21 ms·

Apple removes $99 dev account requirement for first iOS 17 and macOS 14 betas

327 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

superkuh 3y ago
>Actually submitting apps to Apple for App Store distribution (or, on the Mac, signing them so that you can distribute them outside the App Store without setting off macOS' many unsigned app warning messages) will still cost $99 per year.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  Can't wait to get sideloading support in the EU. Then I might actually bother learning iOS development.
  - tazu 3y ago
    Agreed. We've gotten very far with a PWA (and now iOS web push notifications!) but the only thing holding us back is the App Store risk. I'd love to use native UIs because I hate Javascript and iPhone apps can be beautiful (for example, Apollo).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- reaperman 3y ago
  This is still a huge improvement. Can devs also use TestFlight for free to distribute to a few dozen friends for testing? Would be a massive benefit to budding developers in developing nations.
  - guraf 3y ago
    Serious question: why or how does a developer in a developing nation end up selecting macos as a platform? And after that deliberate choice of hardware why do we assume they couldn't afford the $99?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - norman784 3y ago
      I don't know how is now, but a few years ago you have more chances to monetize in iOS than in Android. Also you can get a used Mac or refurbished one relatively cheap.
    - CodeBeater 3y ago
      They might be trying to target that specific high-dollar demographic.
      - motogpjimbo 3y ago
        Outside of the US, iOS's market penetration is so low that unless your app sells luxury yachts, it's largely pointless to throw your dev resources behind it no matter how well-heeled your Apple customers may be.
    - schemescape 3y ago
      If they’re trying to sell apps, it would make sense to sell on the platform where people spend the most on apps. I have no way to verify, but I’ve heard that iOS is that platform.
      - derefr 3y ago
        Depends on whether you're trying to produce apps that target the global market or your own local market. There might be more apps purchased per capita on iOS, but if iOS is 0.001% penetration in your country, and your app is only for people in your country, then that stat isn't really relevant.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Who would make an app only for one country outside specific fringe cases Edit: Specifically on the topic of apps relevant to independent developers, the topic I’m replying to. An indie dev isn’t going to create a regional newspaper or utility company or a media empire or a government.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Can devs also use TestFlight for free to distribute to a few dozen friends for testing? No. https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
  - m3kw9 3y ago
    Prob not as that lowers the barrier to mass side loading via test flight
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Why is there any fee at all... $99 per developer is a rounding error for Apple, it simply doesn't matter one bit. Nor should you be limited to compiling on Apple hardware. These limitations are policy decisions, and just serve to reinforce the notion that Apple doesn't care about developers (hilarious for the company that pretty much invented app stores!). A lot like it was a ToS violation to run MacOS in a virtualization environment - why be so developer hostile? Nobody can soundly argue these artificial barriers have increased app quality on all the Apple platforms either. These barriers... just exist, just because.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      The fee is to prevent spam.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        Spam could be prevented with a listing fee if you want the app to list in the App Store. Spam is prevented by app reviews and policy enforcement, on the App store. A developer annual fee doesn't prevent spam. It's just there to be hostile to developers...
        blululu 3y ago
        I get that paying for stuff is a pain but apps are a business and there are a ton of expenses involved with any business (a websites, databases, cloud hosting are also not free). Having app reviews done by a human is fundamentally expensive. Given that a develop can easily submit a few apps in a year, I'm not really sure that Apple is even making much more than break even on the annual $100 fee. If they are it is small potatoes compared to the 15-33% fees on sales.
        dingledork69 3y ago
        Not all of them. Did you forget that open source software exists? Or just good old hobbyists.
  - dietr1ch 3y ago
    Right, they'll save 99 and still need to buy a super expensive computer that probably has a huge markup due to taxes, shipping, and just being in a poor country.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  so you cannot build apps for mac unless you pay the dev fees? even if you do the whole distribution yourself and avoid app store?
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    You can build and distribute them, but it's very ugly. When a person first tries to open your unsigned and unnotarized application, they get a big warning that the app cannot be opened. They need to actively whitelist it by going to the system settings or by right-clicking the application bundle and selecting "Open" from the menu. And the warning that it gives to users is such that your average user won't even have any idea that whitelisting is an option. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 While the process is fairly simple, it basically excludes all normal people from using your application if you don't sign them. So any application that wants to distribute outside macOS experts needs to get their application signed and notarized.
