You are counting income. Most of the top 1% isn't income. For example an unrealized capital gain doesn't count.
The top 1% have a mean household wealth of over $15m. Confiscate 100% of that: 140m households x 1% x $15m = 21T enough to pay off the entire debt and fund every liberal dream.
My comment about Xcode on iPad wasn't necessarily intended to require that Apple expend developer time=money on doing the port itself, just to give other producers of developer tools enough privileges to make developer tools that run as expected.
I think you are conflating 5 unrelated issues:
a) The ability to use XCode on iOS. b) That iOS devices ship by default with an userspace application launcher that requires an Apple signed device specific provisioning file. c) Apple's attitude towards 3rd party tools d) Apple's reluctance is allow large libraries in every application in particular hostility to cross platform tools and Apple's reluctance on cross platform
a') I hit this in the other thread. Let's break that off and assume for the purpose of discussion we are OK with the idea that all iOS development happens in OSX.
b') What makes the developer SDK mandatory isn't about creating applications it is about initiating the process of creating provisioning files. That's a security mechanism not a development mechanism. Apple could easily open this up, to other tools and XCode is pretty open to other tools in terms of submitting files for provisioning. I don't believe there is anything here in terms of stopping using 3rd party tools to do most development. This is just Apple allowing for the integration of 3rd party tools but only supporting their own. Most 3rd party iOS development environments just use the XCode iOS SDK as a subsystem and integrate with it. So I'd say in practice this is a non-issue for Apple developers, though a big issue for the low end amateurs.
One thing I'd strongly support is iTunes being able to create provisioning files for an iOS device directly connected. I think that would allow low end amateurs to write their own software on their own iOS devices without undermining the security system.
c') Now when it comes to 3rd party tools that are used for generating Cocoa / Objective-C code Apple is fully 100% supportive. For example JetBrains which provides an alternative developer IDE, gets as much support from Apple as they want. Here I just think you are wrong on the facts. Apple is supportive I don't know of any issues on this at all.
d') Now this is the core of the issue. Which is not so much Apple blocking 3rd party tools as Apple being reluctant to allow 3rd party libraries to become standard. Particularly cross platform libraries. As Apple sees it cross platform leads to a lowest common denominator approach which is bad for end users, while possibly good for developers and definitely good for toolmakers. They see it as their job to prevent developers from producing a substandard experience for end users. They handle this by exercising judgement that is they allow some cross platform applications on a case by case basis with the general understanding they are mildly to moderately hostile.
I'd say this issues here are:
i) Is it reasonable for Apple to act in the capacity of a regulatory agency? ii) Is Apple doing a good job?
Many of the debates IMHO conflate these two issues. I think Apple is doing a very good job as a regulatory agency balancing out various factors. I don't think they are perfect, I think they have made mistakes and I think they been opaque at times. But on balance I think almost all their choices have been defendable. The number of false negatives and false positives on iOS is low and the process of review terribly onerous. More or less this is what good government looks like.
The real issue is. Apple does a good job as a government, today in 2013. We don't know that if their earning start to flatten they won't get more desperate and start to abuse their power to boost earnings. We don't know that other companies in the same situation would do as good a job. This sets a terrible precedent.... All those things are true. And I'd love to be having discussions about building a regulatory mechanism like Apple's but with checks and balances to prevent it from going off the rails.
That and port Xcode to iPad. Right now, someone who owns an iPad and a Bluetooth keyboard can't develop an application directly on the iPad, except within things like Codea that Apple was at first reluctant to approve.
XCode is never going to be ported. Apple has been very clear they don't want iOS for general purpose developers. I could see them porting XCode to Windows or Linux (which with the GNUStep project they are already over 1/2 way there) before they ported to iOS. Apple's position is iOS devices are not computers. They are electronics devices more in common with the braking system on a car than a computer laptop. Obviously this is getting harder and harder to maintain as: iPod becomes iPod touch becomes iPhone with no 3rd party apps becomes iPhones with 3rd apps becomes iPad...
