Does Apple actually allow you to run an app on your own iDevice without paying the $99 fee? I thought you had to pay it even if you were developing and testing on your own iDevice, not just if you wanted to distribute it.
The only time you have to pay $99 is to be able to SUBMIT Apps. With Ad Hoc Provisioning, besides being able to "Distribute" to yourself, you can even Distribute to up to 100 iOS Devices directly without involving the $99.
> The only thing you pay for is the $99 to distribute applications...
$99/year, *every* year. If you stop paying, your app is *removed* from the App Store (but not people's iDevices!). This makes creating a free app for iDevices a *bit* more expensive than it should be.
So charge $1.30 for it, and it 100 people buy it a year, then your Dev. license is essentially free.
If people won't pay less than a large coffee at the gas station for your work, then it must be pretty sucky. Personally, I'm not rolling in money; but I will drop up to $5 for an app that I'm even mildly interested in.
If you feel like being altruistic and charging zero for your time and effort, then don't whine about incidental costs you incur along the way.
Apple charges that $99 not because it fills their coffers with significant cash; but because it HELPS keep people who are not serious about creating Apps out. Yes, even fart Apps.
Linux source code can legally be downloaded once per neighborhood and sneakernetted from one machine to another. Xcode, being proprietary software, doesn't allow this.
Idiot.
XCode could care LESS where the.pkg or.dmg file it resides on came from. You can download it once, and LEGALLY (and easily) stick it on a network drive, ftp server, USB stick, portable hard/ssd drive, and install it on as many Macs as you care to.
Just because something isn't Open Sores, doesn't mean that it's DRMed.
> urban Seattle, multiple gigabytes can become very expensive to download.
This! We're still updating a dozen dev machines to XCode 6.4 for iOS 9 support. It looks like it is going to take two weeks since we're in Seattle and stuck sharing an ISDN line between almost twenty people. I wish Apple had a solution where you could download the update once then redistribute it.
They do. And if you were even a marginally-competent Developer, you'd already have figured it out.
All that is happening is that a.pkg file is being downloaded. It's not rocket surgery.
Go somewhere that has reasonable internet, download the.pkg file, put it on a local network resource or even a fast USB Stick or portable drive, and VOILA!
Heck, if you would get a crowbar into your wallet and pry out $70, you could do it all from a central location using Apple Remote Desktop. Of course, if your Dev. machines are spread out all over the place, then you fall right back into the slow internet thing. But if they are all in and around Seattle, then sneakernetting a copy of the XCode.pkg bundle around town may be faster than dealing with multi-day downloads...
Since when? I thought it was proprietary software, that Apple switched from GCC to LLVM specifically to avoid copyleft.
You probably meant "Xcode is free as in without charge." That's true if your home Internet lacks a quota or has dozens of GB per month. But if you're stuck behind cellular or satellite Internet, such as in a rural area or urban Seattle, multiple gigabytes can become very expensive to download.
Now you're just TRYING to find excuses to justify your "Not REALLY Free" assertion.
It is as free as Apple can reasonably make it.
Or perhaps you'd like to go back to the bad old days when you had to have a REALLY expensive Subscription (IIRC, it started at $500/yr... and UP!) to get the Monthly Developer CDs mailed to you.
So, by your estimation, and your point of view, is there really ANY truly free software on this planet?
Just accept the fact that Apple isn't infallible, the walled garden is no guarantee against malware
Of course Apple isn't infallible; duh!
And although a Curated Collection is no guarantee against malware, it is a very good step in the right direction. Witness the fact that Google Play started out as the Wild West, and gradually became more and more "walled" (yes, you can still "sideload" apps; but it is becoming more and more discouraged by Google). And I believe the MS "App Store", and their mobile OS is also "Curated Only", just like Apple.
Do you work for Apple or something? Because every time someone says anything that you perceive to be even the smallest of criticism or slights against them, you get all butthurt and start throwing temper tantrums.
