That's the thing that would prevent me from buying a Vision Pro down the line. It's going to be an iOS-like walled garden experience. If it could run arbitrary macOS apps on device, it would be infinitely more useful (but probably cannibalize the MacBook market and why would Apple ever roll out a new product line that doesn't force developers to pay them 30%?)
> It's going to be an iOS-like walled garden experience.
It might be even worse. Apparently you can't even add a web app to your home screen on the Vision Pro. Vision Pro users are paying for a native app that loads youtube.com in a webview: https://christianselig.com/2024/02/introducing-juno/
I mean... it hasn't been their model from the start; the Apple II was wildly successful in part because it was so open, and Macs never had a walled garden (though the situation there does seem to have gotten somewhat worse over time).
When the Mac was introduced, there were two loud groups of people:
Those complaining bitterly that Apple had ruined the product by eliminating expansion cards, and holding the case shut with a special screw that needed an "only available from Apple" screwdriver.
And those who gladly bought the first computer that didn't need users to open up the case and mess around with expansion cards and dip switches and so on.
I've wanted to be able to do this on video game consoles for ages. I have a powerful computer with a big screen in my living room but I'm locked out of it.
I hope once the EU starts to look at Sony and Nintendo next.
The Nintendo Switch is a great console for sideloading. There are numerous ports of PC titles like Quake and Half-Life, as well as a library of Homebrew games and modding tools. If you've got an original Nintendo Switch there's practically no excuse not to crack it, unless you intend to play online.
Same goes for the 3DS, too. You can now play Virtual Boy games using the built-in 3D screen, which enables preservation of Nintendo's darkest age (with or without their approval). I have soft-modded versions of both the Switch and 3DS, and recommend it to anyone that wants that "unlocked" experience.
If you want an Xbox or Playstation computer, buy the SOC from AMD. They sell them on Alibaba and get the same support Microsoft and Sony recieve (read: dogshit). Most people would agree that it's wiser to not use console hardware for PC software when you can build a superior machine for a lower price. But hey, if you wanna waste time and money I won't be the one to stop you.
I want access to the developer program like you get with Apple for $100 / year. I want sanctioned and supported third party app stores. Direct download would be cool as well.
There's also the Steam Deck, if you hate getting bent-over by third-party OEMs that don't care about you. But considering your affinity for Apple, maybe the console market is right for you.
Altserver+Altstore. Altserver will resign your apps, and altstore can background "refresh" your apps so they _shouldn't_ expire on your.
It refreshes when your on the same wifi network as altserver, for me it works most of the time, but sometimes I need to kick altserver to get the phone to see it.
Doesn't fix the issue, and its a limitation that annoys the hell out of me too, but at least helps mitigate it. (Though it doesn't solve the number of self signed app limit)
AltStore is a bad joke, you can only install 2 apps (three, minus the altstore app), and you have to connect your phone to a MacOS computer and run the app every week.
Just let me click on an IPA to install it, it's really not that deep!
That’s a limitation created by apple, not alt server. Granted you are using one of your three to use alt store, but you can skip using alt store if you don’t want auto refresh by just using the server to install your IPAs.
But Altstore does run on Windows, Mac and Linux (I use a helper script to run it on my home server)
These are all work around to Apple imposed limitations, it’s by no means perfect, but until Apple change their mind (or are forced to change their mind) your alternatives are jailbreaking (which I don’t think there are any public jailbreaks of the latest hardware/OS) or swap to Android (which I’m considering doing) or pay Apple $100 a year for your own dev cert with less restrictions.
The only thing that bothers me about Altstore is that it require you to enter your Apple ID and password. I know the app is open source and only sends the credentials to Apple, but the risk of a supply chain vulnerability is terrifying.
But don't you need a unique phone number for each Apple ID, which makes it kind of difficult to just create a throwaway account? Or is there a way to circumvent that requirement?
I'd even be willing to pay the $99 a year, I just want the signature to last longer than a week, ideally forever. For years when I don't feel like updating the app, I won't pay the developer membership fee.
I think the deploy straight from Xcode to your device builds have a pretty short lifetime (I remember it being a month in around 2014 or 2015) not sure now.
If you archive and build using a certificate from developer.apple.com they last a year.
As someone with dozens of side loaded iOS apps, all of my apps are working just fine, well over 6 months later. I always build and deploy without archiving.
So they should be forced to develop the SDK and the dev tools for free and provide that support for free? I mean it would be very nice of them to do so, but legally forcing them to do it? I don't know about that. It is a shortsighted "solution".
The SDK is paid for when purchasing the phone. Same as with Mac OS, OS X, DOS, Windows, Android, Blackberry, ChromeOS and every other OS out there. It's not shortsighted, it's worked well for the past 50 years or so.
and for advanced developer tooling you can charge. This is what MS does. Visual Studio (not Code) is not free for businesses.
One can still do C# development using only Windows SDK and/or dotnet SDK for "free".
You cannot do C/C++ or Rust developement without a license but with MinGW you also can do it without MS SDK. MS doesn't prevent people from using GCC compilers. Their core C++ developers even use it: https://nuwen.net/mingw.html
the point is, MS and others are free to choose how they will offer their services. They can say "hey I'll provide this for free, and I will make you pay for this other thing". As long as they are not a monopoly in computing, they should be free to do whatever they want, no? If they go bonkers with what they ask vs the value they provide, competition will wipe them out - easy peasy.
