5 ms·

On the other hand, how many iOS apps would there be if Apple wouldn't allow you to charge for them? It would still be an ok ecosystem, but not great like it is

On the other hand, how many iOS apps would there be if Apple wouldn't allow you to charge for them? It would still be an ok ecosystem, but not great like it is now.

anonymoushn 15y ago
Certainly people are certainly attracted to iOS dev because it produces money, but iOS users do not have to pay for apps. It is easy to get apps without paying for them, but Apple has made it very easy to pay for them. I doubt that the absence of copyright would significantly change the proportion of iOS users who use apps without paying for them.
- andylei 15y ago
  you're totally missing the point. the question is whether the ability to charge money incentivizes programmers to produce code. androsynth argues that the app store shows that it does. there are hundreds if not thousands of apps that would not exist if all apps in the store had to be free.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    The OP strongly implies that "The presence of copyright" is the same as "The ability to charge money," and much of the discussion here also assumes that. It is simply not true, though. I would rather discuss what the OP is actually about than the thing that the OP would prefer to substitute for its subject matter to make its case seem better than it is.
    - andylei 15y ago
      my point is still the same. the question is not how people consume apps, its how many of those apps are produced.
      - dkersten 15y ago
        There are lots of free apps and a lot of the nonfree apps dont make any money, but people still make new apps.
        andylei 15y ago
        again, what you are saying is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument no one thinks that not being able to charge money = no apps. the argument is over whether not being able to charge money = less apps.
        dkersten 15y ago
        Well sure, I imagine there would be less apps produced (certainly less me too and shovelware apps where the author is trying to make a quick buck). My point is simply that apps will continue to be produced, regardless. Besides, even if its perfectly legal to copy apps (or music or movies) and distribute them however you like, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't monetize them. It doesn't even mean that you have to completely give up the pay-for-app model either - people will still be willing to pay for something they really like (I bought a CD online direct off a musician a few months back despite already having the mp3's and I've never even opened the CD!), but obviously a lot fewer people than now. Perhaps a pay what you want model would work. This can be offset in other ways - paid support, physical merchandise (printed documentation perhaps) and kickstarter-style "I'll finish the app for $X" are just a few ideas. I'm not saying that this would definitely be sustainable, because I don't know, but I do see some potential there and either way, people will still make apps, music and movies regardless (though it will be less[1]). I wonder is B2B sustainable on support contracts and custom work? [1] Maybe hobbies of the future will revolve more around the production of (free) content and less about the consumption of (free or otherwise) content? Evolution and adaptation of human behavior?
    - Androsynth 15y ago
      I agree. I view copyrights as unfair business practices, enforced by the government. My original comment was really in response to the open-source comment. I believe money is a bigger incentive than open-source development in the software engineering industry. Software certainly doesn't need to be copyrighted in order to sell it.

On the other hand, how many iOS apps would there be if Apple wouldn't allow you to charge for them? It would still be an ok ecosystem, but not great like it is now.

anonymoushn 15y ago

Certainly people are certainly attracted to iOS dev because it produces money, but iOS users do not have to pay for apps. It is easy to get apps without paying for them, but Apple has made it very easy to pay for them. I doubt that the absence of copyright would significantly change the proportion of iOS users who use apps without paying for them.

andylei 15y ago
you're totally missing the point. the question is whether the ability to charge money incentivizes programmers to produce code. androsynth argues that the app store shows that it does. there are hundreds if not thousands of apps that would not exist if all apps in the store had to be free.
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  The OP strongly implies that "The presence of copyright" is the same as "The ability to charge money," and much of the discussion here also assumes that. It is simply not true, though. I would rather discuss what the OP is actually about than the thing that the OP would prefer to substitute for its subject matter to make its case seem better than it is.
  - andylei 15y ago
    my point is still the same. the question is not how people consume apps, its how many of those apps are produced.
    - dkersten 15y ago
      There are lots of free apps and a lot of the nonfree apps dont make any money, but people still make new apps.
      - andylei 15y ago
        again, what you are saying is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument no one thinks that not being able to charge money = no apps. the argument is over whether not being able to charge money = less apps.
        dkersten 15y ago
        Well sure, I imagine there would be less apps produced (certainly less me too and shovelware apps where the author is trying to make a quick buck). My point is simply that apps will continue to be produced, regardless. Besides, even if its perfectly legal to copy apps (or music or movies) and distribute them however you like, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't monetize them. It doesn't even mean that you have to completely give up the pay-for-app model either - people will still be willing to pay for something they really like (I bought a CD online direct off a musician a few months back despite already having the mp3's and I've never even opened the CD!), but obviously a lot fewer people than now. Perhaps a pay what you want model would work. This can be offset in other ways - paid support, physical merchandise (printed documentation perhaps) and kickstarter-style "I'll finish the app for $X" are just a few ideas. I'm not saying that this would definitely be sustainable, because I don't know, but I do see some potential there and either way, people will still make apps, music and movies regardless (though it will be less[1]). I wonder is B2B sustainable on support contracts and custom work? [1] Maybe hobbies of the future will revolve more around the production of (free) content and less about the consumption of (free or otherwise) content? Evolution and adaptation of human behavior?
  - Androsynth 15y ago
    I agree. I view copyrights as unfair business practices, enforced by the government. My original comment was really in response to the open-source comment. I believe money is a bigger incentive than open-source development in the software engineering industry. Software certainly doesn't need to be copyrighted in order to sell it.