8 ms·

I'm surprised we haven't seen this emergent behavior for iOS yet. As more and more people have Xcode and a dev license, we could have a sufficiently large amoun

I'm surprised we haven't seen this emergent behavior for iOS yet. As more and more people have Xcode and a dev license, we could have a sufficiently large amount of people to skip the app store for apps that will never be allowed. I wonder how Apple will like that. I can see it now: the "Sideload App Store"

mercutio2 11y ago
Apple no longer requires a paid developer license to install apps on your personal device [0]. I agree it will be interesting to see what develops, given it is possible for anyone with a Mac to install whatever they like, now. [0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4952820/test-ios-app-on-device-without-apple-developer-program-or-jailbreak http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4952820/test-ios-app-on-d...
pcwalton 11y ago
Seems like there's a reasonably good chance that we'll see a tool to automate this process—an "installer for apps". I guess Apple would likely respond by one or both of (a) putting up more roadblocks to getting developer accounts or (b) further restricting what apps can do at a technical level through more sophisticated sandboxes, making the delta in allowed functionality between an app in the App Store and a sideloaded app smaller and smaller.
- 0x0 11y ago
  They must have expected this when they changed the latest xcode to allow free personal provisioning. There's already some significant annoying limitations, in particular short provisioning expiration limits (must reinstall the app every 90 days), and no access to services like push notifications.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    Is the app prevented from starting after 90 days?
    - JonathonW 11y ago
      Yes, once a provisioning profile expires, apps built against it fail to launch. You have to rebuild and reinstall the app (with an updated provisioning profile, but Xcode takes care of all that behind the scenes now) to get an expired app working again.
- rtpg 11y ago
  or (c) doing nothing, as it's probably a decently small enough subset of people to not be a problem
  - yesimahuman 11y ago
    I think it could be large enough if CyanogenMod has proven anything. Hard to say.
    - lotu 11y ago
      On the other hand having this other avenue for non-pirated software may result in less people bothering to support CyanogenMod.
- conradev 11y ago
  There is also a class of apps that Apple finds objectionable for reasons outside of private API usage. This is my favorite recent example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/apple_clubs_chaos_communication_congress_app_bods_say/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/apple_clubs_chaos_co... In addition, people underestimate what you can do from the sandbox (and will be able to do for a long time, unless Apple speeds up its development cycle): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10415288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10415288
conradev 11y ago
It's entirely possible – I drew up a spec of what it could look like a while ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsOd4PXQ0SfsdMP0n30Ud_AafYydmmOHsBODt4Ic0o8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsOd4PXQ0SfsdMP0n30Ud_Aa... The only issue with it is that the decision to give everyone a developer certificate for free was to increase Swift adoption. The security implications were not investigated. Apple wasn't aware that they put the final piece of the puzzle in place for something like this to exist. They can easily reverse the policy.
josteink 11y ago
> I'm surprised we haven't seen this emergent behavior for iOS yet. As more and more people have Xcode and a dev license, we could have a sufficiently large amount of people to skip the app store for apps that will never be allowed. If this ever happened and got popular, you can be certain that Apple would shoot it down in an upcoming iOS release. Because that's how Apple works: No freedom permitted on "their" devices.
- Zr40 11y ago
  Apple added the ability to compile and deploy apps without a developer license in iOS 9 and Xcode 7. In fact, Apple even advertises this ability as the most prominent new feature of Xcode 7.[1] If your response were true, Apple would never have added this ability in the first place. [1] https://developer.apple.com/xcode/ https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    Version 7 and we're just now getting the ability to sideload without a developer license? I think that actually demonstrates the PP's point. This isn't a new liberty, this is a tool to help Apple to drive adoption of their new language.
    - Zr40 11y ago
      Their point was that the ability is going to be removed if it gets used at all. That just doesn't make any sense given the fact I outlined in my response.
      - celticninja 11y ago
        making sense or not, it has happened,
        Zr40 11y ago
        No, it has not. The ability is still there. Apple only asked the developer to stop distributing the app, which they did.
Fiskie 11y ago
brew for iOS, go!

mercutio2 11y ago

Apple no longer requires a paid developer license to install apps on your personal device [0]. I agree it will be interesting to see what develops, given it is possible for anyone with a Mac to install whatever they like, now. [0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4952820/test-ios-app-on-device-without-apple-developer-program-or-jailbreak http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4952820/test-ios-app-on-d...

pcwalton 11y ago

Seems like there's a reasonably good chance that we'll see a tool to automate this process—an "installer for apps". I guess Apple would likely respond by one or both of (a) putting up more roadblocks to getting developer accounts or (b) further restricting what apps can do at a technical level through more sophisticated sandboxes, making the delta in allowed functionality between an app in the App Store and a sideloaded app smaller and smaller.

0x0 11y ago
They must have expected this when they changed the latest xcode to allow free personal provisioning. There's already some significant annoying limitations, in particular short provisioning expiration limits (must reinstall the app every 90 days), and no access to services like push notifications.
- walterbell 11y ago
  Is the app prevented from starting after 90 days?
  - JonathonW 11y ago
    Yes, once a provisioning profile expires, apps built against it fail to launch. You have to rebuild and reinstall the app (with an updated provisioning profile, but Xcode takes care of all that behind the scenes now) to get an expired app working again.
rtpg 11y ago
or (c) doing nothing, as it's probably a decently small enough subset of people to not be a problem
- yesimahuman 11y ago
  I think it could be large enough if CyanogenMod has proven anything. Hard to say.
  - lotu 11y ago
    On the other hand having this other avenue for non-pirated software may result in less people bothering to support CyanogenMod.
conradev 11y ago
There is also a class of apps that Apple finds objectionable for reasons outside of private API usage. This is my favorite recent example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/apple_clubs_chaos_communication_congress_app_bods_say/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/apple_clubs_chaos_co... In addition, people underestimate what you can do from the sandbox (and will be able to do for a long time, unless Apple speeds up its development cycle): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10415288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10415288

conradev 11y ago

It's entirely possible – I drew up a spec of what it could look like a while ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsOd4PXQ0SfsdMP0n30Ud_AafYydmmOHsBODt4Ic0o8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsOd4PXQ0SfsdMP0n30Ud_Aa... The only issue with it is that the decision to give everyone a developer certificate for free was to increase Swift adoption. The security implications were not investigated. Apple wasn't aware that they put the final piece of the puzzle in place for something like this to exist. They can easily reverse the policy.

josteink 11y ago

> I'm surprised we haven't seen this emergent behavior for iOS yet. As more and more people have Xcode and a dev license, we could have a sufficiently large amount of people to skip the app store for apps that will never be allowed. If this ever happened and got popular, you can be certain that Apple would shoot it down in an upcoming iOS release. Because that's how Apple works: No freedom permitted on "their" devices.

Zr40 11y ago
Apple added the ability to compile and deploy apps without a developer license in iOS 9 and Xcode 7. In fact, Apple even advertises this ability as the most prominent new feature of Xcode 7.[1] If your response were true, Apple would never have added this ability in the first place. [1] https://developer.apple.com/xcode/ https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  Version 7 and we're just now getting the ability to sideload without a developer license? I think that actually demonstrates the PP's point. This isn't a new liberty, this is a tool to help Apple to drive adoption of their new language.
  - Zr40 11y ago
    Their point was that the ability is going to be removed if it gets used at all. That just doesn't make any sense given the fact I outlined in my response.
    - celticninja 11y ago
      making sense or not, it has happened,
      - Zr40 11y ago
        No, it has not. The ability is still there. Apple only asked the developer to stop distributing the app, which they did.

Fiskie 11y ago

brew for iOS, go!