[HN Gopher] Apple removes $99 dev account requirement for first ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple removes $99 dev account requirement for first iOS 17 and
macOS 14 betas
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 221 points
Date : 2023-06-07 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| superkuh wrote:
| >Actually submitting apps to Apple for App Store distribution
| (or, on the Mac, signing them so that you can distribute them
| outside the App Store without setting off macOS' many unsigned
| app warning messages) will still cost $99 per year.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| so you cannot build apps for mac unless you pay the dev fees?
| even if you do the whole distribution yourself and avoid app
| store?
| [deleted]
| hobo_mark wrote:
| Never used a mac, but I assume that is only for installing
| from the store, correct? If I publish an open source program
| that one installs with `brew install` or whatever it's called
| none of this applies?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Yes, all of it is open for development. The only thing
| about mac is that, if you want to distribute apps via the
| web, you'll need to instruct the user to bypass the code
| signing requirement by right-clicking on the app or DMG and
| clicking open from there. Getting a Developer ID code
| signing certificate is only available with a paid developer
| account.
| [deleted]
| weaksauce wrote:
| yes and no. you can't sign your app with a certificate so
| if you want to have a frictionless install you have to pay.
| (the friction is having to explain that you have to press
| ctrl while clicking and then click open and then click
| trust this app) command line utilities don't have this
| friction and brew mainly installs command line utilities
| (though there are app binaries distributed through a
| separate brew thing... keg or cask or cellar or something
| like that)
|
| traditionally you would need to pay the 99 bucks to install
| a binary on your ipad or iphone or iwatch. those need to
| have the certificate signed by apple to run on the phone
| for general security reasons so some website couldn't
| sideload an app. now you can do all of that without paying
| the 99 bucks... but if you wanted to sell it on the app
| store or distribute it for external testing you still need
| to pay.
| dingledork69 wrote:
| > general security reasons
|
| Cash cow reasons*. The system is designed to be secure
| even against signed apps.
| Hamuko wrote:
| You can build and distribute them, but it's very ugly. When a
| person first tries to open your unsigned and unnotarized
| application, they get a big warning that the app cannot be
| opened. They need to actively whitelist it by going to the
| system settings or by right-clicking the application bundle
| and selecting "Open" from the menu. And the warning that it
| gives to users is such that your average user won't even have
| any idea that whitelisting is an option.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491
|
| While the process is fairly simple, it basically excludes all
| normal people from using your application if you don't sign
| them. So any application that wants to distribute outside
| macOS experts needs to get their application signed and
| notarized.
| aprilnya wrote:
| you could put a note in the dmg (drag app to apps folder
| screen) that says to right click->open when opening for the
| first time
| josephcsible wrote:
| Technically you _can_ , but if you do, Apple will lie to
| everyone who tries to use your app by telling them that it's
| dangerous and probably contains malware, and will make them
| jump through a bunch of hoops and try to talk them out of it
| at every step before they can actually run it.
| [deleted]
| Domenic_S wrote:
| > _make them jump through a bunch of hoops and try to talk
| them out of it at every step before they can actually run
| it._
|
| Right click --> open --> open. 3 clicks is not "a bunch of
| hoops".
| josephcsible wrote:
| It's 3 clicks if you know how to do it, which they go out
| of their way to not tell you in the error you get when
| you try to run it like any other program.
| derefr wrote:
| If they told you how to do it, then what would even be
| the point? The whole idea is to add a stumbling block in
| the path of malware authors getting users to run a
| trojan.
|
| Anything the user learns to do by rote without first
| understanding the security implications provides zero
| security. Like the Windows Vista elevation prompt --
| users just learned to hit "Yes" and got infected anyway.
| ris58h wrote:
| > If they told you how to do it, then what would even be
| the point?
|
| To warn a user.
| derefr wrote:
| And what would be the point of doing _that_? You have to
| have some behavioral outcome you expect.
|
| Do you expect people to react by not running the program?
| Why? If you find out that they _are_ in fact still
| running the program just as much with the warning in
| place, because they aren 't _reading_ the warning... then
| have you actually "warned the user"?
