, not an attempt to paint Apple as the be-all and end-all or a paragon of perfection (for all that I'm an unapologetic Apple fan, I recognize that they have serious faults).
I think there is a strong case to be made that the limitations Apple has placed on the iPhone are instrumental in guaranteeing the privacy and (relative) freedom from crap that makes it as good as it is. There is also a strong case to be made that it should be possible to create a phone (or computer) with nontrivial privacy safeguards, but without the specific limitations Apple imposes.
I lean somewhat toward the former camp, as I believe that in a space like smartphone apps, bad actors are both willing and able to do whatever is necessary to make their unethical money, whether that's with extra ads, crapware apps, or just actual malware, scams, and theft. But I would genuinely love to be proven wrong, and I hope that there comes a day when we have a meaningful competition in the space without sacrificing our collective ability to use our phones without fear.
From a technical perspective, of course it is possible to give users control of the trust on the devices they ostensibly own, rather than giant megacorps, and I remain extremely unconvinced that this leads to a meaningful loss of security or privacy for those users. From a socioeconomic perspective, it's a much bigger question; the allure for those megacorps is far too strong and the economics of the industry makes it hard for society to wrest power from them, and for some reason people seem mostly okay with this status quo.
It seems to me that it's inevitable that if we let these megacorps control our devices, they will use it against us in one way or another. The only way for us as users to actually have freedom, security, and privacy is if we can control what entities the device trusts ourselves. We must create choice where the corps would rather we have none.
I will also point out that I consider Apple's rent seeking and censorship, that is more or less literally impossible to avoid, to be unethical use of this power they wield over users, and a pretty clear and meaningful way that users are harmed by it. In very concrete ways it can be considered more harmful than malware. But few seem to care enough to ask for control of their devices back, and in many of these threads more seem willing to jump to the defence of these practices than see them as a problem.
This is what I'll be doing. There are no smartphones on the market that I feel comfortable with trusting, even a little, so I'll be shifting to using a dumbphone instead, and also carrying a real, honest-to-goodness pocket computer that doesn't have a cell phone attached to it.
The phone will be used for exchanging calls and texts. The computer for everything else.
> dual-wield and use a Linux or de-googled android phone for daily use and keep a second device around for the apps that won't run there
I was thinking about this but what happens with on-the-spot payments? This seems like a functionality that's really convenient (not having to carry a bank card) but that would be on the official device, not the daily use device due to security issues. But paying for stuff in person is a daily use activity.
> 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 go through the stress of trying to publish an update to an app.
The review process is completely random. One day they accept your app completely, the other day your "iPad screenshot is a strechted iPhone image" or something. Its just frustrating.
It does seem random - I have submitted apps multiple times, and provided demo credentials for them to use (the app is gated, so you can't do anything without an account and logging in first).
In 80% of the cases they never even logged into the app before giving us the OK (all logins and actions are logged, so it is easy to tell)
I have a pet theory that the reviewers have some quota of rejection that they must meet, so they're encouraged to reject apps for bullshit reasons.
About 20% of the updates to my app get rejected for no reason other than that the reviewer clearly didn't bother reading the attached review instructions. I have a hard time thinking that _all_ of them are this stupid, so nowadays I started thinking they do this on purpose.
They should be paying developers, yes, but not for the pain of going through review but instead for the simple fact that an iphone without any app developers is almost completely worthless. Apps make their platform more valuable.
> an iphone without any app developers is almost completely worthless
The iphone has plenty of app developers even if there isn't a single third party app anywhere. Those app developers just work for Apple instead of a third party. I don't think Apple cares about having a thriving third party app ecosystem.
From what I've seen, a lot of startup are Mac-only - with the local dev stack and built system being built specifically for OSX. It's only a matter of time before vendor lock-in become so strong that companies would pay another four-figure a year fee to unlock development on OSX.
I do doubt it. Apple has specifically been removing language runtime environments but doesn’t stop you from installing them. And as far as I know they’re on good terms with (at least) Homebrew. Stopping you from running Python—which they ship to /usr/bin/python3 as part of the free Developer Tools—would have consequences on your other binaries.
