6 ms·

I'm still waiting for the lawsuit that forces apple to provide an option to install unreviewed apps. Nobody would tolerate this kind of total platform control

• nik_0_0 14y ago
  When your what is as big as Apple is?
  • duiker101 14y ago
    it's obvious that he meant you are. Please, not everyone is a native English speaker and even if he was a typo can happen to anyone. There is no need to correct everybody. I think this is an enough mature community to understand that.
• girasquid 14y ago
  This already basically exists with the adhoc system. For $99/year, I can load up to 100 devices with anything I sign with my certificate, no app store required.
  • duiker101 14y ago
    No it's not the same. It's not even close to that. I am fine with the 99$/year, I am fine with the no appstore, I can find my methods, but limiting me to 100 devices it's whole another story.
    • girasquid 14y ago
      I'm told that if you ask nicely, you can get the limit bumped up to 200 or 300 devices - failing that, you could also get an enterprise license (which has no device restrictions).
  • guelo 14y ago
    $99/year + a relatively recent Mac + $4.99 for XCode + extensive technical training on how to compile and sign a project + the source code of the app you're trying to install.
    • chrisballinger 14y ago
      Xcode is "free" with your $99/yr subscription
      • comex 14y ago
        Xcode is free, period. The $4.99 thing was only in place briefly.
    • marquis 14y ago
      We use http://testflightapp.com http://testflightapp.com with beta testers, I can't praise it highly enough.
      • jacktoole1 14y ago
        Thanks for posting this! This is exactly what I needed.
    • greedo 14y ago
      Extensive technical training? Seems like it's something a kid can do... http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/18/1209941/kid-writes-iphone-app-for-charity.html http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/18/1209941/kid-writes-iph...
    • pooriaazimi 14y ago
      You don't need the source code. Search for InstaSign/iReSign. And you don't need a relatively new Mac, just a Core 2 Duo Intel or newer (I have a 3 year old MBP and can sign/develop for iOS 6 beta seed 1). And it requires absolutely zero technical knowledge: You just drag and drop an .ipa file, and sync with iTunes. Xcode is free. So, only your first argument ($99/year, for 100 devices) is actually correct. --- I hate being forced to defend Apple in a case that I don't agree with what they did, but your very poor criticism made me to correct you. I'm sure you understand that it's nothing personal, and doesn't mean I agree with what Apple did.
• gwright 14y ago
  While I do agree with some criticisms regarding Apple's management of their app ecosystem, I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity. If you are critical of Apple's 'dictatorship', how can you be comfortable with the idea that the government is going to wield its power any better? You can choose not to do business with Apple. Try that with the government. We aren't talking about public safety, fraudulent behavior, or monopolistic advantage here. You can even utilize Apple's hardware and ditch their curated ecosystem if you want (jail break your phone). Nobody is going to stop you. Running to a lawyer and the courts when you don't like the product offerings of a private company is absurd.
  • wissler 14y ago
    "I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity." Which is so unlike the legal regime that backs up that "private" entity when it uses government granted privilege to keep competitors at bay (such as with patents and insane copyright legislation). I would be perfectly fine with having their own little private ecosystem where they pull the rug out from under developers -- if they would stop trying to undermine those trying to compete with it via lawsuits, for that would just mean that they would ultimately learn their lesson. But when the government stands behind their tyranny over developers, they never learn.
    • ashishgandhi 14y ago
      Did you just suggest that, to teach Apple a lesson for protecting granted patents[1] - which is legal - the government should control what they can and cannot do with something they created? [1] If the patent system is good/evil/broken/whatever is a separate argument. And if the patent system is the problem you fix the patent system, not something else that isn't related to it.
    • wissler 14y ago
      ashish*: "Did you just suggest that, to teach Apple a lesson for protecting granted patents[1] - which is legal - the government should control what they can and cannot do with something they created?" No, I said if the free market were in force (as opposed to the protection racket that is the patent system), then THAT would teach Apple a lesson. I made no remark about whether there should be strings attached to government privilege, but certainly it's reasonable that if someone is profiting unjustly from government handouts (e.g. patents), then they shouldn't have carte blanche.
