11 ms·

Unexpected: "Xcode 7 and Swift now make it easier for everyone to build apps and run them directly on their Apple devices. Simply sign in with your Apple ID, an

Unexpected: "Xcode 7 and Swift now make it easier for everyone to build apps and run them directly on their Apple devices. Simply sign in with your Apple ID, and turn your idea into an app that you can touch on your iPad, iPhone, or Apple Watch. Download Xcode 7 beta and try it yourself today. Program membership is not required."

asendra 11y ago
They have also merged both iOS and OS X developer programs under the same roof. 99$/y gives you access to both now.
- vvanders 11y ago
  Does this mean you now need to pay $99/y to develop OSX apps?
  - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    Only if you want to distribute apps in the Mac App Store. Same as it was yesterday.
    - mmastrac 11y ago
      Or sign apps for others to download without the App Store (also the same).
  - gress 11y ago
    No. Just for access to the Mac App Store, and pre-release tools and OS versions.
    - smackfu 11y ago
      Although the second part of that is pretty important if you are a real software developer, even if you sell outside the app store.
  - donarb 11y ago
    No, you only need to pay if you want to distribute apps through the App Store.
    - lultimouomo 11y ago
      Is that right? As of Mavericks, OS X by default refuses to run applications that are not signed with a 99$/year Apple certificate.
      - Jtsummers 11y ago
        You can still run them you just have to go through system preferences to enable them.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        You can always right-click and select "Open".
        chc 11y ago
        I can do that, but it's not reasonable to expect my users to do so. As it is, indie developers have to choose between paying rent to Apple and having most users unable to open their apps.
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
        I mean, really, you're comparing paying rent with a $100/yr fee (which now allows you to sign apps across their platforms)? Really? I highly doubt most indie developers even have to make that choice. Finding the $100 a year is not the most impossible task in the world, even for a tiny indie developer. Plus, more than a few apps have added instructions on their download pages to show users how to get around Gatekeeper. They can clearly take the Gatekeeper hit, so you probably can too.
        chc 11y ago
        I could afford $100 a month. Affordability is not the point. The point is that Apple will block your app from opening by default unless you pay them a recurring fee, and if not, you must incur additional support burden to teach users how to get around the problem. Yes, lots of apps do post instructions on how to get around it, but lots of apps do all sorts of user-unfriendly things. We Apple users used to make fun of Windows for the endless sea of pointless dialogs its users had to go through. Those apps could take the shitty-UI hit, mine probably could too, but it still sucks. A lot of people are intimidated just looking at instructions like that, and will just give up. I don't know about you, but I feel like that's a pretty terrible first-run experience for my app. I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Would Apple be willing to put their own apps behind that kind of painwall?
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    Only if you want to publish in the Mac App Store or use any MAS-specific features (eg iCloud sync).
- TillE 11y ago
  Oh, that's excellent. I was just contemplating whether I really want to pay $99/year just to be able to sign a little Mac app, but if I can get all the iOS stuff too, I'll probably do it.
- xirdstl 11y ago
  Maybe this explains the recent bug I experienced where, when attempting to renew my iOS developer program for $99, the system added the Mac developer program to my cart for an additional $99 (which I didn't want).
vbezhenar 11y ago
What? It means that anyone can download XCode, any app from github and run it on their devices? That's very nice.
- sohailk 11y ago
  you could potentially bundle xcode + xctool + github into some sort of adhoc app store, no?
  - 0x0 11y ago
    It will probably have a really short code signing certificate expiration date, so you'll have to rebuild and reinstall all the time. They'll probably notice when 100000 users debug-sign the same app ID too...
    - vbezhenar 11y ago
      Re-signing could be done automatically when you plug your iDevice (unless TTL is really short like 1 hour). App ID, hash could be changed easily as well.
      - 0x0 11y ago
        If you change the app ID you start over with an empty app data directory, which is a bit of a hassle.
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
        Well I presume the hash wouldn't change in between installs, just from user to user.
Osmium 11y ago
