Heh. I'm happy to let other people try this out - iCloud hasn't exactly had the best record for uptime and little things like this reinforce my worry that Apple doesn't do backend services well.
If I'm reading correctly, that means I can build an app without any explicit auth on OS X/iOS with backend which allows access to personal data via AppleID username/password.
This is great for some people, certainly. I won't knock it for people who's lives are better with this.
But let's not kid ourselves. It's still their system; you're still playing by their rules and doing things their way. Their history in this space is not good at all. Maybe things have changed for the better; but it doesn't change the fact that this only brings you deeper into their walled garden.
One of the reasons apple doesn't like the web is they can't make money from them like they can from apps. Now, they have a way. They still have a bad track record with infrastructure; numerous instances of failures, but I imagine they're getting better.
I absolutely don't understand why you got downvoted because i absolutely feel the same. Apple has a proven record of not understanding anything related to the web, and having product and technology issues with anything related to it.
Just yesterday evening, you couldn't add an app on itunesconnect because of some angularjs error ( which they apparently used to refactor their site), and you could trace the debug log on the console, and follow the link on angularjs documentation ( a "bindonce" directive not included error).
They have been providing rock solid internet infrastructure, and the tools for it, going back to the acquisition of NeXT. WebOBjects, for instance, powered Dell's online store, and selling direct was Dell's entire purpose of being in business in the 1990s. It's been powering iTunes since 2003 or so with less than a tenth as much downtime as Amazon Web Services... yet lots of people use AWS.
Yeah I heard that Apple considered buying Parse before deciding to build CloudKit instead. It's a direct competitor, although Parse is still much further ahead. CloudKit is a lot cheaper though.
Yesterday I'd have said 110%, but I dunno... I'm getting this dreamy feeling that something wonderfully developer-friendly might be going on here. Not to mention owning that infrastructure that let folks also -run- back Android apps seems like it'd have value in itself, beyond just the dev PR.
"Apple is supplying this information to help you plan for the adoption of the technologies and programming interfaces described herein for use on Apple-branded products. "
It doesn't, apparently. The cost seems to be per-user, so
250MB asset storage / user
3MB database storage / user
50MB transfer / user
10 req/s per 100k users
is all free. I don't know how the requests part scales though, 10/s for 100k users is each user hitting it once per 3 hours. I can't complain about the amount given away for free, but I don't know quite how this would scale with costs for different types of apps/loads.
[+] [-] sirn|10 years ago|reply
CloudKit JS: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...
CloudKit Web Services: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...
Edit: They've fixed the links.
[+] [-] untog|10 years ago|reply
That said, I look forward to being proven wrong.
[+] [-] mindrun|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kojoru|10 years ago|reply
That's neat.
[+] [-] meesterdude|10 years ago|reply
But let's not kid ourselves. It's still their system; you're still playing by their rules and doing things their way. Their history in this space is not good at all. Maybe things have changed for the better; but it doesn't change the fact that this only brings you deeper into their walled garden.
One of the reasons apple doesn't like the web is they can't make money from them like they can from apps. Now, they have a way. They still have a bad track record with infrastructure; numerous instances of failures, but I imagine they're getting better.
Thanks, but no thanks.
[+] [-] efsavage|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|10 years ago|reply
Just yesterday evening, you couldn't add an app on itunesconnect because of some angularjs error ( which they apparently used to refactor their site), and you could trace the debug log on the console, and follow the link on angularjs documentation ( a "bindonce" directive not included error).
[+] [-] yalogin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MCRed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamxiaoz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christiangenco|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathan_f77|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmytidey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindrun|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suninwinter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jgrubb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liberatus|10 years ago|reply
"Apple is supplying this information to help you plan for the adoption of the technologies and programming interfaces described herein for use on Apple-branded products. "
'for use on Apple-branded products.'
[+] [-] mindrun|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcz92|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsllc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LunaSea|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brentm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joesmo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanCal|10 years ago|reply
250MB asset storage / user
3MB database storage / user
50MB transfer / user
10 req/s per 100k users
is all free. I don't know how the requests part scales though, 10/s for 100k users is each user hitting it once per 3 hours. I can't complain about the amount given away for free, but I don't know quite how this would scale with costs for different types of apps/loads.