    - aprilnya 3y ago
      you could put a note in the dmg (drag app to apps folder screen) that says to right click->open when opening for the first time
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Technically you can, but if you do, Apple will lie to everyone who tries to use your app by telling them that it's dangerous and probably contains malware, and will make them jump through a bunch of hoops and try to talk them out of it at every step before they can actually run it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - vachina 3y ago
      Sounds like a racket. MSFT does the same with SmartScreen, regardless whether your executables are benign or not, unless you pay them (or a third party) for a signing cert.
rektide 3y ago
Given how hard they're trying to get people to care about Mac dev again - as with for example the directx to metal converter they want gangbusters on - it's a sensible & good move. They also have a public beta in July.
- tpmx 3y ago
  This plus the unexpected price decrease on the Macbook Air - feels like they're struggling a little bit in the Mac category. That's fantastic. Apple is at their best when they are struggling. There's of course also this from the latest quarterly report (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY23_Q2_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY23_Q2_Consolidated_Fin...): Net sales for the Mac category: Q1 '23: $7,618M Q1 '22: $10,435M
  - anankaie 3y ago
    Yes, and more broadly $Company is at their best when they are struggling.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Twitter fails this test.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      I don't think this is an axiom. Apple having a business unit performing under expectations though still profitable may be a win for buyers because they're well capitalized to shave margins to move more units. A struggling business that isn't well capitalized can't do the same thing, and that is way more typical
      - anankaie 3y ago
bogwog 3y ago
This title is misleading. The only change is that you don't need a developer account to download the developer beta version of iOS and macOS, which gets released before the public beta. Seemingly nothing has changed with regards to the Apple tax. EDIT: I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac development that they need to use early beta releases of the operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release apps?
- alwillis 3y ago
  > This title is misleading. It's not. Prior to this year, you had to have a paid account to install beta versions of the new operating systems announced at WWDC. Developers using free developer accounts had to wait until July until Apple released the public betas. No more sitting at the kids table. > I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac development that they need to use early beta releases of the operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release apps? If you have an idea, you don't need to pay $99 to access the latest betas operating systems and tools to try something out. It's also not only about development; new operating systems have features for system administrators and others involved in deployment of Apple devices and services. Someone who's administers 100 Macs or iPads at a school can get a head start of new feature and options in the new versions. There has always been an IT track at WWDC, though it doesn't get much attention. For starters: "What's new in managing Apple devices" [1] [1]: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10040 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10040
  - Aleklart 3y ago
    it is not like anything changed in new version this year, only new emoji level features added. may be that’s why they let regular users install it right away.
  - kotaKat 3y ago
    I’ve already had to notify my support team that iOS 17 reverts Private MAC address settings and breaks our network authentication on our network, so…
- ris58h 3y ago
jeron 3y ago
Does the $99 still apply if you are looking to develop for realityOS?
- judge2020 3y ago
  Even before now, you could develop for iOS and any other target, you just couldn't distribute to Testflight or the App Store or elsewhere - so yes, you'll be able to develop for and use the realityOS simulator[0]. 0: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10081?time=542 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10081?time=542
deepzn 3y ago
I remember when I first paid $99 for my dev account for the app store back in 2009. No inflation on the fee at least :)
outwit 3y ago
Digital markets act strikes again
eql5 3y ago
too little, too late...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
morpheuskafka 3y ago
So, this change (choosing a channel in Settings vs. installing a profile) was initially reported as a move to crack down on non-registered developers downloading the widely-shared profiles online. Kind of strange that it turns out to be the complete opposite.
qwertyuiop_ 3y ago
I installed iOS 17 and it feels so much snappier than iOS 16 ! Looks like Apple is finally focusing on performance.
- siraben 3y ago
  This is going to be a cliché question but... have you had any issues with battery life? (not counting the first day or so when it's reindexing everything).
  - qwertyuiop_ 3y ago
    I was expecting that but it’s decent so far, not running hot or draining battery.

