| |
| ▲ | pcwalton 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can run arbitrary computations on iOS devices if they're written in JavaScript, WebAssembly, or Swift (via Playgrounds). All of these are Turing complete, and all three compile into machine code. What you don't have without an Apple developer account is direct machine code access. Also note that apps like Pythonista allow you to write programs that call arbitrary Objective-C APIs without permission from Apple. This means that you have a Turing-complete language running unsigned code that can do anything a signed app can do. Your programs do, however, execute slowly. | |
| ▲ | milkshakes a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | unless you're using an API that requires an entitlement, you can still get an apple developer account and sign whatever code you want and run it on your devices. | | |
| ▲ | janalsncm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Technically you don’t even need a dev account to run your own app. You need a dev account to distribute it in TestFlight and on the App Store. You can install your own “Flip Off Steve Jobs” app directly from Xcode if you so desire. | |
| ▲ | BiteCode_dev a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So if they don't give you an apple dev account, or close yours, you can't. Case in point. | | |
| ▲ | brookst a day ago | parent [-] | | Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”? | | |
| ▲ | jlokier a day ago | parent | next [-] | | As with Google accounts, it's not hypothetical, it's a risk. People do occasionally get locked out of being an Apple developer for reasons they cannot foresee. > Apple has locked my Apple ID, and I have no recourse. A plea for help* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 > Apple bans entire dev account, no reason given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548 | | |
| ▲ | brookst a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s still rhetorical sleight of hand. I could have a stroke that leaves me unable to program. Does that mean I am not truly free to program today? Those are risks, but they do not change the on-the-ground reality today, and the claim was that users, today, cannot use these device as general purpose computers. | | |
| ▲ | ivell a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We can use them today as general purpose computers, if we make a large effort to do so. In my Linux and Mac, I dont think twice to quickly write a script to automate some pain-in-the-butt issues. But with my phone, it is pain-in-the-butt to write anything. It becomes not worth the effort. Moreover, we can argue if technically it is a general purpose computer for whole day long. But that's not the point. The point is that we are allowing gradually the big organizations to restrict general purpose computing, the internet and other previously free systems. It is happening slowly, where we can still give them the benefit of doubt. We are the frogs in the kettle where we are arguing that the temperature is just one degree more than earlier, so it is not actually boiling. We can keep on arguing about the temperature or step back and see the big picture where it is going. | |
| ▲ | ulrikrasmussen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No it's not. I need permission by a third-party to be able to program a device I supposedly own. I need to give them money, I need to give them my identity, and I need to tie my identity to any distribution of the software I make if other people are to be able to install it. This is not a rhetorical sleight of hand, this is just saying that I am not truly in control of the device that I have bought. | |
| ▲ | tremon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The rhetorical sleight of hand is yours, by claiming that a device requiring pre-authorization (by virtue of needing a developer account) is an open computing platform. |
|
| |
| ▲ | engeljohnb a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anything that needs Apple to say "yes" before it runs is not "arbitrary." |
|
|
|
|