But at least for now fundamentally Apple's attitude is OSX is mandatory for doing anything sophisticated on iOS. And that BTW is not unique to development. Their office suite (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) differentiates between the OSX authoring and iOS display / editing versions; their multimedia authoring / editing apps break the same way they encourage this in the way codedata is designed.
iOS is not sold as a self contained product. Remember up until a few years ago, iTunes was mandatory for maintenance and manipulation of iOS devices. You literally could not turn the device on beyond the configuration screens without access to a computer. While iCloud has emulated most iTunes functionality and thus allows a device to rarely interface with iTunes, I still don't think you should try to operate an iOS device in a reliable way without access to iTunes. For example application version rollback still can only be accomplished via. iTunes (excluding developer / hackerish specific ways).
In term of Codea the issue with Codea it is an interpreter. Apple has been pretty firm against general purpose interpreters. They feel that's a platform decision and the general purpose interpreter that they are slowly bring to iOS is MacRuby. They have been more liberal in the last 2 years but it is definitely a balancing act. Codea is approved because it is a toy and designed for education. Other applications that have interpreters like ND1 are approved because they aren't general purpose.
Not really. Governments can and should rely on the cooperation of the their community for law enforcement. Verizon's cooperation is part of the broader notion of community support for the laws we are governed by. Having individuals, or in the case corporate persons, stand up and assist the police in enforcing the laws is a very good thing. The opposite where the laws were so broadly disliked that the community didn't support them and wouldn't help the police I'd consider much more dangerous and damaging. So no I'm not disgusted at all nor even troubled.
If that's the case then legalize coke / legalize meth = legalize coke / don't legalize meth. The only interesting cases are where the replacement doesn't happen.
Yes. And the reason they react like that is because they can't or don't "go get drunk" in the USA. I'd agree US tends to cause some problems around college age but it holds down drinking throughout life.
You are talking about a different issue which is that as a consumer you have lock in on content that you have to pick a format. This is kinda what computers were like int he 1980s. Apple's ran apple software. Commodore 64 ran C64 software. IBM's ran IBM software. Atari Atari... The tradition of a monoculture was the result of a monopoly in PCs being established via. the Microsoft / Intel / Western Digital standard. This is what real competition looks like.
I'd assume eventually things like the availability of Kindle files on multiple devices will be the norm. Content creators have no interest in device lock in.
That's not the basis of Microsoft's claim. The basis of the claim is that Google is using their dominance in the mobile space to unfairly advantage themselves in the advertising space.
I don't think Verizon is going to be too upset that publicity that they helped the FBI catch an identify thief in an apartment under one of the assumed names he was identity stealing....
Besides Verizon works with the military and has most of the government contracts. They've been pretty clear they are going to extra cooperative with the government for many years.
How on earth is this any less susceptible to astroturfing? Linked-in like every other form of social media has large numbers of fake accounts that are available as shill accounts
I think it is pretty easy to tell shill accounts from real accounts. It is also easy for a computer. There are cross correlations that human accounts will have and shill accounts won't. My biological sister is on my linkedin account. My linked in account has diverse connections and comments.... This sort of depth doesn't exist for shills.
Now paid positive reviews that are real people that's a different story. But any vendor would have to be very careful about that sort of marketing.
With enterprise software you could easily have a situation where the IT group is happy and the end users aren't happy. The IT group may not have much pull over end users. Also people move from job to job. I can easily picture this working.
Besides the Streisand effect applies. If an employee gets disciplined for bad mouthing a vendor and goes public that could actually be a news item with millions of hits.
Isn't that the game of all mobile operating systems these days? iOS tries to leverage you into their universe by corralling you into their shop system
Apple makes almost all their money selling phones. Their cost of administering the shop for a while was more than the revenue. Many years from now 30% of software and media may be the money maker. But for now the software exists to sell phones not the other way around.
Apple is in the phone business. Google is in the advertising business.
I thought MacPorts was for open-source software. Is relying on someone to sign your software even legal under the "Installation Information" requirement of GPLv3 or LGPLv3?
MacPorts is for open-source. But a 15 year old without parental permission can't legally engage in a contract, in particular he can't issue a license so in your hypothetical of no parental support and no adult support he can't sell software regardless. That's not Apple, that's the law.
