That's a feature, not a bug. What possible benefit could there be to helping people who are hostile to their platforms develop for them? If you want to develop for Apple platforms, you do so from Apple platforms. Fair and logical.
A polished iOS app with lots of users is worth much more for the whole Apple ecosystem than a few developers using OSX computers.
It just doesn't make sense to me why anyone thinks they're entitled to have Apple build and support a complex developer toolchain on their platform of choice, and if Apple doesnt, it's a sign of "hostility".
I don't think Apple wants that person building for their platforms. As an apple user and developer, neither do I.
That suggests you think every developer who wants to publish iOS apps should either do so from a Mac or they are automatically hostile towards Apple. That's the point I was touching.
I personally wouldn't call Apple's choices hostile and I don't think anyone is entitled to have cross-platform tools. But you made it clear you think I'm an "enemy" as long as I'm not on a Mac, and there would be zero benefits in allowing me to publish apps to my phone.
(ps. I do own a Mac)
By requiring a Mac to develop for iOS, they're forcing a certain level of investment which makes it more likely that developers targeting the platform make their apps worth the time spent (for both the dev and the consumer). By opening it up they're welcoming those who port just to tick a box.
It does open another thread of discussion, though: as far as I'm aware, there's no proven correlation between buying a Mac and caring about the quality of your iOS product.
I could just as well say that companies that want to tick a box for their sub-par apps farm invest in several platforms much more easily than starting devs who can't afford multiple setups and pride themselves in craftsmanship.
Which one is closer to reality or has the bigger impact, I have no idea.
Sure, somebody who doesn't have an iPhone and yet wants to develop apps for the iPhone is likely to treat iOS as a second class citizen.
But you are saying that if somebody bought the iPhone on launch date, and has upgraded to every new model as soon as it came out, and is obsessed with all things iOS....then he is still gonna treat iOS as a second-class citizen because he doesn't own a OSX and a Mac, which are different hardware and a different OS from the device he wants to make an app for??
That's crazy.
There are significant downsides. You can argue that the upside is still worth it, but you can't dismiss the downsides as "completely arbitrary".
Also the simulator is basically an x86 version of iOS, look inside for yourself and see. Someone correct me here but I don't see why it would be impossible to for apple to ship a simulator for Windows, n.b. how MS has shipped the Linux ABI translation.
A port of the simulator would be possible but it'd be a good deal heavier than its OS X counterpart since it'd be running the entire OS instead of just the topmost layer.
The question is not whether "the simulator is basically an x86 iOS". The point is that requiring macOS to build iOS apps is not an arbitrary restriction — it's a tradeoff. You can argue for or against Apple's decision, but you can't argue that it's an arbitrary restriction on Apple's part.
A broader base of developers can mean more and higher-quality apps. A better selection of apps can lead to greater sales of iPhones and iPads.
(It also might not. But there is certainly a potential benefit for Apple here.)
One word counter-argument: Android.
Would it be worse?