> Program membership is not required. Though note that there's a current bug listed that looks like accounts with expired developer memberships currently can't use free provisioning. (For me, this is mildly irritating, because I let my membership lapse a few days ago on a hunch that they'd combine the developer programmes. And then they did, but I can't use the free provisioning, and the re-enrolment form doesn't seem to be working right now either.) Really nice to see this though.
- vbezhenar 11y ago
  You can try to create a new Apple ID while they fixing the bug.
  - Osmium 11y ago
    Thanks, but I managed to re-enroll via iTunes Connect instead. Though why a $99 developer program costs £79 in the UK I have no idea, I guess it's VAT. Hopefully I'll finally get an app out to justify it this year!
    - Alphasite_ 11y ago
      VAT pretty much covers it completely, sans vat its £66.
tiernano 11y ago
wonder will the same work for Mono Develop? Build on Windows or Mac with VS or Mono Develop and deploy to an iPhone with a Mac...
giarc 11y ago
I love this. I'm thrifty and haven't paid for a dev account but am deep into an app build. When I show clients, there's a bit of an awkward conversation when I explain that I have to show them on my macbook. If I could demo directly on my phone/tablet that would be amazing. Can't wait to use this feature!
- laydownlarry 11y ago
  you misspelled cheap
  - giarc 11y ago
    Sure, cheap/thrifty whatever. However, I'd rather pay for the dev account when I actually need it. I don't see a huge benefit to paying $100/year while in development. I can accomplish everything I want without it. Once I'm ready to publish the app in the app store, I'll gladly pay $100/year.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      And you don't consider showing clients to be "needing it"? If I were a client, I'd be questioning how serious you were.
      - giarc 11y ago
        Ya I could see that, however I should note the app is only a part of a bigger picture of products. I've also been developing it for the past 4-5 months but only started showing it to people lately. So perhaps now would be a good time to buy a dev account but I still haven't felt the big need. To each their own.
serve_yay 11y ago
I'm sure HN will find a talking point to replace that one :)
carlosrg 11y ago
FINALLY. I don't understand why they didn't do it earlier.
fierycatnet 11y ago
This is awesome. I might get back into iOS app development. I didn't feel like paying money for prototyping just so I could run it on my own device. Emulator wasn't doing it for me. Time to pickup Swift.
shurcooL 11y ago
Color me interested. With this, and https://github.com/rakyll/go2xcode https://github.com/rakyll/go2xcode, I might actually try making some apps to run on my iOS device now.
downandout 11y ago
This was the big news IMO. Many would-be developers reside in countries where $99/year is a huge amount of money that cannot be justified until they have a final, working product they are ready to distribute.
- kybernetyk 11y ago
  Yet those developers somehow can buy a computer for $1000+ and spend an additional $500-$800 on the tablet/phone? :)
  - downandout 11y ago
    No, they can't. You can run mac operating systems on any cheap intel hardware (and in vmware), and you can easily buy used phones/macs on eBay. Google the term Hackintosh or "vmware mac".
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      I'm not sure Apple would go far out of its way to help such users.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > Yet those developers somehow can buy a computer for $1000+ and spend an additional $500-$800 on the tablet/phone? :)[1] In a word - Yes. I am a developer from a 3rd world country, and I bought a Mac Mini for $500 (not '$1000+') for the purposes of entering the Apple ecosystem. I'm not going to spend another $500 on an iPhone[2], especially since I'm not sure if it will work out financially. The emulator will have to do (my apoligies to anyone who'll potentially run my apps and encounter bugs I miss because of this). 1. I'm not sure if the smiley is an indicator of sarcasm or not 2. If push comes to shove,I can afford it, but I've already bought the phone I'll use for the next 2-3 years (OnePlus), and I'd rather spend the money on other things - like family.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      If you're serious about making an App, then yes, you should spend the $100. You will get it back in the first couple of days if you make a good app. The $100 is to keep out the shovel ware and crap-- look at all the junk in the store as it is now. Imagine what it would be like if there wasn't that $100 barrier to entry?
WalterGR 11y ago
Not being a developer for Apple products, what has changed?
- chc 11y ago
  You used to have to get a $99 developer membership to put apps on your iPhone.
mcintyre1994 11y ago
Is this a path to non jailbreak sideloading at least for users with OSX and Xcode7? Not exactly likely to make a splash but interesting move if you can share these projects without too much fuss. More generally, this is an awesome move. Kudos to Apple :)

asendra 11y ago

They have also merged both iOS and OS X developer programs under the same roof. 99$/y gives you access to both now.