I was positively surprised when Shortcuts for macOS shipped with specific support for AppleScript and other language runtime environments. I was convinced they would just not do it as the feature is not available on Shortcuts for iOS and that they’d use that as a way to add another nail in AppleScript’s coffin. The fact they did ship the feature commits them to support it. Maybe not forever, but removing it would require a non-immediate deprecation.
Readit News
I am, of course, aware that many (perhaps most) computers in the world are effectively appliances, but at some level, the great glory of this glorious, epochal machine -- the "personal computer" -- is one's ability to program it and make it do something new. It is not just a machine; it's a machine for creating machines.
Take that away, and . . . to what shall I compare it? It's like giving someone a deck of cards and telling them that these cards can only be used to play blackjack. You can't invent a card game, or change the rules, or build a house of cards, or do card magic. Putting such stipulations in place isn't just annoying or inconvenient. It's a kind of basic betrayal of the concepts and affordances that underlie the thing itself.
[edit: grammar]
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 was that Raskin was coming to the notion of an information appliance from the HCI perspective, and wanted to focus on simplicity and low cost. The UX he designed was text-centric and used high-speed incremental search as its navigation paradigm.
Jobs was infatuated with what he'd seen at Xerox Parc, and also wanted to build an information appliance, but he wanted it to be powerful and flexible and centered on the WIMP paradigm.[1]
Jobs was the boss, so Raskin left the project and the company. But Jobs never lost his vision that Apple should sell appliances, and people who wanted to "wrench their own devices" should buy PCs.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)
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.
Back in the beginning there was lots of talk of "toasters" as an appliance every household has and even a child can use (to the point there was a famous screensaver of flying toasters).
The Mac 512, Plus, and SE were embodiments of this. (The Apple //c with LCD attachment and carry handle was an earlier attempt.) Note that all of those included portability as a feature, while the all-in-one Macs (not the Apple //c) emphasized usability by non-tech and non-tech job people. Their spiritual successor is the last 3 years of iPad Pro w/ magnetic magic keyboard/stand.
It's pretty clear there's only a relatively short period of time the hobby shop and hackers are "changing the world", while the real shift comes when "everyone" can access and leverage the new tech (like a toaster, or fluoride in water).
---
* There's another subtle difference between "bicycles for the mind" and "a computer on every desk and in every home." One of those is vendor centric, the other is user outcome space.
And honestly, I don't think information appliances are a bad thing to have in the world. It's not the kind of device I would choose for myself, but there's a class of users for whom a general computing device isn't just overkill, it's downright dangerous.
Android is fine for my use case, and while there are specific policies I wish Apple would change, I don't begrudge them the philosophy.
That sounds exactly like emacs with company-mode or ido-mode.
YES! I feel offended in Apple's ecosystem. Consistently.
When I can't upgrade, can’t even fix my own overpriced laptop because of soldered parts.
When I can't copy MY photos out of MY device, without uploading it to Apple's cloud.
When I can't buy OEM parts for older Apple devices because Apple put a noose around independent suppliers.
When (like the OP found) I can’t run MY CODE on MY DEVICE without notarizing and authorizing.
There's a much longer tail of issues I can fix and address myself.
These are fundamental, They eclipse all other (hard) things Apple deserves credit for like hardware quality and performance and integration with other Apple products. Despite their price gouging.
I am myself pulling away from Apple. I do not buy them any more. Don’t recommend Apple to any makers and hackers. The only persona I see happy using Apple laptops are ones who don't care about these. Those that got them handed down from work. They don’t tinker with them. They use them like appliances.
They don’t have my problems. I do.
Wait, what? (Not an Apple user - genuinely curious)
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 thing to tinker with, these new pocket devices are not for us. Too bad.
I've moved completely away from developing for "mobile". It's more of an afterthought for me at this point — "Hmmm, would this also make sense to port to mobile?" My thinking these days defaults to developing for the desktop and the web.
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 device backup you have to pay Apple for the privilege, and even then you're completely crippled by your upload and download bandwidth. It takes a long damn time to back up 512GB of data at 10mb/s upstream. Nearly five straight days, in fact.
Edit: Mac -> computer
Let me guess, Xfinity?