| vachina wrote:
| Sounds like a racket. MSFT does the same with SmartScreen,
| regardless whether your executables are benign or not,
| unless you pay them (or a third party) for a signing cert.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| The last time I've seen it SmartScreen did not make the
| option to continue completely undiscoverable though.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Yep, AAPL has a $2.8 trillion market cap because of all
| the $99 fees they charge developers.
| TeaDude wrote:
| Oh goodness. I get this crap all the time at work.
|
| Apparently Adobe Acrobat isn't a commonly downloaded
| application. Somehow I fail to believe that...
| Alupis wrote:
| The result? Everybody ignores SmartScreen warnings now...
| jmull wrote:
| The message (before first run only) just says the software
| "can't be opened because Apple cannot check it for
| malicious software." and "This software needs to be
| updated. Contact the developer for more information."
|
| Anyway, it's only hard to run if you have no idea what
| you're doing... pretty much the same people who should not
| be running executables randomly downloaded from the
| internet are the ones blocked by hurdles like this.
| howinteresting wrote:
| "This software needs to be updated" is an outright lie.
| throw74775 wrote:
| No it's not. It needs to be updated in order for it to
| run without that warning.
|
| If the user has permission to disable the warning, they
| can, otherwise the app needs to be updated.
| pivo wrote:
| I don't like the $99 fee either, but to be fair, Apple will
| tell you that they can't tell if the app is dangerous. Not
| that it _is_ dangerous. Specifically, they will tell you
| that the app _Cannot Be Opened Because the Developer Cannot
| be Verified_
|
| You can of course open it the app anyway by disregarding
| this protection for the specific app in settings.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Apple will tell you that they can't tell if the app is
| dangerous. Not that it _is_ dangerous. Specifically, they
| will tell you that the app _Cannot Be Opened Because the
| Developer Cannot be Verified_
|
| Okay, how about this? They're trying their hardest to
| give everyone the impression that it's dangerous without
| explicitly saying so.
| ris58h wrote:
| But it is dangerous by definition. Run unknown binary is
| dangerous. I wish macos had an easy way to sandbox apps.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > But it is dangerous by definition. Run unknown binary
| is dangerous.
|
| Making Apple $99 richer doesn't make your app any less
| dangerous.
| [deleted]
| anlaw wrote:
| You aren't the center of other people's lives. How is any
| old arbitrary user to know you're not a con of a dev?
|
| Software sales are contrived fiat exchange to give your
| code access to my hardware and userspace. Who the f are
| you?
| hiatus wrote:
| Having "skin in the game" is a way to keep a community
| honest. Even darknet markets use bonding for vendors. Not
| to mention that in the case of Apple registration, it
| leaves a paper trail. Though I'd agree that the $99 for
| the privilege seems arbitrary.
| TylerE wrote:
| It makes random apps much less likely to be dangerous.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36086537 is an
| analogous case. When the primary provider of free domains
| names went away, there was a HUGE reduction in phishing
| websites. Those types would spin up thouands of sites on
| xyz, vip and similar TLDs faster than the white hats
| could whackamole them.
|
| A domain going from $0 to $10 vastly curtailed that
| activity. You don't have to make something impossible,
| you just have to make it not cost effective to shot gun
| it.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I don't mind the pop up except for, I wish they had a way
| built in where it doesn't do it for like a special list
| of apps. Apps I am thinking of would be like GIMP or VLC.
| Well known open source projects that have been around a
| long time.
| misnome wrote:
| You can, but users need to right-click and click "open" the
| first time they open the app.
| reaperman wrote:
| This is still a huge improvement. Can devs also use TestFlight
| for free to distribute to a few dozen friends for testing?
|
| Would be a massive benefit to budding developers in developing
| nations.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Can devs also use TestFlight for free to distribute to a
| few dozen friends for testing?
|
| No. https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
| Alupis wrote:
| Why is there any fee at all... $99 per developer is a
| rounding error for Apple, it simply doesn't matter one bit.
|
| Nor should you be limited to compiling on Apple hardware.
| These limitations are policy decisions, and just serve to
| reinforce the notion that Apple doesn't care about developers
| (hilarious for the company that pretty much invented app
| stores!). A lot like it was a ToS violation to run MacOS in a
| virtualization environment - why be so developer hostile?
