[HN Gopher] We'll stop selling our Code Editor app for iOS soon
___________________________________________________________________
We'll stop selling our Code Editor app for iOS soon
Author : krzyzanowskim
Score : 291 points
Date : 2021-05-11 10:02 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (panic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (panic.com)
| huhtenberg wrote:
| > _We're working on a new version of Prompt, though!_
|
| Ugh-oh. Not again. The last time it happened, they took the old
| version off the AppStore and ultimately forced everyone to re-
| purchase their new and shiny remake for the full price. I'm still
| bitter about it. You want to make a new version - fine, but
| taking the old one off was a real shitty move (* see EDIT below).
|
| So despite of how it sounds, that ^ part is the exact opposite of
| good news.
|
| EDIT - I misremembered, my bad. They refused to rebuild the
| original prompt for x64 target. That's what it was. They didn't
| take it off the store, they just claimed that rebuilding for
| 64-bit platform was such an immense hassle and monstrously
| complicated task that they just can't. But! Lucky for you we just
| happened to have this brand new version that is 64-bit. It has
| few things improved, but largely the same. You'll love it. $15.
| rangoon626 wrote:
| Panic lost their cool, and their marketing is completely stale.
| You are exactly right, it's a lot of "You'll love it"'s these
| days.
|
| I used to like Coda and Coda 2, but I was more of a Mac simp
| back then, and didn't realize that they literally just plopped
| in some other editor (can't think of the name at the moment).
| Plus, the one-window workflow was just a bad idea. Especially
| if you have multiple monitors at your disposal.
|
| Insane to think that they only thing they make now that has
| actual utility is their FTP client. Still. After all these
| years.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| I mean, you would still be able to access the old version in
| your Purchases section.
| [deleted]
| CJefferson wrote:
| Once again, I view this as Apple's fault. You can't release pay
| for upgrades, if you leave both up it confuses people.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Very few Prompt users will be confused by seeing two whole
| versions of the program.
| jakeva wrote:
| You have a lot of confidence in Prompt users. I see so much
| whining and complaining from otherwise seemingly erudite
| online communities such as HN, I'm inclined to believe
| people who know how to use SSH and are in possession of a
| mobile Apple device are incapable of maintaining a state of
| calm when confronted with a plurality of versions of the
| same app in the same app store.
| kevingadd wrote:
| What's the alternative? Why would you leave the old version on
| the store? I don't understand why anyone would benefit from
| both (hypothetically) Prompt 2 and Prompt 3 being for sale at
| the same time.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's not so much about people having to choose, it's people
| that bought Prompt 2 being forced to upgrade if they for
| example set up a new mac.
| chii wrote:
| you get to redownload purchased software don't you, even if
| it was taken off the store from the public?
| bengale wrote:
| Yes, you don't lose access to purchases just because
| they're not still for sale.
| hinkley wrote:
| It can be weird though. I had a hobby I kept meaning to
| get back to Some Day(tm) and when I did the app was on my
| device just like always, but I was now two devices later
| and it would simply crash on startup.
|
| I'm fairly sure that at some point those devices ran low
| on space (less of a problem today, but mostly because
| I've been off the music treadmill for a while) and I had
| to delete things to keep working.
| eps wrote:
| Yeah, you do. Apps routinely disappear from the AppStore,
| e.g. after some M&A and such. They just vanish from your
| purchase history without a trace. No way to get a copy if
| you don't have one already.
| sokoloff wrote:
| So long as I can download my previously paid-for Prompt when
| I get and setup a new device, no problem.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| This is just the reality of iOS software development, the
| amount of work required to keep it working on newer versions of
| iOS costs more than the initial purchase from the users who
| then get a perpetual licence.
|
| Only routes to sustainability is this ship new version, support
| it for a few months then start working on a new version that
| will be another purchase, or well you know subscription which
| I'm sure we all agree is the less preferred of the two.
| hinkley wrote:
| I know a guy who works on a team that makes productivity apps
| for iOS, and there is a coupon system, but not many people
| use it (logistically it sounded a bit tricky).
|
| There are ways to let someone upgrade to the new version for
| less than retail price, but you just don't hear if that many
| people doing it.
|
| Or maybe we don't hear because so many apps are made by very
| small companies, or as a loss leader for other services. And
| maybe the latter should give them/us pause.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| > _the amount of work required to keep it working on newer
| versions of iOS costs more than ..._
|
| My educated guess would that this is simply not true. It's a
| convenient excuse, but a bullshit one. Either covering up
| engineering incompetence or the good old desire to sell the
| same thing more than once. And that's even if Prompt weren't
| a relatively expensive app with a large user base.
|
| In any case, this is not my problem as their client. My
| fairly basic assumption is that what they sell will last a
| reasonable amount of time and it's entirely their headache to
| work out the details behind that.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It's not engineering incompetence when the floor is
| constantly changing under your feet.
|
| How many apps coded 5 years ago even run on modern iOS.
| Apple expects engineers to ship at least one new version a
| year and don't care about backwards compatibility. Have a
| ton of apps on my phone that no longer launch for various
| reasons.
|
| Not saying I endorse it or agree with it. Just saying this
| is the world Apple built and don't intend to change.
| MAGZine wrote:
| I don't know why you're excusing their behavior.
|
| Apps on Android and windows run regardless of how many
| years ago they were written with very few exceptions.
|
| Let's call a duck a duck: Apple choose this right because
| it was easier and made them more money, at the expense of
| their users. It's a fact. It just is.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| I am not saying that iOS doesn't change in a breaking
| way. That's given. I am saying that the upkeep is not as
| expensive as you said it was.
|
| I've lived through the W10 launch and _that_ was a
| fucking dumpster fire. Still, adapting to whatever
| Microsoft broke with their brand new "update" wasn't
| that difficult even though these were genuine surprises.
| Things. Just. Broke. In comparison iOS changes are
| announced well in advance and they aren't _too_ drastic.
| So while you can 't compile an iOS app today and expect
| it to work in few years, keeping it updated is not that
| hard or time-consuming. Unless the code is a mess to
| begin with.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| $15 doesn't seem like so much to give for software. I
| understand you'd already paid, I just don't see how panic is
| supposed to thrive if they can't create new versions and get
| paid for the effort.
|
| The product I work on is $10/month and worth it to many people,
| and by my own admission, considerably lower quality and utility
| than any panic product. I just can't make it for any less,
| realistically.
| mosselman wrote:
| It says something about a refund when bought in the last 60 days.
| Does that mean I'd buy it now I'd be able to get my money back
| and still have access to the app?
|
| Seeing as there is a risk it might not work within a few months
| that isn't that bad of a deal I guess.
| mysterydip wrote:
| I tried editing code on a mobile, even tablet, before, thinking
| "I have all this downtime where I'm mindlessly browsing on my
| phone, think of how productive I could be if I could code during
| that time!"
|
| The reality becomes that those places are usually too distracting
| for me to be in a coding mindset, and even when not, typing code
| using a non-physical keyboard is tiring and cumbersome. Even just
| the occasional mistype stops my flow as I have to back up and fix
| the letter or number now that I'm several characters past it.
| swiley wrote:
| I've been working on a browser on and off for a few years, I
| just started adding js support via Fabrice Bellard's Quickjs
| project and did this on my Pinephone while taking the train. I
| use FVWM as the DE with xvkbd as the keyboard (Originally I was
| expecting to have to change that but it turns out typing fast
| isn't needed to stay focused as long as you're decent at vim.)
|
| I've tried coding on iOS before but the whole thing is really
| built to push you toward chatting and scrolling. Everything is
| miserable down to switching between your editor and browser,
| copying files, and running your build tools. Not to mention the
| feeling that you can't build your own tools to fix problems you
| have.
|
| It's totally possible to be productive on a phone but you need
| to not be fighting against the OS vendor to do it.
| 1_player wrote:
| > did this on my Pinephone while taking the train
|
| That sounds to me like the definition of living hell. Writing
| prose on a touchscreen is bad already, I can't imagine how
| bad it must be to write actual code on one. It's not an
| iPad(OS) problem, it's a form factor/peripheral problem.
| swiley wrote:
| I've found prose is much more painful (by orders of
| magnitude really) than code (provided the keyboard has
| symbol/modifier keys and works well with your editor.)
| that's why I thought it wouldn't work.
| danohuiginn wrote:
| A bluetooth keyboard makes a massive difference. Working in a
| jupyter notebook (hosted elswhere) on Android is a smooth
| experience for me
| saagarjha wrote:
| > The biggest technical hurdle is the inability to run external
| processes on iOS and iPadOS.
|
| > Apps on iOS and iPadOS must use Apple's Javascript interpreter,
| JavaScriptCore.
|
| Both of these really suck because they are policy, not technical,
| decisions. Even setting aside the arguments of whether JIT code
| is a security concern (it is not unless your security model is
| one where codesigning exists to prevent the addition of new
| native code) that you cannot spawn a new process, nor can you
| ship another JavaScript interpreter, is really unfortunate.
|
| Allowing apps to spawn new processes is easy (I mean, just
| inherit sandboxing rules and resource limits...) and allows for a
| lot of new usecases, like robust crash reporting, web servers,
| privilege separation, and more. That Apple allows this on macOS
| and even uses it for its own apps on iOS just shows how useful
| this can be and how little it affects the security model of iOS.
|
| Likewise, not allowing other JavaScript interpreters is
| just...annoying. Regardless of your opinions of JavaScriptCore,
| this is an unfair limitation on an already slanted playing field.
| Coupled with the fact that the JavaScriptCore interpreter (which
| the framework uses for anything you run in-process) is literally
| _designed_ for low resource consumption instead of than
| performance makes this even more infuriating.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| >Even setting aside the arguments of whether JIT code is a
| security concern (it is not unless your security model is one
| where codesigning exists to prevent the addition of new native
| code) ...
|
| I'm a neophyte on security issues, but this seems like a very
| open ended assertion.
|
| Doesn't JIT require rwx permission on a block of memory?
| Haven't there been thousands of security attacks over the years
| that started with some kind of buffer overflow (or similar
| approach) that is fundamentally enabled by rwx permission on a
| block of memory? Like I said, I'm just an observer in this
| area, so apologies if I am way off base.
|
| >is literally designed for low resource consumption instead of
| than performance
|
| I would say this is the right choice for a handheld device. At
| least it is for my phone.
| saagarjha wrote:
| No, these are reasonable questions, they just miss the fact
| that Apple ships JavaScriptCore with a JIT. By not allowing
| JITs in third party apps Apple claims they are the only ones
| who can write a secure JIT (obviously false) and that their
| platform sandbox is too weak to stand up to arbitrary code
| execution. Plus, it's not like normal code doesn't have
| buffer overflows or other security issues. As for the tuning
| on the VM: perhaps in isolation. But again, the high
| performance JIT exists; it's just not available to anyone
| else.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Yes, you are right that they allow their own JIT. Their
| position would be that they spend a great deal of time
| hardening that JIT and don't trust others to take that
| time. Their JIT isn't perfect of course, but they control
| it and can fix it fast if needed. (In their opinion.) They
| are really saying that they aren't willing to take the time
| to exhaustively test other JITs. That is a frustrating
| choice, but I do understand the thinking.
|
| You raise the bigger point. Is there no way for their
| platform sandbox to handle the concerns? That is a great
| question.
|
| >Plus, it's not like normal code doesn't have buffer
| overflows or other security issues.
|
| I think normal code on an M1 only runs in rx memory blocks
| [0,1], so no buffer overflow attacks. At least not without
| another attack to remap the blocks. This might go back to
| A12 processors. M1 strengthened the model.
|
| Perhaps with these newer processors, the hardware support
| can harden the sandbox enough to allow more flexibility.
| One can hope...
|
| [0] https://blog.svenpeter.dev/posts/m1_sprr_gxf/ [1]
| https://siguza.github.io/APRR/
| inetknght wrote:
| > _setting aside the arguments of whether JIT code is a
| security concern (it is not unless your security model is one
| where codesigning exists to prevent the addition of new native
| code)_
|
| But, it is.
|
| 1) provide a JIT compiler
|
| 2) download code from the internet
|
| 3) provide code to JIT compiler
|
| 4) ???
|
| 5) Profit!
|
| JIT code obfuscates the inspection of the app. It therefore is
| a security concern.
| saagarjha wrote:
| If I was a malicious developer I'd just spray my app with ROP
| gadgets and run arbitrary native code, just somewhat slower.
| candiodari wrote:
| JIT's can be made 100% secure. Inspection by humans cannot be
| made secure, for a lot of different reasons. So it's just the
| opposite.
|
| I've run bots that executed code from the internet and while
| yes, I've had to learn some lessons the hard way, you can
| have perfectly safe JITs.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| How is this significantly different from:
|
| 1) link JavaScriptCore
|
| 2) download JavaScript code from the internet
|
| 3) provide code to JSC
|
| 4) ???
|
| 5) Profit!
| eat_veggies wrote:
| I suppose the difference is that JSC can only execute
| javascript (an interface which is relatively self-contained
| and which Apple can control) and not arbitrary machine
| instructions?
| egeozcan wrote:
| But you can't provide a JS JIT as well.
| lacker wrote:
| Apple makes sure that JavaScriptCore can safely run
| untrusted code, but they don't apply that same level of
| security to their native API.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| But you're allowed to run a vm for running code. Like the "ish"
| shell
| Valodim wrote:
| > Likewise, not allowing other JavaScript interpreters is
| just...annoying. Regardless of your opinions of JavaScriptCore,
| this is an unfair limitation on an already slanted playing
| field.
|
| Reading the actual policies reveals that other interpreters are
| in fact allowed, but they may only be used for code that is
| part of the app bundle.
|
| The actual limitation is that apps must be self-contained, and
| only javascriptcore and webkit may be used to run code from an
| external source (e.g. downloaded or user input).
|
| See app store review guidelines, section 2.5.2:
| https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sof...
| tinus_hn wrote:
| No, the actual limitation is that you can't implement a JIT
| compiler. You can't create executable memory blocks unless
| you have a special entitlement only Apples Javascript engine
| has.
|
| Even using that engine your app must be self contained, you
| can't download extra code, no matter the language.
|
| As your link says:
|
| > Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not
| read or write data outside the designated container area, nor
| may they download, install, or execute code which introduces
| or changes features or functionality of the app, including
| other apps.
| miohtama wrote:
| Apple tries to rely on static analysis. But it does not work
| and the engineering premise for it to work is shaky. This was
| discussed in Epic vs. Apple recently
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-
| discusse...
| saagarjha wrote:
| Apple uses some dynamic analysis as well, but of course
| this is limited to what they can see during review.
| threeseed wrote:
| Objective-C supports dynamic dispatch i.e. call methods
| using a string at runtime.
|
| So it's impossible to have static analysis work in all
| cases.
| JonathonW wrote:
| With the big caveat that only JavaScriptCore can JIT, so
| third-party interpreters will always be performance-
| constrained. Not a big deal for languages like Python or Lua
| that are always interpreted, but things like .NET on iOS
| (Xamarin) have to be ahead-of-time compiled for decent
| performance, and it's a complete non-starter for third-party
| JavaScript interpreters.
| atq2119 wrote:
| Neither Python nor Lua are always interpreted.
|
| (Both languages have fairly well-known and reasonably
| widely used alternative implementations that include JIT.)
| nwienert wrote:
| React native has Hermes, it's own JavaScript engine. The key is
| it's not a JIT though. It actually performs better in many
| facets than JSC which is impressive.
|
| So you can run your own side process, and it can be its own JS
| engine.
|
| Also, I'll repeat this, but Im a fan of the JSC only
| limitation, at least for now. By not allowing v8, we are least
| have _some_ hedge against a... hegemony. I like Apple over
| Google for many reasons, and would like to see Googles
| extremely hostile actions towards the web curtailed. I'll take
| the trade off. I'd be less happy actually as a consumer if they
| allowed third party browser engines.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > By not allowing v8, we are least have some hedge against
| a... hegemony. I like Apple over Google for many reasons, and
| would like to see Googles extremely hostile actions towards
| the web curtailed. I'll take the trade off. I'd be less happy
| actually as a consumer if they allowed third party browser
| engines.
|
| Similar deal with WebKit. At ~15% marketshare between mobile
| and desktop followed with Gecko at ~5%, it's the only real
| holdout against Chromium domination. If browser engines were
| opened up on iOS, you can bet anything that Google is going
| to go bananas with marketing Chromium-based Chrome for iOS
| and _web devs will happily back those efforts_ , pushing most
| or all of that 15% over into Google's lap. At that point
| Mozilla will have an even more difficult time holding on as
| an increasing number of devs only develop against Chromium.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| I absolutely can not stand Chrome. I don't like how it
| doesn't tie in with native services like Keychain, I don't
| like how it logs me into the browser when I log into a
| website (Google)>
|
| Lastly Chrome is power hungry. When I need to use Chrome
| for work, I go through my battery almost 2 - 3 times faster
| than when using Safari.
