18 ms·

> How do you not use their SDK? The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast

by burnte 29d ago

> How do you not use their SDK? The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.

lapcat 29d ago
This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet. If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
- EMIRELADERO 29d ago
  Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
  - stouset 29d ago
    > the technology is already fully paid for by the user This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
  - lapcat 29d ago
    > Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay. I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
    - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
      > That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point. > Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability. > and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption. As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
      - lapcat 29d ago
        > This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point. I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights. > IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption. It's all about distribution. A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers. The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything. > As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top. This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
        EMIRELADERO 29d ago
- enos_feedler 29d ago
  The app revenue cut is because you partner with Apple to deliver a solution to something in a users life with them. Apple sees themselves as critical to an app’s ability to exist at all. Its like nintendo taking a cut of a nintendo game. You cant have one without the other. A lot of people disagree that the iphone is a one of a kind consumer product like this. To many its just a computer and software is independent. I see both sides
  - xorcist 28d ago
    Perfectly normal, just like your TV manufacturer taking a cut of every movie you rent. No, wait...
- burnte 24d ago
  I talked about SDKs not APIs. No one thinks iPhoneOS was created without the ability to support apps, Steve Jobs' comment about web-only apps being the future is known bs. I also didn't say anything about revenue. One does not need an SDK to use an API. One does not need an SDK to develop software. It's a helpful tool, usually helpful documentation, tips, examples, etc. But none of it is required to build applications. My comment was ONLY addressing that SDKs aren't required to develop software. Nothing else at all. And in that I am most certainly not off base.

by burnte 29d ago

lapcat 29d ago

This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet. If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.

EMIRELADERO 29d ago
Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
- stouset 29d ago
  > the technology is already fully paid for by the user This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
- lapcat 29d ago
  > Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay. I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
  - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
    > That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point. > Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability. > and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption. As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
    - lapcat 29d ago
      > This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point. I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights. > IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption. It's all about distribution. A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers. The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything. > As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top. This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
      - EMIRELADERO 29d ago
enos_feedler 29d ago
The app revenue cut is because you partner with Apple to deliver a solution to something in a users life with them. Apple sees themselves as critical to an app’s ability to exist at all. Its like nintendo taking a cut of a nintendo game. You cant have one without the other. A lot of people disagree that the iphone is a one of a kind consumer product like this. To many its just a computer and software is independent. I see both sides
- xorcist 28d ago
  Perfectly normal, just like your TV manufacturer taking a cut of every movie you rent. No, wait...
burnte 24d ago
I talked about SDKs not APIs. No one thinks iPhoneOS was created without the ability to support apps, Steve Jobs' comment about web-only apps being the future is known bs. I also didn't say anything about revenue. One does not need an SDK to use an API. One does not need an SDK to develop software. It's a helpful tool, usually helpful documentation, tips, examples, etc. But none of it is required to build applications. My comment was ONLY addressing that SDKs aren't required to develop software. Nothing else at all. And in that I am most certainly not off base.