From today's questions about iOS target - actually since Xcode 7 which came out this year there is no need to pay anything Apple to load your own code on device. You need to only register with developer program (it's free), install Xcode (it's also free) and then you can sign and sideload applications on your device for free. Yes, no more 100$/y. And no need to jailbreak anything.
It's not very end-user friendly, but it is definitely much more developer friendly than before.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xco...d-and-sideload-ios-apps-for-free/
Here's a decent step by step guide: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015...o-run-on-a-non-jailbroken-device/
You still need to pay 99$/y to publish to iTunes store, but that's the same situation as with Android development.
It's not very end-user friendly, but it is definitely much more developer friendly than before.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xco...d-and-sideload-ios-apps-for-free/
Here's a decent step by step guide: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015...o-run-on-a-non-jailbroken-device/
You still need to pay 99$/y to publish to iTunes store, but that's the same situation as with Android development.
Edited by Mārtiņš Možeiko
on
No, it's not the same as Android. On Android you can distribute APKs publicly and end-users can download and install them (all they have to do is enable the "allow third party APKs" feature in their settings panel). iOS is still on full lock-down - you cannot distribute something you built to anyone else. You can distribute the source code to someone, they can install XCode, register as a developer, and then build it, THEN install it, but that's obviously an absurd distribution model.
- Casey
- Casey
Yes, I know that. That's why I said it's not very end-user friendly. But big part of your ranting was about how it is not developer friendly and you cannot develop for your devices. Now it is not anymore true. You can developer for free for iOS same as for Android.
Distributing Android packages to end-users with custom signed certificate is not a good way how to distribute it. As you mention this will require end-users to trust any third-party certificates. Because end-users usually are not aware of implications, they will leave this setting enabled thus pretty much inviting malware to their devices - "hey, my device accepts anything - come on in" :) It's one of important checks in Android security model. I'm strongly recommending end-users to have this setting disabled.
And actually you don't need to distribute source for end-user to be able to install to device. You can use Xcode only to sign binary and then install to device. But still, I agree - that's not a solution for distributing apps.
Distributing Android packages to end-users with custom signed certificate is not a good way how to distribute it. As you mention this will require end-users to trust any third-party certificates. Because end-users usually are not aware of implications, they will leave this setting enabled thus pretty much inviting malware to their devices - "hey, my device accepts anything - come on in" :) It's one of important checks in Android security model. I'm strongly recommending end-users to have this setting disabled.
And actually you don't need to distribute source for end-user to be able to install to device. You can use Xcode only to sign binary and then install to device. But still, I agree - that's not a solution for distributing apps.
I still disagree, pretty strongly in fact.
For example, even to develop for your _own_ device, you still have to register with Apple. That's not free as in freedom, it is only free as in "free beer", if that makes sense.
And then of course you cannot give what you make to anyone else unless they are also a developer.
In my opinion, Apple's current platform is really no different than it used to be. Basically all they did was get rid of the $99 cost, AFAICT. They are still just as antagonistic to developers as they were before.
- Casey
For example, even to develop for your _own_ device, you still have to register with Apple. That's not free as in freedom, it is only free as in "free beer", if that makes sense.
And then of course you cannot give what you make to anyone else unless they are also a developer.
In my opinion, Apple's current platform is really no different than it used to be. Basically all they did was get rid of the $99 cost, AFAICT. They are still just as antagonistic to developers as they were before.
- Casey
It's not like everybody else do better. Like take Microsoft. Now on desktop (not talking about Phone/Metro/Universal apps) they do the exactly same thing as Apple. To use free edition of Visual Studio you now need to login and activate it - even to compile Win32 desktop apps.
Edited by Mārtiņš Možeiko
on
But again, even though Microsoft is worse than they used to be (largely thanks to Apple, by the way! They never did any of this stuff until Apple did it...), they are still worlds better than Apple. You only have to activate Visual Studio _if you want to use Visual Studio_. You are welcome to build your own executables using your own tools and run and/or distribute them just fine. You don't ever need to use their tools or "sign" anything unless you want to use their store.
- Casey
- Casey