"Phones" can be beautiful appliances. We can admire them for many reasons. But calling them "personal computers" is a stretch, and honestly AFAICT no one does. FWIW, people refer to "phones" by other terms, such as "device". Mobile phones today contain computers, but that is about as far as we can make the comparison to the personal computer.
Arguably every new appliance does or will eventually contain a computer. That hardly means its owner will be able to control it. Good news is it's still possible to build a PC from parts and there are more small form factor development boards than ever before.
Apple reminds me of the diamond industry. How does it manage to charge such amounts of money for something that is so readily available. It sells people a story. De Beers is apparently now entering into the synthetic diamond businesss. Apple's next move should be similarly amusing.
An analogy to a deck of cards would have to include a means by which the company that makes the boxes for the playing cards collects data on how people use them, where the people travel with the cards, and so on, sending it to the box maker outside of the card owner's awareness because there is no longterm business viability for selling boxes to playing card companies, so the box maker becomes a front for a surveillance and advertising company.
The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. 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 :/
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.
Look at the trackers like AirTag. A gadget to find your keys is incredibly useful, but can also turn into a device to aid criminal activity pretty readily.
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 should.
Fortunately systems are designed for multi users, with sandboxes and access controls and heuristics now, and it's less of a problem for most people.
Our ability to sideload apps, or install pwa that are full featured doesn't need to affect your safe little bubble of protection. You'll be ok, I promise.
Don't even start me on the symbolism of their anti workers rights bs.
You said it better than I could.
The irony of this being Apple today. What would be the computer industry even be if the Apple ][ had existed under this twisted restrictive mindset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cookie_Monster_(novella)
Apple does sell real computers under the Mac line.
You can use this argument to justify anything companies want to lock down.
The "only run approved software" part is a restriction imposed by Apple. It is not because of a physical limitation that makes them not real computers.
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.
Millions of people buy cards that can only be used to specifically only play, say; 'Magic: the Gathering' (MtG).
You could probably invent some sort of new game with MtG cards, or do some sort of card magic with them (no pun intended); but MtG cards are very intentionally not designed to be 'general purpose' cards or tools to design new card games with. They have a very specific audience in mind.
Magic the Gathering cards are also much more expensive than a regular deck of playing cards I can grab from my local dollar store. They have a lot less utility than said cards I can acquire for a $1.15CDN, taxes in; and they also have a bit of a stigma from people who seem to not like MtG for various reasons.
Somehow, still; it's one of the largest and most widely played card or tabletop games in the world; easily - and it's got an enthusiastic community of passionate and fascinating people.
Is Magic: the Gathering ruining card games? It is 'an offence against the entire notion of' what card games are?
Fuck no. Apple isn't some offence to the notion of computers, either.
Maybe it's not to your taste, but just because a product is designed for a specific set of purposes or utilities that don't suit your preference doesn't mean you have to jump to the dramatic conclusion that these products are 'ruining' the entire notion of what a product is. It's just a different product. Get over it, and use a different one. Take a valium and realize people like and use different things, and that's okay.
On a side note, I develop hobbyist apps for WatchOS, iOS, MacOS, the web; and SEGA Saturn, all on my Mac; and I've never had any issues actually achieving the results I wanted.
It would be if a WOTC employee came to my table every time I tried playing, personally overseeing every turn of the game to ensure that I didn't break the rules, engage in unsportsmanlike conduct, use my imagination, taunt my opponent or profit unfairly with their platform.
And people did, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_Commander, which is now the most popular MtG format. So yes, even in this case the freedom to explore and experiment is good.
I love that example, since I have thousands of Magic The Gathering cards, but I have never played the game ever. The cards are very useful and I don't care what game they are meant for. Like many others I use Magic cards for print'n'play card games. Print out cards on regular paper, cut out, and put in sleeves with a cheap Magic card behind as backing.
The above link is nowhere near close to exhaustive. Many of the formats on it were made up by fans, and then eventually made quasi "official" once a popularity threshold was reached, like Commander.
In fact, the entire premise, from the get-go of Magic: The Gathering was incredibly flexible modularity. Every time you change your deck, you're 'changing the rules' of the game. It's Turing complete, and people have made some really wacky stuff with MTG cards.