|
| I much prefer the integrated experience I get with Safari
| and how it feels like it fits in with the rest of the OS
| over Chrome which does its best to tie me into Google
| services.
| munk-a wrote:
| > I much prefer the integrated experience I get with
| Safari and how it feels like it fits in with the rest of
| the OS over Chrome which does its best to tie me into
| Google services.
|
| That sentence is weird to me - you appreciate Safari for
| binding you into using in-house Apple built functionality
| but you begrudge Chrome trying to do the same with Google
| build functionality.
| simion314 wrote:
| >you can bet anything that Google is going to go bananas
| with marketing Chromium-based Chrome for iOS
|
| But Apple is a Pro at PR so Google PR should not work, the
| only issue would be if Safari is garbage or Google attempts
| to use some non standard APIs on their pages - but in this
| case Apple could give everyone a hand by using their
| expsensive lawyers and doing once in their life something
| good and go after Google.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Google attempts to use some non standard APIs on their
| pages
|
| Google pushes their APIs and calls them standard. And
| then employs "developer advocates" to bash iOS and
| Safari.
|
| Here's a non-exhaustive list of APIs that are "standard"
| even though both Safari and Firefox are against them:
| https://webapicontroversy.com/
| blacktriangle wrote:
| What's sad is, the current duopoly actually has a nice
| division of labor. Google tossing any brain drippings of
| some random web dev into Chrome to experiment with, Apple
| plays the conservative role examining what is going on
| and waiting for things to go through a committee. The
| only place this breaks down is where the Google
| missionaries go around and lambast Apple for not rushing
| out to implement every half-assed feature that ships in
| Chrome.
| dmitriid wrote:
| OMG I never thought about it this way. That's a very
| interesting and quite accurate description, thank you!
| moshmosh wrote:
| Not only that, if Chrome gets enough marketshare on iOS
| Google could do things like taking away 5-20% of a huge
| fraction of iOS devices' battery life just by shipping a
| somewhat less efficient build, plus doing the same with any
| embedded versions they'd manage to convince everyone to use
| in their apps. I mean, Chrome's already less efficient than
| Safari, so that much of a penalty might happen regardless,
| but they could accidentally-on-purpose fail to optimize new
| features in their iOS code to harm their only competitor in
| the mobile OS arena.
|
| "But developers and users wouldn't stand for that!" OK
| except I can take 4-6 hours off my M1 Macbook's battery
| life by using a couple Electron apps and favoring Chrome
| over Safari. Lots of people do exactly that, maybe not
| because they want to, but because they need those crappy
| programs to get work done.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Safari breaks it's debug protocol all the time and is no
| longer compatible with Android so it's not even really an
| option for my workflow.
| moshmosh wrote:
| Sure, I know lots of people in our field don't have much
| choice to avoid Chrome on the desktop, even if they want
| to (and they might simply prefer it anyway, despite the
| higher power use and its generally being heavier on
| system resource use)
| arvinsim wrote:
| It must be alien to you that some people do like Chrome
| for what it offers.
| katbyte wrote:
| And that comes at a battery life costC I'm slowly trying
| to move off it myself and it is hard with chrome lockin
| moshmosh wrote:
| Why must that be the case?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| It's sad that the only hedge we have against the browser
| monoculture problem is _Safari_ of all things.
| arvinsim wrote:
| > By not allowing v8, we are least have some hedge against
| a... hegemony. I like Apple over Google for many reasons, and
| would like to see Googles extremely hostile actions towards
| the web curtailed. I'll take the trade off. I'd be less happy
| actually as a consumer if they allowed third party browser
| engines.
|
| I'm sorry but I only see "I like X and I hate Y".
|
| Worse, you want your preference to be forced on other people.
| Klonoar wrote:
| This comment could be slapped on either side of the fanboys
| in this thread and it would still do nothing except be
| inflammatory.
| [deleted]
| hparadiz wrote:
| > I'd be less happy actually as a consumer if they allowed
| third party browser engines.
|
| I have to ask. Why do you hate freedom?
|
| I've seen this opinion all over the internet from techies and
| I'm just baffled. Why do you like a pocket computer that
| isn't actually yours to do with as you like? And why do you
| feel compelled to force others into this philosophy?
|
| When the iPhone first launched I never would have imagined
| how locked down it is now. And the thing is it doesn't even
| keep you more secure. Seemingly legitimate phishing apps have
| made it past Apple before.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| > When the iPhone first launched I never would have
| imagined how locked down it is now.
|
| When the iPhone first launched, it had no App Store at all.
| Apple came out a few months later and said "hey, just write
| web apps." And when they did open an App Store, it was even
| more restricted and limited in capability than what we have
| now. Was there seriously anything about the iPhone at any
| point in its history that made you think "boy, this is
| gonna be as open as all get out any day now?"
|
| > Why do you hate freedom?
|
| As much as find "I love the fact that Apple restricts my
| choices! Woo!" annoying, this kind of self-righteous and
| insulting rhetoric is not an improvement. Being willing to
| accept the limitations of iOS does not mean someone "hates
| freedom". Come on.
| hparadiz wrote:
| If someone told you that they need to restrict freedom of
| speech to increase the security of the state you'd
| probably be rightly miffed.
|
| This same argument is being used to stifle my freedom to
| run the programs that I want to run on a device I
| supposedly own. My freedom.
|
| Now you may sugar coat it anyway you like but essentially
| your opinion is costing me my freedom.
|
| "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
| little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
| Safety."
|
| Example: I want an Apple Watch. Requires an apple phone
| to operate. I can't run open source apps I use daily on
| iOS. Ergo facto no liberty.
|
| Honestly 2020s tech blows in so many ways. We fucked up.
| Go back. Lol
| jaywalk wrote:
| You can't compare Apple to the government. Apple does not
| have any ability to compel you to do anything, and in
| fact you have many other options besides using their
| products. With the government... not so much.
| katbyte wrote:
| > restrict freedom of speech to increase the security of
| the state
|
| In some countries they do, in mine three categories of
| speech including hateful speech are prohibited
| arvinsim wrote:
| > I've seen this opinion all over the internet from techies
| and I'm just baffled. Why do you like a pocket computer
| that isn't actually yours to do with as you like? And why
| do you feel compelled to force others into this philosophy?
|
| Sheeps, shills or shareholders?
| hparadiz wrote:
| Sheeps and shills I guess cause if anything I'd be more
| inclined to own an iPhone if it wasn't a locked down
| corporate dystopian nightmare of an operating system.
| matwood wrote:
| > Why do you hate freedom?
|
| I love my freedom to chose the Apple/iPhone ecosystem and
| how it works. You wanting to force your ideas of freedom
| onto Apple and its users is an interesting way to think
| about freedom, when last I checked no one is compelled to
| use any of their products.
|
| This whole freedom line of reasoning is ridiculous anyway.
| No one hates freedom. The curated App Store as done today
| is a certain set of tradeoffs - some good and some bad for
| the end user. Starting a discussion by assuming the other
| side hates freedom is not productive.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Everyone in the industry is compelled to use Apple. And I
| fucking hate every moment I have to touch an iOS device
| because of people like you. Everytime someone gifts me an
| iOS device I know I'm just chucking it into a drawer
| cause it's a useless toy that can't run half the things I
| actually want to run on it. I want the freedom to run
| what I see fit on my own computers and it's because of
| people like you who think they know better that I can't.
|
| And yea I have to use iOS for work. My industry requires
| me to know how it works inside and out. People saying
| it's not a monopoly are just spreading lies. iOS is not a
| monopoly the day I can safely ignore it and not be
| penalized for it.
|
| From my perspective you're inhibiting my freedom to run
| what I damn well please on my hardware and yea that's
| hating freedom. Any real techie would be fighting for
| more freedom.
| samatman wrote:
| Sorry that Apple compelled you into a remunerative desk
| job that supports a comfortable lifestyle, that must be
| hard for you.
|
| I think the government (EU best bet) should compel Apple
| to allow side-loading on iOS devices, for what it's
| worth. What you're doing here is not the way to get it.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Sounds like you need to find a different line of work.
| blacktriangle wrote:
| Because even though I'm a programmer, I don't want to have
| to think about every device that I own. Apple's locked down
| control of the device has a very clear and very real value
| proposition, even for developers. What's missing is not
| Apple opening up, but a lack of more customizable phone
| hardware that is more like a true Linux machine.
| munk-a wrote:
| > I have to ask. Why do you hate freedom?
|
| When we talk and discuss modern, powerful, high level
| languages it's not due to adding more freedom to a
| developer's ability to express intent - it's about
| restricting it. Often times with tools we find more
| strength in tools that prevent us from making errors (thus
| making the tool simpler to apply and require less
| oversight). There is nothing you can do with a table saw
| that you can't do with a knife - that's pretty similar to
| comparing assembly code to rust or your preferred modern
| language. Tools gain strength by restriction actions - not
| adding them.
|
| I personally _strongly_ disagree about applying this to
| browser engines since I don 't think we've reached anything
| near to a consensus on what a good web browser should do
| and due to the involvement of companies that want to
| harvest a lot of user data - but the point isn't
| irrational, there is some power to be gained by locking
| down devices to a single browser.
|
| I would agree that the validations of the App store are
| entirely security theater though - that approval process
| adds nothing of value and it amazes me that they haven't
| been sued somehow over failing to actually enforce the
| rules they promote.
| mhh__ wrote:
| If you want to hedge against a hegemony why not allow an
| actual compiler...
| w0mbat wrote:
| Because the hedgehog won't share the hedge.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That sounds like the exact thing that Microsoft was slapped
| with in the 90s. Microsoft used operating system functionality
| for their browser that 3rd parties did not have access to.
| Microsoft was forced to open this stuff up.
|
| Apple regularly leverages operating system calls that 3rd
| parties do not have access to.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I'm not sure it's the same thing. It's an arbitrary and
| somewhat dubious limitation, but it's less like "IE gets to
| hook into the OS at a lower level than Netscape Navigator
| can" than if the problem has been "Netscape Navigator can run
| on Windows but has to use IE's rendering engine."
|
| I think a lot of iOS's limitations come from a philosophical
| stance Apple took at the start of the (iOS) App Store --
| iPhones and iPads should be treated like consoles, not
| general purpose computing platforms. Despite them _marketing_
| the iPad Pro as if it 's a full-bore computer replacement --
| and to be fair, there are a lot of use cases where it really
| can be (e.g., office worker, photographer, writer[1], even
| video/audio editor -- on an OS level, they've stubbornly
| stuck with the "Mac = computer, iPad = console" approach[2]
| and I don't think they're going to change it unless forced.
|
| [1] With certain limitations. I can use an iPad well enough
| for my fiction and non-fiction, but not for my technical
| writing.
|
| [2] The "Mac = computer" part of that is why I disagree with
| the prevailing opinion on HN about how Apple will
| "inevitably" lock down the Mac to the same degree they have
| the iPad; I think they continue to see them as fundamentally
| different classes of products, even as that distinction grows
| ever more arbitrary.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I think there's reasonable argument to be made that
| smartphones are important enough that they _should_ not ve
| like consoles, and should be forced to be more open. I
| guess a similar argument to that used to justify regulating
| utlities.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That's ignoring all the other things MS was up to at the
| time. They did a lot of embrace-extend-extinguish to reduce
| the effectiveness of competitors, a lot of dirty dealing with
| OEMs to block alternate OSes. The IE thing was just one piece
| of a much larger case.
| macintux wrote:
| Plus the fact that Microsoft had a monopoly they were
| abusing; Apple doesn't by any reasonable metric.
| bosswipe wrote:
| So if Apple had had any market share in the late 90s then
| Microsoft+Apple would have been allowed to put a strangle
| hold on the web the way that Google+Apple do to apps
| today. In that sense we are really lucky that Microsoft
| had that monopoly or the open web would not exist today.
| egeozcan wrote:
| They are part of a duopoly and I hope Google also gets
| scrutinized.
| macintux wrote:
| Until/unless the two companies are caught colluding
| against consumers, duopolies aren't covered by antitrust
| law afaik.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _duopolies aren 't covered by antitrust law afaik._
|
| What exactly do you think the 'trust' in 'antitrust'
| means? From here[1]:
|
| > _A trust or corporate trust is a large grouping of
| business interests with significant market power, which
| may be embodied as a corporation or as a group of
| corporations that cooperate with one another in various
| ways._
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business)
| hparadiz wrote:
| The Apple store is a monopoly when you consider just iOS.
| It is in fact 100% market share among apple devices.
| There is no alternative. Android doesn't replace an
| iPhone in many cases.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Hopefully that will soon change. Apple/google is a prime
| example of why it should.
| katbyte wrote:
| The the PlayStation and Xbox and Nintendo stores are the
| exact same?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _The Apple store is a monopoly when you consider just
| iOS._
|
| Every business is just a monopoly if you consider it
| alone, and a single 7 Eleven has 100% marker share among
| its store.
| hparadiz wrote:
| I don't remember being required to use a 7-11 credit card
| at a 7-11 for every transaction but nice try.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| And I don't have to use an Apple credit card on the iOS
| app store.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Ah but you have to use the Apple app store. There is no
| alternative.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Sure there is, don't buy an Apple device. They aren't the
| majority or even necessary for anything. Android is a
| viable alternative and you can sideload applications
| there.
|
| And, in stark contrast to the MS antitrust case, Apple
| doesn't have 97% of the market share.
| hparadiz wrote:
| You can't not have an iPhone for so many reasons. From
| payment processors to things like the apple watch which
| requires iOS to operate. Stop lying.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _You can 't not have an iPhone for so many reasons._
|
| This is the most entitled, "first world" problem, I've
| ever heard of.
|
| Sure you can (not have one). The majority (60%+) of the
| population in the USA manages just fine without one. 90%
| in some Western European countries...
|
| Pro tip: you don't need an Apple Watch either.
|
| Pro tip 2: you might want to look up the definition of
| "need" and "lying".
| hparadiz wrote:
| You'd be surprised what someone who runs a food truck or
| works in real estate "needs" to project "success".
|
| Actual protip: get out of your tech bubble for two
| seconds and talk to some real business owners.
| nl wrote:
| A brand requirement to establish prestige seems a weak
| anti-trust case.
|
| Infact, a judge might see it as a counter argument. If
| prestige is the reason people buy Apple then almost by
| definition there must be alternatives.
| hraedon wrote:
| "I need this specific platform to succeed for some
| reason" does not somehow make that platform a monopoly
| that should be subject to regulatory action.
|
| Apple's management of their platform is not unique, is
| not meaningfully different from their competitors, and
| not meaningfully different from the management of similar
| stores in different industries. Even assuming they
| actually have built a strong enough brand that people are
| judged for having a competing product, I fail to see how
| requiring changes to the App Store solves that problem.
