Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by loup-vaillant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

loup-vaillant

Step 1: we’re banned from the store!

Step 2: we have our own store now!

That’s not a weird pivot, that’s what you do when a company you depend on no longer wants to do business with you.

View on HN

"depends on" is a bit strong.

Have you seen VideoLAN's revenue? What percentage of their revenue came via the Unity Store?

They're a non profit organisation. They existed before the Unity store and they are existing after the Unity store. They did not _depend_ on Unity.

Non profit doesn't mean all the employees work for free. Your statement is the equivalent of saying "The Red Cross don't need money, they're a non profit!"

Not sure how that relates to them "depending on Unity"? is really clear that they never have, nor do they now.

"is really clear that they never have (depended on Unity)"; I'd be happy to come to the same conclusion, IF there is evidence.

But most of your comments seem to be conclusions looking for evidence rather than the other way around.

The evidence is that VideoLAN still exists months after getting banned by Unity. If they "depended" on Unity they'd be bust by now.

Equally one possible line of reply you could have offered is some evidence that they were dependent. When neither side can produce evidence it seems fair to me to fall back on some clear deductions, which I won't repeat.

Honestly this debate seems like a waste of time for both of us. I'll leave it here, and I hope you have a good day.

You claimed they weren't dependent, not me. My comment, paraphrased, was "How can you be sure without evidence?"; I don't know if they are dependent, not enough information.

I hope you have a good day too!

I dont think the VLC team has been caught in multiple scams like the red cross tho ?

Your statement is completely non sequitur.

How so? Their statement was that not that VideoLAN does not need money, the statement was they do not depend on the Unity store to get enough money. Nobody claimed non profit means working for free or even went into that direction. The statement "They did not _depend_ on Unity." is not equivalent of saying "The Red Cross don't need money, they're a non profit!". Or which statement did you refer to?

Please be less enraged and try to understand the arguments of others in discussions.

I'm not enraged, my point was simple; without knowing what VideoLAN's revenue looks like you can't say for certain that VideoLAN don't actually depend on it. Say for example VideoLAN got 75% of their revenue from the Unity Store and then they got banned; I would say that is a case of dependence. Without such knowledge it is very difficult to say with certainty whether VideoLAN is dependent on their products being available on the Unity Store.

Nothing to do with being "enraged"; in discussions it generally doesn't help to attribute motivation without evidence.

Sorry for attributing motivation without evidence, I regret that and think you are right on this point.

Now I got your point concerning the dependence. That was not clear to me before you elaborated and I don't see how I could have inferred that.

It is highly unlikely though that this integration into a game engine made any significant revenue in its 3 years of existence if you ask me. The integration is also still available, just not distributed via Unity store.

As VideoLan is a non-profit I tried to find info on their income to get a bigger picture, but failed to find that.

> without knowing what VideoLAN's revenue looks like you can't say for certain that VideoLAN don't actually depend on it.

This is a matter of how someone might interpret "depends".

If you meant "effectively will cease to exist", that is incorrect.

If you meant that VideoLAN depends on Unity the same way I depend on the 5 dollars in my pocket to be fungible...VideoLAN still exists without Unity, same as I exist without the 5 dollars in my pocket.

There's nothing more to it, afaik.

Right, I think this is a nothingburger - they 'depend' in the sense of leaving it up to Unity to honor a defined set of responsibilities on their side of a relationship. I think there was no need to get into whether this posed any sort of existential threat to VLC.

Nonprofits die all the time because they run out of money

Just as strong as "dependency" is usually used in software engineering, not? They swapped out a dependency, so now they don't depend on the unity store any longer.

"Rely on" then? Regardless, I think their point was clear.

It's not even competition, as Unity seems to have decided to "deprecate" the Unity Store for VLC. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com