> Apple could allow personal hobby apps at basically no cost. > This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation o

> 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.