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm curious, do you use iOS devices?
| hparadiz wrote:
| I own hand me downs I use for testing but they are
| usually in a pile on my desk and not actually in use.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, you don't have to use an Apple credit card in the
| App Store either.
|
| That said, do you remember having to use Disney money in
| Disneyland for every transaction?
| toast0 wrote:
| > That said, do you remember having to use Disney money
| in Disneyland for every transaction?
|
| I remember it being a fun option to use either Disney or
| US dollars in the park, maybe it was required at some
| point, but I don't remember that.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The analagous situation with convenience storea is: If
| any convenience store chain was able to prevent other
| convenience store chains from operating in a geographic
| area, they would have a monopoly in that area. Consumers
| in that market segment would have no other choice unless
| they were willing to sell their house and move.
|
| In your example, a consumer can easily leave 7-11 and go
| to a near by store at a much, much, lower cost than
| selling a house.
|
| On Android, to have choices beyond the Play Store, all I
| need to do is change some setting and instal a 3rd party
| store.
|
| On iPhone, to have choices beyond the AppStore I might be
| able to run some much more complicated and dangerous
| software, but only when Apple is behind in the cat and
| mouse game with jailbreakers.
|
| The root of the question here is one we have to answer as
| a society. How much should consumer choice cost (relative
| to the price of the good/service they are choosing).
| Maybe 5x is reasonable, but 500x is not.
|
| When a company deliberately does everything they can to
| raise those costs and thoae costs are very high (such as
| with Apple), I think we should absolutely call those
| companies to account for anti-competive and monopolostic
| trade practices.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _The analagous situation with convenience storea is: If
| any convenience store chain was able to prevent other
| convenience store chains from operating in a geographic
| area, they would have a monopoly in that area_
|
| This breaks down as there's no "physical area" preventing
| anything.
|
| You can get an Android phone whether you're in Alaska or
| Miami or Tanzania. In fact it's easier, and most of the
| billions in the planet (including high income earners) do
| just that.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The analogy is between the cost of moving to a new
| physical area and the cost of buying a new physical
| device.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Uh, it's more like the cost of switching your preferred
| convenience store chain vs. your phone platform. There
| are alternatives and you might like one more than the
| other, but at the end of the day both serve the same
| purpose (buy milk, or computer in my pocket). If this
| analogy breaks down it's not because Apple has a
| monopoly, it's because Android ecosystem has not
| delivered something similar enough to 7-11.
| myko wrote:
| Android isn't just Google though. Amazon ships Android
| devices that don't even have Google's Android store on
| them. Amazon also ships their own store which Android
| users can download and install even on Google devices -
| and they're not the only 3rd party store on Android.
| ipaddr wrote:
| What % of android phones are Amazon? Less than 1%? I
| think they would need a bigger marketshare before you
| start including them as a market player.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Phones? Probably nil. But tablets, firesticks, and
| kindles have to enjoy reasonable marketshare. Kindle is
| something like 70% of the ebook market, 85% if you
| include KindleUnlimited.
|
| I believe non-Google Android phones are quite popular
| outside of the USA.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Ebooks aren't really the same market as phones/tablwts
| though. So they're not that relevant to the discussion of
| a smartphone duopoly.
| not2b wrote:
| Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for
| iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to
| who controlled the market for applications that ran on
| Windows at the peak of Microsoft's dominance? For the
| former, the only distribution method is via Apple's store
| and Apple gets a cut of every sale. For the latter,
| developers could sell directly to the public; Microsoft
| did not control this. Apple's monopoly is much stronger.
|
| Apple apologists will blur this by taking about the smart
| phone market as a whole. But once someone has bought a
| device, they are no longer in that larger market. They
| need apps, and there's only one place to get them.
|
| That only leaves the question of whether they are abusing
| the monopoly.
|
| Google has a similar monopoly over Android applications,
| but it's not as tight, because of side-loading and
| fragmentation by Amazon and others. Still, it's a near-
| monopoly because few people bypass the Play Store.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I think we need two rules for the modern information
| economy to ensure competition.
|
| I think it should be illegal to deliberately interfer
| with a devices owner's ability to run the software of
| their choice. This means that owners of iPhones,
| PlayStations, Switches, Tractors, Cars, etc should not
| have to treat the manufacturer as an adversary in their
| ownership of the devices.
|
| I also think that content exclusivity contracts should be
| illegal and that all content creators that license
| content to a service should be required to offer
| reasonably similar licensing terms to that service's
| competitors.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for
| iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to
| who controlled the market for applications that ran on
| Windows at the peak of Microsoft's dominance?
|
| Apple for iOs and software distributors and computer
| store retailers for the windows application market.
|
| Microsoft dominated the market for operating systems for
| home computers, and they did a bunch of nasty stuff,
| including using their dominance to effectively restrict
| and/or prevent bundling of other operating systems with
| new computers, and there were shenanigans done against a
| handful specific products made by others, but AFAIK
| Microsoft did not make any attempt to dictate what
| applications computer stores sold. If you could convince
| distributors and retailers, your software could be on
| shelves. There were made for windows labeling programs,
| and those are now compulsory for drivers, but that's
| outside the Microsoft abuses time frame and there's not
| the same kind of pushback.
|
| Google's control of Android is similar, but not nearly
| the same. Developers can make apks available for users
| and users can pretty easily install them; the experience
| seems to be getting consistently better, my newest phones
| will show a warning on opening that links to the checkbox
| and when you tick the box you can install the apk
| directly, without having to find it again. It's not quite
| as easy as running a setup program on windows, but it's
| darn close.
|
| Sure, most developers don't provide apks, and most users
| don't use direct apk links when they're provided, but
| it's an available option vs jailbreaking an iOS device
| which requires a lot of fiddly steps. There's also a
| concern about Google enforcing some terms on downloaded
| apks that are also distibuted through the Play store, at
| least a few years ago, they didn't like non-google in app
| payment, even if it was only in the direct apk; and
| Google Play's security scanning apparatus runs against
| downloaded apks and sometimes shows scary messages which
| may be anti-competitive.
|
| I think there's certainly a legal question about if
| Apple's captive market can be considered a market for
| anti-trust purposes. If so, there's a clear case of anti-
| competitiveness, IMHO. If the relevant market is
| applications on smartphones or tablets, I don't think
| Apple has enough marketshare that the anti-competitive
| things they do are prohibited, because IMHO, they only do
| things that are prohibited in combination with strong
| market power.
|
| Google, on the other hand, probably has enough market
| power, regardless of segmentation, but they also are
| signficantly less restrictive.
| macintux wrote:
| > Apple apologists will blur this by taking about the
| smart phone market as a whole.
|
| Until you can find a judge willing to endorse your
| definition of "market", it's not just "Apple apologists"
| but "legal precedent".
| not2b wrote:
| You'd have no problem finding economists to endorse my
| definition. As for judges, they only get to rule on cases
| that are brought to them, and that depends on the
| regulators.
| macintux wrote:
| So, again, legal precedent is that Apple doesn't have a
| monopoly.
| angus-prune wrote:
| The legal precedent isn't that Apple doesn't have a
| monopoly.
|
| There _is no_ legal precedent on whether Apple has a
| monopoly. The law is entirely agnostic on whether Apple
| has a monopoly until it is put to a judge.
| catgary wrote:
| Consoles have existed for decades applying similar rules
| to software distribution, no?
| macintux wrote:
| There is no legal precedent I'm aware of that you can
| carve out one company's products and claim that
| constitutes a market over which it holds a monopoly, in
| the presence of an alternative with comparable market
| share.
| lenkite wrote:
| The Second Circuit has defined monopoly power as "the
| ability '
|
| (1) to price substantially above the competitive level
| and
|
| (2) to persist in doing so for a significant period
| without erosion by new entry or expansion.'
|
| Apple's iOS platform matches both these conditions.
| macintux wrote:
| Except iPhones aren't generally more expensive than
| phones of similar caliber hardware. Samsung offers phones
| even more expensive.
|
| Apple just doesn't offer cheap hardware.
|
| Does Porsche have monopoly power just because they don't
| offer low-end models?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Right. MS had somewhere around 97% of the desktop market
| for a chunk of the 90s, when the anti-trust stuff was
| really taking off. As an example:
|
| They used that position to force OEMs to sell Windows
| only. BeOS was going to be on <vendor> desktops [0], but
| MS went to them and said, in short, "If you do this, you
| will have to pay retail price for our OS. And if you have
| to pay retail price, you will have to raise your hardware
| prices when selling Windows desktops. And if you have to
| do that, in this cutthroat low-margin industry, you won't
| be able to compete with the other OEMs."
|
| The anti-trust case is really interesting reading (to me
| at least), and worth checking out. Most people only know
| the headlines of what was covered by it ("it's about
| browsers") but aren't aware of the deeper and over decade
| long issues that were covered by it.
|
| Embrace, extend, extinguish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
|
| It wasn't just the browser's hooks into the OS (or the OS
| dependency on IE). It was the deliberate non-conformant
| manner that MS developed it in. It literally did things
| in the opposite way the standard described at times. See
| also their effort at implementing Java as part of their
| developer suite, where they were later forced to drop the
| J++ line because they were making an incompatible, non-
| standard Java.
|
| [0] Compaq? It's in the suit, I may track it down before
| the edit window is closed.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Layman definitions of monopoly do not matter when it
| comes to antitrust laws[1]:
|
| > _Courts do not require a literal monopoly before
| applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used
| as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable
| market power -- that is, the long term ability to raise
| price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is
| used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and
| durable market power._
|
| Also, iOS has 60% of the mobile operating systems market
| in the US[2]. Apple's App Store is responsible for 100%
| more revenue than the Play Store[3].
|
| Apple and Google are certainly leveraging their duopolies
| in both the mobile operating systems market and the
| mobile app distribution market in order to prevent
| competition in those markets and others.
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
| guidance/guide-a...
|
| [2] https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-
| share
|
| [3] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| And how much of it is because how Apple runs their
| platform?
| a1369209993 wrote:
| What competition does[0] Apple have on _the service of
| distributing iphone applications_?
|
| 0: indeed, can, without stupedous efforts of reverse
| engineering that they actively oppose
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The main component of Microsoft v. US was about this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Co
| r...
|
| Part of their punishment was to open up APIs and allow 3rd
| parties to audit. If this wasn't the main part of the case
| why was this used to remedy?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| IE was used because it was a clear demonstration of MS's
| abuse of their market share and monopoly position to
| stifle competition. If they'd integrated their office
| applications in a similar fashion, spending billions of
| dollars on development and advertising only to release it
| for free and forced OEMs to not install a third party
| office application suite with strong arm tactics, that's
| what we would have seen.
|
| The browser was not special, the abuse was the issue and
| the browser case was solid to use as a central claim
| against MS.
|
| And this bears repeating again and again:
|
| The browser was not and is not special. It does not
| matter. It was the abuse that was at issue, not the
| browser itself. The browser was a symptom of the abuse.
| Again, the browser was not the issue, only a symptom of
| abuse of their monopoly position.
|
| Any claims against Apple about the Safari browser on
| mobile being like the IE situation on Windows is the
| result of a shallow reading of the case.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-
| findings-f...
|
| >34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that
| Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share
| of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems
| is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's
| dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to
| entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier,
| Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable
| alternative to Windows.
|
| Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Apple
| enjoys monopoly power. First, Apple's share of the market
| for smartphones is extremely large and stable. Second,
| Apple's dominant market share is protected by a high
| barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that
| barrier, Apple's customers lack a commercially viable
| alternative to iOS.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Where on Earth are you getting that Apple's market share
| is "extremely large and stable"?
|
| iPhones account for 17% of the smartphone market.[0]
| That's less than Samsung.
|
| iOS has 27% market share against Android's 72% [1].
|
| Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. Yes, there is a
| high barrier to entry to compete with Apple on making
| Apple products.
|
| But they in no sense have a dominant market position,
| much less one to be compared with Microsoft at their
| height when IE had 95% market share of browsers [2]
|
| [0] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-
| smartphone-share... [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-
| market-share/mobile/worldwide [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
| Jtsummers wrote:
| How? There are _many_ viable alternatives to everything
| Apple makes. There are plenty of non-Apple laptops,
| desktop computers, tablets (ok, this is more limited at
| least in terms of equivalent capability), phones, even
| the watch.
|
| And Apple, unlike MS at the time, has not been conducting
| the same abusive policies that put competitors out of
| business, which is a large part of what raised the cost
| of entry.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| >Third, and largely as a result of that barrier,
| Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable
| alternative to Windows.
|
| Do Apple customers have commercially viable alternatives?
| Apple's current customers and, not only alternatives,
| viable alternatives?
|
| I personally know many people who lament, "All my stuff
| is Apple, I can't leave!" Of course they could leave if
| forced to but it is not viable. Perhaps their other
| devices would stop working. Those people aren't choosing
| Apple products because they think they're better, they
| are choosing Apple products because they are a victim of
| Apple lock-in.
| Zak wrote:
| I remember when Microsoft had its dominant position with
| Windows[0] in the late 1990s; sentiments along the lines
| of "this sucks, but we're stuck with it" were common. I
| do not hear that sentiment from Apple users often today.
| Even when they have complaints, they typically like the
| hardware and/or software better than alternatives to
| which they have been exposed.
|
| In case that seems like something a fanboy would write, I
| should clarify that I am not an Apple user, nor do I have
| any desire to buy Apple products (though I do hope
| somebody else manages to build a fast, cool-running ARM
| laptop soon).
|
| [0] Windows still has a very high market share for
| desktop operating systems, but there's much less lock-in
| for most users.
| nl wrote:
| There are reasonable alternative to all of Apple's
| products and I'm not aware of anything except convince
| stopping people moving.
|
| This sounds a bit like saying Ford has a monopoly on the
| Ford car market - true, but not how anti-trust cases
| work.
| nl wrote:
| The iOS ~50% smartphone market share is dramatically
| different to the 90%+ market share Windows had.
|
| Redefining the market as "the iOS smartphone market" is
| what Epic seems to be trying to do. I'm skeptical about
| this being a workable approach in an anti-trust case.
| spoonjim wrote:
| How is it not similarly abusive to ban non-approved
| software from being installed without paying a 30%
| protection fee?
| anaerobicover wrote:
| In similar way that Al Capone was indicted for tax
| evasion, not for the many other crimes he was understood
| to commit. The prosecution stands on what it can be able
| to proved in court, with a judge sharply listening to
| each detail.
| mhh__ wrote:
| That's true but consumers would definitely be empowered if
| Apple received a similar ruling.
| easton wrote:
| I was hoping with the announcement of the iPad Pro with the M1
| chip and 16GB(!) of RAM it meant that Apple was going to give
| us some way of running arbitrary code inside sandboxes on the
| device in the next release of iPadOS. (So we could have Xcode,
| or at the least, Swift and Clang and a terminal). I suppose
| they probably would've told Panic though, even if under NDA
| since they've had a good relationship with Apple. Crap.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| WWDC is in a month so we'll see then. I will be disappointed
| if there isn't at least XCode for the iPad. Swift Playgrounds
| already compiles Swift code on the iPad and has for years.
| lstamour wrote:
| Just because it's impossible for third-parties to write an
| IDE doesn't mean Apple can't. In fact, it seems more likely
| that Apple would ship Xcode for iOS as a way of trying out
| new API capabilities and then in a year or two allowing other
| devs to use some of the same capabilities. That said, I could
| imagine that if such an API existed, Visual Studio Code would
| be the first text editor devs would be excited for. I like
| Nova, it's much faster than VS Code, but VS Code has all the
| extensions, and is cross-platform. I tend to use Nova for
| files, VS Code for folders and JetBrains IDEs for projects...
| w0utert wrote:
| >> The biggest technical hurdle is the inability to run
| external processes on iOS and iPadOS. >> Apps on iOS and iPadOS
| must use Apple's Javascript interpreter, JavaScriptCore.
|
| > Both of these really suck because they are policy, not
| technical, decisions.
|
| They are policy decisions that kind of make sense for a device
| like a tablet or phone though. Even though you could
| technically allow installing a complete development toolchain
| on an iPad, I can't imagine what the process would look like in
| practice. Download and install a complete *nix userland through
| the app store? Plus a compiler toolchain and each and every
| tool used in the build phase for your product? Who is going to
| maintain and distribute all these parts if the whole ecosystem
| is designed around the idea that apps are sandboxed and
| distributed through a curated app store? Imagine the customer
| support burden if you are the maintainer of some app that
| depends on external tools that can be used in a zillion
| different build/deploy configurations.
|
| You could of course argue that the iOS ecosystem should not be
| based around a curated app store and sandboxed applications,
| but that would make it a MacBook...
|
| Maybe we should put the whole idea of having one device that
| does everything to rest and accept that there are advantages to
| have a split between 'real computers' and tablets/phones.
| That's just my opionion though...
|
| Edit: ah great, an immediate -3 because apparently people here
| think it is absolutely required to downvote straight away
| because they disagree with some opinion that is not their own.
|
| Goodbye Hacker News, after ~10 years I'm finally done with the
| comment sections here and will deactivate my account and ask
| for it to be deleted
| simias wrote:
| I understand your frustration with downvotes but it's not too
| bad in general in my experience. It's Apple discussions in
| particular that are hopeless, you have the rabid fanboys one
| one side and the rabbit haters on the other. I gave up on
| commenting on these stories, you can try to make a
| constructive comment only to be immediately grayed out.
| Siira wrote:
| With this level of reasoning, SMS also makes sense for
| phones, and banning messenger apps is no big deal.
|
| People have different needs, and a minority is always pushing
| the edges, and this pushing needs to happen so that the
| mainstream can pick and choose from the newly explored
| territory.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| > will deactivate my account and ask for it to be deleted
|
| I don't think accounts can be deleted? I tried once and was
| told no. :(
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| I think they can, but they just refuse to. I've seen (a few
| times) some comments with the username and text as
| "[deleted]". But I'm not @dang, so I can't say for sure.
| [deleted]
| freeone3000 wrote:
| It's got 8GB of RAM and 3GHz processor. It runs _Photoshop_ ,
| for God's sake. An iPad _is_ a small computer with touch.
| echelon wrote:
| > Even though you could technically allow installing a
| complete development toolchain on an iPad, I can't imagine
| what the process would look like in practice.
|
| Like every other computer ever.
|
| > Imagine the customer support burden if you are the
| maintainer of some app that depends on external tools that
| can be used in a zillion different build/deploy
| configurations.
|
| Microsoft and Google seem to work just fine. People seem to
| be able to ship when they have the tools to do so.
|
| > They are policy decisions that kind of make sense for a
| device like a tablet or phone though.
|
| They are strategic decision under the guise of policy
| decisions. Apple is "protecting you from dangerous apps"
| (read: dangerous apps = competition for Apple).
|
| Apple is anti-competitive.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Apple advertises their own iPads as computers now, they
| certainly don't want their customers to look at iPads and
| think, "that's great, now I'm going to buy a real computer
| instead". They want their customers to buy an iPad. The only
| real way for iPadOS to go is "up", as in, absorbing more
| "real computer" features.
|
| Also, what you're describing already exists, it's called iSH.
| It runs an x86 emulator with a copy of Alpine Linux inside.
| Somehow, they even convinced App Review to allow it (yes,
| Apple did threaten to remove it at one point, they backed
| down). You can use this penalty box to run pretty much any
| developer tool you like, you can mount file providers inside
| of the VM, etc. The only limitation is that it's x86
| emulation is incomplete, I can't get it to run cargo so I
| can't compile Rust programs on it yet.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > they certainly don't want their customers to look at
| iPads and think, "that's great, now I'm going to buy a real
| computer instead". They want their customers to buy an
| iPad.
|
| They want their customers to buy both. Apple has nothing to
| gain by killing off the Mac via the iPad.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Yeah, iSH is cool, but x86? Seems odd that they didn't run
| an ARM version of linux in a container or VM.
| saagarjha wrote:
| There isn't any support for this in iOS.
| donbrae wrote:
| Wow, you can actually use iSH to install PHP, run `php -S
| localhost:8080` and view index.php or whatever in Safari. I
| had no idea this was possible on iOS. Thanks!
| dgellow wrote:
| Ironically, your comment was in positive when I read it...
