6 ms·

Not being able to publish closed-source apps is a feature.

by emersion 5y ago

tayistay 5y ago
Right, a feature which will be very limiting for their store as a business.
- neilsimp1 5y ago
  But very good for the user, no?
  - tayistay 5y ago
    If a mostly empty store is good for the user, then yes. Definitely a store free of many advanced apps with valuable IP.
  - jwagenet 5y ago
    As a user I am usually disappointed by open source software when paid alternatives exist (adobe CC, games, office, 3d CAD) with few exceptions (blender), so no.
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
Programmers have got to be the only people who think giving away hard, creative work for free is the only right way to do things. We all gotta eat and programs take time and expertise to build and maintain. Wouldn’t you like to be able to make a living from something you built rather than having a boss and working for a company where your future will never be in your control? I sure would. If people can pay for literally every other product/service in the world they can pay for programs too. There’s nothing wrong with charging for your labor.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  Movies don't tend to be able to spy on you, for one. Nor are they generally expected to be maintained over time.
  - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
    I have no idea what you’re getting at. How are movies a counterpoint? Movies and streaming services are paid products. And no one is forcing you to make software that spies on people as an indie dev? In fact if you are able to make a living through selling software you have less incentive to collect user data and sell it as a revenue stream. Most products that are free are those where the your data is being sold for is exactly that reason.
    - Nullabillity 5y ago
      > And no one is forcing you to make software that spies on people as an indie dev? This is the problem with your argument. You're looking at it from the developer's perspective, rather than the user's. As the developer you have this choice, and you know which choice you've made. As a user, all I have is your word (which is worth nothing if I don't already have a good reason to trust you). As a user, source code access is important, for a number of reasons: 1. It gives both users and third parties a way to verify your claims 2. As it turns out, transparency tends to discourage bad behaviour in the first place 3. Users can fork if you no longer maintain the project according to their standards (abandonment, price hikes, bundling malware, and so on) None of those reasons are direct improvements for you as a developer, but they're a big part of why I am reluctant to adopt proprietary software (free or paid). > How are movies a counterpoint? Movies and streaming services are paid products. Yes? I am less reluctant to pay for a movie because they don't demand the same privileges. > In fact if you are able to make a living through selling software you have less incentive to collect user data and sell it as a revenue stream. Most products that are free are those where the your data is being sold for is exactly that reason. On the other hand, reality shows that many (most) commercial developers are perfectly happy to pick both.
      - tayistay 5y ago
        > This is the problem with your argument. You're looking at it from the developer's perspective, rather than the user's The developers need to make the apps, otherwise there's no marketplace. Gotta satisfy both, albeit imperfectly. > As a user, all I have is your word (which is worth nothing if I don't already have a good reason to trust you). That's not true at all. Experts can audit closed-source software to see if it's phoning home, etc. An App Store (like Apple's) can have strict rules where developers will be banned if they do malicious things. You can install tools to monitor apps. Apps are sandboxed to prevent access. You have much more to go on than just the developer's word. > As a user, source code access is important, for a number of reasons Sure, it would be nice as a user to have the code. Most app developers simply won't give it to you.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  open source and free (as in beer) software are orthoginal/unrelated concepts you can have for-pay open source apps, no problem
  - tayistay 5y ago
    Sure, you can have a for-pay open source app, but if it's a consumer product (as opposed to, say, some B2B thing with special licensing), then it isn't going anywhere as a business. Many people will just download the code and compile it instead of paying you (or find someone else who packaged it up). That's why open source has been more successful with software-as-service.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      > but if it's a consumer product...then it isn't going anywhere as a business why?
      - EduardoBautista 5y ago
        Do you have an example of a successful open source consumer product business?
        pdanpdan 5y ago
        PostgreSQL?
        EduardoBautista 5y ago
        It's not a consumer product.
        Quot 5y ago
        Just off the top of my head, Aseprite: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite Onivim: https://v2.onivim.io/ https://v2.onivim.io/ Ardour: https://ardour.org/ https://ardour.org/ Of course, I don't know how successful each of those projects are, but they seem to be successful enough to continue development.
- emersion 5y ago
  I'm eating everyday, and I'm not working on closed-source software, only open-source. It's perfectly possible to get money _and_ write open-source software.

