From what I understand about installing a purchased copy on a non apple computer, its probably not illegal in most countries. But I would not take a chance to submit an application to apple without building it on an official apple computer.
It is also not for the faint of heart, a friend of mine accidentally trashed his hard drive partition table while trying to getting an official update to work on his Hackintosh. But it is possible to get it to work if you have got the right hardware.
There are prebuild toolchains for windows which you can try during developement like:
http://code.google.com/p/winchain/
It is definitly possible to get it to work on jailbreaked iPhones for testing and developement without involving apple. This works fine for trying out your ideas, and you're not sure how dedicated you are. Jailbreaking your iPhone is also not risk free.
BUT:
If you are serious about distributing your app, and being able to sell it you should definitely get a real apple computer and pay the $99 developer fee.
Make iPhone Apps on a PC
Quote:Original post by mzeo77
There are prebuild toolchains for windows which you can try during developement like:
http://code.google.com/p/winchain/
It is definitly possible to get it to work on jailbreaked iPhones for testing and developement without involving apple. This works fine for trying out your ideas, and you're not sure how dedicated you are. Jailbreaking your iPhone is also not risk free.
BUT:
If you are serious about distributing your app, and being able to sell it you should definitely get a real apple computer and pay the $99 developer fee.
Firstly, that winchain thing is a toolchain for the previous version of the iPhone OS. It's no good for 2.0.
Secondly, sorry, but that's just ridulous paranoia. There is no way to tell if you built the app on hackintosh or a mac.
IMO, the cost of a mac mini is a no-brainer if you're planning to sell iPhone games. You can make that back pretty easily if you're serious about it.
Quote:Original post by eedok
wasn't the apple label thing thrown out in the psystar case?
To my knowledge, the case is still on-going.
Quote:Original post by eedok
wasn't the apple label thing thrown out in the psystar case?
No, Psystar's counter-suit of unfair trade/monopoly claims was thrown out.
Am I the only one that finds Apple's business tactics a bit unethical? I mean they have a nice Unix based OS. That's fine. What I don't like is how they go to such lengths to prevent people from installing it on anything but their hardware, and then sell their hardware for ungodly high prices(barring the fact you can get nice Unix based OS's for free). Then, as I have just found out in this thread, they make it so that you can only develop apps for their portable devices on their computers? That just seems, I don't know, manipulative. I mean they are basically using the success of their portable devices as a leverage to sell their computers. A lot of people like the idea and are pushing the idea of open source software, and it just seems like Apple is the polar opposite of that goal.
Sorry, I guess that was a bit off topic.
Sorry, I guess that was a bit off topic.
Quote:Original post by Chadwell
Am I the only one that finds Apple's business tactics a bit unethical? I mean they have a nice Unix based OS. That's fine. What I don't like is how they go to such lengths to prevent people from installing it on anything but their hardware, and then sell their hardware for ungodly high prices(barring the fact you can get nice Unix based OS's for free). Then, as I have just found out in this thread, they make it so that you can only develop apps for their portable devices on their computers? That just seems, I don't know, manipulative. I mean they are basically using the success of their portable devices as a leverage to sell their computers. A lot of people like the idea and are pushing the idea of open source software, and it just seems like Apple is the polar opposite of that goal.
Sorry, I guess that was a bit off topic.
Actually it makes a lot more sense then you might think. I believe it is not about forcing people to use your hardware, but limiting the possible variables for testing. If you think about anytime there is a release for the PC there is always a group of users that can't get the software to work because they have some strange set of hardware the software maker didn't test. You can't come close to testing all the combination there are out there for the PC.
Apple on the other hand have a pretty small set of combination that can be tested. This means that software is more likely to work when released. That is why they get to make fun of the PC all the time.
theTroll
Quote:Original post by TheTrollQuote:Original post by Chadwell
Am I the only one that finds Apple's business tactics a bit unethical? I mean they have a nice Unix based OS. That's fine. What I don't like is how they go to such lengths to prevent people from installing it on anything but their hardware, and then sell their hardware for ungodly high prices(barring the fact you can get nice Unix based OS's for free). Then, as I have just found out in this thread, they make it so that you can only develop apps for their portable devices on their computers? That just seems, I don't know, manipulative. I mean they are basically using the success of their portable devices as a leverage to sell their computers. A lot of people like the idea and are pushing the idea of open source software, and it just seems like Apple is the polar opposite of that goal.
Sorry, I guess that was a bit off topic.
Actually it makes a lot more sense then you might think. I believe it is not about forcing people to use your hardware, but limiting the possible variables for testing. If you think about anytime there is a release for the PC there is always a group of users that can't get the software to work because they have some strange set of hardware the software maker didn't test. You can't come close to testing all the combination there are out there for the PC.
Apple on the other hand have a pretty small set of combination that can be tested. This means that software is more likely to work when released. That is why they get to make fun of the PC all the time.
theTroll
This is a good point, and is definitely a justifiable reason for why they sell their own hardware, no doubt. With that in mind, I still don't see the justifications for the cost of their hardware when comparing it to similar, non apple computers. I also don't see a motivation to only releasing iphone/itouch sdk's for use on a Mac. They obviously know that their portables are far more popular than their computers, and I'm taking a wild guess that they profit off of all apps sold for their portables, so maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why they don't release SDK's for use on other operating systems passed them trying to push their computers more. I mean, they did release iTunes on Windows too, for that very reason.
I don't know, just some thing's I've observed that I haven't quite figured out yet.
They don't really have to justifiy the high prices for their hardware. The market takes care of that. People who think Apple hardware is too expensive buy something else.
As for making the iPhone SDK available on non-Macs, that's not a simple task. It's integrated into Xcode and is based around the core libraries. Getting those to run on a PC would be more work than it's worth for them. One billion downloads from the App Store in 9 months means they really don't need to add the PC developers to the mix. ;-)
Also, I don't see Microsoft releasing a version of XNA Game Studio for the Mac. Why aren't we complaining about that? Or Visual Studio and the Compact Framework SDK? Because it doesn't make sense. That's why.
As for making the iPhone SDK available on non-Macs, that's not a simple task. It's integrated into Xcode and is based around the core libraries. Getting those to run on a PC would be more work than it's worth for them. One billion downloads from the App Store in 9 months means they really don't need to add the PC developers to the mix. ;-)
Also, I don't see Microsoft releasing a version of XNA Game Studio for the Mac. Why aren't we complaining about that? Or Visual Studio and the Compact Framework SDK? Because it doesn't make sense. That's why.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
