7 ms·

You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple for the purposes of you running either dev-builds locally or in

by saber6 7y ago

You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple for the purposes of you running either dev-builds locally or internal-only apps for an organization. That's what they mean by "no jailbreak required". Flipside is you gotta pay for a dev account to get your stuff signed to allow it to run.

gruez 7y ago
You don't even need a (paid) developer account. Anyone with an apple id can sign ios apps with a validity of 7 days.
- snazz 7y ago
  Not dynamically loaded libraries after 13.3.1, however.
  - jscheel 7y ago
    General consensus is that this is a bug though. Apple has not come out with any announced change.
dahfizz 7y ago
You need to pay a subscription to run your own code on your own device? Why anyone puts up with Apple's anticonsumerism is beyond me.
- thebruce87m 7y ago
  Security. Privacy. Long term support of hardware (environment). No carrier crapware.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    > Security This is arguable. The amount of CVEs is pretty high for a closed-source platform. Several of those CVEs were exploited in the wild for years before being fixed.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Unfortunately this is true for the other commonly-used mobile OS as well.
      - userbinator 7y ago
        ...which just lends more credence to the notion that you can pretend to be safe and lose your freedom, or you can face the reality that security isn't going to be perfect either way, and keep your freedom too.
    - thebruce87m 7y ago
      I don’t see this being any worse than their competitors, and the long term support of hardware means that when they fix them you’re more likely to get the fix.
    - syntheticcorp 7y ago
      Counting CVEs is not a good way of comparing security between software.
    - saber6 7y ago
      You're masquerading a religious issue (absoluteness of control of execution of compiled code on device) as a security issue. It is really simple: By requiring signed binaries, it significantly raises the barrier of entry to malware authors. Does it solve it? No. Also no one said it did. But it certainly makes it less of a free for all. Do I trust Apple to make sound decisions to prevent myself from being owned by some random s-kiddie (without talent)? Yes. They have demonstrated they are serious about a robust defense of the user's privacy and device security. Just my $.02
josteink 7y ago
> You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple So to test this on my iPhone, I need 1. to buy a Mac and 2. pay for an annual Apple development permission subscription. You really can’t make a platform worse than this, and I say that as an iPhone owner. It’s so frustrating! Can’t they publish this as a “test-flight” beta like for instance iSH does?
- busymom0 7y ago
  No they are incorrect. That used to be the case but now you don’t need to pay a developer for testing on your own device. Only when you want to publish the app to App Store or need some specific developer feature like iCloud is when you need to pay.

by saber6 7y ago

gruez 7y ago

You don't even need a (paid) developer account. Anyone with an apple id can sign ios apps with a validity of 7 days.

snazz 7y ago
Not dynamically loaded libraries after 13.3.1, however.
- jscheel 7y ago
  General consensus is that this is a bug though. Apple has not come out with any announced change.

dahfizz 7y ago

You need to pay a subscription to run your own code on your own device? Why anyone puts up with Apple's anticonsumerism is beyond me.

thebruce87m 7y ago
Security. Privacy. Long term support of hardware (environment). No carrier crapware.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  > Security This is arguable. The amount of CVEs is pretty high for a closed-source platform. Several of those CVEs were exploited in the wild for years before being fixed.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Unfortunately this is true for the other commonly-used mobile OS as well.
    - userbinator 7y ago
      ...which just lends more credence to the notion that you can pretend to be safe and lose your freedom, or you can face the reality that security isn't going to be perfect either way, and keep your freedom too.
  - thebruce87m 7y ago
    I don’t see this being any worse than their competitors, and the long term support of hardware means that when they fix them you’re more likely to get the fix.
  - syntheticcorp 7y ago
    Counting CVEs is not a good way of comparing security between software.
  - saber6 7y ago
    You're masquerading a religious issue (absoluteness of control of execution of compiled code on device) as a security issue. It is really simple: By requiring signed binaries, it significantly raises the barrier of entry to malware authors. Does it solve it? No. Also no one said it did. But it certainly makes it less of a free for all. Do I trust Apple to make sound decisions to prevent myself from being owned by some random s-kiddie (without talent)? Yes. They have demonstrated they are serious about a robust defense of the user's privacy and device security. Just my $.02

josteink 7y ago

> You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple So to test this on my iPhone, I need 1. to buy a Mac and 2. pay for an annual Apple development permission subscription. You really can’t make a platform worse than this, and I say that as an iPhone owner. It’s so frustrating! Can’t they publish this as a “test-flight” beta like for instance iSH does?

busymom0 7y ago
No they are incorrect. That used to be the case but now you don’t need to pay a developer for testing on your own device. Only when you want to publish the app to App Store or need some specific developer feature like iCloud is when you need to pay.