I doubt this is "Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps", so much as "Apple doesn’t want dev accounts to be an easy backdoor for sideloading apps" and hobby apps are an acceptable casualty.
Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the relationship between the app developer and the user because they made the iPhone and iOS, when in fact, for most developers, the necessity to publish on the app store isn't the godsend Apple thinks it is. It's an asinine obstacle they have to clear to get their app out to the world. I've seen Apple reject iOS apps for nonsensical reasons on many occasions. For most developers, the discovery aspect of the app store is, in fact, irrelevant. They do their own marketing and user acquisition anyway.
Mac shows this very clearly. There's the same app store, with the same rules, but with one exception: its use is not mandatory. So most developers end up simply ignoring it and doing their own app distribution. In other words, this model doesn't work very well when it's not the only distribution channel and when there's no draconian lockdown on the OS level. The notarization requiring a $100/year account is also optional. So you can, if you wish, distribute a Mac app without any Apple involvement whatsoever.
Users installing applications is the default. Walled gardens are the weird dangerous thing.
Video games seem to be an outlier, as the enormous size of most games means it can't be streamed well just yet.
Stadia worked great until Google did its thing...
I think you are both right. Apple wants to make sure all app sales happen through their App Store so they get a cut, and they are willing to make hobby apps difficult to load in order to make that happen. They don’t care about stopping hobby apps, but they care about making sure they get a cut of all sales.
All of us who still have to help people in our lives -- particularly elderly parents -- are very grateful for a platform where the users are not expected to be sysadmins. Which they will do quite badly. We have a 25+ year history of trying to get most people to not install random spyware/crapware/viruses on their computers, and it's fair to say the results are a complete and total failure. Except for ios and sometimes android.
Which is not to justify Apple's attempt to tax every dollar that flows through their platform, but something can be two things at once.
There is merit in pursuing a more secure future for computing, but there is zero merit in doing so alone.
fortunately no one made this hyperbolic claim.
> Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices,
I can't stop a G20 nation or the people they pay from hacking my mum's phone to steal from her bank account, but I can offer to buy her an iPhone and have her be immune to nearly all real world attacks.
it's of course fine if you don't care about the security difference (or think Google does nearly as good a job with their first party phones), but not sure why you're making hyperbolic posts arguing against some strawman?
They probably can't say explicitly that they don't want sideloading, as this could turn an eyebrow of a regulator, but making it more difficult to create hobby apps, which achieves the same effect does not explicitly show an intent and may keep regulator at bay.
The actions Apple has taken prohibit using self-written apps without paying Apple a relatively large yearly fee (and in many cases, also going through pointless store review).
So at best - Apple does not care about hobby apps (written by owner, for owner) because they have taken no actions to mitigate this impact if it truly is just a side effect and not intended. At worst - Apple is actively hostile to this usage and the policy is working as intended.
That distinction is mostly moot from the view of a user outside of the internal discussions at Apple regarding that policy. The impact of the policy clearly discourages hobby app usage.
Because the policy exists, a reasonable interpretation is that Apple does not want you developing hobby apps.
But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.
If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.
> I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.
I didn't say the discussion isn't worth having. I think it is, because it's interesting.
The thesis is: Apple are not doing this to harm hobbyists. That may be a side effect, but it's not the main effect.
For example: it's good to discuss the very real side-effects of drugs, but it would be silly to write an article called "Cancer Chemotherapy Drugs Exist To Induce Vomiting". I would equally push back on the misattribution of intention there.
Downside is that I see bunch of corporate apps that are total trash on app store.
Apparently the nanny state is repugnant to many, but nanny corporations that don't trust us to make our own choices, or have our own tastes and standards, is much more acceptable. The huge loss of customer freedom doesn't actually achieve the exclusion of "trash" apps nor malware.
They apparently strive for a superior user experience, and then go about destroying the customer experience of what they seem to consider is their phones.
That being said, what customer are you referring to when you talk about "destroying the customer experience." Hundreds of millions of users express very high customer satisfaction with the experience. The vast number of users have no interest in sideloading and they love the simplicity of the app store. Apple is bringing in about 85% of the smartphone market profits and they have huge repeat purchase numbers. That is not because those billion users are unsatisfied or feel the experience has been "destroyed." The numbers are just too overwhelming.
Many HN readers are not the target market if openness is of paramount importance to them. It is hard to avoid, but we need to try and avoiding generalizing our preferences to the broader definition of "customer."
I guess the bot and scam usage of APIs cause more headache for companies than the hobby usage benefit they get.
Thanks apple for reminding me why I'll continue with the lesser evil for now.
Both of the things you listed are side effects.