4 ms·

> They don’t tell developers that apps must be iOS-exclusive to be in the app store. They do force us to build the package on their devices though. Which is a

> They don’t tell developers that apps must be iOS-exclusive to be in the app store. They do force us to build the package on their devices though. Which is a wholly arbitrary demand which is frustrating to map into a build process that is already automated on the cloud. Prior to services that rent out Apple devices its an awkward fit. They're very aggressive with their posturing and they ruthlessly exploit the power they have. Just reading the dev EULA in full is evidence of that.

scarface74 7y ago
And for most of the history of the consoles you had to have overpriced developer machines. Are you proposing that Apple be forced to port XCode to Windows?
- Karunamon 7y ago
  They could make the signing APIs available to something like Jetbrains' AppCode. No porting necessary.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Because most companies are willing to give out their signing keys willy nilly... Would you expect the same from the console makers?
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      Users authenticate to access that API with their developer credentials.. username and password on infrastructure owned by Apple. There is no need for them to give out their signing keys.
- Quarrelsome 7y ago
  Yes or Linux. Either that or change licensing so people can create Apple VMs and I can spin one up online. At the time I was looking at this problem (2012) the only viable solution was to buy a piece of Apple hardware and install it in the office and have the auto-build system call back into the office from the cloud to build the package as a particular step in the build. So I have to worry about power, about the safety, about hardware, about updates, all because I can't use an arbitrary x86 processor to build an executable targeting an x86 processor. It made me so fucking cross. Let us not forget that other platforms don't have this mandatory requirement.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Microsoft offers Mac build servers as part of Azure Devops. And there is Mac Mini Colo. And you want to force a company to release a product for other operating systems?
    - Quarrelsome 7y ago
      or make their OS available for virtualization. Remember this was 2012 so our entire build process was done via cloud vms and Mac's requirements were a nasty welt on an otherwise exceptionally smooth process because there were no options available at the time.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It is available for virtualization - on Mac hardware.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        Quarrelsome 7y ago
        wait you can now finally virtuaise them but you have to do it on Mac hardware? Its like someone didn't give them the manual or something. I guess that explains why some companies can finally offer "macs on a rack" because they are literally macs. The point remains that its a bunch of hoops they force people to jump through, BECAUSE THEY CAN. Not for any good technical reason.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yes. Apple is fully in its right to decide how to distribute its software. Just like an open source software license can dictate how their software is used. If you want to use MacOS you have to use a Mac.
        7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

And for most of the history of the consoles you had to have overpriced developer machines. Are you proposing that Apple be forced to port XCode to Windows?

Karunamon 7y ago
They could make the signing APIs available to something like Jetbrains' AppCode. No porting necessary.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Because most companies are willing to give out their signing keys willy nilly... Would you expect the same from the console makers?
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Users authenticate to access that API with their developer credentials.. username and password on infrastructure owned by Apple. There is no need for them to give out their signing keys.
Quarrelsome 7y ago
Yes or Linux. Either that or change licensing so people can create Apple VMs and I can spin one up online. At the time I was looking at this problem (2012) the only viable solution was to buy a piece of Apple hardware and install it in the office and have the auto-build system call back into the office from the cloud to build the package as a particular step in the build. So I have to worry about power, about the safety, about hardware, about updates, all because I can't use an arbitrary x86 processor to build an executable targeting an x86 processor. It made me so fucking cross. Let us not forget that other platforms don't have this mandatory requirement.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Microsoft offers Mac build servers as part of Azure Devops. And there is Mac Mini Colo. And you want to force a company to release a product for other operating systems?
  - Quarrelsome 7y ago
    or make their OS available for virtualization. Remember this was 2012 so our entire build process was done via cloud vms and Mac's requirements were a nasty welt on an otherwise exceptionally smooth process because there were no options available at the time.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It is available for virtualization - on Mac hardware.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Quarrelsome 7y ago
        wait you can now finally virtuaise them but you have to do it on Mac hardware? Its like someone didn't give them the manual or something. I guess that explains why some companies can finally offer "macs on a rack" because they are literally macs. The point remains that its a bunch of hoops they force people to jump through, BECAUSE THEY CAN. Not for any good technical reason.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yes. Apple is fully in its right to decide how to distribute its software. Just like an open source software license can dictate how their software is used. If you want to use MacOS you have to use a Mac.
        7y ago