Apple could have said at the beginning "hey this is iPhone, there are no external apps for it though" - which was actually the case! iPhone did not have 3rd party apps at launch.
Then Apple could have said "good news everyone, you can now develop for the iPhone. Dev kits start at $10000 per unit, apply to partner with us, call us at this number" and that would be the end of it. Lots of gadgets still work like that and nobody bats an eye.
Apple decreased the barrier to entry and provided it as a service, charged for it but created good value in return, and it worked! But now that governments signal that they will punish such success, the next Apple will likely not go the way of low barrier of entry - this will hurt the regular folk, people with not so deep pockets.
What worked well for the past 50 years was freedom. None of those operating systems were forced to provide dev kits at no additional cost. They did it to compete. If Apple's additional costs' value proposition was not there, they would not be successful, they would not be able to attract good developers creating good software. Apple is not a monopoly either, there is competition. So forcing them to provide a service at no additional cost is just theft. And corporations can circumvent the hit they will get from being forced in innumerable ways in a capitalist system, all at the expense of the consumer.
The point is, nobody is disallowed from competing with Apple and its ecosystem on its merits. If Apple didn't provide enough value in return to what they ask, they would fail. Signaling that you will punish success with force means that the next Apple will be a lot more cautious about how they do things. Jacked up prices (as long as value proposition is there, people will pay, they will just pay more), requiring dev kits (can you force a company to change their hardware design so that it can be developed on? where is the limit?) / expensive partnership agreements / increasing the barrier to entry... Unless companies are "state owned" they have infinite ways to keep their profits at the expense of consumers. Apple's existing deal was a good deal - it was working, competition was (and is still) there. Now they will have to do the things that will just inconvenience users as a side effect, which is what they don't want to do, but they will be forced to do regardless.
I believe they would be allowed to charge for the SDK and the dev tools as long as they don’t require developers to use that SDK and the dev tools. I’m sure someone else would provide an alternative SDK and tooling then.
But is it even legally required for them to provide a stable 3rd party software support? That would be ridiculous. So if they put in the effort to provide such a base and open it to public, why can't they choose to be compensated for that work?
My problem can be summarized as (assume the company in question is not a monopoly):
* Is it illegal to sell a device with a microprocessor in it that has no support for 3rd party programmability? -> no, most digital devices are like this in fact.
* Is it illegal to sell a computing device and develop software in house for it? Maybe charge for some of it? Still with no 3rd party support? -> no it is not illegal.
* Is it illegal then, to contract other developers / companies to write that "in house" software for the device you are making? -> no that is not illegal
* Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies to buy software / programming services from them to include in your device? -> no that is not illegal
* Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies so that they can sell licenses to "unlock" their software in your device and get a cut from their sales? -> no it is not illegal
* Is it illegal to sell dev kits to the the above? So the device in question is still not a device you can develop on - but you can create another device where 3rd parties can develop on, and you can sell it to them. You can also pick and choose which companies you will work with. None of this is illegal.
* Is it illegal to automate all of the above? Provide low barrier to entry, no bureaucracy, if you want to develop for the device just do, pay us $100 a year, and give us a cut and you are golden! No need to get into direct contact with us, wait months to get our manual approval - we streamline everything and even the little guy can participate? -> HN thinks that this suddenly must be illegal. If they are providing all this service, they should be legally forced to do all for free.
They can choose to be compensated for their work, but in case of the 30% cut, they seem to want to be compensated for someone else’s work, because how much a successful app makes vs. an unsuccessful app is not a function of the SDK or the platform, which is the same for both. I would have no problem if they asked for a flat fee for providing their service. But they want to profit off the revenue of a whole ecosystem, and that has no quantitative relation to the effort of maintaining the OS and the SDK.
That’s just my personal opinion. The DMA is about anti-trust, that some companies are controlling a too large part of the cake, affecting too many users (end users as well as “business users”, e.g. app developers), which is bad for a competitive market and level playing field.
All of these are wrong. The answer to each of those is "It may or may not be legal depending on various factors including whether it is intentionally creating a monopolistic anti-competitive environment".
Laws are allowed to have very nuanced opinions where it's illegal for microsoft to disallow uninstalling Internet Explorer program (USA vs MS, 2001), but perfectly legal for microsoft do disallow installing the File Explorer program.
I know us programmers want laws to perfectly specified in unambiguous mathematics, but lawyers want laws to be specified in English with nuance and room for interpretation and judgement of intent and spirit.
It makes no sense to you because you are thinking like a programmer. Laws are for empathetic decent humans, not soulless hacker-news-posting programmers.
It still has the 7 day limit for apps, so if you go on a vacation your apps stop working, or if you stop running the sideloadly software in your home network they also do.
It also doesn't have a linux version, so it's unusable for hacker news users, since all of us only run linux machines in our homes.
Also, closed source, just use altserver which I think is actually open source, and does the same thing but better tested
Sadly, this doesn't seem to allow for that.