|
| Nobody can soundly argue these artificial barriers have
| increased app quality on all the Apple platforms either.
| These barriers... just exist, _just because_.
| irrational wrote:
| I'd like to see it as there is no fee if your app is
| available for free (completely free - no subscriptions, no
| credits, no paying on a third party website, etc.), but, if
| you want to charge money, then you have to pay the $99 fee.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Nobody can soundly argue these artificial barriers have
| increased app quality on all the Apple platforms either.
|
| One quick look at App Store vs. Play store will tell you
| differently.
| Alupis wrote:
| The fee was in place before the App Store even existed.
| Take a look at how little Mac software there is compared
| to Windows...
| jjice wrote:
| Windows also has a much larger desktop market share and
| has in the past, plus it's more common for businesses to
| use Windows machines.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Does it though?
|
| I very much doubt making it _really_ difficult to target
| the iPhone on anything other than a Mac has anything to
| do with the amount of shovelware on the Play Store.
| konschubert wrote:
| The fee is to prevent spam.
| Alupis wrote:
| Spam could be prevented with a listing fee if you want
| the app to list in the App Store. Spam is prevented by
| app reviews and policy enforcement, on the App store.
|
| A developer annual fee doesn't prevent spam. It's just
| there to be hostile to developers...
| Euphorbium wrote:
| It works totally perfect, just go to the garbage dump
| that is android store and compare.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Speaking as someone who regularly uses both iOS and
| Android (Pixel) phones: The App store and Play store are
| indistinguishable in terms of app quality. Both are
| absolutely filled with garbage, and the only way to find
| anything worthwhile is to search off-platform, then punch
| your desired app name into the store's search.
| Alupis wrote:
| Not to mention the Play Store requires $25 per listed app
| - removing the "anti-spam" argument some are making.
|
| The issue is paying $99 to even be allowed to think about
| making an app - plus the arbitrary requirement it must be
| built using a Mac.
|
| Not all apps are commercial, and not all apps generate
| revenue, and not all apps are even on the App Store!
|
| It's just an absurd requirement. Stockholm Syndrome,
| anyone?
| tcmart14 wrote:
| This is an interesting idea, but I can see it being
| either good or bad, especially depending on the fee. Lets
| say Apple does this, its $25 per year to list an app on
| the app store. If you have less than 4 apps, its a deal.
| If you have 4 apps, its a wash. But if your an indie
| developer with 6 apps, not it is costing you more. Of
| course, if they went this route, I guess they could offer
| both pricing. $99 for developer and you get,
| theoretically, unlimited app entries, but you can also
| pay per app.
| Alupis wrote:
| This isn't an idea - this is how it works everywhere
| except Apple.
|
| You pay for the benefits of being listed in a curated app
| store - such as Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam store,
| etc. The benefits include discovery, audience, services
| (billing, distribution), etc.
|
| But you don't pay anything for the privilege of making an
| app. That's just absurd.
| blululu wrote:
| I get that paying for stuff is a pain but apps are a
| business and there are a ton of expenses involved with
| any business (a websites, databases, cloud hosting are
| also not free). Having app reviews done by a human is
| fundamentally expensive. Given that a develop can easily
| submit a few apps in a year, I'm not really sure that
| Apple is even making much more than break even on the
| annual $100 fee. If they are it is small potatoes
| compared to the 15-33% fees on sales.
| dingledork69 wrote:
| Not all of them. Did you forget that open source software
| exists? Or just good old hobbyists.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| I don't understand this. Why is it of to pay for the
| computer, storage, cloud services, etc. for your hobby
| but a $99 fee is somehow evil. People spend thousands of
| dollars on all kinds of hobbies. Even if you get someone
| else to pay for the computer etc., a $99 dollar hobby is
| ridiculously cheap.
| recursive wrote:
| Why _should_ apps be required to be businesses? A lot of
| the apps I use are not businesses. Sometimes people make
| good stuff just for fun, or any other reason.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| They're not arguing against all fees, just a fee that
| makes more sense (you pay per listing).