Seriously man, they are just a company. Grow the fuck up.
Google is just a company, and Android is just an OS; but to hear the fandroids on here, you'd think they were both the second coming of Christ.
There are a lot of layers any such attack would have to go through, in the end scrubbing out anything much useful (which is what we see with the results). I'm not saying there's no risk, I'm saying that the system as a whole does a good job of having enough layers of security that it's very hard to get something really malicious in place.
Witness the fact that XCode has been offered for free since 1999 and this is the first time it has been compromised.
Xcode is signed and Gatekeeper warns about a corrupted binary. The issue is that these developers that were infected intentionally disabled Gatekeeper checks so they could run the infected Xcode.
So were they unwitting participants in the scheme; or was this the Developers' plan all along, and they just got caught?
People vastly overestimate what Apple can do. Basically, reviewing an app for backdoors competently takes several times as much effort as writing it, and the people doing the review need to be significantly better than the original coder. It is a lot cheaper in practice to just re-implement with trusted people.
Exactly!
If even a modicum of obsfucation is used, a skilled Developer can hide quite a bit in a system as huge as XCode. And I don't think AI is to the point where it can "out intuit" humans.
The simplest of checks, say a verification at apples end, that the app asking for publish approval was developed with a signed and verified version of ide Xcode would have prevented this. Seems like apples "extensive vetting process" isn't as robust as they would have us believe...
No.
It seems like Apple didn't expect anyone to get the FREE XCode from any other source but them.
Many vulnerabilities are discovered in exactly this sort of way. But rest assured, if the fix isn't already in place, it will be quite soon.
I remember a branch manager of a sales team asking me (the resident tech nerd) whether or not to allow an app to get his contacts on his i thing.
The fact that he had to ask me tells me he has no idea if he should click yes or no. Most would just click YES to proceed.
You, sir, are an effete snob. The VERY thing you ascribe (wrongly) to Apple owners with your snarky "i thing" remark. You wouldn't have referred to his phone as an "a thing" if it were an Android.
And the fact that he actually ASKED you means that he RECOGNIZES that he shouldn't just blindly click "OK" to every security prompt he sees.
Far from deriding him, you should be PRAISING his diligence, you insensitive clod! You WISH all Users were as DILIGENT as he.
few developers bother to check file signatures (do Apple even offer them?)
Apple DOES offer hashes/signatures on their regular Downloads; but not for stuff that is distributed through the App Store (which XCode now is).
I ASSUME the rationale is that it is a "closed" file repository/download system; so file signatures were not needed.
I would imagine that may change, or some other verification method post download, will be implemented.
I guarantee that there have already been a few meetings about this. Apple knows how important it is to avoid "poisoned Apples" in the App Store. Especially when that poisoned Apple can make other poisoned Apples.
To be fair, when Ken Thompson gave his Turing Award lecture, he didn't have access to Slashdot anonymous cowards to explain the errors in his reasoning. He did the best he could with what he had.
Mods: That was INSIGHTFUL, not Funny (although it is a bit humorous of an observation).
And this is a prime reason to move to Android - the plethora of free apps - and quite useful and usable apps at that.
There are a plethoraplex of Free Apps of all types on the iOS App Store, too. I can't seem to find a statistic for either the Apple App Store or Google Play; but suffice it to say that I have NEVER searched for an App in the Apple App Store that didn't pull up many results, both Free and Paid. And even most of the Paid Apps are $5 or less; which is essentially "free" for most people that can afford ANY smartphone.
To move from Apple to Android? Would it? Could it?
One half second of search in the iOS App Store turned up the App "My Contacts Backup Tool" (FREE!), that purports to transfer at least your Contacts OUT of iOS into a.vcf file, to import wherever. There are others, too, some with useful stuff like Excel Support.
However, all I see are "Contacts" exporting Apps. But it seems like iOS native Apps such as Mail and Photo already have some "Data Migration" features built-in, and every iOS App that has files has a "Share" button, so it seems like that covers it. because you can "share" (export) multiple data items (files) at once.
