8 ms·

Another thing that bothers me with development for iOS is that you need apple hardware and software. I can't develop an iOS on my Linux machine (I've tried runn

Another thing that bothers me with development for iOS is that you need apple hardware and software. I can't develop an iOS on my Linux machine (I've tried running OSX in virtualbox, but it's slow and not to mention illegal). I really wish Apple would make their platform a little more available. Lowering the $100 yearly fee would be a good start...

jbjohns 13y ago
If you can't even afford $100 a year you probably can afford anything you would need to develop for the platform (e.g. a mac).
- ensmotko 13y ago
  If $100 a year would allow me to develop iOS apps on my Linux laptop I'd be fine with that. But $100 a year + paying for overpriced apple hardware doesn't sound appealing.
  - xutopia 13y ago
    And that is where the line divides. Android users are like you... they don't want to pay for software and go for cheaper hardware when they can.
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      To speak nothing of whether or not that is actually true, what is the problem with opting for cheaper hardware?
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      I'm a Linux and Android user. My Android phone wasn't any cheaper than an iPhone and I can most certainly afford any Apple hardware I want. I also don't use Linux because I'm cheap, I use Linux because I love it. The hardware was exactly what I wanted too. I don't develop for iOS because I don't want to own a Mac. I (as a long-time Linux user) find OS X incredibly frustrating. There's also absolutely no reason to force developers to use a particular brand of hardware or a particular operating system to develop for a particular phone.
      - msie 13y ago
        There's also absolutely no reason to force developers to use a particular brand of hardware or a particular operating system to develop for a particular phone. Well, it costs money for Apple to support development on Windows and Linux platforms. Who's going to port Xcode and the simulator to run on those platforms? How many different types of Windows and Linux configurations are out there?
        shitlord 13y ago
        > Well, it costs money for Apple to support development on Windows and Linux platforms The cost of doing that pales in comparison to what they are making off of iOS. If they can afford to keep developing iTunes for Windows, they can afford to port their other software. For some reason, I don't think Apple will go out of business if they give it a shot. > How many different types of Windows and Linux configurations are out there? So target the most prevalent ones. I don't know about all of the various configurations on linux, but it's really not so bad with Windows - just target Windows 7 or higher, and you should be good. Nobody is saying it needs to look nice or even look like a native program; we just want something we can work with, even if it looks like dog shit.
    - shitlord 13y ago
      It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy something when you are only developing for it and not actually planning on using it. I sometimes develop software for Windows, and I hate running it, so I won't purchase a copy of it. But that shouldn't prevent me from developing for it.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        So advocating piracy are we?
        fpgeek 13y ago
        There are ways to develop for Windows on other OSes without piracy (e.g. WINE).
        pjmlp 13y ago
        I really doubt the quality of WINE for such purposes.
        shitlord 13y ago
        No, I'm saying that I cross compile and have others test things out. I develop mostly with C++ and rarely need to use OS-level APIs that aren't included in things like Qt or Boost.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    Exercise for people who think Macs are overpriced: find a machine with a solid state drive, excellent battery life, well built case, and high quality keyboard and trackpad for substantially less than the price of a Macbook Air.
    - nonchalance 13y ago
      (writing this from 15" early 2013 rMBP) You can build a hackintosh with comparable specs for much cheaper than the equivalent Mac Pro, but the laptop space is no-contest
      - superuser2 13y ago
        Sorry, should have specified laptop. The Mac Pro is a terrible way to purchase raw computing power - it's there mostly for OSX-based media professionals.
    - simplexion 13y ago
      Just remove well-built case and high-quality keyboard from that list and I can buy a laptop with much, much more power for the same price as a Macbook Air.
    - epsylon 13y ago
      Lenovo Thinkpad.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    XCode's requirements are pretty modest. Get a second-hand Mac Mini or something (you may want to add memory to it).
aryastark 13y ago
> you need apple hardware and software It's worse than that, I'm afraid. You need the absolute latest of both. My perfectly fine Macbook from 2008 should be more than adequate for developing iOS apps. It's a core2 duo with 2GB of RAM. I mean, these aren't exactly the days of Pentium 60 vs. XT 8088. Yet the max OS I can upgrade to is Lion. And that's with going through Snow Leopard first. And who knows how much longer Xcode will work on Lion.
- alex_c 13y ago
  "5 years old" is a pretty far cry from "absolute latest". My 2008 Core2 Duo MacBook, upgraded to 5GB of RAM and an SSD, works like a champ for iPhone development. I don't understand this complaint.
  - aryastark 13y ago
    at best you can run OS X Lion. That's it. Before you even get to that, though, you have to upgrade to Snow Leopard for silly arbitrary reasons. OS X is currently on Mountain Lion, going to Mavericks real soon now. I would not count on Xcode running on Lion for any real length of time now. After that, you're 100% screwed. Contrast that to Windows XP, where I can still run the latest iTunes and sync the latest iPhone 5 with. Can't do that in Leopard, either.
    - jordanthoms 13y ago
      Wow, I'm amazed they dropped support for computers that recent. New versions Windows/Linux will still run on very old hardware, there are usually drivers around.
      - rsfinn 13y ago
        He apparently had the bad luck to own the most recently made model of Macintosh that will not run Mountain Lion; virtually every other Mac from 2008 is OK. The business case for supporting older computers is very different for Microsoft (or for Linux) than it is for Apple.
nullcode000 13y ago
I think the $100/y makes sense from Apple's perspective and is probably one of the reasons why there are fewer shitty apps than Google, this along with all of the other confusing stuff they do, like provisioning profiles. It simply scares off the hobby developers who don't really want to build for the platform but rather try it out.

