[PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

Josh Moore kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com
Sat Sep 19 13:10:01 CEST 2020

Then like I said, you want to play with Apple you must play with their
rules. Pay the hundred bucks and you can go past all those extra steps,
don't and you're stuck doing the work around which will eventually be
blocked regardless. They aren't budging on it. You get to submit apps to
get signed by Apple as such, which is required to get on the app store.
There's just no other way around it.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 3:37 AM João Pais <jmmmpais at gmail.com> wrote:

> that's unfortunately not a practical solution either, to buy more
> hardware. the software already ran on laptops, and several people preferred
> an app (which is an even worse minefield for a developer).
> I think no one should buy apple anyway, but many people do, and my problem
> is how to get to them.
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 11:12, Josh Moore <kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well what I'm saying is the musicians who don't even know what pd, unix,
>> or a terminal is might be more warm to just buying an instrument that has
>> pd inside of it especially in this era of "anti-DAW" electronic music
>> trends, and music in general where almost any new gear that's had software
>> out in the sort of depths of experimental hell have had gear issues of the
>> same thing and get immediately picked up by big magazines.  You can buy an
>> organelle with pd inside of it today.
>> https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-08-critter-and-guitari-organelle-music-computer-review-jack-of-all-trades.html
>> Nothing really stops you from doing the same thing. It's not my decision
>> to do what Apple has done, That is all on them. I i just don't  believe you
>> should be practically forced to pay a company to distribute a free project
>> on their platform.
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 2:04 AM João Pais <jmmmpais at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "my thing" is to make my program available to people who don't know what
>>> pd, unix, or a terminal is and just want to play their instrument. these
>>> people have chosen and paid for their hardware to work with, and all those
>>> arguments are moot for them. I guess I can tell them "more than half of the
>>> world is wrong and I am right, you all should correct yourself and do as I
>>> say", but I think it won't take me far.
>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 10:47, Josh Moore <kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Then pay Apple for the privilege of catering to musicians if that's
>>>> your thing more than ethics of a company acting worse than Bill Gates and
>>>> Ballmer era Microsoft combined when it comes to being tone deaf towards the
>>>> developer community and anti-competitive business practices.  There's
>>>> really not much way around this problem, and they aren't going to change
>>>> their mind without a court injunction over their antitrust behavior which
>>>> might be coming sooner rather than later. Even so, you could also build
>>>> upon Raspberry Pis, Belas, and other types of that kind of platform and
>>>> sell pre-configured instruments for musicians as well and target modular,
>>>> and you would make some money from it as well. That ecosystem right now is
>>>> very healthy.
>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:34 AM João Pais <jmmmpais at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately that's not applicable in my case.  Most musicians use
>>>>> apple,  and telling them all that will be met with a shrug and a "so what"?
>>>>> Josh Moore <kh405.7h30ry at gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 19. Sep. 2020,
>>>>> 07:57:
>>>>>> Not sure it's even really worth it. Apple is hostile to open source
>>>>>> and multi-platform stuff these days and everyone else who isn't them to be
>>>>>> quite honest.
>>>>>> They want to control graphics (deprecate opengl, don't support
>>>>>> vulkan, force everyone to use their special API completely incompatible
>>>>>> with everything else, boot Epic's engine cuz it doesn't want to pay a
>>>>>> premium conveniently during their push for Arcade and all of this)
>>>>>> They want to control their processors, lock them down, force you to
>>>>>> pay a hundred bucks a year to access the latest development tools or
>>>>>> distribute applications, and reject anything they don't like or competes
>>>>>> with anything they have unless they make more money from you than they make
>>>>>> from their own software.
>>>>>> All anyone needs to do is fork some RTOS *nix microkernel with decent
>>>>>> support for graphics hardware and nobody has a reason to use that stuff
>>>>>> anymore unless they want to use Logic. This is basically what Blackmagic
>>>>>> did for their new hardware, it's all RTLinux as is a lot of the new digital
>>>>>> consoles. But regardless of my gripes with Apple's crappy antics lately
>>>>>> these things are really something Miller himself needs to take up with
>>>>>> Apple as they do offer free app store access to universities and they might
>>>>>> be interested in embedding Pdlib in logic environment to compete with
>>>>>> Ableton. We'd have to get externals merged by Miller for this to work out
>>>>>> though as since the whole Unreal Engine debacle caused Apple to change
>>>>>> their ToS requiring each piece of code/app has to be ran through
>>>>>> their approval process or they'll cut you off of xcode/app store/apple id
>>>>>> with no recourse. But beyond that it's so much cheaper especially for the
>>>>>> students this software is aimed at primarily to just stick pd on a RT
>>>>>> patched linux kernel on a 50 dollar ARM SBC and call it good.
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:53 AM João Pais <jmmmpais at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>>> I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying
>>>>>>> problems with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things
>>>>>>> seem to work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols,
>>>>>>> but for people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this.
>>>>>>> Therefore I wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have
>>>>>>> experience in distributing pd-based patches.
>>>>>>> For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and
>>>>>>> standalone versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting
>>>>>>> folder - running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user
>>>>>>> won't even be aware that pd itself is running.
>>>>>>> - how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and
>>>>>>> its externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well?
>>>>>>> - I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get
>>>>>>> the standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer.
>>>>>>> Which system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13,
>>>>>>> from 10.15 seems to be problematic.
>>>>>>> - I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's
>>>>>>> necessary to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm
>>>>>>> not willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just
>>>>>>> to distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> jmmmp
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>>>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200919/873c92d9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list