This is true. I have dozens of side loaded apps on my iPhone.
Another misconception is that the App Store fee is 30%. It’s actually 15% for all but the top 1% revenue generating apps, at which point the fee becomes negotiable in reality.
I have a developper account and I can't load a Kindle app that lets me buy the books.
I'd draw the parallel to root access on android: it gives a lot of freedom but is not a replacement for a blessed way for normal users to loads apps from third party stores and no business will bet on users rooting their phones to use their apps.
Suppose you want to make an app for you and your friends to use. You have 200 friends. Is $20,000 too much? What if you have 1000 friends?
What if you just want to post some code on github and let anyone use it who wants to with or without their own modifications, but you don't want them to each have to pay $100?
One developer account can distribute to 100 iPhones without the App Store. You can distribute to an unlimited number of devices if you leave the app in a permanent beta test without full App Store approval. You simply distribute via Test Flight.
> One developer account can distribute to 100 iPhones without the App Store.
But I had 200 friends.
> You can distribute to an unlimited number of devices if you leave the app in a permanent beta test without full App Store approval. You simply distribute via Test Flight.
How does each user modify the code you've given them without them each needing their own developer account? The goal here is low-friction bazaar-style development of open source applications, where new users who may not know how to develop an app and have never done it before now can figure out how two change two lines of code in an existing app, and will if it means they can fix a problem they themselves have and then run it on their own device.
"You have to pay $100 to attempt that" creates friction and inhibits opportunistic improvements, which is the evil to be prevented.
That's the issue, really. If you're paying for the developer program but you aren't uploading apps to the App Store, then you aren't using the program for its intended purpose.
I honestly don't think Apple even wants to collect your $100/yr, which is a pretty insignificant sum from their perspective. It's probably just used as a basic anti-spam measure allowing their reviewers to keep up with the pace of App Store submissions and to do their job properly.
They certainly would be entirely unaffected if they stopped collecting developer fees from the people who only use their membership for sideloading, since that number is most likely low enough to be completely insignificant.
Anyway, I specify this under the "What would it mean for iOS to have sideloading?" section:
> For the purposes of this website, an operating system supports sideloading if it provides some means for technically-inclined end users to permanently install native apps without prior approval from any company or organization, either free of charge, or for a reasonable one-time fee. [...]
> Apple would not have to make sweeping changes to iOS in order to qualify; in fact, a minor policy change would be more than sufficient. For example, all it would take to qualify is for Apple to remove the unnecessary expiry dates from development certificates (which can only be used on the creator's own devices, and cannot be used for distribution). They currently expire after 7 days for free accounts, or 1 year for paid accounts.
---
> but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years...
I think this is unfair. iOS devices receive updates for at least 5 years, and they don't suddenly become useless after that point either. I for one don't upgrade my mobile devices until they stop getting updates, and I don't find myself yearning for the minor yearly upgrades we've been seeing lately (across the industry, not just Apple).
Yes $100/year is too much, but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years…