Hacker News Reader

Shameless plug: I've built a web app which allows you to stream PC games/software to Vision Pro using webRTC without any restriction. https://windowsvisionpro.com

I'm interested. What is the subscription for? Are you running it through your own server?

Hello, we've updated our pricing to a one-off payment of $15 for lifetime support. Please let us know if you have any more questions. Thanks!

I'd say it's zero percent insane — that is: one hundred percent sane. This first iteration of the headset is going to have a very short battery life. You do not want to run your IDE right on the headset. Video streaming is probably the lower energy draw of those two possible approaches.

The point is unless legally obligated to, as in the EU, Apple does not and will not allow their services business to be disrupted. Watch, even in 5 or 10 years when battery power becomes sufficient to run a code editor all day, Apple will still not allow it. This is in fact exactly what happened with the iPad. I had a Windows Surface (which have their own issues) and what I liked was that it was an actual computer. I wanted to replicate it in the Apple ecosystem but turns out that it's impossible. iPads have the perfect form factor, hardware and even accessories to do so, such as the magnetic keyboard, but the software simply will not allow them to cannibalize MacBooks.

It's funny, because Jobs himself said, "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will."

> Do you know how Apple wants you to run a code editor on Vision Pro? That's right, own a Mac and literally stream the video output to the Vision Pro

Source for this? I could believe not wanting a compiler on Vision Pro for battery reasons, but I don't see a reason why something like Sublime Text or VSCode (w/wo Remote) won't be available.

What's the point of running a code editor without a compiler? Obviously I could write code in the Notes app, it doesn't mean I literally want a code-as-text editor, I want to run the code I write. VSCode with remote will be available as it runs on the browser anyway.

Enjoy your 15 minutes of battery life.

FWIW I never use a code editor with the compiler running locally, I always use VSCode Remote. Even before that I just used a bare bones editor like Atom and SSHFS (or similar) to edit and compile stuff remotely.

But most modern IDEs (I know JetBrains and VSCode both do...) support editing on one machine with a remote backend that compiles and runs your code. What you're complaining about isn't much different, except for some technical details of how it is implemented.

During the keynote I messaged a friend and said, "All I really want is to stream my Mac screen to it" .... and 60 seconds after I hit send, that's what they announced.

I really don't care about all the other stuff they tout right now, as no one really knows if that will be/is useful. But my Mac, in a headset, that is the beach head to build from.

Well, at least if you live in the EU, soon, you'll be able to sideload apps to your iPhone (and I think also iPad) and probably this law will require them to do it for the Vision (Pro).

The cynic in me thinks apple will find a way to create "approved APIs" or similar and sifeloaded apps will be neutered.

Yeah. I hope not. We'll see though.

> Sidenote, but imagine in 20 years when everyone's wearing miniaturized versions of AR/VR glasses: https://vimeo.com/166807261

I have a lot of sensory sensitivities and this is what real life already feels like to me. I look forward to VR glasses I can walk around with something that actively filters this shit out. No more billboards, blaring building lights, blinding headlights, and logos everywhere. Real life ublock origin with annoyance filters on.

Only if Apple lets you install an adblocker. That's the issue with these closed systems, they might not allow it at all and then you're stuck with it. That's one reason why I use an Android over an iPhone, superior adblocking everywhere.

macOS does follow the same model now, in case you haven’t been paying attention. You can’t run unsigned binaries downloaded from the internet anymore.

Not true, you can, but you have to approve them from the system preferences panel.

Or right-click unsigned binary → Open. The system basically wants acknowledgment from the user that they actually want to run the unsigned binary in question for the first launch, after which it’ll run like normal.

Not on the most recent macOS releases. I maintain binaries of an open-source app, and used to have instructions to right-click open on first use. This stopped working recently, I forget if it was on version 13 or 14. The users would get a denial, with no option to override.

I ended up having to pay $100/yr for a developer account to be able to sign and notarize the binaries. They can now open them like usual, with just a warning that it was downloaded from the internet. But without the signature they get an uncircumventable gatekeeper error.

ETA: See https://wiki.freepascal.org/Code_Signing_for_macOS#Big_Sur_a...

I keep my macs up to date and haven't encountered this. Newly downloaded unsigned stuff still works fine. Perhaps there's some sporadic/conditional bug afoot.

Is it actually unsigned? Or just not developer-signed? Those are different things! When you build an app with Xcode it automatically self-signs app bundles, even if you're not a registered apple developer. Most apps you download are probably built that way.

We use cross-compiling infrastructure on linux/docker for the app I maintain, which don't generate these signatures. This causes the resulting binaries to be rejected on recent apple devices (although they used to work just fine with user override on intel-based macs).

How could you possibly think this unironically?

https://wiki.freepascal.org/Code_Signing_for_macOS#Big_Sur_a...

Ok, but:

1. Your link gives directions for enabling a setting on M1/2/3 Macs that does allow running unsigned apps from the internet without prompting. (see the heading labeled "Big Sur and later on Apple M1 ARM64 processors").

2. Even without following those steps, I can run unsigned apps (I just have to click through a gatekeeper warning the first time I run it)

3. Requiring technical users to run two terminal commands and adjusting one setting in system preferences one time to globally allow unsigned apps seems like a reasonable trade-off to prevent non-technical users from running malicious programs... like, if I were setting up a Mac for my grandmother, I would never enable this gatekeeper bypass.

Gatekeeper is one of those things that is loud when it gets in your way, but silent if it isn't working... so having it off by default doesn't really make sense. The only way I can see having it off by default is by adding a screen to the onboarding flow that asks a question like "do you plan to submit an app to the App Store in the 12 months?", and then disabling gatekeeper if the user clicks yes.

You... can, you know. Do you actually use MacOS, or is this just something you heard on the internet? If you're using MacOS, and have somehow not found this yet, right-click on the offending app, click open, accept the "this may eat your computer" warning dialog. You'll only have to do this once per app.

This workaround does not work on unsigned arm64 app bundles on an Apple Silicon device. Yes, there are workarounds on the developer side such as signing with a self-signed certificate. The user who downloaded it could even sign it themselves.

But regardless of holes and backdoors in the gatekeeper system, the point is that you can't download an unsigned, native binary from the internet and run it on a modern (apple silicon) device with a user override. Not anymore. You have to sign binaries in order for users to be able to override-launch on their own systems. Gatekeeper will stop any unsigned binaries from the internet from being run, full-stop.

And yes, I'm both a user of macOS and an open-source software maintainer. One of my apps has releases built using a cross-compiler on linux, with a reproducible build configuration that was tricky to get setup and hadn't been updated to handle code signing. When M1 devices came out we had to go through the painful process of replicating a lot of the Apple codesign tooling on Linux so that we could apply signatures from within the reproducible build environment, just to enable to the user to right-click override like they used to.

They are delusional and will defend the Apple trillion corp to the death for some reason. Actually, the reality is that they don't want to come to terms with it.

Because while Apple pretend to be operating in good faith, they have been hard at work to make sure nothing they do not approve of can be run on their hardware. No matter what some fools like to think. There is a greedy money related part but it also has a lot to do with dystopian authoritarian views "I know better" that are very common among the boomers currently running Apple.

In french my mother would say that those peoples are "nigauds" (dense/thick) which I find pretty fitting.

liar