In terms of GPL and LGPL there are GPL and LGPL apps distributed on MacPorts all the time.
1) Most of the restrictions are designed around distributing binaries not distributing source with no binaries. 2) Any OSX user can install any binary. So I don't think the GPLv3 applies at all. The GPLv3 does not guarantee access to the app store. 3) Even if it were more restrictive anyone who knows how to modify an OSX binary knows how to run one. 4) Singing a binary is just signing it. You are indicating you are the one who compiled this binary. And you are certifying that you are taking responsibility. Why would the GPLv3 ever prevent someone from doing that?
The situation is a little more dicey in the case of iOS because there is no obvious way for a user to modify and run code on their own device without a developer license. They either need to disable the system that checks provisioning files (jailbreaking) or be able to have Apple sign their binaries (developer SDK) or be able to have their own master key (Enterprise / University SDK). On the other hand XCode as a free applications does allow you to run any modified version in the iPhone emulator. I don't know what the GPL says about the ability to distribute but not to distribute to desired devices...
I think it is probably best to only assert GPLv3 on the source and make no affirmative claims on the binary at all. But what the legal standing is for iOS GPLv3 binaries is very dicey.
________
Now I've answered a 1/2 dozen rounds of your questions I have one for you. Is this really about $99? Assume that the iOS developer SDK were included for free within XCode would that solve the problem? Obviously you are spending a lot of time trying to figure out some scenario under which Apple's setup is horrible. You aren't making elementary errors so you've had this discussion before.
I think the real issue is now what Apple is doing but rather that Apple is normalizing a situation of vastly more control. It is not the specific policies of the prison that are the issue, which are rather liberal, but the fact that these concrete walls and iron bars exist at all. $99 which probably doesn't cover Apple's costs could become $3999 and then software development really is locked down to only companies or at least semi-professional individuals. Enterprise SDK instead of being $299 could be $299k or $2.9m.
Lots of people spend $200 on their hobbies. I have yet to meet someone for whom the $100 / yr is what is stopping them for OSX This seems like a theoretical issue more than a practical one.
Now if you are talking fully cross platform where there is nothing uniquely OSX about the application than just release it at the darwin level. http://www.macports.org/ is distribution and that doesn't require certification. A binary distributed to the masses would require an Apple developer. Most likely a developer associated with the Macports project would use his binary packager and sign it for him.
And I've read that joining requires first turning 18. I have a cousin who is learning to program. So how is a developer still in high school supposed to distribute his application to the public? Or is he supposed to show no one until his 18th birthday?
He's not. Children unassisted are not supposed to be distributing software to the broad public. Public distribution of software is supposed to be under some adult's supervision and an adult who is involved in the Apple developer community. Teen and college developers can be a creative source of software. But Apple wants more polish for their platform.
But not being able to distribute to the broad public is not the same as not being able to distribute to the narrower community. Apple would be enthusiastic about the under 18 developer getting integrated into the developer community, a community of practice and support. That community is setup to handle the problems of a 15 year old, making the kinds of mistakes 15 year olds make. The broader community is not.
The article basically says no one has probably ever been hit. The incidence of dark lightening is about 1/1000th the incidence of visible lightening and pilots avoid thunderstorms.
The Mac App Store also has guidelines unavailable to the public. And if everything must be sandboxed in order to run, then third-party developers can no longer provide system administration tools.
Apple offers 3 installation modes for OSX.
1) Unsigned. This is more or less like windows. 2) Signed. This means the developer is known to Apple and has an active OSX account. Apple has verified the developer and verifies that the developer names has signed the binary you are about to install. 3) Signed and verified. This means the application is installed via. Mac App store.
OSX users on an individual basis decide whether they want 3, 2-3 or 1-3. So for example I'm set to only allow 2-3 by default but on a case by case basis override and allow 1s. Which is the most common setting. The second most common setting is to allow everything
(1)'s can be generated even without using XCode. (3)'s required distribution from the App Store and those do require sandboxing and following Apple guidelines. At least today most app developers offer (2) and (3) versions of their binaries on OSX. Which is gradually moving the culture over towards compliance.
