6 ms·

They are not selling it currently. Once they have enough downloads and people who rely on the app on a daily basis, who knows.

by favaq 4y ago

bilekas 4y ago
This assumes too much and isn't really fair to.
franzkappa 4y ago
Just check the website and you’ll know. The website is well respected in the Mac world and their utilities are free since forever edit typos
sharikous 4y ago
Too cynical. The author is one of the best experts on macOS (on the level of Jonathan Levin) and their utilities are geared towards understanding the OS, not so much as really doing something commercially viable
- fsflover 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    He is right because it is free. Maybe not free in the geek bugbear sense, but in the sense that the real world actually uses, especially in a discussion about cost.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Windows is also effectively free for, e.g., students. Then, the students are hooked and have to pay for it later (including paying with their private data). Same for some other well-known services from Google.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        May I ask, FSF lover, with https://fsf.org https://fsf.org in the "about" of your profile, why exactly you're commenting multiple times in a submission specifically about Apple Mac? To me it feels like you're just evangelizing, with no particular relevance to the subject at hand. Yeah, we get it, Mac is not "free" software as defined by the FSF.
        fsflover 4y ago
        > we get it It's not a news to you and, perhaps, many others. However, people saying "He is right because it is free" do not seem to understand the difference between freeware and free software. I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment, which was wrong in my opinion. You can call it "evangelizing" if you want, but knowledge of this difference can (in principle) save one from being trapped in the future.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment You replied to two separate comments (not including this one). One of your replies was (rightly) flagged dead. The entire thread was misconceived. All of the accusations of advertising and bait and switch were completely lacking in evidence or justification. Howard Oakley isn't ever going to "trap" anyone, regardless of whether his software is "free" under your strict definition.
        fsflover 4y ago
        I did not accuse anyone. I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > I did not accuse anyone. I didn't say you did. You didn't start the misconceived thread, you just participated in it. > I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch. That's completely unhelpful though. We're not talking about "in principle" or "in general". Some commenters here were accusing the article author, Howard Oakley, of using his article for advertising of his software. And you added fuel to that fire. The "in principle" possibility is irrelevant to this submission unless you're specifically suggesting that Howard would actually do it. And that would amount to a personal accusation.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  > The author is one of the best experts on macOS (on the level of Jonathan Levin) Jonathan Levin is far more careful about verifying what he writes.
WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
Dr Oakley is making his software for way too many years for such model to be feasible. Had he been relying for one of his apps to become a unicorn, he’d probably have gone broke by now. The „business model” you are speculating about is second in its insanity only to making MIT-or-more-permissive open source software with an expectation that a multibillion corporation picking it up for its own use will share profits with the author in a sudden ethic attack.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
People are allowed to be paid for their work and no one is forcing you to read the article.

They are not selling it currently. Once they have enough downloads and people who rely on the app on a daily basis, who knows.

by favaq 4y ago

They are not selling it currently. Once they have enough downloads and people who rely on the app on a daily basis, who knows.

bilekas 4y ago

This assumes too much and isn't really fair to.

franzkappa 4y ago

Just check the website and you’ll know. The website is well respected in the Mac world and their utilities are free since forever edit typos

sharikous 4y ago

Too cynical. The author is one of the best experts on macOS (on the level of Jonathan Levin) and their utilities are geared towards understanding the OS, not so much as really doing something commercially viable

fsflover 4y ago
[flagged]
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  He is right because it is free. Maybe not free in the geek bugbear sense, but in the sense that the real world actually uses, especially in a discussion about cost.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    Windows is also effectively free for, e.g., students. Then, the students are hooked and have to pay for it later (including paying with their private data). Same for some other well-known services from Google.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      May I ask, FSF lover, with https://fsf.org https://fsf.org in the "about" of your profile, why exactly you're commenting multiple times in a submission specifically about Apple Mac? To me it feels like you're just evangelizing, with no particular relevance to the subject at hand. Yeah, we get it, Mac is not "free" software as defined by the FSF.
      - fsflover 4y ago
        > we get it It's not a news to you and, perhaps, many others. However, people saying "He is right because it is free" do not seem to understand the difference between freeware and free software. I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment, which was wrong in my opinion. You can call it "evangelizing" if you want, but knowledge of this difference can (in principle) save one from being trapped in the future.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment You replied to two separate comments (not including this one). One of your replies was (rightly) flagged dead. The entire thread was misconceived. All of the accusations of advertising and bait and switch were completely lacking in evidence or justification. Howard Oakley isn't ever going to "trap" anyone, regardless of whether his software is "free" under your strict definition.
        fsflover 4y ago
        I did not accuse anyone. I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > I did not accuse anyone. I didn't say you did. You didn't start the misconceived thread, you just participated in it. > I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch. That's completely unhelpful though. We're not talking about "in principle" or "in general". Some commenters here were accusing the article author, Howard Oakley, of using his article for advertising of his software. And you added fuel to that fire. The "in principle" possibility is irrelevant to this submission unless you're specifically suggesting that Howard would actually do it. And that would amount to a personal accusation.
saagarjha 4y ago
> The author is one of the best experts on macOS (on the level of Jonathan Levin) Jonathan Levin is far more careful about verifying what he writes.

WesolyKubeczek 4y ago

Dr Oakley is making his software for way too many years for such model to be feasible. Had he been relying for one of his apps to become a unicorn, he’d probably have gone broke by now. The „business model” you are speculating about is second in its insanity only to making MIT-or-more-permissive open source software with an expectation that a multibillion corporation picking it up for its own use will share profits with the author in a sudden ethic attack.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

People are allowed to be paid for their work and no one is forcing you to read the article.