10 ms·

Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app. You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those w

Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app. You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did. And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher. Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?

pilif 15y ago
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students? I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better. (edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  That's interesting. My feeling is that the problem her is with the Apple Developer network rather than the functionality - I think the functionality just highlights the problem. Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
  - brudgers 15y ago
    Historically, Apple has rarely provided free software, hardware or services to the education market. It appears to me that their strategy since the Apple II days has generally been to monetize the education industry to the highest level the market will allow. They may offer small student discounts off of list price on college campus bookstores, but I suspect it increases sales more than enough to raise profits.
- sirn 15y ago
  I'm willing to bet that Apple is going to allow free certificates without having to pay a cent when Mountain Lion launches; Apple already did this for Safari Extensions, for example. (Safari Extensions must be signed, but anyone can request for a cert.) It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1]. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/ https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  A license is $99. If you can afford a Mac to develop on your can certainly afford a $99 license. They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99). People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
  - ElliotH 15y ago
    Well you can solve that by charging for access to the beta program surely?
    - k-mcgrady 15y ago
      Yes, but Apple doesn't want to allow people to pay to get into a Beta. They want only devs taking part. A fee to enter the dev program seems like the best solution to me. Honestly they should increase it to $199 to help weed out the app spammers.
      - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
        There's enough money in app spamming that it would have to be a lot higher than that to put them off. As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off. I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
        k-mcgrady 15y ago
        That's a good point. It would help get the beta testers out of the forums though :) Every time a new iOS version starts testing the forums are overrun with people who have x bug and don't understand what beta means. I wish there was a way for Apple to prevent a lot of the App Store spam. I wouldn't be against them becoming more curated (i.e. only apps they deem useful and quality get it). Or have a special section in the store labeled 'crap'.
brudgers 15y ago
>"You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it." The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference. Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit. However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's. If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings Gruber's article says signing will be free. No paid developer program membership required.
- jaylevitt 15y ago
  TFA says the default security setting DOES run any signed app. The two non-default settings are tighter (App Store only) and looser (any app).

pilif 15y ago

Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students? I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better. (edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
That's interesting. My feeling is that the problem her is with the Apple Developer network rather than the functionality - I think the functionality just highlights the problem. Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
- brudgers 15y ago
  Historically, Apple has rarely provided free software, hardware or services to the education market. It appears to me that their strategy since the Apple II days has generally been to monetize the education industry to the highest level the market will allow. They may offer small student discounts off of list price on college campus bookstores, but I suspect it increases sales more than enough to raise profits.
sirn 15y ago
I'm willing to bet that Apple is going to allow free certificates without having to pay a cent when Mountain Lion launches; Apple already did this for Safari Extensions, for example. (Safari Extensions must be signed, but anyone can request for a cert.) It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1]. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/ https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/
k-mcgrady 15y ago
A license is $99. If you can afford a Mac to develop on your can certainly afford a $99 license. They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99). People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
- ElliotH 15y ago
  Well you can solve that by charging for access to the beta program surely?
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    Yes, but Apple doesn't want to allow people to pay to get into a Beta. They want only devs taking part. A fee to enter the dev program seems like the best solution to me. Honestly they should increase it to $199 to help weed out the app spammers.
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      There's enough money in app spamming that it would have to be a lot higher than that to put them off. As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off. I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
      - k-mcgrady 15y ago
        That's a good point. It would help get the beta testers out of the forums though :) Every time a new iOS version starts testing the forums are overrun with people who have x bug and don't understand what beta means. I wish there was a way for Apple to prevent a lot of the App Store spam. I wouldn't be against them becoming more curated (i.e. only apps they deem useful and quality get it). Or have a special section in the store labeled 'crap'.

brudgers 15y ago

>"You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it." The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference. Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit. However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's. If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.

ceejayoz 15y ago
> Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings Gruber's article says signing will be free. No paid developer program membership required.
jaylevitt 15y ago
TFA says the default security setting DOES run any signed app. The two non-default settings are tighter (App Store only) and looser (any app).