5 ms·

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer reso

by jmull 6y ago

$99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about. Meanwhile, there is good value. (The developer resources Apple provides are not free.) You can argue that Apple should provide developer resources at no cost, but that just means someone else is paying for them or you will pay them in some other way... or do without. I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. In software development, I think you want most arrangements to be straightforward transactions. The strings attached to no-cost things tend to build up and cause problems, especially if you have success. Edit: I struck a nerve, but I don't think this should be very controversial. I'll try to take the objections one at a time in comments.

Someone1234 6y ago
> $99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about Huh? Some Open Source/Free software have a $0 budget.
- Juliate 6y ago
  The resources, time and hardware implicated in the production of open source software, when all added up represent far more than US$99, in terms of value. You may say that a FLOSS project has no bank account, but it does not have $0 budget (unless it has no value, and is produced with nothing of value, by noone whose time has value).
  - _qulr 6y ago
    You don't pay the developer fee with "value", you pay it with legal currency. Which requires a bank account or credit card.
- jmull 6y ago
  Software development typically requires at least a computer (a Mac for MacOS and iOS development), internet service, and electricity. Dwarfing those, though, is the significant time software development takes. For OSS, the time is donated, whether by individuals or by corporate sponsors who sometimes dedicate employee hours to projects of particular value to them. But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means.
  - traib 6y ago
    > But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means. Even if someone has the time and resources to contribute to OSS, it does not automatically follow that they should be willing to spend said time and resources on notarization (of all things). Put another way, not every purchase is worthwhile just because you have a million dollars in the bank.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> The developer resources Apple provides are not free. So then why is the charge for signing and not for developer tools? That way if I wanted to I could use somebody else's tools instead of paying Apple. > I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. Which is why I paid so much for my copy of gcc. Wait, hold on.
- snazz 6y ago
  Apple gives away Xcode and allows people to sign apps for their own iOS devices for free (although they must resign those apps every week). This is intended to allow students and other non-professional developers to learn to code and experiment with Apple developer tools without paying any money. Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). Since each additional copy of a piece of software does not incur additional costs for the developer, Apple can subsidize the development of developer tools using the $99 fee taken from (generally) professional developers who wish to publish their apps on the App Store or take advantage of notarization on macOS. Many major open-source projects are largely developed by employees of large technology companies and foundations with significant budgets. The Linux kernel's largest committers oftentimes work at companies like Red Hat and Intel. Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). So then why do I have to pay them if I'm using emacs and gcc and C++? > Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time. Yet, in many cases, that's exactly what happened. And even when it isn't, if it's distributed under a free software license then it keeps them from screwing you over because any adverse changes can be reverted.
    - 6y ago
pier25 6y ago
Apple gets its money back on the hardware alone.
acallaghan 6y ago
Apple are a multi-trillion dollar company, they don't need more money
- jmull 6y ago
  That doesn't change the fact that developer resources cost money that has to be paid for somehow. If Apple doesn't charge developers, they could, e.g., pay for it through more margin on device sales, which means Apple customers are paying for it. That sounds nice for developers, but that's going to cause the developer resources to lose developer focus. Developer resources will be treated as marketing expenses and the scope and character of them will reflect this.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    You're taking the current Apple developer program as an eternal truth, when in fact it has changed significantly over time. Before the App Store, you could develop for the Mac completely free. There was a developer program, which was much more expensive than $99 per year, but it was mainly concerned with WWDC and pre-release builds. There was even a hardware discount for developers, which was very popular, and effectively made the developer program pay for itself in many cases.
    - addicted 6y ago
      It’s hilarious that according to Apple fans, Apple as a $2 tn dollar company cannot afford the program it was giving away for free as a $10bn company.
      - EricE 6y ago
        You know why rich people are rich? They don't spend all their money! Yup, a bit glib but it gets to the essence...
    - jmull 6y ago
      > You're taking the current Apple developer program as an eternal truth, when in fact it has changed significantly over time. Well, I've been developing Mac software for 25 years, so I've seen the developer program changes. Generally, it's gotten a lot cheaper and a lot better over time. (Except there's never been anything like the old Inside Macintosh books, and I guess there never will be.) I guess that's why $99/year doesn't bother me. Historically speaking, it's a great deal. I'm sure there are more changes to come, but none of us knows what that will be, so there's not much to discuss. > Before the App Store, you could develop for the Mac completely free. I haven't kept track of a timeline on this, so I'm sure you're right, but you're talking about a transient state. Before Xcode you had to pay a lot for Apple's developer tools (which I can't remember the name of), or pay a lot for the superior (or so I believed at the time) CodeWarrior. At first, Xcode itself wasn't exactly free, because it was bundled with the OS updates, which cost a decent amount back then. I guess at various times there has been more or less you could do at the free tier, but it has seemed to me that you could only rarely do a decent job of releasing and supporting mac apps without paying for something.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
The world is bigger than the US, Im from a fairly wealthy part of the world on average - - eastern Europe but I can't afford it or buy their products just so I can use their tooling. Probably people living in poorer parts of the world are laughing even harder.
- jmull 6y ago
  Right. Since you pretty much need at least one Mac in the first place, $99/year isn't really that burdensome in comparison.

by jmull 6y ago

Someone1234 6y ago

> $99/year is such a small amount relative to the costs of software development that it's hard to worry about Huh? Some Open Source/Free software have a $0 budget.