I have an honest question that you, as an iOS user maybe can answer: Is there a decent database app available? Something similar to Memento for android? I use that app heavily and would have a hard time finding a replacement for it, even on android. Some of my friends that use iOS have liked what they've seen in the app and would like to use something like it, but I have no idea what to recommend.
Besides a plethora of specialized databases, I saw no less that a dozen standalone databases (some even FREE. Tap Forms LITE looks pretty cool) some fairly simple, others pretty full-featured, plus mobile clients for MS SQL, Access, Oracle, Sybase and others, a complete SQL Database manager, and more.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty sad when you're told to cry moar and do exactly that.
This is EXACTLY why most Slashdotters ignore/filter ACs.
I have resisted it until now; but I guess I'll sadly have to adopt that policy, too,...
Hey Slashdot! ACs are RUINING this Site!!!
GET RID of THE AC POLICY NOW!!!
Cry moar.
Pretty sad when you can't even spell "more".
You are an insult to all the true morons (IQ under 70) on the planet.
Yes, please use Android.
Whoops: https://code.google.com/p/andr...
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!! That's GREAT!!!!
Does Apple actually allow you to run an app on your own iDevice without paying the $99 fee? I thought you had to pay it even if you were developing and testing on your own iDevice, not just if you wanted to distribute it.
The only time you have to pay $99 is to be able to SUBMIT Apps. With Ad Hoc Provisioning, besides being able to "Distribute" to yourself, you can even Distribute to up to 100 iOS Devices directly without involving the $99.
It's a pretty well-thought-out system, actually.
> The only thing you pay for is the $99 to distribute applications...
$99/year, *every* year. If you stop paying, your app is *removed* from the App Store (but not people's iDevices!). This makes creating a free app for iDevices a *bit* more expensive than it should be.
So charge $1.30 for it, and it 100 people buy it a year, then your Dev. license is essentially free.
If people won't pay less than a large coffee at the gas station for your work, then it must be pretty sucky. Personally, I'm not rolling in money; but I will drop up to $5 for an app that I'm even mildly interested in.
If you feel like being altruistic and charging zero for your time and effort, then don't whine about incidental costs you incur along the way.
Apple charges that $99 not because it fills their coffers with significant cash; but because it HELPS keep people who are not serious about creating Apps out. Yes, even fart Apps.
Linux source code can legally be downloaded once per neighborhood and sneakernetted from one machine to another. Xcode, being proprietary software, doesn't allow this.
Idiot.
.pkg or .dmg file it resides on came from. You can download it once, and LEGALLY (and easily) stick it on a network drive, ftp server, USB stick, portable hard/ssd drive, and install it on as many Macs as you care to.
XCode could care LESS where the
Just because something isn't Open Sores, doesn't mean that it's DRMed.
Stupid fuck.
> urban Seattle, multiple gigabytes can become very expensive to download.
This! We're still updating a dozen dev machines to XCode 6.4 for iOS 9 support. It looks like it is going to take two weeks since we're in Seattle and stuck sharing an ISDN line between almost twenty people. I wish Apple had a solution where you could download the update once then redistribute it.
They do. And if you were even a marginally-competent Developer, you'd already have figured it out.
.pkg file is being downloaded. It's not rocket surgery.
.pkg file, put it on a local network resource or even a fast USB Stick or portable drive, and VOILA!
.pkg bundle around town may be faster than dealing with multi-day downloads...
All that is happening is that a
Go somewhere that has reasonable internet, download the
Heck, if you would get a crowbar into your wallet and pry out $70, you could do it all from a central location using Apple Remote Desktop. Of course, if your Dev. machines are spread out all over the place, then you fall right back into the slow internet thing. But if they are all in and around Seattle, then sneakernetting a copy of the XCode
Xcode is free.