327 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

>Actually submitting apps to Apple for App Store distribution (or, on the Mac, signing them so that you can distribute them outside the App Store without setting off macOS' many unsigned app warning messages) will still cost $99 per year.

Hamuko 3y ago
Can't wait to get sideloading support in the EU. Then I might actually bother learning iOS development.
- tazu 3y ago
  Agreed. We've gotten very far with a PWA (and now iOS web push notifications!) but the only thing holding us back is the App Store risk. I'd love to use native UIs because I hate Javascript and iPhone apps can be beautiful (for example, Apollo).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
reaperman 3y ago
This is still a huge improvement. Can devs also use TestFlight for free to distribute to a few dozen friends for testing? Would be a massive benefit to budding developers in developing nations.
- guraf 3y ago
  Serious question: why or how does a developer in a developing nation end up selecting macos as a platform? And after that deliberate choice of hardware why do we assume they couldn't afford the $99?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - norman784 3y ago
    I don't know how is now, but a few years ago you have more chances to monetize in iOS than in Android. Also you can get a used Mac or refurbished one relatively cheap.
  - CodeBeater 3y ago
    They might be trying to target that specific high-dollar demographic.
    - motogpjimbo 3y ago
      Outside of the US, iOS's market penetration is so low that unless your app sells luxury yachts, it's largely pointless to throw your dev resources behind it no matter how well-heeled your Apple customers may be.
  - schemescape 3y ago
    If they’re trying to sell apps, it would make sense to sell on the platform where people spend the most on apps. I have no way to verify, but I’ve heard that iOS is that platform.
    - derefr 3y ago
      Depends on whether you're trying to produce apps that target the global market or your own local market. There might be more apps purchased per capita on iOS, but if iOS is 0.001% penetration in your country, and your app is only for people in your country, then that stat isn't really relevant.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Who would make an app only for one country outside specific fringe cases Edit: Specifically on the topic of apps relevant to independent developers, the topic I’m replying to. An indie dev isn’t going to create a regional newspaper or utility company or a media empire or a government.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Can devs also use TestFlight for free to distribute to a few dozen friends for testing? No. https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
- m3kw9 3y ago
  Prob not as that lowers the barrier to mass side loading via test flight
- Alupis 3y ago
  Why is there any fee at all... $99 per developer is a rounding error for Apple, it simply doesn't matter one bit. Nor should you be limited to compiling on Apple hardware. These limitations are policy decisions, and just serve to reinforce the notion that Apple doesn't care about developers (hilarious for the company that pretty much invented app stores!). A lot like it was a ToS violation to run MacOS in a virtualization environment - why be so developer hostile? Nobody can soundly argue these artificial barriers have increased app quality on all the Apple platforms either. These barriers... just exist, just because.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    The fee is to prevent spam.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      Spam could be prevented with a listing fee if you want the app to list in the App Store. Spam is prevented by app reviews and policy enforcement, on the App store. A developer annual fee doesn't prevent spam. It's just there to be hostile to developers...
      - blululu 3y ago
        I get that paying for stuff is a pain but apps are a business and there are a ton of expenses involved with any business (a websites, databases, cloud hosting are also not free). Having app reviews done by a human is fundamentally expensive. Given that a develop can easily submit a few apps in a year, I'm not really sure that Apple is even making much more than break even on the annual $100 fee. If they are it is small potatoes compared to the 15-33% fees on sales.
        dingledork69 3y ago
        Not all of them. Did you forget that open source software exists? Or just good old hobbyists.
- dietr1ch 3y ago
  Right, they'll save 99 and still need to buy a super expensive computer that probably has a huge markup due to taxes, shipping, and just being in a poor country.
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
so you cannot build apps for mac unless you pay the dev fees? even if you do the whole distribution yourself and avoid app store?
- Hamuko 3y ago
  You can build and distribute them, but it's very ugly. When a person first tries to open your unsigned and unnotarized application, they get a big warning that the app cannot be opened. They need to actively whitelist it by going to the system settings or by right-clicking the application bundle and selecting "Open" from the menu. And the warning that it gives to users is such that your average user won't even have any idea that whitelisting is an option. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 While the process is fairly simple, it basically excludes all normal people from using your application if you don't sign them. So any application that wants to distribute outside macOS experts needs to get their application signed and notarized.
  - aprilnya 3y ago
    you could put a note in the dmg (drag app to apps folder screen) that says to right click->open when opening for the first time
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Technically you can, but if you do, Apple will lie to everyone who tries to use your app by telling them that it's dangerous and probably contains malware, and will make them jump through a bunch of hoops and try to talk them out of it at every step before they can actually run it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vachina 3y ago
    Sounds like a racket. MSFT does the same with SmartScreen, regardless whether your executables are benign or not, unless you pay them (or a third party) for a signing cert.