Remember when we are talking the Enterprise SDK there is no such thing as "unauthorized".
Switching back to the developer SDK. I don't mean to be an ass but if you
a) don't own a mac yet b) don't talk to people who have gone through the review process c) aren't plugged in enough to know what's acceptable and what isn't
you are exactly the kinda of person that the $99 is for. You are exactly the kind of person that Apple doesn't want creating borderline kinds of applications. The iOS App Store Guidelines are all over the web, but Apple uses common sense. The guidelines is really about discernment and a certain feel of what's acceptable under what conditions. Some apps get away with stuff that others don't. And Apple expects you to work with them.
If your app is borderline Apple is very likely going to spend much more than $100 reviewing it. I know this is a very different culture than Linux, Windows or Android which is a free for all. I'm not sure what this has to do with Sandboxing on OSX. iOS is even stricter than OSX.
Can it cover, say, every iPhone and every iPad owned by a member of a religious organization that has a few million members worldwide?
I think it country specific because carrier rules and software policies are on a per country basis. For some features it is carrier specific. But if the Catholic church bought say 500 licenses and used them for all 1 billion Catholics I think that would be OK.
Am I correct in assuming that people who use software developed by people who develop software as a hobby are automatically "people who aren't serious" to you?
We are talking Enterprise SDK not developers. People who are claiming to want to be supporting tens of thousands of phones worth millions of dollars who think $299 / yr is too much aren't serious. If you want to get to developers. I'd say developers who aren't registered with Apple or working for an organization registered with Apple aren't serious. Apple wants developers registered with them and part of WWDC. That's how Apple specific information gets disseminated.
No Apple doesn't have such a policy. Apple is perfectly happy with anyone stepping forward to play Apple's role. So for example the FSF rather than complaining about Apple's structures could just offer their own Enterprise Servers and support end users with whatever policies they want. Apple want to make sure end users are supported, they are perfectly happy to pass that support off.
Reading your comment I just want to make sure you understand the way the enterprise SDK works.
Device registers with new server -> new server provides services. Any device can only register with 1 primary set of services. They aren't just releasing software they are agreeing to act as primary support for those devices. The Enterprise SDK does allow the creation of a private store but that's just one of many services they are getting.
A DUNS number is free excluding any legal charges your start has for a DBA(Doing Business As), but that's not Apple's fees. Legally a US business isn't required to have a DUNS but almost all will, that's not an onerous burden. The $299 is not a per device but per server and can cover tens of thousands of devices. It is a trivial charge meant mostly to keep away people who aren't serious.
As for monopoly power over developers that's a negative. If you are running your own Enterprise SDK you can setup the signing authority however you like. Apple won't even know.
The BR sound in english is much easier for foreigners to hear than the pure B sound. You think of them as the same because you speak English you write them both with a "b". But pay attention to your mouth as you say "ba" as in battery and "BRa" as in Bravo. You'll see immediately your lips are doing entirely different things. The connection between the first sound in battery and bravo exists in your head only because you speak English.
I didn't say one file. It can own part of the hierarchy. Dropbox has a top level directory and owns everything below that. Not a problem. A revision control system works the same way.
Once you start talking about a system wide search that is something that needs to cross out the sandbox so that's very different than those two examples. If you are going to quote me (I'm not sure where) please quote me accurately.
In your opinion, should a device manufacturer have monopoly power to provide such a developer SDK for devices that it sells
Apple provides the signing authority for the default enterprise servers. You can configure a device for other servers and Apple makes that easy and sells those servers at a loss. I think Apple in general is doing a good job of balancing out interests. I can easily see this same setup working far less well with a company doing a worse job.
So probably I'd come down on the "bad in principle good in practice" side of things. It is rather grey.
Slashdot Mirror
You are counting income. Most of the top 1% isn't income. For example an unrealized capital gain doesn't count.
The top 1% have a mean household wealth of over $15m. Confiscate 100% of that: 140m households x 1% x $15m = 21T enough to pay off the entire debt and fund every liberal dream.
