7 ms·

This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here. Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools wit

by nirvana 14y ago

This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here. Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools with their systems. In the Apple II days it was built in to the ROMS. Nowadays on the Mac AppStore you can download Xcode, for free. (though at one point I think it was $5 for some reason.) You can develop any mac apps you want, and run them to your hearts content, and you can develop iOS Apps and run them in the simulator (to distribute these apps via apple's store, you only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software.) Its never been easier to be a hacker! And that isn't going to change anytime soon, at least on Apple systems. (All the apple bashing on HN is from the google distortion field, it isn't reality.) Hell, you can even develop iOS apps without using any apple tools and distribute them on the web to anyone, for free, and without any regulation by apple. You just have to use javascript and web technologies, but the full iOS UI is available, including things like touch tracking, gyroscope, GPS, etc. People are so adamant that the iPhone is locked down that many people don't even know this, but it has been in iOS since day one-- in fact it was how Apple wanted everyone to develop apps originally (outside apple's control!) but people kept demanding native apps so apple created the appstore, and the curation of that is a consequence of not wanting malware. (Hard to write javascript malware.)

Auguste 14y ago
(All the apple bashing on HN is from the google distortion field, it isn't reality.) Wat? The world isn't divided into Apple users and Google users. I'm sure I'm not the only person who avoids both, and there's plenty out there who love both.
cageface 14y ago
You just have to use javascript and web technologies, but the full iOS UI is available, including things like touch tracking, gyroscope, GPS, etc. You've obviously never developed iOS apps. You do not have access to any of the native Apple UIs through Javascript. No UIViewController, no Core Data, no iCloud, etc etc, just like every other HTML5 platform. You have some mediated access to the device but this is nothing like a real native app. And every other platform vendor also ships free development tools.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  In fairness, you do get a LOT of exposure to the device with JavaScript & HTML5 on iOS: Touch (including Multi-touch sensing), Accelerometer, Gyro, GPS, Compass, Messages, Contacts, Local Storage (SQL or Key/Value), Airplay opt-in, etc.. https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/navigation/#section=Topics&topic=User%20Experience https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/navigation/#secti... So, you can get pretty close to a native experience - Ft.com is an example of this. But yes, a native app adds more (iCloud, 3D graphics, Networking, Files, etc.)
reedlaw 14y ago
What about the fact that you can't share programs that you write on an iPad? Apple doesn't allow code downloads inside of apps. I would hardly call Apple an open platform anymore.
gizmo686 14y ago
Assuming you are correct about non app-store distribution, you still have the problem that few users will ever find those other distribution systems when the app-store is so close and convenient. This can be contrasted with most Linux package distribution systems. From the end users perspective, they work the same way as the app-store (except that most don't have a payment mechanism, and they handle dependencies). However, in addition to the officially supported repository, it is a simple checkbox, in a readily accessible menu, to enable the community supported repositories. If these repositories are not 'free' enough for you, they make it easy to add 3rd party repositories. This would be the same as Apple letting you integrate non-Apple app-stores seamlessly into the app-store app. Admittedly, at this point we are back in the realm of more advanced users, however the distributions make adding 3rd party repositories as easy as I can imagine (you just need to put the URL in the user-friendly menu). And, once you add another repository, you need to go out of your way to where which repository you are installing from. Assuming Apple does not change their app aceptence policies, and don't have a less strict repository that can be checkbox-enabled, it does not seem difficult to believe that 1 or 2 3rd party stores would gain widespread use. It is even more believable when you look at how common jailbraking is. Now replace the concerns about warranties, bricking, hacking with comfort by how well supported it is.
tree_of_item 14y ago
You keep repeating this stuff about JavaScript having access to the "full iOS UI" but that's completely false. The only way JavaScript developers will be able to write first class mobile applications is if Mozilla's efforts succeed; Apple isn't helping at all.
ekianjo 14y ago
There's no such thing as "near free". Free is a boolean variable, either it is free or it is not free. Apple does not distribute any free tools to develop and run software for their systems, period. If you want to be a free hacker, it's Linux or Windows, currently. And as another person responded to you, you cannot use the UI elements via javascript and all. Get some docs, seriously.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Windows hacker? Finding information about system internels is more often then not an easter egg hunt on google.