Juliate 6y ago
The resources, time and hardware implicated in the production of open source software, when all added up represent far more than US$99, in terms of value. You may say that a FLOSS project has no bank account, but it does not have $0 budget (unless it has no value, and is produced with nothing of value, by noone whose time has value).
- _qulr 6y ago
  You don't pay the developer fee with "value", you pay it with legal currency. Which requires a bank account or credit card.
jmull 6y ago
Software development typically requires at least a computer (a Mac for MacOS and iOS development), internet service, and electricity. Dwarfing those, though, is the significant time software development takes. For OSS, the time is donated, whether by individuals or by corporate sponsors who sometimes dedicate employee hours to projects of particular value to them. But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means.
- traib 6y ago
  > But in either case the donator has to be in a position to afford it, which typically means significant income from other means. Even if someone has the time and resources to contribute to OSS, it does not automatically follow that they should be willing to spend said time and resources on notarization (of all things). Put another way, not every purchase is worthwhile just because you have a million dollars in the bank.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> The developer resources Apple provides are not free. So then why is the charge for signing and not for developer tools? That way if I wanted to I could use somebody else's tools instead of paying Apple. > I think at this point in the tech boom we can all understand that when a company gives you stuff of value at no cost there are significant tradeoffs and paybacks. Which is why I paid so much for my copy of gcc. Wait, hold on.

snazz 6y ago
Apple gives away Xcode and allows people to sign apps for their own iOS devices for free (although they must resign those apps every week). This is intended to allow students and other non-professional developers to learn to code and experiment with Apple developer tools without paying any money. Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). Since each additional copy of a piece of software does not incur additional costs for the developer, Apple can subsidize the development of developer tools using the $99 fee taken from (generally) professional developers who wish to publish their apps on the App Store or take advantage of notarization on macOS. Many major open-source projects are largely developed by employees of large technology companies and foundations with significant budgets. The Linux kernel's largest committers oftentimes work at companies like Red Hat and Intel. Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Of course, Apple spends huge amounts of money on developer infrastructure (Xcode, LLVM, and Swift, for example). So then why do I have to pay them if I'm using emacs and gcc and C++? > Just because you get a given piece of open-source software for free does not mean that its development was done by volunteers in their free time. Yet, in many cases, that's exactly what happened. And even when it isn't, if it's distributed under a free software license then it keeps them from screwing you over because any adverse changes can be reverted.
  - 6y ago

pier25 6y ago

Apple gets its money back on the hardware alone.

acallaghan 6y ago

Apple are a multi-trillion dollar company, they don't need more money

jmull 6y ago
That doesn't change the fact that developer resources cost money that has to be paid for somehow. If Apple doesn't charge developers, they could, e.g., pay for it through more margin on device sales, which means Apple customers are paying for it. That sounds nice for developers, but that's going to cause the developer resources to lose developer focus. Developer resources will be treated as marketing expenses and the scope and character of them will reflect this.
- _qulr 6y ago
  You're taking the current Apple developer program as an eternal truth, when in fact it has changed significantly over time. Before the App Store, you could develop for the Mac completely free. There was a developer program, which was much more expensive than $99 per year, but it was mainly concerned with WWDC and pre-release builds. There was even a hardware discount for developers, which was very popular, and effectively made the developer program pay for itself in many cases.
  - addicted 6y ago
    It’s hilarious that according to Apple fans, Apple as a $2 tn dollar company cannot afford the program it was giving away for free as a $10bn company.
    - EricE 6y ago
      You know why rich people are rich? They don't spend all their money! Yup, a bit glib but it gets to the essence...
  - jmull 6y ago
    > You're taking the current Apple developer program as an eternal truth, when in fact it has changed significantly over time. Well, I've been developing Mac software for 25 years, so I've seen the developer program changes. Generally, it's gotten a lot cheaper and a lot better over time. (Except there's never been anything like the old Inside Macintosh books, and I guess there never will be.) I guess that's why $99/year doesn't bother me. Historically speaking, it's a great deal. I'm sure there are more changes to come, but none of us knows what that will be, so there's not much to discuss. > Before the App Store, you could develop for the Mac completely free. I haven't kept track of a timeline on this, so I'm sure you're right, but you're talking about a transient state. Before Xcode you had to pay a lot for Apple's developer tools (which I can't remember the name of), or pay a lot for the superior (or so I believed at the time) CodeWarrior. At first, Xcode itself wasn't exactly free, because it was bundled with the OS updates, which cost a decent amount back then. I guess at various times there has been more or less you could do at the free tier, but it has seemed to me that you could only rarely do a decent job of releasing and supporting mac apps without paying for something.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago

The world is bigger than the US, Im from a fairly wealthy part of the world on average - - eastern Europe but I can't afford it or buy their products just so I can use their tooling. Probably people living in poorer parts of the world are laughing even harder.

jmull 6y ago
Right. Since you pretty much need at least one Mac in the first place, $99/year isn't really that burdensome in comparison.