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > They are policy decisions that kind of make sense for a
| device like a tablet or phone though. Even though you could
| technically allow installing a complete development toolchain
| on an iPad, I can't imagine what the process would look like
| in practice. Download and install a complete *nix userland
| through the app store? Plus a compiler toolchain and each and
| every tool used in the build phase for your product? Who is
| going to maintain and distribute all these parts if the whole
| ecosystem is designed around the idea that apps are sandboxed
| and distributed through a curated app store? Imagine the
| customer support burden if you are the maintainer of some app
| that depends on external tools that can be used in a zillion
| different build/deploy configurations.
|
| I've got Termux running on my phone, complete with vim
| plugins, language server support, several compilers and all
| kinds of other tools. Combined with a bluetooth keyboard, it
| can be very useful in a pinch. It'll stop working on Android
| 11 because of "security concerns", but either thankfully or
| sadly, my phone has no stable Android 11 release yet.
| Everything is running inside a sandbox, I don't even have
| root access, and the binaries are distributed through a
| normal Linux package manager. With the right software you can
| even run a normal GUI on it through VNC or Spice, although
| that's something I haven't explored yet.
|
| No need for other app developers to have any relation with
| Termux, that's what the sandbox is for. On Android, you can
| theoretically implement a system for sharing binaries and
| virtual files quite easily if Termux would support it, but I
| haven't seen such need myself.
|
| These tools are maintained by volunteers and the Termux
| developer, and can be extended by adding repositories made by
| other people. So "who is going to maintain and distribute all
| these parts" comes down to the same question as "who is
| maintaining and distributing all of these Debian packages":
| the developers who want to make the ecosystem and apps
| function.
|
| Most users won't use their phone or tablet like this, but I
| honestly don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to if they
| wish to. Apple is selling a complete keyboard and display
| stand for iPads, so these devices are clearly being targeted
| for productive use. Yet Apple refuses to allow developers to
| be productive on these devices, because they don't want
| competition for their crappy mobile browser engine.
|
| As far as hardware is concerned, the touch screen, keyboard
| and OS are pretty much the only serious differences between
| the iPad and the Macbook Air. If you prefer a two-in-one
| tablet/laptop combo (which quite a lot of people do), the
| iPad is the closest Apple product to fit the description, if
| it would allow users more software freedom.
|
| I do see the advantage of the curated app store, but I don't
| see the advantage of banning customers from not using said
| app store for the end user. You don't _have_ to install any
| apps from outside the app store, you just get the option to
| do so if you wish. I don't know any non-technical people who
| have installed apps from outside the Play Store, so it's not
| like allowing any lifted restrictions will make the ecosystem
| collapse.
|
| I have a hard time understanding why you would want a company
| to tell you what you can and cannot use a device for. Their
| suggestions are always welcome, but why would you be in
| favour of their restrictions?
| em-bee wrote:
| yes, downvoting hurts, and sometimes it's not fair, i got to
| feel that too. but it has been said repeatedly that
| downvoting is reasonable to voice disagreements. replying
| would be better, but not everyone can put their thoughts into
| words.
|
| try to think about it as a strong disagreement.
|
| (EDIT: i wonder who downvoted this comment now ;-)
| Hoasi wrote:
| > replying would be better, but not everyone can put their
| thoughts into words.
|
| Exactly, downvoting as a way to disagree is the easy way,
| it's childish, puerile, and ridiculous. But let's put
| things into perspective. A comment is just an opinion in a
| sea of random opinions. Opinions, for the most part, are
| not even personal, people tend to borrow them. To think
| through something and come up with an original opinion
| takes a lot of work. A downvote is just an easy dismissal,
| in a sea of easy dismissals. That's not a proper way to
| communicate.
|
| Downvoting is imperfect, but that said, I understand how
| people can find it useful as a curating system. I never
| downvote comments I disagree with because it doesn't
| accomplish anything. It also takes too much energy.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| I haven't downvoted you, but voicing disagreement via
| downvoting isn't reasonable, since it tends to have
| dissenting opinions not be heard at all. When we're here to
| have a discussion after all, aren't we?
| adler0901 wrote:
| Why is there voting at all? It's so childish.
| guggle wrote:
| Upvoting that.
| greggman3 wrote:
| I agree with you but HN does not. HN specifically says
| downvoting for disagreeing is a valid and even encouraged
| used of downvoting on HN. I've been informed of this by
| Dang when complaining about downvoting before.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
|
| I wish I could downvote downvoting
| em-bee wrote:
| well, yes, i used to think like that too, but i changed
| my mind. even when i received downvotes. they don't say
| much, but they did tell me that there are people who
| disagree with me. it is a weak signal, but it is a
| signal, and so it's not useless nor unreasonable.
|
| personally, i only downvote if i feel someone says
| something unreasonable or worse. but not if it is a good
| argument, even one that i disagree with. in those cases i
| even counterupvote other downvotes.
|
| as for the downvote on my comment, that was more a
| rethorical question. i was actually just laughing at
| that, given the subject of the message. and the
| subsequent upvotes show that a lot of people agree with
| the comment.
|
| (edit: it gets funnier. by now my above comment received
| at least 8 upvotes and 4 downvotes (or up to 4 people
| changed their mind))
| simion314 wrote:
| As long as Apple makes money from allowing people to buy
| "Pro" apps like IDEs, REPL , other creation apps then you
| wrong, otherwise Apple should reject this apps as not allowed
| because the device is not capable for Pro creator usage.
| hinkley wrote:
| I was looking at some old notes the other day and remembering
| that I had made a plan for going the other direction, of
| slaving other devices to my IDE for faster round tripping of
| UI development.
|
| That's a very heterogenous example, but at some point we will
| be discussing personal clouds, where people have a little
| cluster of commodity/older ARM hardware that they balance a
| bunch of services across.
|
| For example, you can download the server part of Don't Starve
| Together as a separate app that you can then leave running
| even if you log off. That should be the standard for coop
| games, and probably for multiplayer games in general.
|
| We are also overdue for a rethink of CI/CD pipelines, and I
| don't mean As A Service.
| emsy wrote:
| I downvoted you for several reasons: while I do agree with
| the basic idea (an iPad shouldn't be a MacBook with touch), I
| think the way you argue for it lacks nuance and doesn't hold
| up. First of all, there is no reason why you can't have both,
| *nix tools and a central App Store. Most people don't use nix
| tools? Don't install them. This would also work with
| sandboxing, e.g. I wouldn't care if every app brings their
| own compilers even if it wastes memory. But even that is too
| much in apple's eyes. The reason I need a MacBook that has
| the same processor as an iPad to develop for the iPad is
| completely arbitrary. Also, ideally I would like to not have
| to carry around multiple devices but more importantly, don't
| buy them because it costs money (for some reason this
| argument rarely comes up, but money matters, especially in
| developing regions). Lastly, having devices that serve
| multiple purposes is a good thing for the environment. It's
| also the way forward for the last 2 decades. When was the
| last time you had a separate MP3 player, a camera a
| calculator and a GPS device with you? Why shouldn't my iPad
| be capable of enabling actual productive work?
| paxys wrote:
| This is also the reason why iPad Pro will never be the
| professional machine Apple is pushing it as, no matter how much
| processing power or marketing dollars they throw at it.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| So it is. The gilded cage will never rival the open field.
| Fomite wrote:
| That depends on what field one is a professional _in_ surely?
| katbyte wrote:
| For a lot of users it's more then enough, professional
| writers editors writers photographers and many many more do
| not need to "run arbitrary code" it's a professional device
| for many professions, just maybe not for software development
| and maybe that's ok?
| hctaw wrote:
| > it is not unless your security model is one where codesigning
| exists to prevent the addition of new native code
|
| It is if your security model includes things like parental
| controls and payment processing.
| zubairq wrote:
| This is why I haven't release my own dev tool on iPad actually,
| but OS X does let you run a process and sub processes
| smoldesu wrote:
| Every operating system lets you run a process and subprocess.
| Until iOS/iPadOS came along, that is.
| navait wrote:
| I really enjoy using Transmit, and feel bad that I don't know
| about many Mac devs making great products. I also like Many
| Tricks and Alfred. Anyone have a list of other top mac developer
| houses?
| stblack wrote:
| I love iPad but for many things. But as a software developer,
| creating on iPad scores pretty close to zero. Thank you, Panic
| Software, for hanging in for as long as you did.
| coldcode wrote:
| I prefer to code on a 27in display, the iPad it still too
| small. I know people who just use the MBP display but I never
| found Xcode usable on a small screen.
| monkin wrote:
| How so? You can still use remote/local machines to develop.
| People use(including myself) great success apps like Blink
| Shell(https://blink.sh), Inspect
| Browser(https://apps.pdyn.net/inspect/) or code-
| server(https://github.com/cdr/code-server) to work full time on
| iPad. By full time I mean #iPadOnly way.
|
| I do JS front-ends, back-ends in Go, I design in
| Figma(https://figurative.design/) and Affinity Designer/Photo.
| For coding my daily driver is Blink Shell(They released a free
| community edition if you want to try:
| https://community.blink.sh) with Mosh. I never had a feeling
| that my terminal is just connected to VPS. Whenever I open
| Blink, everything is still there as I left it. Slow connection?
| No problem with Mosh. Constantly changing networks or IP
| addresses? You will not lose a connection even for a minute.
|
| After a long year after the switch to my only device at home, I
| can tell you that I never looked back nor needed any other
| machine. Maybe it doesn't cover everyone's needs, but you can't
| say it's close to zero. Most of current development can be done
| on it. :-)
| smoldesu wrote:
| If your argument is that "the iPad is great for puppeting
| other machines to develop with", I'd honestly rather just
| carry around a laptop.
| cmelbye wrote:
| Is this better in any way than just using a Mac? iPad is just
| as powerful as a MacBook Air, and costs about the same. But
| with the keyboard/trackpad case, it's thicker, heavier, and
| less ergonomic. And the workflow becomes useless when, for
| example, you don't have internet connection.
| monkin wrote:
| It's different... and for me in many ways better.
|
| I have 12.9 Pro model from 2020 with only folio case and
| pen. I own an external keyboard but only use it at home. I
| also have SIM, so more or less I have always a decent
| internet connection no matter where I am. Feat that is
| impossible with MBP without hotspot from iPhone. ;-)
|
| Yet, the whole magic for me is in applications, having
| native app for Netflix, HBO, Reddit (Apollo) is a game
| changer for someone who used only Safari, Figma nad iTerm2
| in full screen on a Mac, and rest was just browser based
| stuff. I could lie down and read some news, respond to
| tweets, scroll through Reddit, code in Blink and design
| using pen and Figurative at the same time watching Netflix
| without having a MBP on my laps baking my balls. ;-)
|
| And, yes, external keyboard isn't as bad as most people
| tell.
| brigandish wrote:
| I was curious so went to the Blink website and I am very
| confused. The initial strapline is enticing, "Connect to your
| cloud on the go, or code all day from the beach." so I read
| more:
|
| > With Mosh and SSH, Blink is rock-solid, fast, and your all-
| day-long companion.
|
| Okay, it's starting to get crowded but I want to know more so
| I scroll down to get some details:
|
| > Mosh was built for constant mobile connectivity.
|
| Isn't this the Blink site? Or is it also called Mosh? Why am
| I getting the history of an app/service/Lord-knows-what
| before being told _what it is_?
|
| > You can flawlessly jump from home, to the train, and then
| to the office thanks to Mosh.
|
| Still on about Mosh and not only is there not a peep about
| _what it is_ , I _still_ don 't know what Blink is.
|
| > Blink is rock-solid connected all the way.
|
| Now we're back to Blink. What is it? Doesn't matter, it's
| good! Trust us, the people who won't tell you what it is.
| What is Mosh? Who knows!
|
| If I guess that Blink is a shell and Mosh is some kind of
| networking facility will I a) be correct, and b) have
| _guessed_ more detail about them in a few words than their
| home page tells me?
|
| Disappointing.
| rogerbinns wrote:
| Blink is a terminal emulator and shell with a command line
| style interface (vs pointy clicky gui). It has numerous
| commands built-in that the shell can execute. If you are
| familiar with busybox then it is very much like that.
|
| The most useful is ssh, which works as you expect (blink
| has code to manage keys etc). But iOS/iPadOS also
| terminates non-foreground apps. For example you could
| switch from blink to a massive web page in your browser,
| and then switch back again and blink would be relaunched.
| mosh is a connection-less protocol (setup is done over ssh
| first though), so you can keep sessions going across blink
| being killed and restarted, and even if you change IP
| address! I personally use tmux so this doesn't matter.
|
| The shell commands are useful too. For example you can
| access iCloud files (available on every device) and local
| iOS files. You can do network diagnostics (ping, dig, nc
| etc). You can scp/sftp files back and forth. And then you
| can operate on them using sed/awk/grep etc.
|
| It is quite challenging to explain all this, as you noticed
| at the web site. An example of a more GUI style ssh client
| is https://www.panic.com/prompt/ and they deal with keeping
| connections described here
| https://library.panic.com/general/ios-background/
|
| There is a general command line with multiple commands
| built in at https://libterm.app/ and Blink is built on
| that. Note that you can even do things like compile code
| with clang, but the resulting "executables" are interpreted
| and not native code (again due to iOS policies).
|
| Another alternative is https://ish.app/ which runs Alpine
| Linux userspace and interprets x86 instructions.
|
| In short an iOS/iPadOS ssh client is more complicated than
| you'd expect, and they all have varying degrees of
| workarounds for app permissions, termination, maintaining
| connections in the background, etc. The blink site tells
| you more about one of those solutions (mosh) than
| describing the problem it addresses in the first place.
| monkin wrote:
| The only thing disappointing here is your comment about ONE
| block on the whole page that talks about connectivity, and
| you present it as a complete website. The website itself
| maybe is little outdated but does a great job telling what
| Blink does and what tech it uses to make your life easier.
| brigandish wrote:
| There's nothing on that whole page that addresses my
| complaints, why do you think I'm going to spend time
| delving into the rest of the site when the writers of
| that page clearly don't care about wasting my time?
|
| - Tell me what it is
|
| - Tell me why it exists
|
| - Stop with the ad copy and buzzwords until the first 2
| points have been addressed
|
| That's what I want from a landing page / home page.
| LucidLynx wrote:
| > - Tell me what it is
|
| "THE PRO TERMINAL FOR iOS & iPadOS", from the front page.
|
| > - Tell me why it exists
|
| " You bought the latest Pro device, loved it, and then
| you wondered...
|
| ...Can I use it to replace my laptop?
|
| Yes, you can
|
| Blink was built as the tool we wanted to use all day. We
| were tired of User Interfaces being on our way, and of
| connections that couldn't even last for 5 minutes... ",
| from the front page too.
|
| > - Stop with the ad copy and buzzwords until the first 2
| points have been addressed
|
| They have been.
| brigandish wrote:
| > "THE PRO TERMINAL FOR iOS & iPadOS", from the front
| page.
|
| Then what's Mosh? Why bring it up?
|
| > " You bought the latest Pro device, loved it, and then
| you wondered... > ...Can I use it to replace my laptop?
|
| No, I didn't but I know it's supposed to be appealing.