vvanders 11y ago
Does this mean you now need to pay $99/y to develop OSX apps?
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  Only if you want to distribute apps in the Mac App Store. Same as it was yesterday.
  - mmastrac 11y ago
    Or sign apps for others to download without the App Store (also the same).
- gress 11y ago
  No. Just for access to the Mac App Store, and pre-release tools and OS versions.
  - smackfu 11y ago
    Although the second part of that is pretty important if you are a real software developer, even if you sell outside the app store.
- donarb 11y ago
  No, you only need to pay if you want to distribute apps through the App Store.
  - lultimouomo 11y ago
    Is that right? As of Mavericks, OS X by default refuses to run applications that are not signed with a 99$/year Apple certificate.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      You can still run them you just have to go through system preferences to enable them.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      You can always right-click and select "Open".
      - chc 11y ago
        I can do that, but it's not reasonable to expect my users to do so. As it is, indie developers have to choose between paying rent to Apple and having most users unable to open their apps.
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
        I mean, really, you're comparing paying rent with a $100/yr fee (which now allows you to sign apps across their platforms)? Really? I highly doubt most indie developers even have to make that choice. Finding the $100 a year is not the most impossible task in the world, even for a tiny indie developer. Plus, more than a few apps have added instructions on their download pages to show users how to get around Gatekeeper. They can clearly take the Gatekeeper hit, so you probably can too.
        chc 11y ago
        I could afford $100 a month. Affordability is not the point. The point is that Apple will block your app from opening by default unless you pay them a recurring fee, and if not, you must incur additional support burden to teach users how to get around the problem. Yes, lots of apps do post instructions on how to get around it, but lots of apps do all sorts of user-unfriendly things. We Apple users used to make fun of Windows for the endless sea of pointless dialogs its users had to go through. Those apps could take the shitty-UI hit, mine probably could too, but it still sucks. A lot of people are intimidated just looking at instructions like that, and will just give up. I don't know about you, but I feel like that's a pretty terrible first-run experience for my app. I don't feel comfortable charging people for something they might not even be able to run. Would Apple be willing to put their own apps behind that kind of painwall?
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  Only if you want to publish in the Mac App Store or use any MAS-specific features (eg iCloud sync).
TillE 11y ago
Oh, that's excellent. I was just contemplating whether I really want to pay $99/year just to be able to sign a little Mac app, but if I can get all the iOS stuff too, I'll probably do it.
xirdstl 11y ago
Maybe this explains the recent bug I experienced where, when attempting to renew my iOS developer program for $99, the system added the Mac developer program to my cart for an additional $99 (which I didn't want).

vbezhenar 11y ago

What? It means that anyone can download XCode, any app from github and run it on their devices? That's very nice.

sohailk 11y ago
you could potentially bundle xcode + xctool + github into some sort of adhoc app store, no?
- 0x0 11y ago
  It will probably have a really short code signing certificate expiration date, so you'll have to rebuild and reinstall all the time. They'll probably notice when 100000 users debug-sign the same app ID too...
  - vbezhenar 11y ago
    Re-signing could be done automatically when you plug your iDevice (unless TTL is really short like 1 hour). App ID, hash could be changed easily as well.
    - 0x0 11y ago
      If you change the app ID you start over with an empty app data directory, which is a bit of a hassle.
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
        Well I presume the hash wouldn't change in between installs, just from user to user.

