Xcode Cloud Now Available to All Apple Developers

As a dev for quite some time I can tell you that I don't want my source code dependent or located on some 3rd party computer that I have no control over.

All of Apple's cloud services to date consider the cloud version as the definitive master. This is bad for pictures, but devastating bad for source code because of the work effort put into creating source code.

What happens if Apple decides that my code is somehow not up to their approval, will my code just get binned, or will I get banned like other Silicon Valley firms do? What if I post something that is not to Apple's liking, will I get banned for that? What if I like music that is not carried on Apple Music? Will I get banned for that?

My homes have had Insteon Smart devices since they started in 2005. The company filed for bankruptcy recently, and immediately shut down their cloud services. No warning, nothing. Fortunately, I did not use their cloud services, but many did and their smart home stopped working with no way to retrieve their smart settings.

We have no SLA for Apple's cloud services and that means they are dangerous and unpredictable until Apple commits to some acceptable behavior in an SLA (Service Level Agreement).

I don't want to give Apple the indication that cloud development is a workable solution, because if we do then eventually that is all that will be available. It is the same reason that I will never use Adobe products again. We have the opportunity to shape the future and just climbing aboard the next new thing because it is shinny and new without thinking about how it will play out in the future is just not wise.

As a dev (not iOS) I can’t tell you how great a tool like this is. I’m tired of having to download desktop apps to build/compile/deploy code. Web based solutions make it a lot easier to get up and running and require a way less capable workstation.

You still need to download and run XCode on your local machine. You still need to compile, build and test on your local machine, otherwise you'd be eating through 'cloud' time that costs $$$ fixing silly mistakes.

It's a cloud based CI/CD service that integrates with your local XCode.

It's a similar service to what Gitlab, GitHub offers ( which you as a non iOS developer can use today, for free ( with conditions ) ).

Not sure about the others - but with GitHub actions for Monterey is still in beta a year after Monterey was released to developers.

Which means it's pretty much useless for anyone who needs to work with current APIs. Ventura was released to developers today on Xcode Cloud - when will it be available on GitHub? And available for proper use not as a beta? In two years maybe?

GitHub's pricing is also ridiculously high for MacOS actions - 8 cents per minute which could easily be $5 per day. Apple charges $15/month for the same amount of time on the server.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if it's aorse than that because GitHub only gives you 3 CPU cores. And they are probably Intel cores not Apple Silicon ones. I've never used it - but that sounds really slow to me and I'd rather run tests on my laptop. It would be faster. But more to the point a test suite that runs in seconds on Xcode Cloud likely takes minutes on GitHub - and they bill by the minute.

Finally it might get the job done but nowhere near as well - for example when a test fails in Xcode Cloud it will tell you right there in the IDE with an error message in the actual source code for your test. With GitHub you have to view the failure in your web browser. That's just one example - there are others.

I pointed out that it was a choice, not necessarily the best choice, for those who think Apple's out to get their source code or whatever. (It's my view that the ones who incorrectly think Xcode Cloud is meant to, in any way, replace Xcode itself for development work aren't going to be convinced because they either fundamentally misunderstand what Xcode Cloud is or are otherwise completely detached from reality.)

As for GitHub Actions not having macOS Monterey runners out of beta yet, that's not a big deal because the Big Sur runners include Xcode 13, so you can build with the current SDKs.

As a dev for quite some time I can tell you that I don't want my source code dependent or located on some 3rd party computer that I have no control over.

All of Apple's cloud services to date consider the cloud version as the definitive master. This is bad for pictures, but devastating bad for source code because of the work effort put into creating source code.

That is not how XCode Cloud works. It is a cloud continuous integration / continuous build/deploy (CI/CD) service. It is not a source code management (SCM) service. If actually had followed and read the the XCode clould links at the beginning of the article.

"
[HEADING=1]Secured and private[/HEADING]

Xcode Cloud is designed to protect your projects and privacy, with all data encrypted at rest and access protected by two-factor authentication. Source code is only accessed for builds and the ephemeral build environments are destroyed when your build completes. ... "
https://developer.apple.com/xcode-cloud/



"...
With Xcode Cloud, you can adopt a CI/CD practice that helps you develop and maintain your apps and frameworks. To automatically build and test your code when you make changes, Xcode Cloud needs access to the Git repository that contains your code.

When you configure your workspace or project to use Xcode Cloud, Xcode analyzes it to detect the Source Code Management (SCM) provider you use. On the “Grant Access to Your Source Code” sheet, click Grant Access and let Xcode guide you through your SCM provider’s native authorization flow.
...
.... required permission or role to grant Xcode Cloud access to your Git repository. Additionally, if you use a self-hosted SCM provider — for example, Bitbucket Server — make sure Xcode Cloud can access your Git repository. ...
.."
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/source-code-management-setup

Requirements for using XCode Cloud. ( an excerpt . there are more )

" ...
Have an app record for your app in App Store Connect ('https://appstoreconnect.apple.com') or have the required role or permission to create one.
...
Your dependencies and additional third-party tools are available to Xcode Cloud
....
You use automatic code signing
.,...
Using Git for source control is a requirement to use Xcode Cloud.
.... "

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/requirements-for-using-xcode-cloud


Apple isn't keeping the master copy of anything except perhaps binaries and product submitted to the Apple App Store version the workflow if that is included. They are not offering SCM master repository storage at all.
That is part of why it has been in beta for about a year because their service has to integrate with several other cloud services (including source control cloud service) in order to function correct. It is not a singular 100% Apple 'silo' from top to bottom.

What happens if Apple decides that my code is somehow not up to their approval, will my code just get binned, or will I get banned like other Silicon Valley firms do?

It was never permanently stored there so what are you talking about ?

We have no SLA for Apple's cloud services and that means they are dangerous and unpredictable until Apple commits to some acceptable behavior in an SLA (Service Level Agreement).

having not read the manual , probably haven't read the contract language either.

There is some overlap, but also definitely some large non-intersections in the services provide. It is more of a general class they share than a very high degree of overlap. Generally, you need a Gitlab , GitHub repository to make XCode Cloud work. They are coupled at least as much as they are similar.

You can do most things that Xcode Cloud does using GitHub Actions or GitLab CI if you prefer, or with a number of third-party CI/CD services that offer Mac runners. That’s what the person is presumably getting at — not source code repositories.

You can do most things that Xcode Cloud does using GitHub Actions or GitLab CI if you prefer, or with a number of third-party CI/CD services that offer Mac runners. That’s what the person is presumably getting at — not source code repositories.

And yet 'Git' is a principle element of each of those companies names. It said there was overlap. But there are also numerous responses in this thread of folks claiming that apple is out to steal their source code and it is a plot to capture the whole development process onto Apple servers. Saying "Git-foo" "Git-bar" "Git-baz" isn't going to lower that much going forward.

Those services both have Git at their core, that is why it is in the company name. Apple is not touching that all. That is a substantial difference. And the free (beer) parts of GitHub there is even less overlap.