4 ms·

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

by 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?
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  > 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. Even then, the end user will have to do an extra step, and (I guess) face a Dread Warning against Infectious Diseases. I say the hassle is big enough to repel nearly any user.
mindslight 14y ago
Take a look at how much compilers for various Unices cost a decade ago, and how much embedded development tools cost today. GCC was popular before Linux/*BSD/etc, and for a reason. Yes, free Free tools are widely available today, but $100 for a development environment is historically quite cheap.

by runn1ng 14y ago

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?

loup-vaillant 14y ago
> 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. Even then, the end user will have to do an extra step, and (I guess) face a Dread Warning against Infectious Diseases. I say the hassle is big enough to repel nearly any user.

mindslight 14y ago

Take a look at how much compilers for various Unices cost a decade ago, and how much embedded development tools cost today. GCC was popular before Linux/*BSD/etc, and for a reason. Yes, free Free tools are widely available today, but $100 for a development environment is historically quite cheap.