| The original comment about it was more appealing than
| that line. Still.
|
| > Yes, you can
|
| Can I? Because I can "code all day from the beach"?
| (which doesn't sound fun, actually)
|
| It's facetious, it's anodyne while striving to be zippy,
| and worst of all, it's _meaningless_. I 've seen half-
| arsed Github READMEs that are more informative. Do I
| really have to pull out alternatives to show the
| difference? Okay then.
|
| There is ZeroTier[1], which I'm going to guess is a Mosh
| equivalent as I have zero (ha) desire to find out any
| more about Mosh. This is their initial blurb:
|
| > Connect team members from anywhere in the world on any
| device. > ZeroTier creates secure networks between on-
| premise, cloud, desktop, and mobile devices.
|
| Now _that_ answers my questions and the rest of the page
| goes into more detail.
|
| Now for a shell - let's take Fish[2] because I've heard
| about it but never bothered with it. This will be fun...
|
| > fish is a smart and user-friendly command line shell
| for Linux, macOS, and the rest of the family.
|
| It then goes into features which is an indirect answer to
| the _why_ so I 'll give them half marks there.
|
| Oops, my mistake, it's a _terminal_ we need. Since I use
| iTerm[3] nowadays:
|
| > What is iTerm2?
|
| > iTerm2 is a replacement for Terminal and the successor
| to iTerm. It works on Macs with macOS 10.14 or newer.
| iTerm2 brings the terminal into the modern age with
| features you never knew you always wanted.
|
| > Why Do I Want It?
|
| > Check out the impressive features and screenshots. If
| you spend a lot of time in a terminal, then you'll
| appreciate all the little things that add up to a lot. It
| is free software and you can find the source code on
| Github.
|
| It's like they read my mind, or they actually followed a
| very simple recipe that I had hoped most people were
| aware of. I think this can be improved but it's still
| miles better than the copy Blink is using.
|
| I'd suggest employing this bloke[4], or taking some of
| the advice given out by fellow HNers there.
|
| [1] https://www.zerotier.com/
|
| [2] https://fishshell.com/
|
| [3] https://iterm2.com/
|
| [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26842191
| philips wrote:
| I have really been enjoying the SSH experience with
| ShellFish. In particular the SCP/file integration.
|
| https://secureshellfish.app/
| Asmod4n wrote:
| Hm, you can run alpine Linux on iOS. With background tasks.
| (https://apps.apple.com/de/app/ish-shell/id1436902243)
|
| I wonder what it would take to make a Code development tool to
| take advantage of that.
| kevingadd wrote:
| I can't imagine a company like Panic being able to get away
| with using that approach to run stuff like tsc, but it would be
| cool to see someone try who can afford to have Apple shoot
| their whole product in the head. Maybe it'd be great and Apple
| would decide to re-evaluate the rules and make it officially
| OK.
| saagarjha wrote:
| iSH runs everything in one process as threads.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| How does Apple's Swift Playgrounds on iOS handle compiling code?
| Aren't the Swift compiler and linker also separate binaries? I'm
| wondering whether Apple excepted themselves or whether they
| actually forced that subset of Xcode to fit into the normal
| requirements somehow.
| my123 wrote:
| Apple did except themselves. Swift Playgrounds uses private
| entitlements.
|
| No other dev can replicate it with the public entitlements
| only. (On iOS)
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Apple did not except themselves, Apple excepted any app
| listed in the Education category of the store.
| my123 wrote:
| Nope, other apps on that category use interpreters and do
| not have entitlements for running unsigned code at runtime.
|
| Swift Playgrounds actually compiles down to native code.
| hinkley wrote:
| That sounds like something that needs to be fixed and soon.
| This is drifting into antitrust trial territory.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| Education applications are exempt from this policy. They are
| allowed to execute code that did not come in the bundle,
| provided the user can fully edit it.
|
| What is an education app? Well, that is up to Apple.
| javajosh wrote:
| If the front-end build is the key sticking point, then I think
| there's hope, in at least 2 dimensions: first, people SHOULD
| mockup their apps using static HTML - is a best practice that has
| for some reason gone out of favor, but it will come back. Second,
| native modules are new, but I think they will play a BIG part in
| eliminating the front-end build nonsense that has saddled the web
| dev community for too long.
| warpspin wrote:
| Only remotely related: How good is their Nova editor by now
| compared to Sublime Text? Currently wondering if trying it once
| more is worth the time.
| hokumguru wrote:
| As someone who daily drives Nova... it depends. Plugin support
| is vastly better than it was 6 months ago but there are still
| tons of quirks (from a Typescript-first developer POV). If
| you're willing to code your own plugins or contribute to open
| source you'll find yourself a lot happier.
|
| Your mileage may vary but overall I'd give it a 9/10 in speed
| and UX but a 6-7/10 in usability compared to Webstorm or VSCode
| with the right plugins.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I found it a bit slow when I used the beta. The search was
| especially bad since I'm used to ripgrep.
| hutattedonmyarm wrote:
| They have a trial for Nova, so I suggest checking it out. It's
| not quite as fast as ST (on my aging 2013 MBP) and the
| extension ecosystem is still somewhat lacking. Nonetheless, it
| feels fantastic to use and I've switched completely now
| ctdonath wrote:
| Odds of Xcode for iPad arriving right around then?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Probably never. If Apple does this, it will the the most brazen
| permission-hopping Apple has ever done, and developers the
| world over would probably instantly complain that it renders
| Apple's entire threat model useless. Furthermore, it could also
| be illegal for Apple to be the sole distributor of an IDE on a
| platform where their competitors lack the permissions required
| to run/debug programs.
| btgeekboy wrote:
| > (For comparison, even Transmit iOS, discontinued in 2018,
| continues to work fine today for those who purchased it.)
|
| This is not true. A recent iOS update broke Transmit; it no
| longer launches and says it needs an update.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| Funny thing is, it still works on my iPhone, but stopped
| working on my iPad. Strange stuff.
|
| Either way, it was a great app and I very much disagree with
| their reasons for discontinuing it.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Kinda absurd how much effort Panic has put trying to fit into
| Apple's vision of the future of computing and operating systems
| almost to backtrack again at every turn a few years later when
| the initial investment doesn't translate into money.
|
| Definitely feel for their engineering team.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| Yeah, this is how Apple treats their allies. Jut another
| confirmation that my decision to leave the ecosystem was
| correct.
| cjohansson wrote:
| Librem 5 is the way forward for programmers, Apple is not for
| truck-drivers anymore, only for electric hooverboarders
| (reference to Steve Jobs talk about post-pc devices)
| ilovecaching wrote:
| Just want to say that Prompt 2 is the best terminal app on iOS. I
| love Panic products and am curious about how good Nova has
| gotten.
| asidiali wrote:
| Have you tried Blink Mosh shell? I've tried them both and blink
| seems lightyears ahead of prompt. Maybe I didn't give it enough
| time when I tried it, but prompt just felt bulkier IMO, which
| surprised me because Panic makes such great products. Could you
| elaborate on why you love prompt?
| joshstrange wrote:
| Prompt 1 & 2 were the best options for a /long/ time on iOS
| but both of them suffered from Panic not really going full-in
| on iOS development in my opinion. They are still old-school
| app developers who want to write something once and a call it
| done with minor little fixes after that. Most of the
| hot/popular ssh/mosh tools on iOS now (along with lots of
| other types of iOS apps) are constantly improving/being
| worked on. I'm going to have to add Blink to my list of
| terminal emulators to try out because I'm actively trying to
| move off Prompt 2. I have played with Termius but I really
| don't have a need for an SSH client on macOS, I'm very happy
| with iTerm, and there are other little things in Termius that
| annoy me/worked better in Prompt 2.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I switched to Blink when Prompt 2 came along. I mean, if
| I'm going to have to switch apps anyway...
|
| I never looked back. Blink's GUI isn't as pretty as
| Prompt's, but its functionality is outstanding. There's
| nothing more I would add to it.
| monkin wrote:
| If you want to try Blink use https://community.blink.sh/ to
| get your hands on the free community edition with latest
| features.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Good riddance. Coda for iOS never worked correctly and was a scam
| app. It's utterly unjustifiable that Panic sold a "full-featured"
| editor that only works on "Sites" and not files.
| djrogers wrote:
| > was a scam app
|
| That's a horribly irresponsible thing to say.
| [deleted]
| torstenvl wrote:
| Explain to me how it is _not_ "horribly irresponsible" to
| charge people money for a product you don't deliver, but it
| _is_ "horribly irresponsible" to call them out on it.
|
| Panic charged me $24.99 for a full-featured code editor. I
| would like a full-featured code editor or I would like my
| $24.99 back. It is not "horribly irresponsible" to expect
| what one pays for.
| jakeva wrote:
| Did you ask for a refund? I was a very happy Coda user for
| many years. You sound irrational and angry over a small
| subjective thing. I'd buy "horribly irresponsible" about
| your comment.
| superkuh wrote:
| iOS is not for doing work. It is for consuming media. Apple has
| made it very clear what their target demographics and priorities
| are.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The big question is will the new M1 iPad be allowed to be a real
| computer if the user wants it to.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The new iMacs are basically iPads with keyboard and macOS.
| Siira wrote:
| More expensive and less portable though, AND no touch
| interface.
| aSithLord wrote:
| but with actual pro class software.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| I rather expect that the M1 iPad is the next step of elevating
| iOS to an all-purpose platform, and the path is to ultimately
| get rid of the Desktop OS and all its remaining "openness" in
| favor of the tightly controlled revenue-generating ecosystem-
| model of iOS.
|
| The M1 iMac is already quite close to a "iPad Desktop", I'm not
| sure how long it will take until Apple takes the full step and
| ships an iMac with iOS. My guess is that there will be an
| intermediary phase where the OS will only allow AppleStore apps
| by default but can be unlocked. And then one day the "most-
| affordable iMac ever" will arrive, with iOS...
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Since they're deliberately marketing that the iPad has an M1
| chip, I think they have dual booting in mind for the future
| user-the-name wrote:
| They definitely do not. macOS is not designed for use with a
| touch screen, and Apple are not interested in releasing half-
| arsed, unusable systems.
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Obviously they're going to disable the touch screen if that
| happens.
| wayneftw wrote:
| > Apple are not interested in releasing half-arsed,
| unusable systems.
|
| Is that why on macOS I can open a window like "About this
| mac" or any window from a menu bar app, switch away from it
| with the keyboard...and then _not be able to switch back to
| that same window with the same keyboard shortcut_?
|
| Are you aware that, for over 20 years, Apple sold an OS
| that only let you resize application windows by the lower
| right hand corner?
|
| I could go on (and on and on) but I'll stop here: Remember
| when Apple swore by the single button mouse? They said it
| was the best thing ever. Except the first thing everybody
| bought for their new Mac was a multi-button mouse...
| Reminds me of how many dongles you need today because thin
| is in!
| mcphage wrote:
| iOS has mouse support, and Apple sells a keyboard with a
| trackpad for it. If they were that concerned about the
| touch screen being unusable--even though other
| manufacturers have figured it out--then they could just
| disable touch input while in Mac mode. Maybe even allow
| Pencil support.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'm also eagerly awaiting Apple's flying pig announcement.
|
| On a more serious note though, Apple won't let you choose which
| browser you're using anymore: what makes you think it will
| fulfill the criterion of a "real computer"?
| ihuman wrote:
| macOS and iOS let you choose your default browser
| Cu3PO42 wrote:
| I am very much hoping for a "macOS in a VM" feature, but I
| don't think it will ever happen. The iPad Pro being great for
| certain professions seems to be enough for Apple. Targeting all
| professional groups does not appear to be a goal.
| deergomoo wrote:
| It's a real shame that the otherwise very capable iPad cannot
| sustain an enormous subcategory of professional grade software,
| solely because of Apple's policies.
|
| People know this going in of course, but it doesn't make it any
| less of a shame, especially now you can spec out an iPad Pro with
| the exact same specs as the laptop I use for work.
| Siira wrote:
| It's not like there is much of an alternative. Android isn't
| that much better, and its hardware offerings suck. Apple has an
| effective monopoly on quality tablet hardware, as far as I
| know. (I don't understand why, but then again, I don't
| understand how there can be years-long shortages of PS5 either.
| Why don't they just increase the fucking price? ...)
| justinclift wrote:
| Possibly interestingly, I just bought a 2nd hand MS Surface
| Pro 3 tablet for about US$300 (8GB RAM, i5 Cpu, 256GB SSD).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Pro_3
|
| Specifically because I'm looking for something to run Blender
| (blender.org) on. The iPad Pro could only run it via Sidecar
| from a real Mac (eg tethered laptop or similar).
|
| Android has an ancient version (circa ~2013), which isn't a
| real option.
|
| _Could_ have spent money on a new Surface Pro, but trying
| things out on an older model seems to be working so far. :)
|
| From my point of view, there are more options than just iOS
| and Android for tablets. Apparently Linux can be installed on
| Surface Pro's too, though that's a future "maybe" item for
| this one.
| tomp wrote:
| Microsoft Surface Go is a technological marvel. Full-blown
| x86 computer in tablet form. I've used it for the past year
| as my only machine (I'm a fulltime + hobby software
| developer). It's 100% on par with Apple hardware (including
| the foldable keyboard & trackpad, and the lack of RAM).
| Software is a different issue, but for development work it
| mostly doesn't matter that much (I use IntellJ, conda,
| Jupyter & Chrome, and all of those are completely cross
| platform). I haven't tried Surface Pro but I imagine it's
| equally good, just bigger.
| smoldesu wrote:
| +1 for the Surface line. Apple can eat their heart out
| honestly, Ubuntu plus Surface is a pretty killer combo.
| zepto wrote:
| > solely because of Apple's policies.
|
| It really isn't this.
| appleausssse wrote:
| It really is, and the problem is ubiquitous across app
| categories.
|
| Here's another example: you cannot selectively block
| JavaScript in an iOS browser.
|
| On Android/MacOS/Windows/Linux, you can use a browser
| extension like Noscript to only run trusted or necessary JS.
|
| Safari only provides a coarse on/off toggle, and Apple
| forbids any browser that does not use their proprietary
| WebKit framework. None of the App Store content blockers
| allow seamless fine-grained control like every other platform
| supports.
| zepto wrote:
| None of this has anything to do with why the iPad and
| iPhone are not good for desktop style professional apps.
|
| You list a bunch of 'examples' - but what are they examples
| of? Nobody disputes that Apple controls iOS.
| appleausssse wrote:
| They are examples of how Apple's policy decisions stifle
| competition and result in a worse product for consumers.
|
| Apple's devices cannot adequately protect my privacy,
| because of their efforts to prevent competitors from
| making products in any of the markets that they
| participate in.
| zepto wrote:
| > They are examples of how Apple's policy decisions
| stifle competition and result in a worse product for
| consumers.
|
| No they aren't. They are just statements about iOS's
| design. You don't make any case for how they make a
| anything worse.
|
| > Apple's devices cannot adequately protect my privacy,
| because of their efforts to prevent competitors from
| making products in any of the markets that they
| participate in.
|
| This paragraph is gibberish. You might want to edit it.
| kactus wrote:
| Please elaborate.
| zepto wrote:
| I love iPads - I have used one almost every day since they
| were first released.
|
| But.. they just aren't great for the same kinds of
| professional software that works well on the desktop. It's
| not about Apple's policies.
|
| It that the Mac is just better for desktop style apps for
| obvious reasons.
|
| I do think that this can be overcome in the end by really
| figuring out how to design for the platform, but we are
| nowhere near that today.
|
| I have bought various editors including Coda, and I also
| bought prompt (which Panic _is_ still working on). I use
| prompt regularly for impromptu server maintenance or quick
| diagnostics, but I _never_ use the editors. This is all
| about what the devices are good for and nothing to do with
| policies.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Either way, the original comment was arguing that the
| limitations in place are entirely arbitrary, and their
| argument still rings true. Apparently, the iPhone worked
| just fine as a code editor: as they mention in the
| article, the primary technical hurdle was the Javascript
| engine, which was forced to use Apple's gimped WebKit
| offerings instead of a real browser engine.
| zepto wrote:
| > Either way, the original comment was arguing that the
| limitations in place are entirely arbitrary,
|
| No, the original comment argued that the limitations are
| the _only_ reason a class of professional software is not
| successful on iOS, which is certainly false.
|
| > Apparently, the iPhone worked just fine as a code
| editor
|
| Obviously it doesn't work as well as a Mac.
|
| Few people would choose to edit code on an iPhone where a
| Mac or Linux machine was available instead, so no it
| doesn't 'work just fine'.
| imglorp wrote:
| > you can spec out an iPad Pro with the exact same specs
|
| There's the root of the policy decision. If one device did
| everything, why would you buy two? Apple needs you to buy the
| lap AND the tablet AND the phone and maybe also the watch. Oh
| and they would also prefer you buy more every year, none of
| this decade stuff.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > There's the root of the policy decision.
|
| Or maybe, it's just as Apple says - iOS/iPadOS isn't MacOS
| and they're not meant to function the same way because
| they're intended for different use cases and security models.
|
| No doubt they'd love for you to buy one of everything, but
| your chafing at the limitations of Apple's platform strategy
| isn't an indication of an ulterior motive, so much as an
| indication that Apple's platform strategy doesn't meet your
| needs. Alas.
| Ruthalas wrote:
| That definitely seems to be accurate, but it's undercut by
| marketing campaigns like "what's a computer" that seem
| designed to push toward no distinction.
