These guys have ties to the same group trying to uncap .org and push VeriSign's agenda maintaining a monopoly.
They don't have regular users' best interest at heart. They represent the big companies.
Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
161–170 of 208 posts
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you were replying to wasn't talking about free as in speech. They were talking about free as in beer. And the whole thread talks about money and cost . Not their source code availability.
> They were talking about free as in beer. Right, and my point is that it's not free as in beer.
> Right, and my point is that it's not free as in beer.
But it is. Being free as in "free beer" has nothing to do with being or not being public domain or copyleft.
Public domain or copyleft refer to free as in "free speech".
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were talking about free as in beer. Right, and my point is that it's not free as in beer.
> Right, and my point is that it's not free as in beer. But it is. Being free as in "free beer" has nothing to do with being or not being public domain or copyleft. Public domain or copyleft refer to free as in "free speech".
> But it is.
Tell that to Epic Games' department of license revenue.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#164> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…
The platform fee for the IBM PC is zero. The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. That is the standard to which all other platforms should be held.
There is talk about the cost of designing and manufacturing the phone, which is irrelevant, especially in a world where users frequently buy new phones every two years. That cost should be borne by the purchaser of the phone.
Now, the ongoing costs of running payment systems and app stores are more significant, and I think it's reasonable to argue that they cannot be zero, but we should have a go at determining them in the market.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real "practical" changes are thereby going to have to come from proactive regulation that prohibits certain forms of protection or corporate behavior Indeed. Of course, trying to regulate crypto will bring everyone against (individual) privacy and freedom out in opposition, and forcing companies to not tie functionality to their private keys / force them to make public those keys would also make you an enemy of t…
> Of course, trying to regulate crypto will bring everyone against (individual) privacy and freedom out in opposition, and forcing companies to not tie functionality to their private keys / force them to make public those keys would also make you an enemy of the "security" industry. This seems easy to solve. Just mandate that the end-user/purchaser of the hardware should have the same level of control over the code e…
>Just mandate that the end-user/purchaser of the hardware should have the same level of control over the code execution as the manufacturer does after the sale. Whatever the manufacturer can do to your own unit after it's in your posession, you should be able to do as well.
I don't see how this changes much except to mandate Apple or any other hardware manufacturer to leave privilege escalation bugs in their software for the lifetime of the device.
Also, updates are generally user-initiated. If the unadvertised "functionality" of unauthorized code execution is patched, the user has only himself to blame, not the manufacturer.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that’s the charitable interpretation, with the uncharitable interpretation being that he needed an excuse because the App Store wasn’t done in time for the iPhone’s release.
It is well-documented that the original intention of Apple was to not have a 3rd party SDK aside from a browser on the iPhone, but they changed their minds.
Yes, that was Apple's stated intention, but we don't know whether that was sincere or just a bluff to buy time.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right, and my point is that it's not free as in beer. But it is. Being free as in "free beer" has nothing to do with being or not being public domain or copyleft. Public domain or copyleft refer to free as in "free speech".
> But it is. Tell that to Epic Games' department of license revenue.
"Free as in beer" only concerns itself with the price of the distributed software.
Edit:
In Epic's case the tools remain free as in beer. There's no additional cost to using them.
Epic applies a fee to what you produce with them, and even then:
> A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that product exceeds $1 million USD; in this case, the first $1 million remains royalty-exempt.
If you were to distribute your product for free (as you want), you wouldn't pay Epic a single cent.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not. Before the app stores selling software was much easier. I’ve been doing it and I miss the old times.
"Before the app stores" covers a long time. Were you selling in retail stores? Collecting checks in the mail from shareware on floppies? Selling online with other third party managed stuff? Selling online with your own credit card processing? Other?
Nope, just plain old share ware. From 2001 to 2012 or so. I used payment processors like eSellerate or later fast spring. Receiving money for your software and sending out an email with a license key wasn't black magic.
The App Store (Mac App Store for me) achieved only one thing for me: Make it more complicated (review process, sandbox) and less profitable (30% vs ~8% cut).
I still sell a good share of my software directly without having Apple's horrible review process in between. It's still easier (upload binary, update sparkle RSS feed, done) than the whole App Store review process.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon threw billions at creating an alternate storefront for Android devices. If they cannot achieve it, then who could? Maybe Samsung, and then it's a triopoly where which store still depends on who sells your phone.
Samsung actually used to bundle their own app store with their phones, but gave up eventually since it wasn't getting much traction
What do you mean by "gave up"? I have a <1 year old Samsung model and it still has the Galaxy Store.
Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers
#170> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…
The platform fee for the IBM PC is zero. The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. That is the standard to which all other platforms should be held. There is talk about the cost of designing and manufacturing the phone, which is irrelevant, especially in a world where users frequently buy new phones every two years. That cost should be borne by the purchaser of the phone. Now, t…
> The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero.
While true, paid-for apps from the MS store - the option that should be recommended to laypeople, instead of the dodgy websites that have download button styled ads - charge a registration fee [0] and Microsoft takes a cut of 5 - 30% [1]
[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/publish/accoun... [1] "Microsoft takes 5–15% of the sale price for apps and 30% on Xbox games"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Store