Since when? I thought it was proprietary software, that Apple switched from GCC to LLVM specifically to avoid copyleft.
You probably meant "Xcode is free as in without charge." That's true if your home Internet lacks a quota or has dozens of GB per month. But if you're stuck behind cellular or satellite Internet, such as in a rural area or urban Seattle, multiple gigabytes can become very expensive to download.
Now you're just TRYING to find excuses to justify your "Not REALLY Free" assertion.
It is as free as Apple can reasonably make it.
Or perhaps you'd like to go back to the bad old days when you had to have a REALLY expensive Subscription (IIRC, it started at $500/yr... and UP!) to get the Monthly Developer CDs mailed to you.
So, by your estimation, and your point of view, is there really ANY truly free software on this planet?
Just accept the fact that Apple isn't infallible, the walled garden is no guarantee against malware
Of course Apple isn't infallible; duh!
And although a Curated Collection is no guarantee against malware, it is a very good step in the right direction. Witness the fact that Google Play started out as the Wild West, and gradually became more and more "walled" (yes, you can still "sideload" apps; but it is becoming more and more discouraged by Google). And I believe the MS "App Store", and their mobile OS is also "Curated Only", just like Apple.
Do you work for Apple or something? Because every time someone says anything that you perceive to be even the smallest of criticism or slights against them, you get all butthurt and start throwing temper tantrums.
Seriously man, they are just a company. Grow the fuck up.
Google is just a company, and Android is just an OS; but to hear the fandroids on here, you'd think they were both the second coming of Christ.
Then what, pray tell, is the point of Apple's byzantine approvals process?
Money.
Oh, FFS! Stop it!
ORLY?
Apple could make even MORE money by letting ANY software in, and saving the Resources it takes to Approve it.
Therefore, there MUST be another reason. Let's see; what could it be?
Could it POSSIBLY be that they really ARE trying (pretty damned successfully so far!) to keep this kind of shit OUT of the App Store(s)?
Nah. That can't be it. Must be GREED, right?
Haters gotta hate; even when it makes NO sense.
Apple would not make more by letting just anything in.
They block whatever competes with Apple themselves.
There are a lot of layers any such attack would have to go through, in the end scrubbing out anything much useful (which is what we see with the results). I'm not saying there's no risk, I'm saying that the system as a whole does a good job of having enough layers of security that it's very hard to get something really malicious in place.
Witness the fact that XCode has been offered for free since 1999 and this is the first time it has been compromised.
Xcode is signed and Gatekeeper warns about a corrupted binary. The issue is that these developers that were infected intentionally disabled Gatekeeper checks so they could run the infected Xcode.
So were they unwitting participants in the scheme; or was this the Developers' plan all along, and they just got caught?
People vastly overestimate what Apple can do. Basically, reviewing an app for backdoors competently takes several times as much effort as writing it, and the people doing the review need to be significantly better than the original coder. It is a lot cheaper in practice to just re-implement with trusted people.
Exactly!
If even a modicum of obsfucation is used, a skilled Developer can hide quite a bit in a system as huge as XCode. And I don't think AI is to the point where it can "out intuit" humans.
The simplest of checks, say a verification at apples end, that the app asking for publish approval was developed with a signed and verified version of ide Xcode would have prevented this. Seems like apples "extensive vetting process" isn't as robust as they would have us believe...
No.
It seems like Apple didn't expect anyone to get the FREE XCode from any other source but them.
Many vulnerabilities are discovered in exactly this sort of way. But rest assured, if the fix isn't already in place, it will be quite soon.
LOL, you give people too much credit.
I remember a branch manager of a sales team asking me (the resident tech nerd) whether or not to allow an app to get his contacts on his i thing.
The fact that he had to ask me tells me he has no idea if he should click yes or no. Most would just click YES to proceed.
You, sir, are an effete snob. The VERY thing you ascribe (wrongly) to Apple owners with your snarky "i thing" remark. You wouldn't have referred to his phone as an "a thing" if it were an Android.