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| Anecdata, but my mid-2012 Macbook is still my primary and
| only computer which I use for web and mobile development,
| though I have upgraded the RAM and SSD. Interestingly, the
| battery still holds a charge for a few hours. I'm sure Apple
| would like me to buy something in the last 9.5 years, but it
| wasn't necessary.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Apple has specifically said that they don't hold features
| back from iPads for the sake of making you buy a Mac. And
| given their pricing model I'd believe it.
|
| If you buy an M1 MacBook Air, you spend $1000 and you get
| pretty much an amazing laptop that does everything except
| flip over and let you draw on the screen.
|
| If you buy an iPad Pro - the new one with the M1 chip - then
| you have to spend $1100 to get the 13" model, which has less
| storage than the MacBook. And that's _just_ the tablet - you
| now have to spend $350 on a keyboard case to actually use it
| like a laptop. You can also use a pen input with the iPad,
| which you can 't with the MacBook, but that's another $130
| please. So you can really jack up the price of the iPad with
| accessories intended to give you laptop-like capabilities.
|
| So I don't buy the idea that either device is held back so
| you have to buy both. The device they're clearly positioning
| as a do-everything machine is the most expensive one in their
| lineup.
| emsy wrote:
| It's not a do everything machine: I can't use it as a
| tablet. On the other hand what's holding my iPad back from
| becoming a do-everything machine is
|
| A) sandboxing, which they shouldn't change or at best
| streamline to allow better app interoperability (the
| current share approach is laughably bad)
|
| B) what is allowed on the AppStore. This is purely a policy
| issue. Why isn't there an isolated XCode that at least lets
| me develop iPad apps? The MacBook Air is a $1000 work
| horse, the iPad is a pricey web browsing machine/toy. Save
| for, say artists and even they are extremely limited. Want
| to create a 3D model using several apps? Good luck with
| that
| threeseed wrote:
| > It's not a do everything machine
|
| For you. But for the majority of the population it is.
|
| Office, Mail, Browser, Photo Editor etc is typically more
| than enough for most.
| smoldesu wrote:
| No, not really. Any direction you run in, you're going to
| come across sharp edges. The web is still terribly
| optimized for tablets, and it's even worse when you're
| forced to use Safari to interact with it all. I can't
| count the number of times one of my family members was
| filling out a form/buying something/doing anything on an
| iPad and had to go put it down to get a real computer to
| finish the job.
|
| This myth that "the average consumer doesn't need x" is
| pretty pervasive, and it's a pretty diminutive way to
| look at computing. The user doesn't _need_ a graphical
| interface, but we still give it to them anyways. They don
| 't need excessive, timewasting animations cluttering
| their UI, but iPadOS provides in spades.
|
| Either way, I'm expanding my blanket ban on recommending
| Macs to include iPads. After trying out one of the new
| iPad Pros, I honestly can't even say it's a better choice
| than a shitty 2014 Macbook Pro. The ecosystem still has a
| long ways to go before the iPad feels like a natural
| part.
| [deleted]
| WA wrote:
| > The app should continue to function for a long time, but won't
| receive further updates
|
| Just a warning for users and devs alike: Nope, it probably won't.
| Apple's track record for backwards compatibility isn't terrible,
| but it's also not flawless. I had an app in the store from 2011
| until the end of 2017.
|
| iOS 14.5 broke this app for some reason (I don't know why). No
| warning for users and if Apple follows some kind of SemVer, it's
| weird that a minor version breaks an old app.
|
| Note for devs: Find a way how people can export their data from
| the app even if it's not working anymore (for example, by writing
| to the Documents folder and exposing it to the Finder)
|
| Note for users: Assume that an unsupported app can and will break
| in an unpredictable way. Backup your data regularly.
| Normille wrote:
| >Note for devs: Find a way how people can export their data
| from the app
|
| At the risk of meandering off-topic; this is one of my all-time
| bugbears with software. Or, rather it's half of one of my all-
| time bugbears. I'd complete it by adding _" Find a way how
| people can import their existing data into the app"_
|
| It never ceases to amaze me how many developers produce apps
| which have obviously had a lot of time and thought devoted to
| their creation and functionality. But which provide no way of
| importing existing data you might have.
|
| Unless your app is creating something completely unique and
| filling a completely new gap in the market, the chances are
| that there are other apps out there which serve a similar
| function. Your app may be ten times more lovely to look at and
| ten times more pleasing to use. But, without providing
| import/export facility, you're expecting potential new users to
| either be completely new to <whatever> your app does. Or to
| totally abandon all the work they have done previously, in your
| rivals' apps.
|
| In my opinion, this is why the Fediverse has failed so
| dismally. All these rivals to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram et
| al. All launched with lots of high-falutin' claims about
| privacy and respect for users. Yet not one of them provided a
| way to import your existing data from the services they sought
| to replace. _" All those years and years of 'stuff' you've
| already written and posted? That's all just worthless junk.
| Leave it all behind and come empty-handed to our exciting new
| platform!"_
|
| It's quite insulting really, when you think about it.
|
| And it's not only 'social meeja' apps. One of my particular
| quirks is that I'm a bit of a compulsive place-marker of where
| I've been on holidays, camping, or just days out, etc. I have
| probably a few hundred such place-marks saved on the mapping
| app on my phone.
|
| Every so often, I'll think to try a new mapping app and
| download and install it. Only to find, on almost every
| occasion, that it doesn't provide any way for me to import my
| existing place-marks. So, presumably, the target market of the
| developers of those apps is someone who's never left the house
| before. But belatedly feels the urge to travel around, marking
| places they've been on a map.
| bombcar wrote:
| Similar to this ->
| https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-
| ii...
| monkeybutton wrote:
| You can't import what you can't export and a lot of people
| see easy exporting of data as helping their competition.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > if Apple follows some kind of SemVer
|
| They don't.
| solarkraft wrote:
| RIP.
|
| Is the source code going to be published so people can keep
| running it on jailbroken devices?
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| I'm probably be gonna laughed at, but I don't understand why
| these developers don't publish their apps on Android.
|
| If you get screwed by Apple, why not go to the other field?
| monkin wrote:
| One thing I don't like about Google Play Store is their refund
| policy that only last 48 hours after that time you need to
| contact developer for a refund. Which in most cases ends on
| lack of answer from them.
|
| On AppStore you have 90 days to do a refund, and mostly it's
| always accepted, no questions asked.
|
| Second, differences in prices. Yesterday my friend was scammed
| into app(one of the top apps there) that gave him 3 day trail
| but only when choosing 1 year license after that. After 3 days
| without notification he was billed for $125. The same app cost
| yearly on iOS $35 and lifetime for $40. And, this is just an
| example of many scammy tactics that go on on Play Store. :-)
|
| No, it doesn't mean that Apple does not have this problem. It
| has, but in smaller quantity.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| Panic is a long time Apple developer house.
|
| They don't want to make the best tools for just any platform;
| they contribute the best tools they can to Apple's ecosystem,
| the one they use and appreciate (and love). Apple power users
| have different expectations, especially around UX on the Mac;
| that is Panic's forte.
|
| I'm sure if they wanted to develop for Windows or Android, they
| could have years ago. But that's not their thing, that's not
| why they make these tools.
| cfn wrote:
| I suppose, in this case, because there isn't an alternative to
| the iPad on the Android side. There are many Android tablets (I
| have a few) but they are not as powerful and the battery always
| seems to last a lot less than the iPads.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Android tablets are dead. Same conclusion. I enjoyed a few
| samsung tabs, but beyond content consumption they are
| basically useless. I installed node on a few, but I kept
| getting frustrated about the lack of a real ide. Between
| phones and smaller tabletesque laptops these days, I don't
| see a future for the true tablets.
| gtirloni wrote:
| I have a Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 and it seems pretty powerful
| to run anything I want.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Because the APIs offered by Android are a mess and a joke
| compared to what you get on iOS. If you want to make really
| polished software, iOS is much, much easier to work with.
| jmull wrote:
| I don't think we need iOS to be able to do everything MacOS does.
| We already have MacOS!
|
| Add touch support to MacOS and let it run on the "pro" iPads.
| Done.
| sarsway wrote:
| Done with what? Done dreaming?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Or just lift arbitrary limitations and let devs write the
| software they want while allowing users to install the software
| they want. Or is that too tall of an order for... _checks
| notes_ ...the highest valued and largest company in the modern
| history of the first world.
| perardi wrote:
| Here I go, being skeptical about getting work done on iPads
| again...
|
| ...but is there any "pro" software like this that is succeeding
| on iPad that _isn't_ part of a larger cloud /subscription
| service?
|
| I believe Office gets some actual use on iPad, and Adobe sure
| keeps trying, but is there really any notable pro apps that are
| succeeding on their lonesome?
| bayindirh wrote:
| Photography, video creation & editing is really good on iOS.
|
| I can take my camera, a card reader and iPad Pro and have a
| complete darkroom with a calibrated screen with minimum weight.
|
| Even my iPhone X can post-process files from my 24MP mirrorless
| camera and create really high quality images.
|
| iPad Pro is a multimedia powerhouse both for creation and post-
| processing. Development is hard, because it needs unfettered
| access, due to nature of the beast.
| cfn wrote:
| What apps do you use for photography?
| bayindirh wrote:
| For quick'n'dirty stuff: - VSCO -
| Priime - RNI films
|
| For more advanced post processing: -
| Polarr - Dark Room - CameraBag Mobile
|
| If I don't have my camera with me, I use Halide for taking
| photos. For timing, occasional astro and other stuff I use
| Helios and Photo Pills.
|
| On the desktop side I use CameraBag Pro and Darktable
| mainly. I occasionally use Luminar.
|
| I started photography with analog in the 90s, so I really
| dig the atmosphere different emulsions or curves add to the
| photography and, I use these tools to create the feeling I
| want to create with my images.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If there is, I have yet to find it. My creative professional
| work is mostly in the world of audio/music, so my iPad gets
| about zero mileage from me on a day-to-day basis. Writing code
| on it is a practice in patience and frustration, and document
| markup is always more trouble than it's worth with touch
| controls.
|
| Really, all the iPad does well is consume content. That's why
| content creators love it so much, and everyone else is either
| indifferent or ignores them.
| Cu3PO42 wrote:
| Procreate is very successful. By all accounts I've heard from
| personal friends, it's a wonderful tool for drawing and
| illustrations. It's a one time purchase for an extremely fair
| price (around 10 USD/EUR). I bought it years ago just to play
| around and still receive updates.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| It really makes me sad. Apple used a lot of free and open
| technologies like FreeBSD to build their business, and they
| created these amazing, small computers. The people that developed
| these amazing small computers and their operating systems, as
| kids, likely had some desktop pc that shipped with a language
| like QBasic where they could learn programming and build things
| and share with friends.
|
| Kids who buy these new small computers from Apple, not only does
| it not ship with such a thing, but its not even possible to
| download or buy a programming environment!
|
| We built computers with brains the size of a planet, they fit in
| our pocket, and they have been castrated such that they are no
| good for creating anything, for no good reason.
| dapids wrote:
| Millions of people build and create things on Mac computers,
| they have the XCode IDE and multiple natively supported
| languages, swift, objc, C++, C, Python, JavaScript, it's all
| built-in.
|
| Am I missing something?
| smoldesu wrote:
| I mean, XCode is not only proprietary, but it's also horribly
| designed. Installing it is a nightmare that will use more
| than half of your Macs storage, and updating it takes longer
| than updating your own OS. What the original commentor is
| complaining about is how Apple stood on the shoulders of
| giants without giving back, only to turn around and wow the
| world with a product that is only 20-30% theirs. It's been a
| practice for as long as capitalism has existed, but for a
| company that operates on such blatantly wide profit margins
| and runs a socially conscious ad campaign, it seems a little
| stupid to at least not pay homage to the people who helped
| make your product. It's a bit of tragic irony that you can't
| even use the tools that Apple used to make MacOS on a Mac.
| Steltek wrote:
| The topic was iOS devices, not macOS.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Kids have Swift Playgrounds on iPad. It's specifically for
| learning programming.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Swift Playgrounds can only exist because Apple has
| specifically designated permissions for themselves to run
| Swift code, and other developers are not allowed to have
| access to these permissions.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Does it cost them to keep the final version in the store so that
| people could, say, restore it after their device was wiped?
|
| I remember losing quite a couple apps this way. Can't be
| downloaded anymore, too bad you didn't have a full backup.
| Me1000 wrote:
| AppStore.app > Tap profile image in the top right > Purchased >
| Not on this iPhone.
|
| Not all apps will be available for example Facebook Paper shows
| up for me, but can't be downloaded because of an OS
| incompatibility (at least that is what the message implies),
| but other apps that otherwise don't show up are still there,
| like early versions of Tweetbot.
|
| It's not clear to me how Apple knows when apps stop working and
| then makes them un-downloadable, but it does appear many apps
| that have been taken down from the store can still be accessed
| if you previously purchased/downloaded them.
| lifty wrote:
| One good thing is that today you can run VS Code on an iPad, in
| the browser, with all the dev tools running in a remote
| container. Not a bad experience.
|
| Edit: I've always thought that Panic could take a similar
| approach with Nova. Run locally on the iPad, as a native app,
| while connecting to a remote machine to compile, debug and run
| the actual code.
| Siira wrote:
| Without an external keyboard? Really?
|
| PS: The whole web VSCode thing can also have very bad latency
| in my experience.
| atonse wrote:
| This is a chance even for Microsoft to just release a react-
| native-sort of VS code where the rendering layer is native,
| but it's still JS, and it hits the remote services for the
| actual "horsepower"
| lifty wrote:
| No, definitely with a keyboard. I tried it on an iPad Pro
| with an external keyboard and the experience seemed decent.
| But it's not my primary workflow so can't say if there are
| quirks, like the latency you mentioned.
| smoldesu wrote:
| You could also just carry around a laptop and have those same
| tools and keyboard integrated into a single package. It's a
| pretty new and novel invention, but I guess people got tired of
| lugging around a useless screen all day and decided to do
| something about it.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Yeah, they mention your suggestion (remote machine to run the
| compiler(s) and debugger) in the post, and it sounds like it
| was too cumbersome to make sense to build a product around. I
| personally suspect that if they kept at it, it could've
| eventually built an audience... but I can imagine the cost of
| developing and maintaining that exceeding any potential profit
| from selling copies to iOS users.
| atonse wrote:
| I would love this and even pay a monthly fee for this.
|
| There is a company doing this but they do the container
| piece. forgot their name. If we could seamlessly pair that
| with VS code Remote on the iPad (or macOS) I'd try to move
| our developers to it to keep all sensitive customer data
| totally off our laptops for good.
| hinkley wrote:
| This is the sort of feature that you build for one purpose
| and then leverage for something bigger. We do this all the
| time - in the small - with refactoring.
|
| Jetbrains has plenty of code for remote debugging and such,
| and other IDEs have language server support. Leveraging
| existing tech like this to then sell a tablet app that is
| basically a control panel? I could see that making it through
| design committees.
|
| But writing it from scratch just for tablet? That's a hard
| sell.
| taylodl wrote:
| And this is why I'll be buying a MacBook Air over an iPad Pro.
| I'm not even going to complain - it is what it is and this
| article simply illustrates some important differences between the
| two platforms. I'm not even going to say iOS is bad - I love my
| iPhone and my wife absolutely _loves_ her iPad Pro.
|
| Apple has targeted iPadOS to casual computer users who mainly
| consume content and require light content generation and editing
| capabilities, and as it turns out there's a _HUGE_ market for
| that. But it 's not for me. I'm a developer by profession and my
| hobbies are music and photography. All of these push the limits
| of what iPadOS is capable of delivering - but MacOS delivers with
| aplomb.
|
| And now thanks to Catalyst if there's some must-have iPadOS app I
| want to run then I can run it. The MacBook Air may be the most
| versatile machine Apple has ever made for users like me.
| miralize wrote:
| If Apple had the appetite to let that M1 on the iPad run macOS
| I'd buy that in a second, just for the ability to develop.