My comment about Xcode on iPad wasn't necessarily intended to require that Apple expend developer time=money on doing the port itself, just to give other producers of developer tools enough privileges to make developer tools that run as expected.
I think you are conflating 5 unrelated issues:
a) The ability to use XCode on iOS.
b) That iOS devices ship by default with an userspace application launcher that requires an Apple signed device specific provisioning file.
c) Apple's attitude towards 3rd party tools
d) Apple's reluctance is allow large libraries in every application in particular hostility to cross platform tools and Apple's reluctance on cross platform
a') I hit this in the other thread. Let's break that off and assume for the purpose of discussion we are OK with the idea that all iOS development happens in OSX.
b') What makes the developer SDK mandatory isn't about creating applications it is about initiating the process of creating provisioning files. That's a security mechanism not a development mechanism. Apple could easily open this up, to other tools and XCode is pretty open to other tools in terms of submitting files for provisioning. I don't believe there is anything here in terms of stopping using 3rd party tools to do most development. This is just Apple allowing for the integration of 3rd party tools but only supporting their own. Most 3rd party iOS development environments just use the XCode iOS SDK as a subsystem and integrate with it. So I'd say in practice this is a non-issue for Apple developers, though a big issue for the low end amateurs.
One thing I'd strongly support is iTunes being able to create provisioning files for an iOS device directly connected. I think that would allow low end amateurs to write their own software on their own iOS devices without undermining the security system.
c') Now when it comes to 3rd party tools that are used for generating Cocoa / Objective-C code Apple is fully 100% supportive. For example JetBrains which provides an alternative developer IDE, gets as much support from Apple as they want. Here I just think you are wrong on the facts. Apple is supportive I don't know of any issues on this at all.
d') Now this is the core of the issue. Which is not so much Apple blocking 3rd party tools as Apple being reluctant to allow 3rd party libraries to become standard. Particularly cross platform libraries. As Apple sees it cross platform leads to a lowest common denominator approach which is bad for end users, while possibly good for developers and definitely good for toolmakers. They see it as their job to prevent developers from producing a substandard experience for end users. They handle this by exercising judgement that is they allow some cross platform applications on a case by case basis with the general understanding they are mildly to moderately hostile.
I'd say this issues here are:
i) Is it reasonable for Apple to act in the capacity of a regulatory agency?
ii) Is Apple doing a good job?
Many of the debates IMHO conflate these two issues. I think Apple is doing a very good job as a regulatory agency balancing out various factors. I don't think they are perfect, I think they have made mistakes and I think they been opaque at times. But on balance I think almost all their choices have been defendable. The number of false negatives and false positives on iOS is low and the process of review terribly onerous. More or less this is what good government looks like.
The real issue is. Apple does a good job as a government, today in 2013. We don't know that if their earning start to flatten they won't get more desperate and start to abuse their power to boost earnings. We don't know that other companies in the same situation would do as good a job. This sets a terrible precedent.... All those things are true. And I'd love to be having discussions about building a regulatory mechanism like Apple's but with checks and balances to prevent it from going off the rails.
That and port Xcode to iPad. Right now, someone who owns an iPad and a Bluetooth keyboard can't develop an application directly on the iPad, except within things like Codea that Apple was at first reluctant to approve.
XCode is never going to be ported. Apple has been very clear they don't want iOS for general purpose developers. I could see them porting XCode to Windows or Linux (which with the GNUStep project they are already over 1/2 way there) before they ported to iOS. Apple's position is iOS devices are not computers. They are electronics devices more in common with the braking system on a car than a computer laptop. Obviously this is getting harder and harder to maintain as: iPod becomes iPod touch becomes iPhone with no 3rd party apps becomes iPhones with 3rd apps becomes iPad...