  - chao- 14y ago
    Say what you will about Windows (and I will even join you), but Microsoft can put out some alarmingly competent docs. I say "can" and not "always do", because where they are lacking, I agree it can be frustrating. That said, in one such scenario the solution for me was to get in touch with a PM at MS and say: "You designed [system #42]. I'm trying to accomplish [nifty goal] that is an obvious extension of what you suggest that [system #42] should be used for. You said some examples are included with the most recent Windows SDK. After downloading it, I found no such example and the problem seems a little intractable. What gives?" The response contained an attachment of the overlooked/unincluded examples, and some clarifications about the system I was working with and even explained that some of what I was doing was explicitly NOT possible, for very good reasons (for the record, an earlier version of Windows Search). I say this as a desktop Linux user, where at times my only recourse for "Why won't [application x] properly fullscreen?" is to go and do just what you suggest: an easter egg hunt on google. Furthermore, the end-all-be-all solution is the same as it is with our Windows example: get in touch with someone at the project and ask for clarification. The difference lies in that with one case, it's someone's job to provide clarification for the system they designed. In the other case, the possibilities are too varied to speculate on (e.g. unmaintained project, antisocial developer).
    - gizmo686 14y ago
statictype 14y ago
It's not $99 to distribute apps. It's $99 for putting software you wrote on any device, including the one you purchased and own. Yes, it may be still less than the cost of dev tools for other archaic platforms but please don't spin this as Apple doing a favor to the community. The iOs toolchain is business friendly (in that it's great for developers using it to make a living) but its absolutely not hacker friendly or tinkerer friendly in any reasonable way.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  This is not true. If you think it is, please provide a link to the Apple dev documentation that proves it. I'm not an OSX developer myself but plenty of my friends and colleagues have written "scratch the itch" Mac apps for themselves without paying $99.
  - statictype 14y ago
    I'm referring to iOS. Not OSX.
dbaupp 14y ago
Surely this argument implies you should be a larger fan of linuxes and BSDs? (And of things like Mozilla's mobile platform.)
runn1ng 14y ago
To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. You have to agree to pages of Apple's terms if you want to let anyone to run your thing on iOS. "You only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software." - where do you get these numbers? You can put your software for free on sourceforge (AFAIK); also, Debian's software repositories work almost like App Store, but FOR FREE. If you are more commercial, you can use any of other solutions which do not cost "$50-$5,000", you just made that up. YOU are the one doing distortion field, as I read your comments on Hacker News. Compare how simple is to download source codes and SDKs to Google Android, how simple is to hack the application and run it on your device, how simple is to put it on the market - and how convoluted is it with Apple. You actually can't download the source code to most of iOS. Personal note: if commenters like you will be more frequent on Hacker News, I will stop reading the comments alltogether.
- demallien 14y ago
  To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. This is pure FUD. You only need to sign apps if you are planning on distributing them as pre-compiled binaries, and even then the end user can deactivate gatekeeper in case you haven't signed your app. If you are writing apps for yourself, you can just compile normally, and deactivate Gatekeeper on your system. This holds equally if you wish to distribute your app to friends and family (telling them to deactivate Gatekeeper...). If you want to distribute to strangers, you may have a tougher time convincing them to deactivate their security to run your app though. Of course, even if the above wasn't true, this would still be a strawman. The vast majority of people capable of programming well enough to want to distribute their software are more than capable of putting together the 99 bucks needed to get a developer certificate. where do you get these numbers? You must be too young to remember actually having to buy Turbo C / Visual Studio / Metrowerks, but the parent post is absolutely correct - historically professional-grade developer tools have been quite expensive. It is only relatively recently that we have had the luxury of these tools being available for free. YOU are the one doing distortion field Seriously? And this advances the debate how?
mindslight 14y ago
It's very odd seeing these Apple apologist comments from someone who generally posts spot-on libertarian comments. I'll agree that the present-day behavior of Apple has had few explicit negatives compared to the positives from the curation and the general slickness/ease of use of their products. But pragmatism does not extrapolate into long-term behavior or philosophical justification. (ps I would think the Google distortion field would complement the Apple one. Both companies are based on centralized control of computing, they just use different technologies to achieve this)

