"It really isn't my business, but why would you care about a $99/yr fee if you are going to be purchasing a new MBP and an iPhone or iPad?
I just don't see why you'd wait for a $99 fee to be dropped before spending at least $2000 on hardware."
Fair question.
It doesn't have anything to do with the quantum of money (99$,999$ whatever though having to pay 20% of the price of an IPad annually to develop for it is a bit sleazy in my opinion).
I have money to spend on computers. I just don't want to rent my right to develop and deploy on my device (which I already paid full price for) annually from Apple.
Apple should be glad someone chooses to learn, develop for and participate its ecosystem. It isn't a privilege you should have to pay annually for. ( I am sure Steve Jobs thinks it is a privilege for developers to develop for his babies! One of us is wrong but then he is a billionaire and i am just a poor hacker so who is to say? :-P )
I am not opposed to Apple keeping its OS closed. I am fine with the Apple Store distribution "choke point". It sucks a bit but I can see why Apple want to do it that way. I am not even opposed to a small one time payment for the devtools if I feel they are better than emacs + gcc (though I would be happy to avoid it. Asking individual developers to pay for dev tools is a bit weird in this day and age). But once I pay, I should be able to use them forever and not have to renew my right to develop annually.
I don't want to let Apple decide what or when or how long I can and can't code and deploy on my device (as distinct from selling it to others through the Apple Store). If I buy an IPad, want to build and deploy my app on my IPad without Apple getting in the middle. As it stands, you can't deploy an app onto your device without paying Apple an annual fee.
I think the existing structure is good for people who buy a dev license just so they can build and sell apps via the App Store. If I want to code up some small app for personal use (and as a developer I do this all the time), I wouldn't like to have to pay an annual fee for that.
I think Alex Payne expressed this better than I can in his latest blog post on the IPad. As a developer I find Apple's idea that developers have to pay annually to write software for their own devices to be very arrogant and condescending. Even Microsoft in its heyday wasn't that bad.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to pay an annual dev fee or developing for Apple or whatever. Just answering your question as to why I won't pay.
Yes. $99/year makes sense for everything Apple offers to get your software on the App Store, but that should be the only part that requires a subscription. You should be able to compile code for your own device for free.
Actually, I like the model that would create: If you want to sell your software, just subscribe and Apple makes it easy. If you want to avoid the App Store, then just go open-source, since now anyone can compile what you distribute.
The same tech-savvy audience that doesn't like the "choke point" of the App Store can just go full-on FOSS for iPhone development, which seems like a perfect fit.
> I just don't want to rent my right to develop and deploy on my device
>I am not opposed to Apple keeping its OS closed. I am fine with the Apple Store distribution "choke point".
These two statements contradict each other. A closed OS means that the consumer can only load applications on their device that have been approved by Apple. If people weren't required to rent the right to deploy on the iPhone, then anyone could freely load arbitrary non-Apple approved code. Therefore, by arguing for rent-free development, you are demanding a non-closed OS.
">> I just don't want to rent my right to develop and deploy on my device
>>I am not opposed to Apple keeping its OS closed. I am fine with the Apple Store distribution "choke point".
>These two statements contradict each other. "
They don't. (see below).
"These two statements contradict each other. A closed OS means that the consumer can only load applications on their device that have been approved by Apple."
I am using "closed" as opposed to "Open Source". Linux is Open Source. Windows is closed. I can load anything I want on it without getting permission from Microsoft, though I can't see the source. I don't mind much being able to sell only through AppleStore.
I just want to be able to put my apps on my device without paying anything to anybody, not sell them to you (for which I don't mind going through the App Store if necessary. Iow I don't want to deploy on your device.I have no plans to sell desktop/device sw at present which maybe why I don't care about AppleStore's policies.)
I just don't see why you'd wait for a $99 fee to be dropped before spending at least $2000 on hardware."
Fair question.
It doesn't have anything to do with the quantum of money (99$,999$ whatever though having to pay 20% of the price of an IPad annually to develop for it is a bit sleazy in my opinion).
I have money to spend on computers. I just don't want to rent my right to develop and deploy on my device (which I already paid full price for) annually from Apple.
Apple should be glad someone chooses to learn, develop for and participate its ecosystem. It isn't a privilege you should have to pay annually for. ( I am sure Steve Jobs thinks it is a privilege for developers to develop for his babies! One of us is wrong but then he is a billionaire and i am just a poor hacker so who is to say? :-P )
I am not opposed to Apple keeping its OS closed. I am fine with the Apple Store distribution "choke point". It sucks a bit but I can see why Apple want to do it that way. I am not even opposed to a small one time payment for the devtools if I feel they are better than emacs + gcc (though I would be happy to avoid it. Asking individual developers to pay for dev tools is a bit weird in this day and age). But once I pay, I should be able to use them forever and not have to renew my right to develop annually.
I don't want to let Apple decide what or when or how long I can and can't code and deploy on my device (as distinct from selling it to others through the Apple Store). If I buy an IPad, want to build and deploy my app on my IPad without Apple getting in the middle. As it stands, you can't deploy an app onto your device without paying Apple an annual fee.
I think the existing structure is good for people who buy a dev license just so they can build and sell apps via the App Store. If I want to code up some small app for personal use (and as a developer I do this all the time), I wouldn't like to have to pay an annual fee for that.
I think Alex Payne expressed this better than I can in his latest blog post on the IPad. As a developer I find Apple's idea that developers have to pay annually to write software for their own devices to be very arrogant and condescending. Even Microsoft in its heyday wasn't that bad.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to pay an annual dev fee or developing for Apple or whatever. Just answering your question as to why I won't pay.