No free extensions allowed at first and 30% tariff for selling through the Qt marketplace.
I think platform companies, like Apple and Qt, should not be able to impose such a high percentage as gatekeepers.
I think platform companies, like Apple and Qt, should not be able to impose such a high percentage as gatekeepers.
> Either for free or for a price.
Also, there's stuff from KDE in the marketplace too:
https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/plugins
It seems like they don't host the binaries for free projects, but instead you provide a markdown file with installation instructions, like this:
https://marketplace.qt.io/pages/karchiveinstructionspage
And when a user clicks "Get Extension", they are sent to this page.
More information:
The next paragraph has We, of course, promote the individual developers and companies to use standard “copy-lefts” ranging from GPL to MIT especially for free extensions.
TLDR: For now, individuals can _only_ publish free extensions. Companies can publish either free or commercial extensions.
I don't understand your complain. So there was no service available to the public, and people at Qt decided to invest their time and resources to provide a service where there was zero. Do they deserve criticism for doing something?
Now, to put up a straw-man against that, why not wait to see, usually these platforms fail pretty quickly anyhow? Well, if the outcome is either failure of the platform, or success of the platform by capturing (nearly) all of the market, then why no regulate it?
Obviously it needs Incredibuild server and license, but the plugin is distributed via Qt Marketplace free of charge.
Except they won't market your products, they will market the App Store and if you happen to be buried under a million other listings then tough luck.
When app stores launch they start with a handful, it makes sense to jump on early.
Also, if limiting the high percentage does end up being the plan of attack, who exactly is in charge of that?
a regulatory agency. Credit Card transactions in the EU, for example, are capped at a fraction of a per cent and they still make plenty of cash. Infrastructure providers are essentially just glorified landlords and should not be allowed to extract economic rents from market participants.
This is becoming a very blatant and obvious problem on a largely privatized internet. Enforcing low margin incentivises the correct behaviour which is openness and continued innovation. If steam would be forced to build new products rather than sitting on their platform we'd probably have had Half Life 3 a bunch of years ago.
Steam is a terrible example for this. First of all, Steam isn't a company, it's a product. Valve is the company. Second of all, unlike the App Store or other similar infrastructure, it's not like you're locked into Steam, so they're not really rent-seeking. Steam has had plenty of competitors over the years(Direct2Drive, Games for Windows Live, that garbage GameStop store), they all sucked, and as far as I know there's nothing stopping me from publishing on multiple stores & ignoring Steam. Third, Valve hasn't exactly been doing nothing - they've done more than any other company to the gaming experience under Linux & have pioneered VR. Odds are good they wouldn't have taken those risks had it not been subsidized with comfortable margins they got from Steam.
If you had cited, say, the App Store, or something that has actual monopoly power in terms of infrastructure (like our good friends at Comcast) it would have been a much stronger argument.
rent-seeking and monopolistic behaviour aren't the same things. Rent-seeking is the extraction of economic rent without providing new wealth with one prominent example being someone putting a chain across a private plot of land and charging you every time you want to cross over. Whether you've five guys doing that or one isn't particularly relevant.
So while competition ameliorates the negative effects of these private platforms slightly the more fundamental broken part is really that they should not be allowed to exist in the first place. What is economically desirable is competition between developers and service providers on a common and open infrastructure with ideally all reimbursements beyond maintaining the platform going to the content creators.
In fact, competition among platform owners in many ways makes the system worse because it incentivises walled gardens. This is starting to become obvious in the streaming world with Netflix gaining competition and as a result, platform-exclusive content becoming more important, or companies like Spotify or Stitcher enclosing the podcast ecosystem which used to be a prime example of openness.
Smartphone OS vendors make it hard to venture outside their walled gardens, not Steam. There are no exclusivity deals (afaik), no all-encompassing SDK developers are incentivized to integrate with (Google Play services), even SteamOS doesn't lock users down.
Steam is the perfect example because it started from nothing, did not leverage any existing device-base to shoe-horn it's solution, and they exist in a marketplace littered with a long list of failed competitors who couldn't beat them in a fair fight.
And yet still people will hate on them for nothing more than being successful apparently, and offering a service that game studios throw fist-fulls of money at.
I assume what you mean is "providing new value"? Regardless, Steam doesn't fit this description at all:
- Valve doesn't own the vast majority of games on Steam (i.e. they aren't just buying IP and "rent-seeking" using it)
- Steam adds value that consumers want, which is why it is so popular (friends, achievements, marketplace, workshop, etc)
- Even ignoring the previous point, the basic premise of a game store isn't rent-seeking, because download bandwidth and easy installation are added value by themselves
- Steam isn't a walled garden: they do not prevent you from selling on other stores or pay for exclusives or other similar behavior - Steam wins by out-competing the competition, it doesn't create artificial advantages for itself
Choice is why Apple isn't gouging developers with 100 dollar service subscriptions just to sign packages right?
I don't think Qt really can... Feels like they're charging way too much, there's not much content and Qt itself is not exactly "hot stuff" right now. (Compared to, say, Apple as the % is same)
They tried that a couple of years ago, only to find out most weren't willing to pay jumping into Xamarin, while their license was even cheaper vs the Xamarin one.
They now care about enterprise and specialized embedded markets.
For me it looks more like a nice to have than anything else.