And the fact that he actually ASKED you means that he RECOGNIZES that he shouldn't just blindly click "OK" to every security prompt he sees.
Far from deriding him, you should be PRAISING his diligence, you insensitive clod! You WISH all Users were as DILIGENT as he.
Fucktard.
Then what, pray tell, is the point of Apple's byzantine approvals process?
Money.
ORLY?
Apple could make even MORE money by letting ANY software in, and saving the Resources it takes to Approve it.
Therefore, there MUST be another reason. Let's see; what could it be?
Could it POSSIBLY be that they really ARE trying (pretty damned successfully so far!) to keep this kind of shit OUT of the App Store(s)?
Nah. That can't be it. Must be GREED, right?
Haters gotta hate; even when it makes NO sense.
few developers bother to check file signatures (do Apple even offer them?)
Apple DOES offer hashes/signatures on their regular Downloads; but not for stuff that is distributed through the App Store (which XCode now is).
I ASSUME the rationale is that it is a "closed" file repository/download system; so file signatures were not needed.
I would imagine that may change, or some other verification method post download, will be implemented.
I guarantee that there have already been a few meetings about this. Apple knows how important it is to avoid "poisoned Apples" in the App Store. Especially when that poisoned Apple can make other poisoned Apples.
So that apple can act as a strict gatekeeper to maximise its profitability? What other purpose would it have?
Here we go...
Sigh. Just FOAD, ok?
To be fair, when Ken Thompson gave his Turing Award lecture, he didn't have access to Slashdot anonymous cowards to explain the errors in his reasoning. He did the best he could with what he had.
Mods: That was INSIGHTFUL, not Funny (although it is a bit humorous of an observation).
And this is a prime reason to move to Android - the plethora of free apps - and quite useful and usable apps at that.
There are a plethoraplex of Free Apps of all types on the iOS App Store, too. I can't seem to find a statistic for either the Apple App Store or Google Play; but suffice it to say that I have NEVER searched for an App in the Apple App Store that didn't pull up many results, both Free and Paid. And even most of the Paid Apps are $5 or less; which is essentially "free" for most people that can afford ANY smartphone.
What is really messed up is that I tried emailing my sister a link an mp3 on the web so she could download it to her iPhone.
It is impossible. You have to download it to a pc/mac using itunes, and then sync it.
Android... Save As..
iPhone... no luck
What are you smoking?
To move from Apple to Android? Would it? Could it?
One half second of search in the iOS App Store turned up the App "My Contacts Backup Tool" (FREE!), that purports to transfer at least your Contacts OUT of iOS into a .vcf file, to import wherever. There are others, too, some with useful stuff like Excel Support.
However, all I see are "Contacts" exporting Apps. But it seems like iOS native Apps such as Mail and Photo already have some "Data Migration" features built-in, and every iOS App that has files has a "Share" button, so it seems like that covers it. because you can "share" (export) multiple data items (files) at once.
Check section 3.1 of the Apple app store review guidelines:
Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected
So maybe you could publish an app that transfers your data from iOS to Android, you just can't use the word "Android".
What's the reason why Apple would simply ban apps that mention Android in the title? What's the point? Anyone have a good answer for that?
FIrst, is there any evidence that they would, or have; or is it just Apple Hate?
I have an honest question that you, as an iOS user maybe can answer: Is there a decent database app available? Something similar to Memento for android? I use that app heavily and would have a hard time finding a replacement for it, even on android. Some of my friends that use iOS have liked what they've seen in the app and would like to use something like it, but I have no idea what to recommend.
Besides a plethora of specialized databases, I saw no less that a dozen standalone databases (some even FREE. Tap Forms LITE looks pretty cool) some fairly simple, others pretty full-featured, plus mobile clients for MS SQL, Access, Oracle, Sybase and others, a complete SQL Database manager, and more.
Just search for "Database" in the iOS App Store.