by nirvana 14y ago

Auguste 14y ago

(All the apple bashing on HN is from the google distortion field, it isn't reality.) Wat? The world isn't divided into Apple users and Google users. I'm sure I'm not the only person who avoids both, and there's plenty out there who love both.

cageface 14y ago

You just have to use javascript and web technologies, but the full iOS UI is available, including things like touch tracking, gyroscope, GPS, etc. You've obviously never developed iOS apps. You do not have access to any of the native Apple UIs through Javascript. No UIViewController, no Core Data, no iCloud, etc etc, just like every other HTML5 platform. You have some mediated access to the device but this is nothing like a real native app. And every other platform vendor also ships free development tools.

parasubvert 14y ago
In fairness, you do get a LOT of exposure to the device with JavaScript & HTML5 on iOS: Touch (including Multi-touch sensing), Accelerometer, Gyro, GPS, Compass, Messages, Contacts, Local Storage (SQL or Key/Value), Airplay opt-in, etc.. https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/navigation/#section=Topics&topic=User%20Experience https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/navigation/#secti... So, you can get pretty close to a native experience - Ft.com is an example of this. But yes, a native app adds more (iCloud, 3D graphics, Networking, Files, etc.)

reedlaw 14y ago

What about the fact that you can't share programs that you write on an iPad? Apple doesn't allow code downloads inside of apps. I would hardly call Apple an open platform anymore.

gizmo686 14y ago

Assuming you are correct about non app-store distribution, you still have the problem that few users will ever find those other distribution systems when the app-store is so close and convenient. This can be contrasted with most Linux package distribution systems. From the end users perspective, they work the same way as the app-store (except that most don't have a payment mechanism, and they handle dependencies). However, in addition to the officially supported repository, it is a simple checkbox, in a readily accessible menu, to enable the community supported repositories. If these repositories are not 'free' enough for you, they make it easy to add 3rd party repositories. This would be the same as Apple letting you integrate non-Apple app-stores seamlessly into the app-store app. Admittedly, at this point we are back in the realm of more advanced users, however the distributions make adding 3rd party repositories as easy as I can imagine (you just need to put the URL in the user-friendly menu). And, once you add another repository, you need to go out of your way to where which repository you are installing from. Assuming Apple does not change their app aceptence policies, and don't have a less strict repository that can be checkbox-enabled, it does not seem difficult to believe that 1 or 2 3rd party stores would gain widespread use. It is even more believable when you look at how common jailbraking is. Now replace the concerns about warranties, bricking, hacking with comfort by how well supported it is.

tree_of_item 14y ago

You keep repeating this stuff about JavaScript having access to the "full iOS UI" but that's completely false. The only way JavaScript developers will be able to write first class mobile applications is if Mozilla's efforts succeed; Apple isn't helping at all.

ekianjo 14y ago

There's no such thing as "near free". Free is a boolean variable, either it is free or it is not free. Apple does not distribute any free tools to develop and run software for their systems, period. If you want to be a free hacker, it's Linux or Windows, currently. And as another person responded to you, you cannot use the UI elements via javascript and all. Get some docs, seriously.

