Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe's 9% Flash tax

blog.alexmaccaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#51

Post by revscat »

pixelbath wrote: post #36
driverdan wrote: post #29

> this violates the fundmental openness of the SWF format Since when has the SWF format had "fundamental openness"? It's the exact opposite.

Considering the spec is open and anybody can make a SWF from any program, or use any program to parse and execute a SWF...isn't that the definition of "openness"? It's Adobe's tools that aren't free or open.

The spec itself, though, is wholly controlled by Adobe. If someone else wanted to go in and make changes to the spec they could not do so. Compare this with HTML, which is definitely an open spec, and you can see the difference. It's like saying .NET is open: it's not, even though Mono exists.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#52

Post by joeblau »

vinayan3 wrote: post #31
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

So a walled garden is good if its one company, and bad if its another? Be fair.

Exactly. Apple takes a 30% tax and one says anything?

I don't think it's about charging a percentage, I think it's about charging for something that was free.

When GOOG and AAPL first launched their stores, it they were clear in saying they were going to take 30% (hosting/banking/whatever they justified). If you had a successful product with Adobe that was running for over a year using their "premium" libraries, you just lost 9%.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#53

Post by justindocanto »

nthitz wrote: post #4

> Are Flash game companies going to have to reveal all their internal revenue details, and is Adobe going to regulate this somehow? This. Seems near impossible to keep track of all those different devs, monetizing in so many different ways.

I wonder if devs who offer their games for free, but have in-app purchases could get around all this? =)

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#54

Post by azakai »

rprasad wrote: post #43
azakai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. > Is this an accurate assessment? No. If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%.…

Based on Adobe's announcements on this subject earlier in the week, the licensing requirement only applies to apps that use both the 3d and memory-optimization technologies. Using one or the other by itself won't require licensing. The practical effect on Unity-Flash games are that small 3d games should not be subject to the licensing requirement. Caveat: Adobe has actually not issued specific rules or statements on…

> Based on Adobe's announcements on this subject earlier in the week, the licensing requirement only applies to apps that use both the 3d and memory-optimization technologies.

Yes, but all Unity games on Flash do use both. So all Unity games on Flash will need to pay 9%.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#55

Post by 286c8cb04bda »

driverdan wrote: post #29

> this violates the fundmental openness of the SWF format Since when has the SWF format had "fundamental openness"? It's the exact opposite.

> Since when has the SWF format had "fundamental openness"?

Since approximately the 1st of May, 2008[1]. Adobe publishes a specification of the file format[2], currently at version 10[3]. N.B. The Wikipedia entry suggests[4] that the specification does not exhaustively cover the capabilities of the format.

[1] http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/2008...

[2] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html

[3] http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/e...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWF#Licensing

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#56

Post by rprasad »

rdw wrote: post #48
rprasad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on Adobe's announcements on this subject earlier in the week, the licensing requirement only applies to apps that use both the 3d and memory-optimization technologies. Using one or the other by itself won't require licensing. The practical effect on Unity-Flash games are that small 3d games should not be subject to the licensing requirement. Caveat: Adobe has actually not issued specific rules or statements on…

Adobe has released a FAQ: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea... Unity's export to Flash does currently require both 3D and memory-optimization technologies. Any Unity-Flash game that has a chance of netting $50k falls under the requirement, from what I currently understand. This basically covers any non-hobbyists. Unity could solve this problem by making their Flash exporter not use "domain…

Thanks. I was going off of what was known yesterday; didn't know about the FAQ or that Unity had confirmed its conversion process used both of the targeted techniques.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#57

Post by talmand »

kevinpet wrote: post #15

If you want to call something a "regressive tax", please make sure that doesn't mean the exact opposite of what you're describing. A flat licensing fee would be regressive. A huge upfront cost would be prohibitive for small developers, but no problem for large companies. On top of that, it only comes into effect after $50k revenue. If Flash reduces your development costs (not making that argument one way or another),…

UDK is $99 upfront with 0% royalty until $50,000. After 50k the royalty rate is 25%. But they have other options depending on what you need the engine for.

Unless I'm reading the license totally wrong.

Of course, Flash is not UDK so it's not a fair comparison. Plus, if you use UDK within Flash your royalty rate will be 34% split between Epic and Adobe.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#58

Post by kenrikm »

dwiel wrote: post #32
pavel_lishin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$79 is half of a percent of what you just spent on that software. While I agree that charging you is disappointing in principle, it's odd to fume over a penny when you just spent $150.

This reminds me of people who aren't willing to drive across town to save $250 on a $15000 car purchase, but who make sure to buy their groceries when they are on sale to save money ... Just because you recently spent $15,000 doesn't mean the next $80 are worth less.

@pavel_lishin. Ouch, I'm not sure I would like to be one of your users. I was calling tech support because there was an Issue with their software not the machines. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the software you sold me for $15,000 you don't charge me $79 just to talk to someone, it's the principle not the money.

It's not the way you treat customers, Period.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#59

Post by Father »

azakai wrote: post #28
crazygringo wrote: post #7

Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. Is this an accurate assessment?

> Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. > Is this an accurate assessment? No. If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%.…

You only need to pay the tax if you make use of BOTH ApplicationDomain.domainMemory and Stage3D.request3DContext in the same application. They can be used independently without having to get a licence.

Here's a question in general though, ExternalInterface.call allows you to execute javascript in the browser from flash. So if you'd use ExternalInterface.call to control WebGl you wouldn't need Stage3D.request3DContext for hardware acceleration and thus allows you to use ApplicationDomain.domainMemory at the same time without needing a licence?

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#60

Post by j_baker »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46

"I think it's pretty peculiar that Adobe would announce such a regressive tax,... even if you created the SWF yourself (using tools like haxe), you'd still have to pay the tax." I disagree it is 'pretty peculiar', I think it is 'pretty obvious' why Adobe has done this. After years of growth and dividends and success, they have gone through a decade of sideways motions where they are resorting various and sundry cost…

It's worth pointing out that Adobe has only declared mobile Flash dead. They have yet to say anything to that effect for desktop Flash. That's not to say they aren't thinking it of course.
Post reply on HN