There is something to the saying that FOSS advocates are never satisfied. The alternative here isn’t a FOSS-distributed iOS app, it’s no iOS app at all.
You should put the blame on Apple for this, not on FOSS advocates.
>> You should put the blame on Apple for this, not on FOSS advocates.
It seems like an odd interjection to make at this point if Apple is the target. It’s well known that Apple’s store is proprietary and closed source, adding this comment to one of Proton’s news releases can’t help but come across as an implied criticism of Proton.
Or install onto a jailbroken device.
[1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blink-shell-mosh-ssh-client/id...
[2]: https://github.com/blinksh/blink/blob/raw/COPYING#L702
Edit: formatting, more context, and sources
Analogy: Movie studio publishes a movie under Creative Commons. They can still use it however they want.
People love to hate on Apple for "not allowing them to install apps on their devices freely, therefore they don't own the device" but in reality what Apple is doing is controlling the mass distribution channel and you can actually distribute your apps without Apple's approval with some inconveniences to the users.
More importantly, you can run your own code however you want so you don't have to trust 3.rd party apps.
I wish they had developer edition iPhones(I think they have but not easy to get one) where you can experiment more freely. This would win back quite a lot of goodwill since nerds don't care about licenses and such but want to tinker with things freely.
No, in the reality I know, Apple doesn't allow you to install apps on your device freely.
Or what did I miss?
So while it’s definitely not as “open” as, say, a PC or Android, it’s not as simple as, “no they don’t.”
Not sure what “does someone use that approach” mean. I can just say Apple for sure does not do any sort of banning of any kind if you use a handful of accounts with one device.
There’s probably people in the sideloading and jailbreak community who have a dozen accounts linked to one device. I’ve never thought of it as anything more than just doing some simple relatively innocent thing to get around the 3 limit. No problems to the at this point probably dozen accounts I have.
The binary needs to be signed off but Apple does not require a review to sign your binary, only to distribute it through App Store.
So to run your code you create an account, the free version has a shorter validity time frame I believe which means you will have to re-install the app once it ends, set up your signing profile on your developer tools and you are good to install and run any code you want.
You can have a torrent client or app that messes around with private API or whatever. Your code is signed locally, Apple wouldn't know what you are up to.
Apple needs to pay off the influencers to spread the word I guess :) At least, I think they need to take some effort to break the "greedy Apple corporation vs the generaous Google charity" narrative.
- The signing expires every 7 days, meaning re-install once a week. The app just crashes on launch when it expires.
- There's a (low) limit on the total number of apps you can have installed at one time via this method. I believe it's 5.
- The Apple ID you're using to codesign the app has to be signed in on the device to which you're installing. (I may misunderstand this one -- been a while since I've done it and it may have changed somehow -- but I'm pretty sure about it.) The implication here is that to share the app to anyone else, you also have to share your Apple ID.
- You're still beholden to Apple. They can revoke your Apple ID and thus your signing privilege pretty much any time for any reason.
They've restricted this avenue enough that I think it's fair to say it's not functional as more than a teaser, for people just checking out iOS development.
I would guess that what Apple wants to prevent is being undercut by another app distribution platform by making unauthorized app installation a pain. It is a choice that brings some advantages and disadvantages.
It is true that Apple might cancel the access to your device but I am find with that as long as Apple is not in a monopoly position. If A day comes and for some reason(like an US embargo?) Apple no longer can serve me, I would just move to the platform that serves me.
There's really nor reason to be paranoid over Apple's grip on the system. I am much more worried about Google cancelling my Gmail account and cutting me off from my digital presence.
Sure, it’s not a ‘native binary’, but for all kinds of utilities, both offline and online, that’s not really a problem.
Some big companies even use a web technology approach on purpose for a variety of reasons despite distributing through the app store. Slightly less ‘buttery’ feeling but generally not terrible.
false.
Well, obviously the more politically involved nerds would care and take fights about licenses on the internet but when was the last time a nerd check the license before satisfying his/her curiosity?
They say on their Github page that their app is licensed under GPLv3. Yet they can't publish it under GPLv3 license to the apple store. This means that if you contribute to the project under the GPLv3 license, they can't redistribute your through the apple store. So if you contribute your code it will always have to be licensed under a permissive license.
Still can't wait for the F-Droid release though.