|
| The iPad is already so versatile, adding the ability to do my
| job or just to update a small side project every now and again
| (waiting at the airport etc).
|
| I understand the hesitation in doing so, but its so
| frustrating. Given that the iPad now has a keyboard and mouse
| if you want it & a CPU that we know is fast, just unleash it!
| fastball wrote:
| I'd kill for an iPad Pro running macOS that has an attachable
| magic keyboard + trackpad.
|
| So basically my current 13" MBP M1 with a detachable touch
| screen.
|
| Main problem for me would be the iPad's single port.
| justinclift wrote:
| Next, they just need to get the Apple pencil working on the
| MacBook touchscreen... :)
| Pulcinella wrote:
| I have a different view of this than most in this topic. I am
| disappointed, though not surprised, that Panic is abandoning yet
| another of their iOS apps. They've done it several times before
| and while I am grateful they've continued to provide some bug
| fixes, feature work stopped years ago.
|
| In my view, the biggest hurdle does not seem to have been
| technical, but ideological/business. These old school Mac
| developers like Panic and Omni have had a very difficult time
| adapting to (or failing to) the iOS/mobile era. I know we all
| hate subscriptions, but continued app development and management
| requires continued labor so subscriptions seem like the only
| business option that makes any sense to me. Panic and Omni want
| paid upgrades but Apple has never, ever even hinted at providing
| that as an option. The option is subscriptions. Even on desktop
| Sketch, Adobe, and Microsoft are going with subscriptions. (We'll
| see how Affinity does. They charge a lot more for their apps and
| seem to be in a growth phase so I imagine their sales at the
| moment are fast enough to make up for the fact that each sale is
| only a one time source of revenue).
|
| Honestly, Panic and Omni and other old school Mac developers
| really, really need to adapt to the modern era. They've had years
| and it feels like the runway is about to end (see Omni's recent
| layoffs.) Wishing for paid upgrades and writing "only AppKit apps
| are real Mac apps" blog posts isn't going to change anything.
| ashneo76 wrote:
| Sorry. Subscription isn't for me. I don't want to be in a jail
| of non ownership as an illusion.
|
| Please stop calling this as modern model. This is modern
| daylight theft
| egeozcan wrote:
| Many developers just release new apps as "upgrades", or lock
| new features behind in app purchases to remedy the no-upgrades
| problem. I think that only cannot be the reason. I think
| there's just too many free alternatives in code editors and you
| have to be really amazing (like jetbrains) to be able to make
| users pay.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| The problem is that many people, even in developer circles like
| here on HN, are still very negative when it comes to
| subscriptions.
|
| From a consumer point of view that's understandable: Everyone
| wants to keep their recurring costs low.
|
| But from a developer point of view, this is an antiquated way
| of thinking about software. Software that is not actively
| maintained (which is expensive) eventually stops working. Even
| more so on platforms like iOS, where you're beholden to the
| whims of the platform OS. So you need recurring revenue to
| offset that maintenance cost.
|
| I wish consumers would understand this better.
| lacker wrote:
| _The problem is that many people, even in developer circles
| like here on HN, are still very negative when it comes to
| subscriptions._
|
| It's always going to be that way, and that's okay. It's still
| the right move for professional iOS tools to move to a
| subscription model. Some fraction of your user base will
| complain and refuse to subscribe. But if you actually make a
| good tool, you will fairly quickly see an increase in
| revenue, which lets you invest more in making a good product.
| A bunch of people will periodically complain on HN that they
| don't like subscriptions and it's not too hard to just ignore
| that and move on.
|
| Don't look at 10 people complaining on HN and conclude "this
| must not be the best business model".
| zepto wrote:
| All these points are correct, but you leave out the
| counterpoint which is that once a company has recurring
| revenue, the incentive to update the software in ways that
| benefit the existing users can be _lower_.
|
| Increasing the size of the user base becomes a priority over
| refining service for existing users, and that often means
| developing features that existing users don't need or
| changing the UI in ways that make things easier for new users
| but worse for power users.
| eps wrote:
| Very few people object to paying for updates _as an option_.
|
| The expectation is that if you got _a_ version now and it
| works fine, then you should be able to keep using it without
| paying. It 's only fair, because after all developer costs
| here are exactly zero. If later on you see an update with
| something you like, _then_ you pay again.
|
| That's the model a lot of Windows desktop software is rapidly
| converging to and it's a good fit for subscriptions, as a
| convenience option. In comparison, any software that drops
| completely dead once you stop paying comes across as a rip-
| off and quite rightfully so.
| fouc wrote:
| > Software that is not actively maintained (which is
| expensive) eventually stops working.
|
| That's only true in the context of the environment the
| software is in. The environment is very hostile to supporting
| old versions of software. We keep pushing out operating
| system updates and updates on linked libraries and so on,
| mostly in the name of security and feature creep.. and
| software that worked perfectly fine at one point are
| gradually murdered. It's kind of a tragedy.
| appleiigs wrote:
| As a consumer when I buy a product I expect it to be a
| finished product with minimal bugs. If it does have bugs it
| should be remedied/fixed and I shouldn't have to pay for it
| (similar to a warranty). If there are new features, I'll pay
| for them if I want them.
| blihp wrote:
| That's only feasible if the platform is relatively stable.
| The problem, especially with 'modern' platforms, is that it
| doesn't even remotely work that way anymore. On iOS and
| Android, for example, they make breaking changes nearly
| every major release of their respective platforms. So for
| an application to look like it's standing still (i.e. just
| to keep working from release to release) takes a non-
| trivial amount of work.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| This is one the larger reasons iOS (& android) gaming is
| such a vapid wasteland of exploitative f2p trash.
|
| https://variety.com/2019/gaming/features/android-ios-
| apple-g...
|
| The 'Pay Once' model used for quality self contained
| games that you see on windows or consoles are
| unsustainable for constantly incompatible os updates.
| yreg wrote:
| Well iOS Transmit still works just fine, 3 years after it
| was discontinued...
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I wish businesses would understand that inflicting
| subscriptions on consumers is a lot more onerous than they
| think.
|
| A subscription means one _has_ to use the software they paid
| for. You can 't have it sit on a shelf for those once-every-
| few-months use cases. It means having to manage a million
| stupid business relationships with vendors that one doesn't
| want to have to deal with. It means trolling credit card
| statements after-the-fact to make sure the subscription was
| actually cancelled when that comes time, and it means dealing
| with the cancellation process (and whatever dark patterns the
| vendor throws down) on a fairly regular basis.
|
| The old paid-updates model isn't "antiquated", it's customer-
| centric. Subscriptions are the opposite: customer-hostile.
|
| The service worker earning minimum wage can't afford a
| million subscriptions. Your subscription means they are a
| lost customer, and it means they cannot invest in their
| future in a way that they can effectively control their
| costs. It's a great way to get your stuff pirated.
|
| Photoshop is a great deal at a fixed cost of $1000 or
| whatever it was, because when I needed it it was there for me
| and I knew it would solve my problem. Photoshop cloud is a
| fucking rip off, I'm not going to pay their ridiculous
| monthly fees, nor deal with their onerous subscription terms,
| for an app I use maybe once every six months.
|
| I don't want to live in a future where I am beholden to a
| million rent-seeking wantrepreneurs because they forgot how
| to finance their business the old-fashioned way, or because
| they are afraid of being "antiquated"
|
| The SAAS mentality really, really, _really_ needs to die.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| > Photoshop is a great deal at a fixed cost of $1000 or
| whatever it was, because when I needed it it was there for
| me and I knew it would solve my problem. Photoshop cloud is
| a fucking rip off, I'm not going to pay their ridiculous
| monthly fees, nor deal with their onerous subscription
| terms, for an app I use maybe once every six months.
|
| How is paying $1000 better than paying $32 every six months
| and getting access for the entire month? $1000 better if
| you'll use it for 30 months without interruptions but it
| sounds like that's not your use-case.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Photoshop is $10 per month in the photography plan on
| adobe's site, but only on an annual basis. MSRP and
| business users pay $30+ a month by itself. In either case
| where are you getting $32 every six months?
|
| I guess the photography plan is competitive, but it's
| still a subscription. I hate paying monthly fees for
| anything, especially for something I don't use. Much
| prefer to pay a higher fixed cost and finance that on my
| own... and yes I preferred this when I was a poor
| student; I bought a lot of expensive software back in the
| day by saving what I could from my $12/hour (in 2004
| money) day job.
|
| And believe it or not, being able to open the program and
| have it simply work, without going through a bunch of
| login/update/subscription hassle, is really important for
| creativity. Technical crap regularly derails my creative
| process when I'm manic with an idea, so the possible
| premium is worth it.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| $10 is annual which is not useful when you need it once
| every 6 months. You wrote that you need Photoshop every 6
| months. It means that you can pay $32, get access for a
| month and cancel subscription afterwards.
|
| I get what you're saying, but my point is that $1000 is
| ludicrously expensive when you only rarely need that
| software and in this case cheap subscription is a good
| option. I would not consider $1000 for Photoshop at all,
| but $32 is something I could pay if there's no free or
| cheap alternative.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| The process of activating and then deactivating the
| software is too much, in the heat of the moment.
|
| Art is weird. I have a perpetual license for Lightroom.
| It's great because I can click the LR icon and boom,
| there it is, ready to download my photos and serve me. I
| don't have to measure my photography out by it, don't
| have to consider whether or not my LR subscription is
| current before I pick up the camera, I don't have to
| hassle with it when I need something... it's simply
| there.
|
| Same with music: if an idea pops up in my head, I can
| click the FL-Studio icon and... there it is! Ready to go.
| I have a couple of plugins that need to periodically
| reactivate interactively, and in all honesty they simply
| don't get used. In the moment even _load times_ matter, I
| 'm not going to sit around and finagle with logins or
| activations or anything... I'll just move on.
|
| I purchased a data recovery program that used to be
| called R-Studio a little while ago. It's great software,
| I used to pirate it back in the day, and its demonstrably
| better than most of the free data recovery apps out
| there. I've used it once, but again I am confident that
| it is there and it will run, and that I can confidently
| offer a data recovery service/favor to friends or
| customers without awkwardly futzing about or checking
| before-hand as to whether the software will work or not.
|
| These are all cases where having software ready-to-go is
| better, and a subscription just gets in the way. I could
| even argue that having this stuff _on-hand_ helped me get
| through some really lean times where even $10 /month was
| a difficult price to pay.
| Causality1 wrote:
| You're completely right. I can't count the number of paid
| apps I bought and then barely used. Two dollars here, five,
| sometimes ten. Thing is, I can play that game now, or
| tomorrow, or ten years from now and it still cost me the
| same amount.
| dkarras wrote:
| >The SAAS mentality really, really, really needs to die.
|
| It won't. This is evolution. People are voting with their
| wallets, and subscription providers are making the money
| while "pay once and forget" people are going out of
| business one by one.
|
| Or let me put it another way: Looking at the world, habits
| of people around you, and the software pricing strategy
| landscape, which method do you see "surviving"? (not asking
| which one you want, but rationally, which one has the
| demonstrated advantage?)
| tomc1985 wrote:
| It may be, but wider technological trends are taking
| everything good about computing out of the picture. What
| good is computing for all when the computing all sucks?
|
| You call it an evolution, I call it a cycle. It's
| arrogant to think that SAAS' time in the sun will be
| forever. Remember mainframes? When the pendulum swings
| back, the power users will be ready for it.
|
| There are already cracks in the foundation. Internet
| fragmentation, increasingly onerous data regulation,
| sloppy 5g rollouts, societies with regimes that like to
| cut net access... hell there are even some new WiFi
| vulnerabilities that are on HN today. One day some
| business revolution is going to come along and eat SAAS's
| lunch... I can't wait to cruise the net on a highway
| paved with the corpses of dead subscription companies
| 1_player wrote:
| > I wish consumers would understand this better.
|
| No. I routinely buy software and lifetime subscriptions in
| the $10 to $100 range without batting an eye, but if I had to
| pay $5 a month for every piece of software or service I use,
| I would spend thousands of dollars every single month and
| it'd be ridiculous even if I'm lucky enough to be able to
| afford that.
|
| There's a place for recurring subscriptions and a place for
| fixed priced software that is supposed to work for eternity,
| even if without upgrades.
|
| Don't blame the consumer if they don't want to pay $5 a month
| for a standalone app.
| kstrauser wrote:
| What grinds my gears is when an app goes subscription and
| then jacks their prices. Fantastical 2 was a $50 one-time
| purchase. Fantastical 3 is $60 per year.
|
| If you switch to a subscription model, your new price
| better be no more than your expected amortized purchase
| price. If you use to launch paid major version upgrades
| every 2 years at $100 a pop, your rental price needs to be
| _less_ than $50 per year to make up for the lack in
| functionality. Don 't try to be a used car salesman and
| emphasize the "low monthly payment" when your customers are
| used to considering the total annual cost.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| This sums it up. Even for people who make great money, how
| many subscriptions do devs really think we want to have?
| zepto wrote:
| Not many, but that just reveals a more painful truth -
| how much time do people have to invest in _using_ apps?
|
| The answer is not much, that's the real bottleneck. You
| can't expect people to pay for what they can't use, and
| we just can't use all that much software because we don't
| have time for it.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Apps keep working for years though. On Android anything since
| KitKat still works.
| blihp wrote:
| If you're talking about apps via Google Play, only for some
| kinds of apps (ironically, the ones that make minimal use
| of platform specific features tend to fare the best...
| typically games) Also, Google is actively culling apps from
| the app store that don't upgrade to recent Android SDKs
| which often forces additional development to make the
| migration. For many apps, that means they will
| die/disappear since the economics of mobile don't justify
| their continued development.
| syshum wrote:
| >>Software that is not actively maintained (which is
| expensive) eventually stops working
|
| Funny because I know many many many business that run
| entirely on old unmaintained code, code that can not be
| maintained because upgrading it will break things, will make
| things stop working.
| izacus wrote:
| In the great subscription exodus of 2018, about 10-15 of my
| apps moved to this "sustainable" subscription model. Only two
| are still being maintained with proper new features and
| improved (those would be 1Password and Jetbrains tooling).
|
| All the other apps pretty much stopped feature work and are
| now mostly more broken than they were before switching to the
| subscription model. There's an occasional update, but it's
| all pretty much dead.
|
| So out of that deal I (as a user) have gotten pretty much
| nothing - the developer is constantly taking my money with
| nothing to offer in return. If I stop paying, they'll take
| away the app I've paid for.
|
| Compare this to something like VMWare Fusion or Parallels
| Desktop model - I pay license every year to get support for
| new OS and new feature. But it's MY choice whether I want to
| pay and if the updates actually offer me VALUE for the money.
|
| And this keeps us honest - honest money for honest value
| delivered with incentive for developer to keep maintaining
| their software and not just sitting on their rent-seeking
| vendor lockin. It seriously sucks that Apple and Google don't
| allow for that sales model in their stores - it makes the
| market worse for all of us.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Could you name and shame some of the apps your are talking
| about? I pay for 1Password and JetBrains and similarly am
| happy with them but I also pay for a number of other
| subscriptions and I haven't felt the same "resting on their
| laurels" that you are describing.
| izacus wrote:
| Out of top of my mind - Evernote, Lightroom on Desktop. A
| PDF reader on my Android phone (still doesn't support
| dark mode, years after introduction). Boostnote, another
| note-taking app. LastPass also doesn't really justify
| their costs considering their poor engineering.
| arvinsim wrote:
| I really want to move out of Lightroom CC. However, there
| are no competitors out there that has cloud sync on my
| Mac and iOS devices.
|
| Hoping that Affinity can come up with something. Even if
| it doesn't sync, I would still get it.
| eric_cc wrote:
| Boostnote is still free and open source. They also have a
| paid version but there is no real reason to switch to it.
| sb057 wrote:
| >So out of that deal I (as a user) have gotten pretty much
| nothing - the developer is constantly taking my money with
| nothing to offer in return. If I stop paying, they'll take
| away the app I've paid for.
|
| That's a feature, not a flaw.
| izacus wrote:
| I fail to see how this is a feature for me as a user in
| any way.
|
| I get it - developers want to rent-seek and suck on that
| sweet passive income without actually having to
| constantly provide any value for users. But from a users
| perspective, I get nothing, especially when the response
| from developers is to just stop development.
| 1_player wrote:
| It'd be acceptable if the developer in turn were to
| refund me all the money I've given them when I was
| subscribed.
|
| I'm left with nothing, they're left with nothing. That's
| fair enough.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| A feature for the seller, not for the user. We've moved
| on from personal computers to computers as a service, but
| it's getting pretty clear who they're serving.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Just speaking from personal experience, app updates are
| generally bad things aside from compatibility fixes. Either
| they're adding a feature that I'm not going to use because
| I was happy with the app already, or they break something.
