Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

The vast majority of Windows software doesn't need VS Professional or Enterprise; Community edition works just fine, and still enables you to access the entirety of the platform as a developer. Not to mention numerous alternative development toolchains, use of which doesn't require paying anything to Microsoft.

And then on top of that, Apple already charges developers for tooling via their dev license program. Which at least makes some sense since it's a fixed fee. The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.

View on HN

> The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.

Never published a game on a game console, eh?

Could you describe the terms for publishing on a game console?

Sign a NDA, buy a dev kit, get access to the APIs, let the console maker certify your game and take like 30%.

> Community edition works just fine

Read the terms: it’s not for commercial development

> The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.

Do you also believe that Epic's Unreal Engine pricing is also ridiculous under the same standard?

It's an interesting distinction, or if there should be one, between libraries-that-provide-value and libraries-that-must-be-used-to-access-a-platform.

If I create a platform, and an SDK that targets that platform, and require everyone to pay for the the SDK to use my platform...

... is that the same as if I create a set of libraries (nee game engine) that avoids you from having to recreate that work yourself?

I'd hazard that the two are different, because Epic isn't really gating access to an "Unreal Device" by withholding access to their engine.

A developer is free to use a competitor's engine and distribute the same places. (Afaik, Epic's store doesn't have any "must be built on Unreal" qualifier, right?)

It's absurd to argue that Apple's libraries don't provide value.

Apple's SDK includes the compiler that target's Apple's chips, a fully-featured IDE, the platform specific APIs (sure), the UI framework, a shader API, a physics engine, etc.

Are there alternatives to using Apple's SDK, if you want to target Apple's hardware, which has a substantial market share?

Limiting the ability for dominant companies to crown themselves gatekeepers and toll all who pass was the intent of the EU rules.

If Apple tries to argue that the one SDK is intrinsically tied to the hardware, and also conveniently is required for apps on any store... that starts to sound a lot like 90s Microsoft and Internet Explorer, except Apple doesn't have the "But it's free" defense.

> It's absurd to argue that Apple's libraries don't provide value.

Who is arguing that Apple's libraries don't provide value? Certainly the person you replied to isn't. That's an incredible strawman fallacy

The terms I used in the initial comparison probably weren't the best.

> Who is arguing that Apple's libraries don't provide value?

All the people who are whining that the core technology fee exists.

I mean ultimately both companies have invested R&D into building their SDKs and it comes across as bizarre to me to suggest that one company should be legally banned from charging licensing fees for their use.

Ceteris paribus, sure.

But if we've decided that it's unhealthy to allow dominant tech firms to tax everyone for access to their platforms...

Then an SDK might become the final area where they attempt to do so.

It'd certainly be a lot cleaner if there were 2 SDKs: a base, primitive-only freely licensed one with the bare minimum for interacting with all platform components and a higher-level, premium paid one that had better DX.

It is, actually, yeah. But game dev has a long track record as an industry where these types of abusive behavior are normalized.

This is certainly not normal for any even remotely mainstream desktop or mobile platforms, though. iOS would be a glaring exception.

So Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo too? So much for "ridiculous by all industry standards" when there is an entire software industry where this is commonplace.

It's (more) acceptable for consoles because they are not (Very) Personal Computers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com