And, there's no small amount of proxying going on. Many, if not most Commander players allow a few proxy cards. High level tournament preparation involves 100% proxies. Online platforms allow you to play with any card in Magic's history for free, if you're willing to don the pirate hat; and if not, you can play MTGO or Arena.
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.
I've seen this developer-Apple dynamic at least since the late 90s. "Daddy Apple" was more available back then, but it's wasn't like it cater that much to the hobbyist-developer community ( unless we see the past with rose-colored glasses ).
The App Store is a multi-billion dollar business, like a moderately high-end mall, there is no place for hobbies in that world.
I hope for a time when developers understand this and stop feeding Apple execs for free. Ironically that would be the day Apple would be "nicer" to them.
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 wouldn't be any more absurd.
The simple truth of the matter is that Linux and other open source OSes are the only compute platforms that can still meaningfully be thought of as providing "general purpose computing". ...maybe the JVM does, too, but that's more like a general purpose computing sandbox within appliances that's under heavy guard and for some reason tolerated by appliance makers.
...have zero presence on mobile
...don't spend a cent on marketing to developers, so the awareness isn't there
I think that changed years ago. The iPhone made Apple very mainstream, which dilutes the fanboy effect considerably.
Tesla fans are much, much worse at this point. I say that as a two-time (and current) Tesla owner who is decidedly not a Tesla fanboy (and in fact going the opposite direction a little more every day).
> this list never ends
The list is different for everyone. Everyone thinks their own choices are the only rational ones.
I still remember when Satya Nadella went "all-in" with Linux and Open Source, the whole "running Linux on Windows", etc. Many people went nuts and in a matter of months Microsoft was the hot new "hip" company. Which anyone looking into Microsoft's business for 5min would laugh at all that non-sense. Just an example: MS makes around 2 billion dollars every year in software patents/royalties, and the list of Microsoft being Microsoft goes on.
My point is: This behavior is something more to do with the people than the companies themselves, they mostly cater and exploit it.
I think people like yourself should be more thoughtful more about why these products are so popular.
Instead of reducing these people who may simply like their products to being cult members who can't make educated, independent choices.
Let me give you another perspective as an apple user - I don't think about Apple at all.
I have a glass brick that sends 20 - 30 text message a day and a couple times I'll use GPS to go to a new restaurant. Sometimes I'll do crossword puzzles. This brick happens to do it best.
I don't think about Apple.
I wonder how much of this is "the thing I'm used to is the best thing?" every time I hear this sort of comparison (regardless of which type of machine the commenter thinks is "best".)
The thing that makes me wonder is because my experience is the opposite of yours -- I think Android is much superior to iOS. But I suspect much of my opinion is because I'm much more used to Android than iOS.
Nokia tried in 2009/10 with the N900 running a Linux-based OS. It flopped, partially because Nokia was about to jettison their entire software stack to shack up with Windows Phone OS. But also partially because it came way too early, at a time when Apple and Google were spending millions to tell consumers that smartphones without app stores were useless and dangerous.
What is it about Android and Android devices that sucks? Does this apply to all Android devices? For example Samsung and Pixel phones get regular updates but the others don't.
God, could you be any more snide? Please keep your personal vendetta against <whatever MacOS user harmed you> off of HN.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_liveshttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/apple-sa...
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.
Users installing applications is the default. Walled gardens are the weird dangerous thing.
Video games seem to be an outlier, as the enormous size of most games means it can't be streamed well just yet.
Downside is that I see bunch of corporate apps that are total trash on app store.
Apparently the nanny state is repugnant to many, but nanny corporations that don't trust us to make our own choices, or have our own tastes and standards, is much more acceptable. The huge loss of customer freedom doesn't actually achieve the exclusion of "trash" apps nor malware.
They apparently strive for a superior user experience, and then go about destroying the customer experience of what they seem to consider is their phones.
That being said, what customer are you referring to when you talk about "destroying the customer experience." Hundreds of millions of users express very high customer satisfaction with the experience. The vast number of users have no interest in sideloading and they love the simplicity of the app store. Apple is bringing in about 85% of the smartphone market profits and they have huge repeat purchase numbers. That is not because those billion users are unsatisfied or feel the experience has been "destroyed." The numbers are just too overwhelming.
Many HN readers are not the target market if openness is of paramount importance to them. It is hard to avoid, but we need to try and avoiding generalizing our preferences to the broader definition of "customer."
