3 ms·

Needing an apple device to compile for an apple device is not an unreasonable requirement. Paying $100 every year is.

intothemild 9mo ago
No, sorry, but it is unreasonable.. Why should I need an apple device to compile my code for an apple device? You can build Android apps on an Apple device, no problem. You can build Linux apps on an Apple device, no problem. etc... But the reverse isn't true. Its just more of Apple financially gate keeping their ecosystem so they make more money in as many channels as they possibly can. Testing on real hardware is the ONLY time I would say that owning, or at least having access to the hardware has real tangible benefits, and I would argue that that you NEED or SHOULD do this.. But to block compiling to that ecosystem? Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Blocking compiling, means requiring xcode, which requires a mac, which requires you to give more money to Apple, and is no different IMHO than giving Apple $100 a year, because now you're giving them a lot more of that every X years (where x is how many years that laptop gets updates)
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  For decades, Microsoft only made Visual C++ for Windows, and alternatives like DJGPP weren't very good. This isn't unreasonable, it's just how programming works when you target a platform. Visual C++ relies on Windows because it's a Windows program, and Xcode is written for MacOS, not for Java or Electron. What is stopping you from writing an open source alternative to Xcode that runs on Linux?
  - colonwqbang 9mo ago
    ...The code signing requirement?
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Why can't code be signed with open source tools?
      - AceJohnny2 9mo ago
        you can code-sign with open-source tools. That's not the hard part. Signing with a certificate trusted by macOS , that's where there's no avoiding having to go to Apple.
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        Of course, but that wasn't the complaint, was it? The complaint was having to build on an apple device
butvacuum 9mo ago
If you only publish free apps... you only pay $100 once.

No, sorry, but it is unreasonable.. Why should I need an apple device to compile my code for an apple device? You can build Android apps on an Apple device, no problem. You can build Linux apps on an Apple device, no problem. etc... But the reverse isn't true. Its just more of Apple financially gate keeping their ecosystem so they make more money in as many channels as they possibly can. Testing on real hardware is the ONLY time I would say that owning, or at least having access to the hardware has real tangible benefits, and I would argue that that you NEED or SHOULD do this.. But to block compiling to that ecosystem? Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Blocking compiling, means requiring xcode, which requires a mac, which requires you to give more money to Apple, and is no different IMHO than giving Apple $100 a year, because now you're giving them a lot more of that every X years (where x is how many years that laptop gets updates)

direwolf20 9mo ago
For decades, Microsoft only made Visual C++ for Windows, and alternatives like DJGPP weren't very good. This isn't unreasonable, it's just how programming works when you target a platform. Visual C++ relies on Windows because it's a Windows program, and Xcode is written for MacOS, not for Java or Electron. What is stopping you from writing an open source alternative to Xcode that runs on Linux?
- colonwqbang 9mo ago
  ...The code signing requirement?
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Why can't code be signed with open source tools?
    - AceJohnny2 9mo ago
      you can code-sign with open-source tools. That's not the hard part. Signing with a certificate trusted by macOS , that's where there's no avoiding having to go to Apple.
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        Of course, but that wasn't the complaint, was it? The complaint was having to build on an apple device

butvacuum 9mo ago

If you only publish free apps... you only pay $100 once.