Hacker News Reader

Comment by scootklein | Hacker News Reader

developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch.

what's going to positively affect change is android eating apple's lunch. charging 30% for in-app purchases and restricting content is going to seem completely out of line when a better majority of people have phones that are wide open and are doing some super cool stuff because google just doesn't care.

time will tell, but only when the public realizes what they're missing out on and starts to yell about it will things swing back in the developers' favor

View on HN

developers live and die by the app store, they won't ever affect anything. nerds yell really loud but they are comparatively a very small bunch.

Those petty FSF nerds started free software in the 80's and well, we still have it.

I compile native ARM binaries for the latest Android mobile platform with gcc — a compiler that was first released sometime in the latter half of 1980. Ironically, Apple uses gcc themselves, but they're keen on locking more and more stuff.

I bet a lot that in 2030's nobody remembers iPhone or any of the iPhone applications. You possibly can't even run them in an emulator if you wished as is the case with 80's and 90's games.

It may be really loud yelling from a minority but it's a philanthropic minority that doesn't think in terms of coming years but coming decades. Paul Graham wrote so aptly in some of his essays that nerds sense restrictions on the essential hacking freedoms the same way as animals sense an earthquake or a tsunami. (Or something like that.)

People were writing free software long before the FSF existed.

Absolutely, and thanks to the efforts of the FSF they will continue to do so hopefully long into the future.

This Apple agreement is absolutely insane. I wonder to what extent Apple's arguably great software has been enabled by free software. I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.

I'm also hopeful that proponents of open source, who distinguish themselves from free software are at least now rethinking things a bit.

Why would they?

Apparently without the eternal vigilance of the FSF, BigEvil Inc. is going to break into my house and take away the source of all the programs I've written because I forgot to GPL them.

I've understood that basically before FSF was founded, there was no need for "free software" as software was generally considered a side-product by computer manufacturers. IIRC it wasn't until early 80's when companies started routinely charging for and licensing software, thus propelling the founding of a counter-movement such as FSF.

RMS and folks just wanted the old way back. Please correct me if I'm wrong on details, I'd very much like to know better.

That's about half of it. You bought a computer and generally got the source to the software, such as it was, that ran on it. But the main reason you had the source to the software you were running was because you wrote the software you were running. The market for 3rd party software came later, but also at the same time as people were already mailing tapes around and posting stuff on usenet. There's no reason to believe people would have suddenly stopped mailing tapes around if the FSF didn't show up.

Not exactly.

Prior to the 1980s, most computing was on highly proprietary mainframes. The industry was dominated by IBM. Consumers (companies, not individuals) could not _own_ their software. It was all licensed product by IBM and the big vendors. Many vendors did not sell, but instead licensed, their machines, as well. It was very closed, and innovation cost the inventor dearly, and made the vendor a fortune.

The 1980s saw the maturation of the mid-size market, the revolution of the new PC world, an opening up of the hardware and software world, and a hugely exploding new user base. The entire paradigm for the computer market changed. Note, though, the tendency of vendors (ahem, Apple) to return to this world.

Anyone who wants the old days has not been studying history.

Thanks for contributing. One more question:

I've understood that those who bought the early mainframes still did get the sources and were allowed to modify and recompile stuff — possibly at their own risk but anyway. That I believe is what FSF wanted back when software started coming up in closed form. Was it like that?

the consumers keep voting with their wallet, and the developers still need to feed their kids and keep the lights on. maslow was right - food and lights will continue to trump philanthropic change as long as things are "good enough". more than developers complaining is apple LOSING those developers and apple losing sales to Android. enough of either will warrant a reaction.

There's much better ways to make money as a developer than making $0.99 iphone apps. Compared to the app store, the global software market is a GIANT with its head in the clouds, where as the app store is a molecule of dung encrusted on a pad.

Also they have been pushing LLVM, OpenCL; released Grand Central Dispatch libs; still are the one of the main contributors for WebKit and push HTML5 forward. Also they make XCode and their SDKs available for free and even include XCode with every single distribution of the OS. But I guess that should not stop some parroting about Apple locking down. How do those Google apps for Android sources look like?

All those are non-differentiators. Sharing them means sharing cost while losing no revenue. Differentiators like the iPhone and iPad, on the other hand are locked and patented. Patents are even enforced.

Apple aren't friends of free software, they just use Open Source according to their needs. The parroting you speak of does not contradict what you just say.

Yep, patents ara bad. Now tell me, what obligation does Apple have to ditch them, if competitors don't?

They don't have to. They just shouldn't use them offensively, as they do right now with HTC android phones.

Just wanted to point out that Symbian phones allow installation of application downloaded from any source with only some platform security restrictions. I guess those 47% Symbian phones in the smartphone market [1] are not a better majority?

That said, I hope you're right and people force Apple to loosen the app store licensing agreement.

[1]: 2009 numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

iPhone is where the money is at, so developers develop for the platform that can feed them. Sure it sucks that you give 30% to Apple, but 70% of a significant chunk is better than even 100% of a small sliver.

Developers will follow the users, at least initially. Apple delivers the best overall experience for people who don't think of their phone as a computer.

When I get an Android phone next upgrade I'll still keep my iPhone for development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com