I guess the bot and scam usage of APIs cause more headache for companies than the hobby usage benefit they get.
Thanks apple for reminding me why I'll continue with the lesser evil for now.
Both of the things you listed are side effects.
Deleted Comment
I’ve been paying $99 a year for early access to iOS betas and for my own test apps since the program debuted in 2008. I’ve never published an app in the App Store under my own account. But if I’m honest, I do feel I’ve gotten value out of that $1500 or whatever.
If it isn’t worth $100 a year to you, that’s fine. Plenty of people will sell you a slot on their account for less and give you a signing key. Or you can choose not to play. But it seems silly to bitch about something that has literally been the status quo since the inception of the App Store back in March 2008, when the iPhone SDK was released.
I should also note that the $99 in 2008 was significantly less than Apple used to charge for student access for Apple Developer Accounts for Mac before that. (Although those gave you nice Apple hardware discounts).
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The arguments for paying for review, distribution, advertising, search, etc feel so disingenuous when the company is worth so much money and these apps are contributing to its bottom line.
I really hope that the EU is the one that finally breaks down this annoying wall. I might consider using an iOS device at that point, but absolutely and definitely not before that.
I don't know where Apple went wrong -- third-party software made them as big as they are today, and they decided to turn on developers at some point and make them jump through hoops for nebulous "reasons". And yet the app store is still just filled with so many low-quality apps, scams and the like. They just look semi-pretty on launch and don't crash within the first minute or so.
Are they, though? If you don't have the $99 for a dev account, you don't have a marketing budget either, so your app won't make money, so Apple doesn't care.
I think the best argument to be made for catering to hobbyists is to attract new developers to the platform, but I doubt Apple cares about that any more. Apple wants developers who care about making money. Developers who care about making money will come to Apple because of how much Apple users spend on apps.
Deleted Comment
It’s a token amount, just enough to prevent spammers from creating thousands of accounts. It’s $99 for your entire organization for a year. Go check what Microsoft charges for a Visual Studio license per seat, per year.
$99 doesn’t even buy you 1 hour of a developer’s time. Even if you develop apps a a hobby, this is not a large amount of money. Few hobbies are a cheap as this.
This seems reasonable when you look from the point of view of a corporation. But hobbyists are single individuals, not corporations. So this basically makes development a privilege for corporations or for people in the first world for whom $99 is nothing.
Let me guess, you’re from a 1st world country and probably make 6 figures a year (pre tax), likely working in FAANG?
As a guy in a 3rd world country, $99 is a hell lot of money. Your comment comes across as quite tone deaf. If you grew up middle-upper class and relatively sheltered that’s not necessarily your fault, but trust me in many parts of the world $99 is worth much more converted.
Obviously the glaring difference is that you can side load apps on Windows without using the app store at all. The day that becomes a serious barrier is definitely a line too far in the history of computing. But Apple has always been a very closed off ecosystem - going back to the nineties they were never very friendly to developers or third party hardware. To me this is just Apple doing Apple - their phone, IMO, is still miles ahead of anything else, though.
> few hobbies are as cheap as this
Quite true.
I think that what you buy with your 99$ is the privilege of asking for the privilege of publishing (which is not given at all).
No, they are not. We are talking about hobby apps and maybe free ones. Those don't contribute to their bottom line.
We might say they contribute to the platform. For hobbyist they make it viable. But for paying customers maybe they add a lot of low value junk to the store. If a developer doesn't feel their app is worth a few dollars, maybe it's not worth having on there at all.
The AppStore is currently filled with low-value junk published by people paying $99/year (1.8 million apps out there, of which most outside of the top X lists are terrible). Will hobby apps really decrease the average quality? I highly doubt it.
[1] I'll admit that this appeared to be the trend early on, but in the long term both platforms have converged to something similar.
They didn't go wrong. They are making money - the most important thing.
That they hurt developers that got them there in the first place? Who cares.
Then even few years ago I heard: "If you don't like that platform, create your own!" I wonder where that crowd is now.
I mean this fee has been there since forever no? Early on not even the iOS updates were free. You can argue about the merits of the fee but don't frame it as some recent change that disparages early adopters.
