7 ms·
Really hoping regulators crack down hard on Apple's clearly anticompetitive practices. If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot,
by FreakyT 6y ago
Really hoping regulators crack down hard on Apple's clearly anticompetitive practices.
If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.
- floydnoel 6y agowell they do allow that, users have to reinstall every week though.
- KMnO4 6y agoFree certificates last a week. You can also pay Apple $99 to get a certificate that lasts a year, or pay a "UDID registration" website around $10 for the same (with some limitations).
- girishso 6y agoWhat’s UDID registration website?
- gruez 6y agoRandom result: https://www.udidregistrations.com/ https://www.udidregistrations.com/ >Starting at $8.99, we also provide Certificate & Provisioning files that can be used to install any app, including apps you've created and those not found on the App Store. Looks like they're essentially "sharing" developer accounts.
- KMnO4 6y agoIn order to test developer beta releases, you need a paid Apple developer account. Obviously it wouldn't be great if you had to pay $99 for every device (or employee at your business) just to test on the latest beta release, so Apple allows you to register up to 100 devices on your paid developer account. Some people realized that they could sell each of those 100 slots at $5-10 to people who really wanted to use the beta (NB: previously iOS did not have public betas), hence "UDID registration". Later, some of those people realized they could also sell you the code signing certificate that's generated by the real Apple developer account; valid for up to 1 year. That means you have the option of purchasing a real code signing certificate that allows you to sideload apps on non-jailbroken iPhones.
- girishso 6y agoCool. Somehow never heard of this. Your username reminded me of my school days!
- FreakyT 6y agoI'm not sure I'd qualify that as "allowing" -- seems like more of a loophole to me.
- anticensor 6y agoMore of a testing procedure than a loophole.
- tsimionescu 6y agoThey absolutely do not allow that. It is against the ToS to distribute apps using developer signing - that is only allowed for in-company testing and development, and potentially for some limited beta testing.
- threatofrain 6y agoAs a user I'm quite happy with Apple intermediating my relationship with companies that seek to do business with me over the phone, and I'd actually be happier if Apple took over more of my relationships. I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements. I also don't want to deal with app companies directly for returns or their custom payment solutions — an "Amazon" is way better.
- kevingadd 6y agoEach app already has its own terms of service
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shajznnckfke 6y ago> and I'd actually be happier if Apple took over more of my relationships. I’m really curious what you mean by this. Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? You DoorDash orders, your rent, your salary?
- throwaway413 6y agoIf it meant my work processes were as streamlined and organized as Apple's operating standard? Political antics gone? Safety and security with no negotiation? Tempting... (Just experimenting with the idea, not that I actually agree with this line of thought.)
- shajznnckfke 6y agoIf what I hear from people who work for Apple is true, I wouldn’t be so optimistic.
- throwaway413 6y agoHah, touché. I meant more mac/iOS UX, less Apple employee experience.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]