But at least for now fundamentally Apple's attitude is OSX is mandatory for doing anything sophisticated on iOS. And that BTW is not unique to development. Their office suite (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) differentiates between the OSX authoring and iOS display / editing versions; their multimedia authoring / editing apps break the same way they encourage this in the way codedata is designed.
iOS is not sold as a self contained product. Remember up until a few years ago, iTunes was mandatory for maintenance and manipulation of iOS devices. You literally could not turn the device on beyond the configuration screens without access to a computer. While iCloud has emulated most iTunes functionality and thus allows a device to rarely interface with iTunes, I still don't think you should try to operate an iOS device in a reliable way without access to iTunes. For example application version rollback still can only be accomplished via. iTunes (excluding developer / hackerish specific ways).
In term of Codea the issue with Codea it is an interpreter. Apple has been pretty firm against general purpose interpreters. They feel that's a platform decision and the general purpose interpreter that they are slowly bring to iOS is MacRuby. They have been more liberal in the last 2 years but it is definitely a balancing act. Codea is approved because it is a toy and designed for education. Other applications that have interpreters like ND1 are approved because they aren't general purpose.
The government continues to operate with the full consent of its subjects. Accept it
Exactly. And in this particular case, the laws against identity theft, I'm sure the level of support is incredibly high.
Not really. Governments can and should rely on the cooperation of the their community for law enforcement. Verizon's cooperation is part of the broader notion of community support for the laws we are governed by. Having individuals, or in the case corporate persons, stand up and assist the police in enforcing the laws is a very good thing. The opposite where the laws were so broadly disliked that the community didn't support them and wouldn't help the police I'd consider much more dangerous and damaging. So no I'm not disgusted at all nor even troubled.
If that's the case then legalize coke / legalize meth = legalize coke / don't legalize meth. The only interesting cases are where the replacement doesn't happen.
Yes. And the reason they react like that is because they can't or don't "go get drunk" in the USA. I'd agree US tends to cause some problems around college age but it holds down drinking throughout life.
You are talking about a different issue which is that as a consumer you have lock in on content that you have to pick a format. This is kinda what computers were like int he 1980s. Apple's ran apple software. Commodore 64 ran C64 software. IBM's ran IBM software. Atari Atari... The tradition of a monoculture was the result of a monopoly in PCs being established via. the Microsoft / Intel / Western Digital standard. This is what real competition looks like.
I'd assume eventually things like the availability of Kindle files on multiple devices will be the norm. Content creators have no interest in device lock in.
That's not the basis of Microsoft's claim. The basis of the claim is that Google is using their dominance in the mobile space to unfairly advantage themselves in the advertising space.
The system won't work against that kind of concerted effort. But I'd assume that kind of concerted effort is rare.
I don't think Verizon is going to be too upset that publicity that they helped the FBI catch an identify thief in an apartment under one of the assumed names he was identity stealing....
Besides Verizon works with the military and has most of the government contracts. They've been pretty clear they are going to extra cooperative with the government for many years.
And people leave all the time.
How on earth is this any less susceptible to astroturfing? Linked-in like every other form of social media has large numbers of fake accounts that are available as shill accounts
I think it is pretty easy to tell shill accounts from real accounts. It is also easy for a computer. There are cross correlations that human accounts will have and shill accounts won't. My biological sister is on my linkedin account. My linked in account has diverse connections and comments.... This sort of depth doesn't exist for shills.
Now paid positive reviews that are real people that's a different story. But any vendor would have to be very careful about that sort of marketing.
With enterprise software you could easily have a situation where the IT group is happy and the end users aren't happy. The IT group may not have much pull over end users. Also people move from job to job. I can easily picture this working.
Besides the Streisand effect applies. If an employee gets disciplined for bad mouthing a vendor and goes public that could actually be a news item with millions of hits.
Isn't that the game of all mobile operating systems these days? iOS tries to leverage you into their universe by corralling you into their shop system
Apple makes almost all their money selling phones. Their cost of administering the shop for a while was more than the revenue. Many years from now 30% of software and media may be the money maker. But for now the software exists to sell phones not the other way around.
Apple is in the phone business.
Google is in the advertising business.
I thought MacPorts was for open-source software. Is relying on someone to sign your software even legal under the "Installation Information" requirement of GPLv3 or LGPLv3?