gizmo686 14y ago
Windows hacker? Finding information about system internels is more often then not an easter egg hunt on google.
- chao- 14y ago
  Say what you will about Windows (and I will even join you), but Microsoft can put out some alarmingly competent docs. I say "can" and not "always do", because where they are lacking, I agree it can be frustrating. That said, in one such scenario the solution for me was to get in touch with a PM at MS and say: "You designed [system #42]. I'm trying to accomplish [nifty goal] that is an obvious extension of what you suggest that [system #42] should be used for. You said some examples are included with the most recent Windows SDK. After downloading it, I found no such example and the problem seems a little intractable. What gives?" The response contained an attachment of the overlooked/unincluded examples, and some clarifications about the system I was working with and even explained that some of what I was doing was explicitly NOT possible, for very good reasons (for the record, an earlier version of Windows Search). I say this as a desktop Linux user, where at times my only recourse for "Why won't [application x] properly fullscreen?" is to go and do just what you suggest: an easter egg hunt on google. Furthermore, the end-all-be-all solution is the same as it is with our Windows example: get in touch with someone at the project and ask for clarification. The difference lies in that with one case, it's someone's job to provide clarification for the system they designed. In the other case, the possibilities are too varied to speculate on (e.g. unmaintained project, antisocial developer).
  - gizmo686 14y ago

statictype 14y ago

It's not $99 to distribute apps. It's $99 for putting software you wrote on any device, including the one you purchased and own. Yes, it may be still less than the cost of dev tools for other archaic platforms but please don't spin this as Apple doing a favor to the community. The iOs toolchain is business friendly (in that it's great for developers using it to make a living) but its absolutely not hacker friendly or tinkerer friendly in any reasonable way.

snowwrestler 14y ago
This is not true. If you think it is, please provide a link to the Apple dev documentation that proves it. I'm not an OSX developer myself but plenty of my friends and colleagues have written "scratch the itch" Mac apps for themselves without paying $99.
- statictype 14y ago
  I'm referring to iOS. Not OSX.

dbaupp 14y ago

Surely this argument implies you should be a larger fan of linuxes and BSDs? (And of things like Mozilla's mobile platform.)

runn1ng 14y ago

To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. You have to agree to pages of Apple's terms if you want to let anyone to run your thing on iOS. "You only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software." - where do you get these numbers? You can put your software for free on sourceforge (AFAIK); also, Debian's software repositories work almost like App Store, but FOR FREE. If you are more commercial, you can use any of other solutions which do not cost "$50-$5,000", you just made that up. YOU are the one doing distortion field, as I read your comments on Hacker News. Compare how simple is to download source codes and SDKs to Google Android, how simple is to hack the application and run it on your device, how simple is to put it on the market - and how convoluted is it with Apple. You actually can't download the source code to most of iOS. Personal note: if commenters like you will be more frequent on Hacker News, I will stop reading the comments alltogether.

demallien 14y ago
To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. This is pure FUD. You only need to sign apps if you are planning on distributing them as pre-compiled binaries, and even then the end user can deactivate gatekeeper in case you haven't signed your app. If you are writing apps for yourself, you can just compile normally, and deactivate Gatekeeper on your system. This holds equally if you wish to distribute your app to friends and family (telling them to deactivate Gatekeeper...). If you want to distribute to strangers, you may have a tougher time convincing them to deactivate their security to run your app though. Of course, even if the above wasn't true, this would still be a strawman. The vast majority of people capable of programming well enough to want to distribute their software are more than capable of putting together the 99 bucks needed to get a developer certificate. where do you get these numbers? You must be too young to remember actually having to buy Turbo C / Visual Studio / Metrowerks, but the parent post is absolutely correct - historically professional-grade developer tools have been quite expensive. It is only relatively recently that we have had the luxury of these tools being available for free. YOU are the one doing distortion field Seriously? And this advances the debate how?

mindslight 14y ago

It's very odd seeing these Apple apologist comments from someone who generally posts spot-on libertarian comments. I'll agree that the present-day behavior of Apple has had few explicit negatives compared to the positives from the curation and the general slickness/ease of use of their products. But pragmatism does not extrapolate into long-term behavior or philosophical justification. (ps I would think the Google distortion field would complement the Apple one. Both companies are based on centralized control of computing, they just use different technologies to achieve this)