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Prob not as that lowers the barrier to mass side loading via
| test flight
| guraf wrote:
| Serious question: why or how does a developer in a developing
| nation end up selecting macos as a platform? And after that
| deliberate choice of hardware why do we assume they couldn't
| afford the $99?
| schemescape wrote:
| If they're trying to sell apps, it would make sense to sell
| on the platform where people spend the most on apps. I have
| no way to verify, but I've heard that iOS is that platform.
| derefr wrote:
| Depends on whether you're trying to produce apps that
| target the global market or your own local market. There
| might be more apps purchased per capita on iOS, but if
| iOS is 0.001% penetration in your country, and your app
| is only for people _in_ your country, then that stat isn
| 't really relevant.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Who would make an app only for one country outside
| specific fringe cases
|
| Edit: Specifically on the topic of apps relevant to
| independent developers, the topic I'm replying to. An
| indie dev isn't going to create a regional newspaper or
| utility company or a media empire or a government.
| derefr wrote:
| Regional newspapers; social networks (or dating, or
| classifieds) following the Facebook "start by seeding
| interest in the people around you" model; government
| services apps; any "portal" app for banks, electric
| companies, cellular providers, or insurance companies,
| etc.
|
| (I'm Canadian; half the apps on my phone only exist in
| Canada.)
|
| More relevant to paid use-cases: streaming video services
| that offer content in the country's distinct language
| that's only spoken there. (Example: the Philippines.
| There's enough Tagalog content for entire services to be
| based around offering it; and nobody outside of the
| country would ever be interested in it.)
|
| > An indie dev isn't going to create a regional newspaper
| or utility company or a media empire.
|
| How many people do you think work at regional newspapers
| in e.g. Tanzania? I'd guess maybe five people. You think
| they can hire some big software firm to write them a
| mobile app? They're either hiring the editor's nephew to
| do it, or they put out a classified ad looking for
| someone in town who can do it, and they end up getting a
| call from the guy who runs the cellphone repair store who
| "thinks he can give it a try." Same with the banks there,
| the utilities there, and even the government services
| there. Also same with schools, restaurants, museums, etc.
|
| You'd _think_ that most of these would just target the
| web rather than making mobile apps. But in many of these
| countries -- and esp. in poorer regions of them --
| Internet access is still so shit that the lower bandwidth
| requirements of a native app with offline sync really
| matter. (Example again from the Philippines, c /o a
| friend of mine who lives there: people who meet on dating
| _websites_ move immediately to talking on WhatsApp,
| because out in the provinces you 've got a miniscule data
| plan with spotty connectivity, which can handle the few
| KBs of push data per WhatsApp message, but _can 't_
| handle refreshing some bloated website chat interface to
| check for new messages.)
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Now you're talking about wage labor opportunity, not App
| Store sales profitability. If you make an app for a local
| newspaper, you're not making money off app sales, you're
| selling the IP you create and the profits that IP or
| automation generates for the owner. Different topic.
| derefr wrote:
| That doesn't argue against my point, though.
|
| If you're a person who lives in Tanzania and is
| considering getting into mobile app development -- and
| you've decided, first-and-foremost, that you want to
| "work locally" to produce apps that benefit your fellow
| Tanzanians -- then by making this decision, you've
| basically opted out of "selling apps" altogether, instead
| placing yourself firmly in the "selling app-dev labor for
| the development of free apps" camp; and you've _also_
| opted out of targeting iOS, since it 's got at most
| 7.75%[1] market share in Tanzania.
|
| (And probably a large percentage of that 7.75% is
| tourists visiting for safaris, who won't ever be
| downloading your app-for-locals anyway. Tanzania's less-
| tourist-inclined neighbour, Kenya, has a 3.43% iOS
| market-share, which sounds closer to realistic for the
| area.)
|
| [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/iphone-ma...
|
| (If you want a knock-down argument, though, how about
| this: India has a billion people and 3.92% of them use
| iOS (which I didn't realize until pulling the citation
| above.) There are definitely _independent_ Indian game
| developers, making games whose characters are historical
| or mythological figures well-known in India, but not of
| much interest outside of India. They sell these games,
| for money. Would it make sense for these people to bother
| with iOS development, vs. focusing solely on Android
| development?)
| Retric wrote:
| Most dating apps are run by the same handful of
| companies. I suspect the same may be true of other
| categories you mentioned.
