Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomphoolery | Hacker News Reader

> If Apple ever decided to change mac os x to no longer allow external applications, I would switch to Linux right away.

Even if that did happen, which it wouldn't, what would stop you from compiling the application yourself, theoretically? If Apple computers allow for compilation of their own software, which they probably always will given that a Mac is the only way you can make OS X or iOS apps at this time, then OS X will never get to a point like the iPad wherein you are very limited in what you can do.

View on HN

Maybe you'll only be able to run your own software after getting an expensive code signing certificate and going through an identity verification process. Or it'll be like games consoles, with the "dev" versions being different from the retail ones.

They're actually moving in the opposite direction. With iOS 9, you no longer need an expensive code signing certificate to load your own software onto an iPhone.

You can compile software for iOS too. If you consider this to be an adequate escape hatch for the Mac, then it must also be one for iOS. If OS X "will never get to a point like the iPad" then the iPad can't get to that point either!

But you can't compile software for iOS on iOS, can you? You'd need an iPad + Mac to compile the software. You don't need {{external machine with different OS}} + Mac to compile OSX software.

That is true, so we could limit it to "if you own a Mac" then the iPad is not limited. But basically nobody actually bothers to work around the limitations in this way, aside from recent events surrounding f.lux.

What if they restrict running compilers?

Edit: I see from down votes that people disagree with this idea (no problem with that).

Still, why not?

You need a developer licence for iOS that effectively means that you are restricted to run compilers on iOS.

Why not extend it to OSX?

Because you would lose your customers. If my operating system limits me from doing things that I can do on other platforms and I want to do them, I will simply not use the system.

Are you realizing Mac is used also by creative people that use Adobe tools, tools for 3D and so on and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.

Apple's core customers are iPhone and iPad customers now. They realized that catering to consumer electronics customers is far more profitable than catering to pc power users, and adjusted everything to fit the profit model that makes them the most money. At times, I wish they had spun off Apple Computer as a separate entity with OS X so that the computer division wouldn't have to sit and play fourth seat to the rest of the business.

They sell a lot of Macs http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/27/apple-earnings-fy15-q3-2/ Killing that segment would be silly from them.

It is silly, yet Apple continues to do things that are hostile to power users.

To reply to sibling: Apple has never catered to PC power users, going back to Jobs arguing against slots in the Apple ][ and getting his way in the first Mac. That a Mac user at all is now considered a power user indicates which way the wind is blowing. Apple's pointed in the right direction.

Given that the PC is an increasingly obsolete platform for most people, I don't think Apple's going to expend a lot of energy changing the status quo one way or another. Its style is to start over from scratch.

Their ecosystem is powered by power users, who do you think is creating apps, games, design, books, videos and so on? If Apple forces to move these users out, they will probably focus on other platforms where they are not so restricted.

Are you realizing Mac is used also by creative people that use Adobe tools, tools for 3D and so on.

I.e. not programmers but users of software from big software companies.

and if everything was sandboxed you couldn't do it anymore.

Yes, you could not run arbitrary programs and Apple may see it as a feature.

You seem to be in big denial as it would be horrible thing to happen. I still see this as very likely possibility.

Of course, it is a horrible thing to happen. Just to give you some apps from my dock.

Chrome, Spotify, Outlook, HipChat, Viber, Skype, SourceTree, Atom, Sketch, Dropbox.

All these would be not be usable because they are not sandboxed. Basically I would have to install Windows on my Macbook and I would virtualize Mac OS X so I can use Xcode and I would use Windows for everything else.

It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...

SourceTree, Atom are not needed by an Apple usual user.

Others are Apple competitors.

It would be suicide for Mac OS X and if you think Apple is so stupid to do it, okay then...

They dried to get rid of Google Maps on iOS.

What would they gain at the end? I would leave their system and also many others. Thinking people would switch just to Apple products is naive.

What would they gain at the end?

Control and from there perhaps more money.

I would leave their system and also many others.

Yes, but what if there are only about 100k of such people?

There is too many ifs and perhaps... stop speculating. If it was really good choice, they would already do it.

Well, the original question was What if they restrict running compilers? and not What if they remove compilers?.

Restriction might be a requirement of special licence.

This would effectively remove ability to execute arbitrary code from most of the users.

The ones who want to run arbitrary code or develop software will have to pay. If someone complains about this, they would be told to shut up and would be explained how this is actually a benefit for majority of the users.

Anyway, I will stop here.

Edit: I think that Apple is not doing it only because it is not their focus at the moment.

Apple is going actually in opposite way and you can see it with recent changes on iOS. To run apps on iPhone, you don't need to buy a developer licence for 100$ anymore. They support more extensions for apps. On last Apple keynote Microsoft was presenting Microsoft Office running on iPad Pro.

The special licence you are talking about actually exists. You can sign your Mac apps with a certificate and it will not ask a user if you want to open it, but this is not restrictive at all. This is actually a benefit because nobody can modify your app so if they would force this, I wouldn't mind. Most of apps that I use are signed anyway.

I hope it goes better (the future of liberty in computing seems very dim), but I would be not surprised if it goes to the opposite direction accompanied by big ovations.

I don't think apple tried to get rid of maps.

Instead, they allowed their contract with google to end and built their own clone to prevent google from using it to blackmail apple.

I disagree that's anything like getting rid of google maps, particularly since my partner still uses it on her iphone all the time.

Well, I remember it differently. Here is one example: http://www.businessinsider.com/ios-6-removes-google-maps-201...

A: Business Insider is rarely a source of truth, at least when it comes to anything Apple. "Click bait" seems to be their sole goal in life.

B: Apple never precluded Google from putting their own Maps app into the store, they simply replaced the preinstalled version with their own when (if memory serves) Google both demanded too much user information and declined to offer vector-based maps

which google did by sometime in dec '12

> what would stop you from compiling the application yourself, theoretically?

What do you do about third party closed source Mac software?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com