MacPorts is for open-source. But a 15 year old without parental permission can't legally engage in a contract, in particular he can't issue a license so in your hypothetical of no parental support and no adult support he can't sell software regardless. That's not Apple, that's the law.
In terms of GPL and LGPL there are GPL and LGPL apps distributed on MacPorts all the time.
1) Most of the restrictions are designed around distributing binaries not distributing source with no binaries.
2) Any OSX user can install any binary. So I don't think the GPLv3 applies at all. The GPLv3 does not guarantee access to the app store.
3) Even if it were more restrictive anyone who knows how to modify an OSX binary knows how to run one.
4) Singing a binary is just signing it. You are indicating you are the one who compiled this binary. And you are certifying that you are taking responsibility. Why would the GPLv3 ever prevent someone from doing that?
The situation is a little more dicey in the case of iOS because there is no obvious way for a user to modify and run code on their own device without a developer license. They either need to disable the system that checks provisioning files (jailbreaking) or be able to have Apple sign their binaries (developer SDK) or be able to have their own master key (Enterprise / University SDK). On the other hand XCode as a free applications does allow you to run any modified version in the iPhone emulator. I don't know what the GPL says about the ability to distribute but not to distribute to desired devices...
I think it is probably best to only assert GPLv3 on the source and make no affirmative claims on the binary at all. But what the legal standing is for iOS GPLv3 binaries is very dicey.
________
Now I've answered a 1/2 dozen rounds of your questions I have one for you. Is this really about $99? Assume that the iOS developer SDK were included for free within XCode would that solve the problem? Obviously you are spending a lot of time trying to figure out some scenario under which Apple's setup is horrible. You aren't making elementary errors so you've had this discussion before.
I think the real issue is now what Apple is doing but rather that Apple is normalizing a situation of vastly more control. It is not the specific policies of the prison that are the issue, which are rather liberal, but the fact that these concrete walls and iron bars exist at all. $99 which probably doesn't cover Apple's costs could become $3999 and then software development really is locked down to only companies or at least semi-professional individuals. Enterprise SDK instead of being $299 could be $299k or $2.9m.
But I don't know is it really the $99?
Lots of people spend $200 on their hobbies. I have yet to meet someone for whom the $100 / yr is what is stopping them for OSX This seems like a theoretical issue more than a practical one.
Now if you are talking fully cross platform where there is nothing uniquely OSX about the application than just release it at the darwin level. http://www.macports.org/ is distribution and that doesn't require certification. A binary distributed to the masses would require an Apple developer. Most likely a developer associated with the Macports project would use his binary packager and sign it for him.
And I've read that joining requires first turning 18. I have a cousin who is learning to program. So how is a developer still in high school supposed to distribute his application to the public? Or is he supposed to show no one until his 18th birthday?
He's not. Children unassisted are not supposed to be distributing software to the broad public. Public distribution of software is supposed to be under some adult's supervision and an adult who is involved in the Apple developer community. Teen and college developers can be a creative source of software. But Apple wants more polish for their platform.
But not being able to distribute to the broad public is not the same as not being able to distribute to the narrower community. Apple would be enthusiastic about the under 18 developer getting integrated into the developer community, a community of practice and support. That community is setup to handle the problems of a 15 year old, making the kinds of mistakes 15 year olds make. The broader community is not.
The article basically says no one has probably ever been hit. The incidence of dark lightening is about 1/1000th the incidence of visible lightening and pilots avoid thunderstorms.
The Mac App Store also has guidelines unavailable to the public. And if everything must be sandboxed in order to run, then third-party developers can no longer provide system administration tools.
Apple offers 3 installation modes for OSX.
1) Unsigned. This is more or less like windows.
2) Signed. This means the developer is known to Apple and has an active OSX account. Apple has verified the developer and verifies that the developer names has signed the binary you are about to install.
3) Signed and verified. This means the application is installed via. Mac App store.
OSX users on an individual basis decide whether they want 3, 2-3 or 1-3. So for example I'm set to only allow 2-3 by default but on a case by case basis override and allow 1s. Which is the most common setting. The second most common setting is to allow everything
(1)'s can be generated even without using XCode. (3)'s required distribution from the App Store and those do require sandboxing and following Apple guidelines. At least today most app developers offer (2) and (3) versions of their binaries on OSX. Which is gradually moving the culture over towards compliance.