|
| Ex: Match owns Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge,
| PlentyOfFish, OurTime, Amoureux.com (Now Redirects To
| Meetic), Black People Meet, BLK, Chispa, Disons Demain,
| Hawaya (Formerly Harmonica), Hinge, HyperConnect,
| Lexa.nl, Love Scout 24, neu.de, Pairs, ParPerfeito, Ship,
| Stir, The League, Upward...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
| derefr wrote:
| I brought up dating sites for a reason, actually! Match-
| group companies really only cover developed countries in
| North America + Europe + East Asia; they have virtually
| no penetration into South America, Africa, or
| South/South-East Asia.
|
| Instead, "the rest of the world" has developed and
| popularized its own collection of apps and sites, some of
| which are global (being well-known to everyone _except_
| the English-speaking world), while others are quite
| regional.
|
| Locanto (a Craigslist-alike, containing among other
| sections a Craigslist Personals-alike) is a good example
| of a global one. It exists in the west, but has basically
| no market penetration. But ask anyone in South Africa, or
| Colombia, or Indonesia, what they think of when you say
| "dating site", and they'll probably point to Locanto.
|
| Others are regional but backed by "media empires" of
| their own -- there's the whole
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid_Media set of sites,
| for example, that each cover one country in SEA.
| antonjs wrote:
| There's also a huge opportunity in taking concepts that
| are working well elsewhere, and building them for the
| specifics of your market. For an early example, see
| Trademe in NZ (basically better rebay, and still
| completely dominant). If I recall, there's also a Berlin
| development house that basically does this at scale for
| the German market.
|
| For a lot of people, winning in their country (rather
| than SF-bay-world-domination-hyperscale) is plenty.
| [deleted]
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Serious question: why or how does a developer in a
| developing nation end up selecting macos as a platform?
|
| Money.
|
| Plain and simple, iOS is where the money is at. People jump
| through the hoops, and Apple creates them, because they
| know the customer base is many times more valuable than
| Android.
| zerr wrote:
| Unlocked VMware macOS emulation on Windows is also an
| option.
| mantas wrote:
| Hackintosh plus few generations old iphone is not
| expensive.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Is hackintosh still a thing now that Apple Si is a thing?
| If you're forced to use Intel CPU, you're not going to be
| using the latest/greatest OS.
| g0atbutt wrote:
| If you value your time at $0...
| szundi wrote:
| Topic here is you have no money = this
| la_fayette wrote:
| I develop iOS apps and I am fine with a mac mini and a used
| iPhone...
| tucnak wrote:
| All iphones are used if you use them...
| willcipriano wrote:
| I started programming on the PC with computers I found in
| the trash.
| [deleted]
| norman784 wrote:
| I don't know how is now, but a few years ago you have more
| chances to monetize in iOS than in Android. Also you can
| get a used Mac or refurbished one relatively cheap.
| CodeBeater wrote:
| They might be trying to target that specific high-dollar
| demographic.
| motogpjimbo wrote:
| Outside of the US, iOS's market penetration is so low
| that unless your app sells luxury yachts, it's largely
| pointless to throw your dev resources behind it no matter
| how well-heeled your Apple customers may be.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Can't wait to get sideloading support in the EU. Then I might
| actually bother learning iOS development.
| [deleted]
| tazu wrote:
| Agreed. We've gotten very far with a PWA (and now iOS web
| push notifications!) but the only thing holding us back is
| the App Store risk. I'd love to use native UIs because I hate
| Javascript and iPhone apps can be beautiful (for example,
| Apollo).
| deepzn wrote:
| I remember when I first paid $99 for my dev account for the app
| store back in 2009. No inflation on the fee at least :)
| [deleted]
| rektide wrote:
| Given how hard they're trying to get people to care about Mac dev
| again - as with for example the directx to metal converter they
| want gangbusters on - it's a sensible & good move.
|
| They also have a public beta in July.
| tpmx wrote:
| This plus the unexpected price decrease on the Macbook Air -
| feels like they're struggling a little bit in the Mac category.
| That's fantastic. Apple is at their best when they are
| struggling.
|
| There's of course also this from the latest quarterly report (h
| ttps://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY23_Q2_Consolidated_Fin...)
