Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

There's a universe of FOSS that hasn't needed third-party payment, lawyers, accountants, etc. because they do not perceive the purpose of apps as "making money."

That universe doesn't quite exist on iOS, partly because Apple makes it so uncomfortable in ways to attempt. I am hopeful that this shakeup might, in some way, make that easier. I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.

View on HN

> I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.

Besides the developer program cost (which I assume will still exist in this EU world) what is stopping you from doing this now?

Apple's review process and their rules about the kind of apps and code that are allowed to run? Heck, do they even allow GPLv2 and GPLv3 apps on the app store?

It doesn’t matter whether they do. The anti-tivoization clause in the GPLv3 license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization) forbids developers from selling iOS apps that contain GPLv3-licensed software (the situation w.r.t. GPLv2 is less clear)

Not really the problem.

I don't think that would apply if it is possible to compile the app yourself and install your modified version by side loading it.

It would violate the terms of those licenses for Apple to distribute binaries in the same manner that they currently are.

The price of a developer account? FOSS is a big enough giveaway as is, most people doesn’t like the idea of paying for giving away their own free time

This won't be solved by 3rd party stores. You need to buy a mac and pay the developer fee just to BUILD apps for iOS.

You can build them without a developer account, but then you will have to re-sign your own apps every 7 day and can only have 4 such app on your phone at a time.

You don't need to pay a fee to develop an app, only to publish it

Yes. That should be solved too.

Not the original poster, but maybe:

Dealing with the capricious app store approval processs?

Not being allowed to use GPL code (might still be a problem for 3rd party app stores, but maybe not for sideloading. Maybe.)?

Having to develop on a mac (which will still be a problem)?

On top of $100/year developer license, you also need an Apple laptop (or desktop) to develop for iOS devices. You are legally (though not technically) forbidden to run a copy of macOS on non-Apple hardware, even if a legitimate copy were obtainable without purchasing some hardware.

Apple is a hardware company, an appliance company if you wish, and also a media company. The fact that they are forced to also produce general computing devices as a wayto run stuff like Ableton or Photoshop is, I suspect, seen as a pesky legacy of Apple II days.

> , even if a legitimate copy were obtainable without purchasing some hardware.

Pedantic, but the license agreement line requiring that 'MacOS can only run on Apple hardware' is, itself, in service of the fact that they only license the software to you if you purchase their hardware.

Exactly. IIRC you can legitimately run macOS on a VM, but the VM should run on Apple hardware.

A Hackintosh is a transgression.

If the FOSS universe wants to make web apps, that's great. But they didn't need this law to do that. If they want to make native iOS apps, well now they'll be using Apple's intellectual property, which won't be for free.

Why is "making an app that calls iOS APIs" an use of Apple's IP that they should be compensated for?

That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to make unofficial accesories for physical products without paying the company because the original designs for the product itself are patented.

It should be Free. People are okay with literally stealing money from corporations in the name of “tax,” yet they balk at making SDKs Free? Platforms should capture some of the economic returns to have good incentives to improve, but the majority should go to users and third-party developers. It should also be possible to release GPL software on any platform. That’s the minimum bar for not screwing over users.

It is likely that the use of web-based experiences will eventually surpass the need for app stores. In many cases, the functionality of a website is similar to that of a mobile app. However, Apple's restrictions on the progress of progressive web apps (PWAs) on Safari may slow the transition from app stores to web-based options. In the meantime, it may be worthwhile to consider visiting a website before downloading an app for your next mobile experience.

I have never encountered a PWA where you couldn’t immediately tell it was one. If that ever goes away, then maybe.

It could easily go away we just have to allow PWAs greater access to native features on our phones.

In terms of raw capabilities, sure. But they will still feel worse since native apps are almost always much nicer to use in my experience.

I write web applications for a living and while I LOVE how well-featured the browser APIs are becoming, sometimes I just want an app.

I don't really subscribe to one camp. There's pros and cons to both.

That’s funny. Because when the iPhone launched Apple offered just that: their own native apps and the rest had to contend with web based apps and a api to access phone specific features and UI elements. Only much later they announced the App Store and I doubt they will let it go now. In favor of non native web interfaces.

Indeed. If we will not get iDroid soon, I expect the EU regulation to be adjusted to the point that ensures that FOSS does not get locked out anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com