Remember when we are talking the Enterprise SDK there is no such thing as "unauthorized".
Switching back to the developer SDK. I don't mean to be an ass but if you
a) don't own a mac yet
b) don't talk to people who have gone through the review process
c) aren't plugged in enough to know what's acceptable and what isn't
you are exactly the kinda of person that the $99 is for. You are exactly the kind of person that Apple doesn't want creating borderline kinds of applications. The iOS App Store Guidelines are all over the web, but Apple uses common sense. The guidelines is really about discernment and a certain feel of what's acceptable under what conditions. Some apps get away with stuff that others don't. And Apple expects you to work with them.
If your app is borderline Apple is very likely going to spend much more than $100 reviewing it. I know this is a very different culture than Linux, Windows or Android which is a free for all. I'm not sure what this has to do with Sandboxing on OSX. iOS is even stricter than OSX.
Can it cover, say, every iPhone and every iPad owned by a member of a religious organization that has a few million members worldwide?
I think it country specific because carrier rules and software policies are on a per country basis. For some features it is carrier specific. But if the Catholic church bought say 500 licenses and used them for all 1 billion Catholics I think that would be OK.
Am I correct in assuming that people who use software developed by people who develop software as a hobby are automatically "people who aren't serious" to you?
We are talking Enterprise SDK not developers. People who are claiming to want to be supporting tens of thousands of phones worth millions of dollars who think $299 / yr is too much aren't serious. If you want to get to developers. I'd say developers who aren't registered with Apple or working for an organization registered with Apple aren't serious. Apple wants developers registered with them and part of WWDC. That's how Apple specific information gets disseminated.
No Apple doesn't have such a policy. Apple is perfectly happy with anyone stepping forward to play Apple's role. So for example the FSF rather than complaining about Apple's structures could just offer their own Enterprise Servers and support end users with whatever policies they want. Apple want to make sure end users are supported, they are perfectly happy to pass that support off.
Reading your comment I just want to make sure you understand the way the enterprise SDK works.
Device registers with new server -> new server provides services. Any device can only register with 1 primary set of services. They aren't just releasing software they are agreeing to act as primary support for those devices. The Enterprise SDK does allow the creation of a private store but that's just one of many services they are getting.
I agree you want phone support that is fluent. No question. I was just agreeing up that if you have to spell the ham radio alphabet is very good.
A DUNS number is free excluding any legal charges your start has for a DBA(Doing Business As), but that's not Apple's fees. Legally a US business isn't required to have a DUNS but almost all will, that's not an onerous burden. The $299 is not a per device but per server and can cover tens of thousands of devices. It is a trivial charge meant mostly to keep away people who aren't serious.
As for monopoly power over developers that's a negative. If you are running your own Enterprise SDK you can setup the signing authority however you like. Apple won't even know.
That's exactly my point.
The BR sound in english is much easier for foreigners to hear than the pure B sound. You think of them as the same because you speak English you write them both with a "b". But pay attention to your mouth as you say "ba" as in battery and "BRa" as in Bravo. You'll see immediately your lips are doing entirely different things. The connection between the first sound in battery and bravo exists in your head only because you speak English.
I didn't say one file. It can own part of the hierarchy. Dropbox has a top level directory and owns everything below that. Not a problem. A revision control system works the same way.
Once you start talking about a system wide search that is something that needs to cross out the sandbox so that's very different than those two examples. If you are going to quote me (I'm not sure where) please quote me accurately.
In your opinion, should a device manufacturer have monopoly power to provide such a developer SDK for devices that it sells
Apple provides the signing authority for the default enterprise servers. You can configure a device for other servers and Apple makes that easy and sells those servers at a loss. I think Apple in general is doing a good job of balancing out interests. I can easily see this same setup working far less well with a company doing a worse job.
So probably I'd come down on the "bad in principle good in practice" side of things. It is rather grey.