I'm not an apple fan. Most of my personal devices run Linux, but I feel essentially trapped on an iPhone. It doesn't seem like there's a truly useful open phone out there. I don't like Apple, and I don't trust them or their ostensibly pro-privacy stance much, but I want as little privacy invasion and as little advertising as possible on my phone, and I think as bad as Apple is, they're still better than a fully Googled version of Android. Unfortunately, a lot of people, myself included, need at least some apps that require either an iPhone or a fully Googled version of android.
I suppose there's always the option to dual-wield and use a Linux or de-googled android phone for daily use and keep a second device around for the apps that won't run there, but that is both a pain I don't expect many people to buy into. I'm just about at the point of going this route for myself, but it does feel more like admitting defeat than anything else.
Eventually there may be a non-Android 100% free software alternative but as it stands now the above solution works fine and keeps the data vampires from your door.
This is a genuine question, not an attempt to paint Apple as the be-all and end-all or a paragon of perfection (for all that I'm an unapologetic Apple fan, I recognize that they have serious faults).
I think there is a strong case to be made that the limitations Apple has placed on the iPhone are instrumental in guaranteeing the privacy and (relative) freedom from crap that makes it as good as it is. There is also a strong case to be made that it should be possible to create a phone (or computer) with nontrivial privacy safeguards, but without the specific limitations Apple imposes.
I lean somewhat toward the former camp, as I believe that in a space like smartphone apps, bad actors are both willing and able to do whatever is necessary to make their unethical money, whether that's with extra ads, crapware apps, or just actual malware, scams, and theft. But I would genuinely love to be proven wrong, and I hope that there comes a day when we have a meaningful competition in the space without sacrificing our collective ability to use our phones without fear.
It seems to me that it's inevitable that if we let these megacorps control our devices, they will use it against us in one way or another. The only way for us as users to actually have freedom, security, and privacy is if we can control what entities the device trusts ourselves. We must create choice where the corps would rather we have none.
I will also point out that I consider Apple's rent seeking and censorship, that is more or less literally impossible to avoid, to be unethical use of this power they wield over users, and a pretty clear and meaningful way that users are harmed by it. In very concrete ways it can be considered more harmful than malware. But few seem to care enough to ask for control of their devices back, and in many of these threads more seem willing to jump to the defence of these practices than see them as a problem.
The phone will be used for exchanging calls and texts. The computer for everything else.
I was thinking about this but what happens with on-the-spot payments? This seems like a functionality that's really convenient (not having to carry a bank card) but that would be on the official device, not the daily use device due to security issues. But paying for stuff in person is a daily use activity.
YMMV, but I don't (and won't) use my smartphone for this right now anyway. It's fine. Barely an inconvenience.
Dead Comment
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 go through the stress of trying to publish an update to an app.
In 80% of the cases they never even logged into the app before giving us the OK (all logins and actions are logged, so it is easy to tell)
About 20% of the updates to my app get rejected for no reason other than that the reviewer clearly didn't bother reading the attached review instructions. I have a hard time thinking that _all_ of them are this stupid, so nowadays I started thinking they do this on purpose.
The iphone has plenty of app developers even if there isn't a single third party app anywhere. Those app developers just work for Apple instead of a third party. I don't think Apple cares about having a thriving third party app ecosystem.
Apple exec scribbles furiously
From what I've seen, a lot of startup are Mac-only - with the local dev stack and built system being built specifically for OSX. It's only a matter of time before vendor lock-in become so strong that companies would pay another four-figure a year fee to unlock development on OSX.
Apple could sell the security angle on this too.
I do doubt it. Apple has specifically been removing language runtime environments but doesn’t stop you from installing them. And as far as I know they’re on good terms with (at least) Homebrew. Stopping you from running Python—which they ship to /usr/bin/python3 as part of the free Developer Tools—would have consequences on your other binaries.
I was positively surprised when Shortcuts for macOS shipped with specific support for AppleScript and other language runtime environments. I was convinced they would just not do it as the feature is not available on Shortcuts for iOS and that they’d use that as a way to add another nail in AppleScript’s coffin. The fact they did ship the feature commits them to support it. Maybe not forever, but removing it would require a non-immediate deprecation.