jbjohns 13y ago

If you can't even afford $100 a year you probably can afford anything you would need to develop for the platform (e.g. a mac).

ensmotko 13y ago
If $100 a year would allow me to develop iOS apps on my Linux laptop I'd be fine with that. But $100 a year + paying for overpriced apple hardware doesn't sound appealing.
- xutopia 13y ago
  And that is where the line divides. Android users are like you... they don't want to pay for software and go for cheaper hardware when they can.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    To speak nothing of whether or not that is actually true, what is the problem with opting for cheaper hardware?
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    I'm a Linux and Android user. My Android phone wasn't any cheaper than an iPhone and I can most certainly afford any Apple hardware I want. I also don't use Linux because I'm cheap, I use Linux because I love it. The hardware was exactly what I wanted too. I don't develop for iOS because I don't want to own a Mac. I (as a long-time Linux user) find OS X incredibly frustrating. There's also absolutely no reason to force developers to use a particular brand of hardware or a particular operating system to develop for a particular phone.
    - msie 13y ago
      There's also absolutely no reason to force developers to use a particular brand of hardware or a particular operating system to develop for a particular phone. Well, it costs money for Apple to support development on Windows and Linux platforms. Who's going to port Xcode and the simulator to run on those platforms? How many different types of Windows and Linux configurations are out there?
      - shitlord 13y ago
        > Well, it costs money for Apple to support development on Windows and Linux platforms The cost of doing that pales in comparison to what they are making off of iOS. If they can afford to keep developing iTunes for Windows, they can afford to port their other software. For some reason, I don't think Apple will go out of business if they give it a shot. > How many different types of Windows and Linux configurations are out there? So target the most prevalent ones. I don't know about all of the various configurations on linux, but it's really not so bad with Windows - just target Windows 7 or higher, and you should be good. Nobody is saying it needs to look nice or even look like a native program; we just want something we can work with, even if it looks like dog shit.
  - shitlord 13y ago
    It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy something when you are only developing for it and not actually planning on using it. I sometimes develop software for Windows, and I hate running it, so I won't purchase a copy of it. But that shouldn't prevent me from developing for it.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      So advocating piracy are we?
      - fpgeek 13y ago
        There are ways to develop for Windows on other OSes without piracy (e.g. WINE).
        pjmlp 13y ago
        I really doubt the quality of WINE for such purposes.
      - shitlord 13y ago
        No, I'm saying that I cross compile and have others test things out. I develop mostly with C++ and rarely need to use OS-level APIs that aren't included in things like Qt or Boost.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Exercise for people who think Macs are overpriced: find a machine with a solid state drive, excellent battery life, well built case, and high quality keyboard and trackpad for substantially less than the price of a Macbook Air.
  - nonchalance 13y ago
    (writing this from 15" early 2013 rMBP) You can build a hackintosh with comparable specs for much cheaper than the equivalent Mac Pro, but the laptop space is no-contest
    - superuser2 13y ago
      Sorry, should have specified laptop. The Mac Pro is a terrible way to purchase raw computing power - it's there mostly for OSX-based media professionals.
  - simplexion 13y ago
    Just remove well-built case and high-quality keyboard from that list and I can buy a laptop with much, much more power for the same price as a Macbook Air.
  - epsylon 13y ago
    Lenovo Thinkpad.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  XCode's requirements are pretty modest. Get a second-hand Mac Mini or something (you may want to add memory to it).

aryastark 13y ago

> you need apple hardware and software It's worse than that, I'm afraid. You need the absolute latest of both. My perfectly fine Macbook from 2008 should be more than adequate for developing iOS apps. It's a core2 duo with 2GB of RAM. I mean, these aren't exactly the days of Pentium 60 vs. XT 8088. Yet the max OS I can upgrade to is Lion. And that's with going through Snow Leopard first. And who knows how much longer Xcode will work on Lion.

alex_c 13y ago
"5 years old" is a pretty far cry from "absolute latest". My 2008 Core2 Duo MacBook, upgraded to 5GB of RAM and an SSD, works like a champ for iPhone development. I don't understand this complaint.
- aryastark 13y ago
  at best you can run OS X Lion. That's it. Before you even get to that, though, you have to upgrade to Snow Leopard for silly arbitrary reasons. OS X is currently on Mountain Lion, going to Mavericks real soon now. I would not count on Xcode running on Lion for any real length of time now. After that, you're 100% screwed. Contrast that to Windows XP, where I can still run the latest iTunes and sync the latest iPhone 5 with. Can't do that in Leopard, either.
  - jordanthoms 13y ago
    Wow, I'm amazed they dropped support for computers that recent. New versions Windows/Linux will still run on very old hardware, there are usually drivers around.
    - rsfinn 13y ago
      He apparently had the bad luck to own the most recently made model of Macintosh that will not run Mountain Lion; virtually every other Mac from 2008 is OK. The business case for supporting older computers is very different for Microsoft (or for Linux) than it is for Apple.

nullcode000 13y ago

I think the $100/y makes sense from Apple's perspective and is probably one of the reasons why there are fewer shitty apps than Google, this along with all of the other confusing stuff they do, like provisioning profiles. It simply scares off the hobby developers who don't really want to build for the platform but rather try it out.