Osmium 11y ago

> Program membership is not required. Though note that there's a current bug listed that looks like accounts with expired developer memberships currently can't use free provisioning. (For me, this is mildly irritating, because I let my membership lapse a few days ago on a hunch that they'd combine the developer programmes. And then they did, but I can't use the free provisioning, and the re-enrolment form doesn't seem to be working right now either.) Really nice to see this though.

vbezhenar 11y ago
You can try to create a new Apple ID while they fixing the bug.
- Osmium 11y ago
  Thanks, but I managed to re-enroll via iTunes Connect instead. Though why a $99 developer program costs £79 in the UK I have no idea, I guess it's VAT. Hopefully I'll finally get an app out to justify it this year!
  - Alphasite_ 11y ago
    VAT pretty much covers it completely, sans vat its £66.

tiernano 11y ago

wonder will the same work for Mono Develop? Build on Windows or Mac with VS or Mono Develop and deploy to an iPhone with a Mac...

giarc 11y ago

I love this. I'm thrifty and haven't paid for a dev account but am deep into an app build. When I show clients, there's a bit of an awkward conversation when I explain that I have to show them on my macbook. If I could demo directly on my phone/tablet that would be amazing. Can't wait to use this feature!

laydownlarry 11y ago
you misspelled cheap
- giarc 11y ago
  Sure, cheap/thrifty whatever. However, I'd rather pay for the dev account when I actually need it. I don't see a huge benefit to paying $100/year while in development. I can accomplish everything I want without it. Once I'm ready to publish the app in the app store, I'll gladly pay $100/year.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    And you don't consider showing clients to be "needing it"? If I were a client, I'd be questioning how serious you were.
    - giarc 11y ago
      Ya I could see that, however I should note the app is only a part of a bigger picture of products. I've also been developing it for the past 4-5 months but only started showing it to people lately. So perhaps now would be a good time to buy a dev account but I still haven't felt the big need. To each their own.

serve_yay 11y ago

I'm sure HN will find a talking point to replace that one :)

carlosrg 11y ago

FINALLY. I don't understand why they didn't do it earlier.

fierycatnet 11y ago

This is awesome. I might get back into iOS app development. I didn't feel like paying money for prototyping just so I could run it on my own device. Emulator wasn't doing it for me. Time to pickup Swift.

shurcooL 11y ago

Color me interested. With this, and https://github.com/rakyll/go2xcode https://github.com/rakyll/go2xcode, I might actually try making some apps to run on my iOS device now.

downandout 11y ago

This was the big news IMO. Many would-be developers reside in countries where $99/year is a huge amount of money that cannot be justified until they have a final, working product they are ready to distribute.

kybernetyk 11y ago
Yet those developers somehow can buy a computer for $1000+ and spend an additional $500-$800 on the tablet/phone? :)
- downandout 11y ago
  No, they can't. You can run mac operating systems on any cheap intel hardware (and in vmware), and you can easily buy used phones/macs on eBay. Google the term Hackintosh or "vmware mac".
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    I'm not sure Apple would go far out of its way to help such users.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > Yet those developers somehow can buy a computer for $1000+ and spend an additional $500-$800 on the tablet/phone? :)[1] In a word - Yes. I am a developer from a 3rd world country, and I bought a Mac Mini for $500 (not '$1000+') for the purposes of entering the Apple ecosystem. I'm not going to spend another $500 on an iPhone[2], especially since I'm not sure if it will work out financially. The emulator will have to do (my apoligies to anyone who'll potentially run my apps and encounter bugs I miss because of this). 1. I'm not sure if the smiley is an indicator of sarcasm or not 2. If push comes to shove,I can afford it, but I've already bought the phone I'll use for the next 2-3 years (OnePlus), and I'd rather spend the money on other things - like family.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    If you're serious about making an App, then yes, you should spend the $100. You will get it back in the first couple of days if you make a good app. The $100 is to keep out the shovel ware and crap-- look at all the junk in the store as it is now. Imagine what it would be like if there wasn't that $100 barrier to entry?

WalterGR 11y ago

Not being a developer for Apple products, what has changed?

chc 11y ago
You used to have to get a $99 developer membership to put apps on your iPhone.

mcintyre1994 11y ago

Is this a path to non jailbreak sideloading at least for users with OSX and Xcode7? Not exactly likely to make a splash but interesting move if you can share these projects without too much fuss. More generally, this is an awesome move. Kudos to Apple :)