| Probably 25% of the apps on my phone are now decoupled from
| the Play Store because the developers either broke them or
| sold out to an adware company looking for a new vector.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| What possible advantage do subscriptions have for users over
| license upgrades? The incentives of license upgrades are much
| more tuned towards developers adding meaningful features, and
| also more tuned towards developers finishing development on a
| product when it is mature. Beyond that, license upgrades
| allow users to actually keep what they have paid for.
|
| I'm convinced a major reason Adobe made the switch to a cloud
| subscription was because they recognized their products were
| maturing and the window was closing on locking in recurring
| revenue before the licensed product was so mature there would
| be little incentive for users to subscribe.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I hate when software changes. When I'm buying software, I
| want for it to stay as it is. All new features don't bring
| anything but bloat. All I need is bugfixes and security
| fixes. It does not require a significant investments. So my
| ideal software is when developer spends some time, builds a
| program, sells it and spends a little time keeping it alive.
|
| There are some exceptions. For example Intellij Idea should
| support new Java versions which might require significant
| development. But those are exceptions (for example I hate
| almost all new Intellij Idea features, thankfully most of
| them could be disabled).
| nitrogen wrote:
| _I wish consumers would understand this better._
|
| Developers aren't consumers, they are producers. And
| producers understand that durability and longevity are more
| important than enabling the rent-for-life, own nothing,
| subservient economy.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| I understand what you mean. I also think that durability
| and longevity are very important. But wouldn't you agree
| that those qualities are very difficult to achieve and thus
| expensive?
|
| Part of the problem is that software development is still
| in its infancy in my understanding. Average software
| quality and reliability just isn't very high.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _But wouldn 't you agree that those qualities are very
| difficult to achieve and thus expensive?_
|
| I don't think I would agree with that. With software,
| durability is the default. I can write a program once,
| and run it on the same hardware until the capacitors
| fail. It takes active intervention in the form of forced
| upgrades and planned obsolescence to make software
| "decay."
|
| For a producer as I'm using that term in my previous
| comment, software is a tool. If I buy a physical tool, I
| will pay up front for fine craftsmanship, but from there
| on that tool belongs to me, and I expect it to last as
| long as the care I give it allows. I expect to do the
| same with software. If a software vendor wants more
| money, they need to provide more value in return.
|
| Note that this does not mean I would never pay for
| subscription services, but I will not stand for companies
| trying to blur the line between service and tool.
| [deleted]
| panicsocks wrote:
| > panic is abandoning yet another of their iOS apps
|
| Exactly. I don't understand why anyone would buy their apps.
| For the money you'll get an app riddled with bugs, zero useful
| updates that actually fix those bugs, and near zero support
| from panic. It happens over and over and over again.
|
| I guess I thought the saying started with "fool me thrice"
| because it took that long for me to figure it out. :/
| addicted wrote:
| Can you point to indie developers that have been successful
| developing iOS apps, etc?
|
| The likes of Microsoft and Adobe, whose strategy isn't to sell
| products as much as it is to establish and maintain market
| control, are not good comparisons.
| zepto wrote:
| Omni in particular started off very strong on iOS but failed to
| adapt their products.
|
| Their failure to support the system file sharing / iCloud _for
| so long_ was a killer for me. They were simply technically
| wrong about how to do it.
|
| There are many other ways in which they simply failed to adapt
| as the model changed, which I find perplexing.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| There's a tool I use called Dash for quickly looking up
| documentation of coding languages and frameworks and it works
| offline. It does not have a subscription model, but it does
| have very frequent paid upgrades; without charting them out,
| I'd guess they are roughly yearly. I grumble every time because
| the upgrade cost isn't cheap and the updates rarely have
| groundbreaking new features, but then I consider how much use I
| get out of that tool and hand my dollars over. But the times
| when money has been tight or I've just been lazy and haven't
| upgraded when a new release comes out, the old one continues to
| work just fine. I'd much rather see Panic and other developers
| use a model like this; trick/incentivize me into re-buying your
| product every year without calling it a subscription or
| breaking my old versions.
|
| I used Coda pretty much since its launch and paid for upgrades
| to Coda 2 and Nova. I've built my career around these editors,
| so it's kind of scandalous how little I've paid Panic in
| proportion to how much money I've made using them. I would be
| fine with them having more frequent paid upgrades. But the day
| they try to rope me into a forced subscription model is the day
| I start looking at alternatives (which is too bad, because the
| last time I looked at the market when Coda 2 was getting a bit
| too long in the tooth and it was looking like Nova was never
| going to actually be released, it was clear that there are no
| serious alternatives for Mac-native code editors out there
| except for maybe the crusty old BBEdit, which I do not have
| fond memories of).
| Hammershaft wrote:
| The problem here is that Apple does not support that license
| upgrade model for iOS.
| vr46 wrote:
| I agree completely. Panic have, to be blunt, screwed me over
| about four times with various pieces of software over the last
| decade on both iOS and Mac, and Omni are not exactly much
| better. As cool and shiny as a lot of their software looks, I
| cannot trust them enough to buy the thing when I know that they
| will abandon support at the drop of a hat.
| robenkleene wrote:
| The post gives an specific technical limitation for why Nova
| wouldn't be possible due to iOS apps store policies. So they
| wouldn't be able to make a subscription version even if they
| wanted to?
|
| > The biggest technical hurdle is the inability to run external
| processes on iOS and iPadOS. There's just no way around it:
| this is required for modern web development. For example, the
| TypeScript extension is one of the most popular Nova extensions
| right now, and it launches and runs the TypeScript compiler.
| While we could attempt to build the TypeScript compiler into
| Nova, we can't possibly anticipate and include every such tool
| that might be needed by a developer. We'd need to bundle
| compilers, interpreters, and language servers for just about
| every programming language in existence, not to mention tools
| like linters, JavaScript transpilers, and bundlers. The scope
| would quickly become unmanageable, and we'd always be lagging
| behind the latest versions of these tools.
| lacker wrote:
| That complaint doesn't quite make sense to me because things
| like "language servers for every programming language in
| existence" don't exist for iOS in the first place, even if
| you were allowed to run external processes.
|
| To me the logical solution is something like Replit, where
| your arbitrary programming environment is running off-device.
| You want to program Go or Python on your iPad? Okay, but the
| actual code is executing in some cloud machine. Apple should
| be happy with that, and it'll be a lot easier to maintain all
| this stuff off-device anyway, than on iPads, where nobody
| else is maintaining a toolchain.
|
| Of course that doesn't work with a "one-time-purchase"
| business model....
| cmelbye wrote:
| Apple is building desktop-class processors for iPad so that
| it can operate as a thin network client for a Linux server
| somewhere? That strategy doesn't make too much sense.
| threeseed wrote:
| It only makes no sense if you have a black/white view of
| the world.
|
| Some apps will run on device and need the full
| performance e.g. video editing. Other apps will be a thin
| client.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| But the iPad could be so much more. It is a highly
| performance platform. Great CPU, GPU, SSD ... So yeah
| it's just being held back by Apple
| robenkleene wrote:
| > That complaint doesn't quite make sense to me because
| things like "language servers for every programming
| language in existence" don't exist iOS in the first place,
| even if you were allowed to run external processes.
|
| Yes, they do exist for iOS, they're the existing language
| servers. iOS is Unix on ARM, it can run most of (all of?)
| the Node ecosystem (including the existing LSP
| implementations) just fine. The problem is Apple doesn't
| provide the APIs to run them, and bans apps that create
| their own workarounds to run them (unless they're in the
| app bundle, which my understanding is allowed, e.g., that's
| how something like play.js works https://playdotjs.com/).
| Doches wrote:
| > Honestly, Panic and Omni and other old school Mac developers
| really, really need to adapt to the modern era.
|
| A counterpoint: how intense would the outcry be if Panic were
| to make the next versions of Transmit & Coda subscription only
| (the Mac versions, that is, not their baby iOS counterparts)?
| I'm probably almost a model Panic customer -- I've paid for
| every major version of both at release, along with Prompt &
| Coda for iOS -- but even I'd balk at paying a subscription for
| a code editor. A paid upgrade every few years? Sure, take my
| money (see also: Jetbrains). But a monthly subscription for a
| tool that updates only semi-frequently (e.g. Transmit)?
|
| Yeah, I'm out. Developers (and tech folks in general) are the
| cheapest, orneriest market. How can I justify to myself a
| monthly sub to Transmit & Coda when scp & VSCode are free?
| lacker wrote:
| Adobe had an intense outcry when they moved to a subscription
| model, and it worked out great for them. You are basically
| changing your customer base. People who would happily spend
| $20/month for a good code editor will love the change to a
| subscription model in the long run, because it lets you
| invest more effort in making the product great. And I think
| there are a lot of those people - if you spend hours and
| hours every day programming, and you make good money at your
| job, aren't you willing to spend money to use the best tools?
| People who don't want to buy a subscription will be angry,
| but in a couple months they won't be your customer any more
| so it won't matter that they're angry.
| greggman3 wrote:
| I'm probably missing it. I've used Photoshop since version
| 1 and owned a personal copy since version 3 (mid 90s). When
| new features were added i'd evaluate if I wanted them. I
| generally upgrade every 2 versions for $199 or which is
| ~$50 a year.
|
| Subscriptions raised that to $240 a year, a 480% increase.
| Further, since subscriptions were added no features I want
| have been added. But, I can't just stop and use some
| version, stop paying and the software stops working.
|
| I see no evidence that Adobe's subscription model has let
| them invest more effort in making the product great. In
| fact it's the exact opposite. Before they had to add some
| features to entice you to pay for the upgrade. now they can
| just do nothing because you're "renting" the software.
| Closi wrote:
| > I see no evidence that Adobe's subscription model has
| let them invest more effort in making the product great.
| In fact it's the exact opposite.
|
| It's hard to define cause and effect, but Adobe's R&D
| spend is definitely increasing:
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/794840/research-
| developm...
| threeseed wrote:
| Adobe's products are not trivial.
|
| And yet they have ported them not only to iOS but also to
| M1.
|
| Just because you don't see changes in the UI doesn't mean
| there hasn't been significant engineering effort spent.
| dhimes wrote:
| _stop paying and the software stops working_
|
| This is the major problem. I do know indies who have used
| workarounds just so they aren't held hostage. I wouldn't
| use subscriptions for my own personal creative work. So,
| yes, the customer base is indeed changing- to those who
| mainly work for others.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > People who would happily spend $20/month for a good code
| editor will love the change to a subscription model in the
| long run, because it lets you invest more effort in making
| the product great.
|
| That's almost double what I pay for Jetbrains' stuff and I
| figured the forced subscription from Jetbrains was 3x what
| I had been paying by skipping 1-2 versions between updates.
|
| You're right about changing the customer base though. All
| the suckers that can't figure out prices just when up 3-4x
| seem to love subscriptions and financially flippant people
| like that are probably the best customers to have.
|
| And Jetbrains is the only subscription software I've used
| that doesn't keep adding bloated trash features to justify
| their subscription.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| > Adobe had an intense outcry when they moved to a
| subscription model, and it worked out great for them
|
| That remains to be seen, actually. There used to be an
| "Adobe pipeline" where kids in high school and college
| would pirate Photoshop, become familiar with it, then be
| ready to use it when they got a real job. That pipeline
| shut down when Adobe moved to a subscription model: now all
| the kids use Figma instead. It'll take a little while to
| bubble up, but eventually all these design shops are going
| to find that their new hires know how to use Figma and not
| Photoshop, and start wondering whether Adobe software is
| worth the cost on top of retraining.
|
| None of this shows up in quarterly reports but it's a real
| phenomenon and it will catch up to Adobe sooner or later.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| nothing is stopping any of these kids from pirating
| photoshop in 2021
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _now all the kids use Figma instead._
|
| This is only true if in your entire world bubble
| Photoshop only exists to design mobile UIs. Figma, like
| Sketch before it, is a simply a part of Photoshop's total
| market. There's no replacement for Photoshop yet for
| creative agencies, photographers, and content studios.
| fullwaza wrote:
| Give Affinity Photo / Designer a try. It's a fantastic
| photoshop replacement, many of the keyboard shortcuts are
| even the same.
| dhimes wrote:
| Yeah I've seen designers switching to the whole suite.
| ben174 wrote:
| For some crazy reason Photoshop users are so crazy loyal to
| that product they're willing to pay for it. I'm totally
| guilty of this, just yesterday I needed to scale and crop
| an image and I had to download the whole Creative Cloud
| installer to my new laptop and install Photoshop. I'm
| positive I could have done this in a number of different
| tools even built into the OS, but for whatever reason I'm
| just hooked on Photoshop.
| granshaw wrote:
| FYI If you're on a Mac you can do that right in Preview
| agogdog wrote:
| Some people have been working with Photoshop for decades,
| it's integrated into industry wide workflows. For me some
| complex 4-key shortcuts (the legacy save for web claw)
| are second nature. It's the devil we know very very well.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Jetbrains default way is a subscription model that leaves you
| with a one year old "perpetual fallback".
| joshstrange wrote:
| > A paid upgrade every few years? Sure, take my money (see
| also: Jetbrains)
|
| JetBrains has all but deprecated this AFAIK. I pay for my
| JetBrains tools annually and I'm perfectly ok with that. If I
| ever want to stop paying then I just fall back to the version
| of software at time of renewal [0]. I'm more than happy with
| this situation as it lets me get the newest features ASAP
| while giving JetBrains the "guaranteed" income stream. Major
| versions every year or so lead to a feast/famine situation
| for the developer and I'd rather get a feature right away
| instead of having to wait till they have enough features to
| justify a paid release.
|
| Can subscriptions allow bad actors to act poorly? Yes, but
| then I can just cancel my subscription and find someone
| better. Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't mind
| subscription-based things if I feel like I'm actually getting
| value out of them. It lowers the barrier of entry,
| encourages/incentives continuous improvement, helps
| developers plan for the future better, and it lays stark the
| realities of development (if you want ongoing features/fixes
| you need to pay for them).
|
| [0] https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-
| gb/articles/207240845-What...
| macjohnmcc wrote:
| I pay for Jetbrains subscription as well. They offer a
| bargain compared to many others. There are products I pay
| 66% of the amount I pay to JB for far less overall
| functionality. I don't mind subscriptions but I am weary of
| some of the higher prices. I also don't want to subscribe
| to everything some things one and done is what I want. No
| updates just buy it and move on and it continues to work.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Yes. Though I recommended subscriptions, I do have a
| price limit. I really like the interface of Cinema4D but
| it's over $100 a month! No thank you.
|
| I also think there just are hard limits in what's a
| sustainable business. E.g. Small, indie, bespoke notes
| apps probably can't support even one person long term
| regardless if it's a one time purchase, subscription,
| paid upgrades, or any other pricing model.
| dhimes wrote:
| I'm ok with subscriptions as long as I get to keep the
| latest version forever. I'm not ok with being locked out of
| my work when I can no longer pay for the subscription.
|
| Now if I'm working for someone else, then sure! But, say,
| an author, who can no longer edit their old works for a
| republication? Not a chance.
| macjohnmcc wrote:
| There is an amazing plugin for Visual Studio that makes
| searching blindingly fast almost instantaneous and the price
| was $10 for the longest time (now $20) and trying to get
| developers to buy that thing was a chore. They didn't want to
| pay for any software tools. This is in the US not somewhere
| that $10 is a huge price and yet they balked. I have to ask
| why anybody who makes a living writing software is so
| repulsed by the idea of paying someone else for software
| especially something cheap and time saving.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Cause that's free in Linux and you kinda resent paying
| extra for something that should be built into something
| like visual studio. And now even vscode does it out of the
| box.
| efdee wrote:
| What does "that's free in Linux" even mean in this
| context? You're talking about an IDE plugin that's "free"
| in an operating system?
| hparadiz wrote:
| In Linux updatedb and locate are built in so you can do
| the search on terminal and it's instant so putting a gui
| over something like that should really be part of visual
| studio imo to begin with.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > [...] but even I'd balk at paying a subscription for a code
| editor. A paid upgrade every few years? Sure, take my money
| (see also: Jetbrains).
|
| Funny you bring that up - Jetbrains only switched to its
| current model after a _massive_ outcry. Their original plan
| was to completely brick your IDE when your subscription
| lapsed. That did not go down well[1]. Fortunately, they
| abandoned the plan within a day
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10170089
| creinhardt wrote:
| I think Nova is already on a somewhat similar model. You can
| buy it and use it forever, but you only get support/updates
| for a year. A subsequent year is (I think) $49.
|
| If iOS supported this model I think most devs would be ok
| with it, pay upfront X amount, and then a slightly smaller
| amount yearly for continued support/updates/development. I
| wonder if we'd have more 'pro/dev' iOS apps if the App Store
| supported models like this?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-11 23:00 UTC)