| :
|
| Net sales for the Mac category:
|
| Q1 '23: $7,618M
|
| Q1 '22: $10,435M
| astrange wrote:
| Apple, being a functional organization, doesn't have P&Ls or
| business units. It does have product lines.
| anankaie wrote:
| Yes, and more broadly $Company is at their best when they are
| struggling.
| no_wizard wrote:
| I don't think this is an axiom. Apple having a business
| unit performing under expectations _though still
| profitable_ may be a win for buyers because they 're _well
| capitalized_ to shave margins to move more units.
|
| A struggling business that isn't well capitalized can't do
| the same thing, and that is way more typical
| lostlogin wrote:
| Twitter fails this test.
| [deleted]
| dingledork69 wrote:
| If they want people to care about mac dev they should get rid
| of the fee entirely and supply build tools for Linux/Windows.
| At the very least CLI tools that can perform the actual
| compilation. Cross platform compilation should be possible,
| especially for CI but also to reduce friction of onboarding new
| devs.
|
| It's absolutely ridiculous that you have to _pay_ to add value
| to a platform.
| eql5 wrote:
| too little, too late...
| bogwog wrote:
| This title is misleading. The only change is that you don't need
| a developer account to download the developer beta version of iOS
| and macOS, which gets released before the public beta. Seemingly
| nothing has changed with regards to the Apple tax.
|
| EDIT: I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac
| development that they need to use early beta releases of the
| operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release
| apps?
| alwillis wrote:
| > This title is misleading.
|
| It's not. Prior to this year, you had to have a paid account to
| install beta versions of the new operating systems announced at
| WWDC. Developers using free developer accounts had to wait
| until July until Apple released the public betas.
|
| No more sitting at the kids table.
|
| > I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac
| development that they need to use early beta releases of the
| operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release
| apps?
|
| If you have an idea, you don't need to pay $99 to access the
| latest betas operating systems and tools to try something out.
|
| It's also not only about development; new operating systems
| have features for system administrators and others involved in
| deployment of Apple devices and services.
|
| Someone who's administers 100 Macs or iPads at a school can get
| a head start of new feature and options in the new versions.
| There has always been an IT track at WWDC, though it doesn't
| get much attention.
|
| For starters: "What's new in managing Apple devices" [1]
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10040
| kotaKat wrote:
| I've already had to notify my support team that iOS 17
| reverts Private MAC address settings and breaks our network
| authentication on our network, so...
| Aleklart wrote:
| it is not like anything changed in new version this year,
| only new emoji level features added. may be that's why they
| let regular users install it right away.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > aren't already paying $99/year to release apps?
|
| I'd see Apple ID switching as a use case. You may want to use a
| different ID for a project (potentially share that ID if you
| don't want to manage an org for a hobby project), but not pay
| 99 on every single IDs you use.
|
| Of course Apple would be vehemently against that use case and
| typically wants you to tatoo your Apple ID to your soul and
| never log out from it.
| jedberg wrote:
| It's for college kids who have more time than money, who want
| to use the most bleeding edge OS.
|
| I used to be that kid. I would would hours in line to get pre-
| release Windows betas when I was a freshman because it was fun
| to run Windows NT4.0 beta.
| ris58h wrote:
| > I wonder how many people are invested enough into iOS/Mac
| development that they need to use early beta releases of the
| operating system, but aren't already paying $99/year to release
| apps?
|
| Why they should be developers in the first place? Just curious
| users.
| judge2020 wrote:
| For those glad about this change, it's not a "need" to use iOS
| or MacOS beta for any business reason, it's just the desire to
| live on the bleeding edge and experience new features first,
| even if that means crashes and instability. In addition,
| feedback submissions for betas are high priority and I usually
| get a reply within a month or so for them.
| outwit wrote:
| Digital markets act strikes again
| jeron wrote:
| Does the $99 still apply if you are looking to develop for
| realityOS?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Even before now, you could develop for iOS and any other
| target, you just couldn't distribute to Testflight or the App
| Store or elsewhere - so yes, you'll be able to develop for and
| use the realityOS simulator[0].
|
| 0: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10081?time=542
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-07 23:01 UTC)