3 ms·

> I don't view the iPhone and iPad as "computers" or "personal computers" any more than I view my cable TV set-top box or Sonos speaker that way. Why should yo

> I don't view the iPhone and iPad as "computers" or "personal computers" any more than I view my cable TV set-top box or Sonos speaker that way. Why should your personal view obviate the devices' nature? These are all computers. *Whose* computers is the more important question. And from a look at a lot of these 'narrow focused computer devices' have the company you bought it from still exert control years after your purchase... It's almost like you unwittingly agreed to a rental that was misclassified as a sale. How many times were features removed at a later 'update'? How many features did the device support but didn't make available? How many features were kept because it would keep you from prematurely throwing it away to get the new thing? Or better yet, with devices that have user-reprogrammable hardware means that the ecological aspect of "obsolete" hardware is that the new feature makes it nearly good as new, all the while keeping it out of the landfills. Sure, stuff going obsolete will still happen... But with repair and upgrades as options means the "Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle" will lead to better outcomes for all. But that's not good for capitalism and profit. > The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook. And, why is your opinion on what a "computer" is important? What criteria are you using? I ask this because we even have "Doom played on a pregnancy test" https://www.pcmag.com/news/yes-doom-is-playable-on-a-pregnancy-test https://www.pcmag.com/news/yes-doom-is-playable-on-a-pregnan... . Basically any justification or rubric on what a computer is sure looks to me as artificial and gatekeepy.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Apple could allow personal hobby apps at basically no cost. The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally. This is very likely to lead to increased goodwill and significant further purchases of products and other services. Development of Xcode (not the best environment ever...) and Swift/UIKit will continue anyway. There is no sense in which a few thousand/tens of thousands of hobby developers are paying for that to any significant extent. This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already. I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems. Instead of expanding the ecosystem this contracts it.
- tarotuser 4y ago
  > Apple could allow personal hobby apps at basically no cost. > This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already. They have always had that option. However it goes against the "You bought it, but we retain control forever" aspect that Apple exudes on every hardware line. And even though installing software outside of their "App store" is possible on the laptops, my guess is that soon will not be. Iron-fisted control is their modus operandi. > The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally. The counter to that: by having a much of even lower class shovelware, like Android, devalues their platform. They want money developers and big name companies. And it's even better if your org is exclusive to Apple. Stay off those "green text bubble" devices. > I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems. It makes commercial sense if you want to create a nearly impenetrable moat around your hardware, software, and userbase. The $100/yr dev license is also a signpost to everyone that "we mean business - we don't want riff-raff here". And combined with other anti-user and anti-developer decisions (soldered in ram; cpu; disks, and industrial glue on everything now) those devs are either biting the increasingly painful prescription of bullets, or they have already left to "lesser platforms", with low user numbers.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Apple could allow personal hobby apps at basically no cost. The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally. This is very likely to lead to increased goodwill and significant further purchases of products and other services. Development of Xcode (not the best environment ever...) and Swift/UIKit will continue anyway. There is no sense in which a few thousand/tens of thousands of hobby developers are paying for that to any significant extent. This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already. I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems. Instead of expanding the ecosystem this contracts it.

tarotuser 4y ago
> Apple could allow personal hobby apps at basically no cost. > This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already. They have always had that option. However it goes against the "You bought it, but we retain control forever" aspect that Apple exudes on every hardware line. And even though installing software outside of their "App store" is possible on the laptops, my guess is that soon will not be. Iron-fisted control is their modus operandi. > The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally. The counter to that: by having a much of even lower class shovelware, like Android, devalues their platform. They want money developers and big name companies. And it's even better if your org is exclusive to Apple. Stay off those "green text bubble" devices. > I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems. It makes commercial sense if you want to create a nearly impenetrable moat around your hardware, software, and userbase. The $100/yr dev license is also a signpost to everyone that "we mean business - we don't want riff-raff here". And combined with other anti-user and anti-developer decisions (soldered in ram; cpu; disks, and industrial glue on everything now) those devs are either biting the increasingly painful prescription of bullets, or they have already left to "lesser platforms", with low user numbers.