rektide 3y ago

Given how hard they're trying to get people to care about Mac dev again - as with for example the directx to metal converter they want gangbusters on - it's a sensible & good move. They also have a public beta in July.

tpmx 3y ago
This plus the unexpected price decrease on the Macbook Air - feels like they're struggling a little bit in the Mac category. That's fantastic. Apple is at their best when they are struggling. There's of course also this from the latest quarterly report (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY23_Q2_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY23_Q2_Consolidated_Fin...): Net sales for the Mac category: Q1 '23: $7,618M Q1 '22: $10,435M
- anankaie 3y ago
  Yes, and more broadly $Company is at their best when they are struggling.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Twitter fails this test.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    I don't think this is an axiom. Apple having a business unit performing under expectations though still profitable may be a win for buyers because they're well capitalized to shave margins to move more units. A struggling business that isn't well capitalized can't do the same thing, and that is way more typical
    - anankaie 3y ago

bogwog 3y ago

This title is misleading. The only change is that you don't need a developer account to download the developer beta version of iOS and macOS, which gets released before the public beta. Seemingly nothing has changed with regards to the Apple tax. EDIT: I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac development that they need to use early beta releases of the operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release apps?

alwillis 3y ago
> This title is misleading. It's not. Prior to this year, you had to have a paid account to install beta versions of the new operating systems announced at WWDC. Developers using free developer accounts had to wait until July until Apple released the public betas. No more sitting at the kids table. > I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac development that they need to use early beta releases of the operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release apps? If you have an idea, you don't need to pay $99 to access the latest betas operating systems and tools to try something out. It's also not only about development; new operating systems have features for system administrators and others involved in deployment of Apple devices and services. Someone who's administers 100 Macs or iPads at a school can get a head start of new feature and options in the new versions. There has always been an IT track at WWDC, though it doesn't get much attention. For starters: "What's new in managing Apple devices" [1] [1]: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10040 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10040
- Aleklart 3y ago
  it is not like anything changed in new version this year, only new emoji level features added. may be that’s why they let regular users install it right away.
- kotaKat 3y ago
  I’ve already had to notify my support team that iOS 17 reverts Private MAC address settings and breaks our network authentication on our network, so…
ris58h 3y ago

jeron 3y ago

Does the $99 still apply if you are looking to develop for realityOS?

judge2020 3y ago
Even before now, you could develop for iOS and any other target, you just couldn't distribute to Testflight or the App Store or elsewhere - so yes, you'll be able to develop for and use the realityOS simulator[0]. 0: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10081?time=542 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10081?time=542

deepzn 3y ago

I remember when I first paid $99 for my dev account for the app store back in 2009. No inflation on the fee at least :)

outwit 3y ago

Digital markets act strikes again

eql5 3y ago

too little, too late...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

morpheuskafka 3y ago

So, this change (choosing a channel in Settings vs. installing a profile) was initially reported as a move to crack down on non-registered developers downloading the widely-shared profiles online. Kind of strange that it turns out to be the complete opposite.

qwertyuiop_ 3y ago

I installed iOS 17 and it feels so much snappier than iOS 16 ! Looks like Apple is finally focusing on performance.

siraben 3y ago
This is going to be a cliché question but... have you had any issues with battery life? (not counting the first day or so when it's reindexing everything).
- qwertyuiop_ 3y ago
  I was expecting that but it’s decent so far, not running hot or draining battery.