• rimantas 14y ago
  > Why is it tolerated in iOS? And why shouldn't it be? Make your own platform ant control it however you want.
  • soup10 14y ago
    Because it's an unethical business practice and detrimental to society as a whole. It's like if I buy all the real-estate in New York City, then force all businesses to pay me 30% of there revenues if they want operate there, and forbid any business that competes with one of mine.
    • greedo 14y ago
      Actually, it's more like you buy all the cheap mineral rights to land in North Dakota, and then develop fracking to extract oil and natural gas. Just because everyone else failed in North Dakota doesn't mean that you're now required to grant all the other energy companies access. No one holds a gun to your head to buy an iPhone/iPod/iPad. There are alternatives to these devices, some with more freedom, some with less.
    • lloeki 14y ago
      > detrimental to society as a whole I wish just as much as the next computer geek to be able to side-load any app into my iOS devices, but millions of zombie machines and a slew of critical private information harvesters are way more detrimental (and even more in your phone which may become your credit card and whatnot). I honestly sleep much better now that I know my relatives won't download, install and execute some random app, since they conveniently have all they could wish for right in the App Store, reviewed and signed. It's not an invincible fortress, but it's way safer and more secure for them than a full-open (or even half-open) situation.
    • vacri 14y ago
      That 30% is standard business practice for middlemen. Any time you see someone complaining about the 30% cut, you can be sure that they don't have business experience. In some businesses the middleman gets a bit lower, in others a bit higher, but 30% is boringly normal. Do you think the farmers make more than 70% of the retail price you pay for food in a supermarket? At an eatery? Do you think that book authors (before or after the internet) get more than 70% of the retail price of each book? In selling things, the creation of the thing is important, yes. But so is getting it to customers and changing over the money (distribution and retail channel).
• quanticle 14y ago
  Nobody would tolerate this kind of total platform control in OS X or windows. I disagree. I think, if the control were introduced slowly enough and with the right justifications ("security" and "convenience" spring to mind) many users would welcome iOS level restrictions on their general purpose computing hardware. Indeed, we're already seeing Apple move in this direction with its increasingly strict restrictions on App Store purchases in OSX. I hate to be as alarmist as Stallman and co., but I do think the ship has sailed on this one. The only way to guarantee that your device is open is to run an open operating system on it. If this were an Android app instead of an iPad, then the developers could have asked users to install a different app. store (like Amazon's app store) or even offered the .apk for the users to install themselves. It would have been less convenient than installing from Google Play, but it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult as with iOS.
  • kumarm 14y ago
    >>many users would welcome iOS level restrictions on their general purpose computing hardware If microsoft did that, There would have been no browser, No hacker news and you wouldn't have had opportunity to post that comment.
    • quanticle 14y ago
      Not necessarily. There would have been one browser: Internet Explorer, and if Hacker News didn't work with it (or if Microsoft had decided to block HN) then I'd be out of luck. And guess what? That's exactly the road Microsoft was going down when the Justice Department intervened and said that their bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows was anti-competitive. Yes, Microsoft got away with a "slap on the wrist", but I do think that decision created space for alternative browsers (like Firefox and Opera, and later Chrome) on the Windows platform. So yes, I agree with you. If Microsoft had been allowed to proceed down that path, it's conceivable that Hacker News wouldn't be around, or would exist in a different form. Now Apple is going down the path that was trod earlier by Microsoft. Yet the Justice Department today is silent.
• kolinko 14y ago
  Windows was a monopoly, hence the government didn't allow for this kind of behavior. iOS is not the only one, so you have a choice. I, for one, am glad of the situation. No sideloading means less piracy.
• zem 14y ago
  a legal ruling that jailbreaking cannot void a hardware warranty should be sufficient. anything more than that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
• rwallace 14y ago
  Instead of waiting for a lawsuit, I think a better option is to move to Android, the competing platform that gives you that freedom right now, today.