Not being able to publish closed-source apps is a feature.

tayistay 5y ago

Right, a feature which will be very limiting for their store as a business.

neilsimp1 5y ago
But very good for the user, no?
- tayistay 5y ago
  If a mostly empty store is good for the user, then yes. Definitely a store free of many advanced apps with valuable IP.
- jwagenet 5y ago
  As a user I am usually disappointed by open source software when paid alternatives exist (adobe CC, games, office, 3d CAD) with few exceptions (blender), so no.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

Programmers have got to be the only people who think giving away hard, creative work for free is the only right way to do things. We all gotta eat and programs take time and expertise to build and maintain. Wouldn’t you like to be able to make a living from something you built rather than having a boss and working for a company where your future will never be in your control? I sure would. If people can pay for literally every other product/service in the world they can pay for programs too. There’s nothing wrong with charging for your labor.

Nullabillity 5y ago
Movies don't tend to be able to spy on you, for one. Nor are they generally expected to be maintained over time.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  I have no idea what you’re getting at. How are movies a counterpoint? Movies and streaming services are paid products. And no one is forcing you to make software that spies on people as an indie dev? In fact if you are able to make a living through selling software you have less incentive to collect user data and sell it as a revenue stream. Most products that are free are those where the your data is being sold for is exactly that reason.
  - Nullabillity 5y ago
    > And no one is forcing you to make software that spies on people as an indie dev? This is the problem with your argument. You're looking at it from the developer's perspective, rather than the user's. As the developer you have this choice, and you know which choice you've made. As a user, all I have is your word (which is worth nothing if I don't already have a good reason to trust you). As a user, source code access is important, for a number of reasons: 1. It gives both users and third parties a way to verify your claims 2. As it turns out, transparency tends to discourage bad behaviour in the first place 3. Users can fork if you no longer maintain the project according to their standards (abandonment, price hikes, bundling malware, and so on) None of those reasons are direct improvements for you as a developer, but they're a big part of why I am reluctant to adopt proprietary software (free or paid). > How are movies a counterpoint? Movies and streaming services are paid products. Yes? I am less reluctant to pay for a movie because they don't demand the same privileges. > In fact if you are able to make a living through selling software you have less incentive to collect user data and sell it as a revenue stream. Most products that are free are those where the your data is being sold for is exactly that reason. On the other hand, reality shows that many (most) commercial developers are perfectly happy to pick both.
    - tayistay 5y ago
      > This is the problem with your argument. You're looking at it from the developer's perspective, rather than the user's The developers need to make the apps, otherwise there's no marketplace. Gotta satisfy both, albeit imperfectly. > As a user, all I have is your word (which is worth nothing if I don't already have a good reason to trust you). That's not true at all. Experts can audit closed-source software to see if it's phoning home, etc. An App Store (like Apple's) can have strict rules where developers will be banned if they do malicious things. You can install tools to monitor apps. Apps are sandboxed to prevent access. You have much more to go on than just the developer's word. > As a user, source code access is important, for a number of reasons Sure, it would be nice as a user to have the code. Most app developers simply won't give it to you.
andrekandre 5y ago
open source and free (as in beer) software are orthoginal/unrelated concepts you can have for-pay open source apps, no problem
- tayistay 5y ago
  Sure, you can have a for-pay open source app, but if it's a consumer product (as opposed to, say, some B2B thing with special licensing), then it isn't going anywhere as a business. Many people will just download the code and compile it instead of paying you (or find someone else who packaged it up). That's why open source has been more successful with software-as-service.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > but if it's a consumer product...then it isn't going anywhere as a business why?
    - EduardoBautista 5y ago
      Do you have an example of a successful open source consumer product business?
      - pdanpdan 5y ago
        PostgreSQL?
        EduardoBautista 5y ago
        It's not a consumer product.
      - Quot 5y ago
        Just off the top of my head, Aseprite: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite Onivim: https://v2.onivim.io/ https://v2.onivim.io/ Ardour: https://ardour.org/ https://ardour.org/ Of course, I don't know how successful each of those projects are, but they seem to be successful enough to continue development.
emersion 5y ago
I'm eating everyday, and I'm not working on closed-source software, only open-source. It's perfectly possible to get money _and_ write open-source software.