5 ms·

This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be inf

This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be infinitely and effortlessly copied. To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it? And equally to users: Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself.

Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
> Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself. Because most users are not looking for a device that is a full blown computer they can fully control. The toy computer they have in their pocket is good enough for them. Heck I'm a dev & power user and the toy computer of a phone I use as my daily driver is good enough for me when I'm chilling on the sofa/lying in bed/out with friends and I just want to query something and I just want/need an "internet consumption device" as I still have my laptop/desktop when I need a full blown computer.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said.
  - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
    But most of Apples customer base wouldn't care if they did/didn't. If there was market demand for a fully open iPhone Apple would open up the iPhone more.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Agreed, now that I know the question you were answering was about the market as a whole, I see the source of disagreement. We weren't interpreting the GP question the same way. The question: > Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? The question to me was about a person's personal motive for choosing iPhone or Google Android, etc, not a macro argument about market demand, but I think it's reasonable that "you" could be interpreted as either micro or macro level
      - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
        Well for me SAI_Peregrinus worded it better: "A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is." Speaking to my non-geek friends, they simply don't care that their phone can't run every piece of software out there, they only care if they reach for their device and can't complete a task they wanted to do in the manner they expected to complete it, and I could prob count on one hand the times I've had people come up to me over the years with a question about a task that couldn't completed within the eco-system of their phone. You said "Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said." And that is true, Nothing I said and have seen in the wild is preventing Apple/Google/Samsung releasing a full open phone, apart from that the vast majority of their customer base (at the moment) simply does not care if its open or not so manufacturers have no reason to be open. Even if I ask them about cost of software and suggest to them that the cost of their apps could be lower if they downloaded them directly from the dev or even from a 3rd party store they don't seem too bothered even then, I mean look at the game console market of another example of consumer apathy about open eco-systems. Though tbf, due to the Steam Deck I have seen a bump in "Oh, I can run pretty much anything on it? even those old childhood games I loved via emulation?" and "Oh I can purchase my games cheaper via key resellers?" once they get a hold of it, so maybe the world isn't as lost as it seems to be.
Linosaurus 3y ago
> To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it? From what I can tell, it’s more like they have a short term contract they are happy with, but their business model requires them to be able to extend it. They can avoid the new fees ‘simply’ by not letting any user download their Unity games after Jan 1. But yeah, using free software would avoid this.
WHYLEE1991 3y ago
I can't imagine arguing or thinking seriously that the majority of computers exist even "effectively" to only hurt us in some way. By computer did you actually mean some sort of antique ball torture device? I won't argue that the companies that control and make these devices aren't evil and responsible for some pretty awful things but it's really odd to argue that most users are "hurting" themselves by using the devices they use. I promise they would consider having the type of full control and responsibility you're describing as far more harmful and annoying than anything those big 4 could accomplish to them individually.
anonymousab 3y ago
Unity silently changed the contract a little while back to remove the "we can't change this contract arbitrarily without you agreeing" clause. Which is to say, the terms that most of these devs would have agreed to when they started their current games _was_ one where Unity agreed not to force contract changes onto them. Which is why it is not unreasonable for the devs to be both pissed off and feeling like they might have legal recourse as well.
alex7734 3y ago
The problem here is not using propietary software but building your product/business on top of a contract that can be changed by Unity whenever they feel like squeezing you for more money.
justin66 3y ago
> This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be infinitely and effortlessly copied. Meanwhile, people like to actually play games.
naikrovek 3y ago
"I told you so" isn't really helpful, you know. You also didn't predict this; at best people have predicted the possibility. This decision is not an inherent property of non-free software. Maybe it's inherent to some types of management, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Believing that this is inherent in non-free software is belief that Unity is blameless for making this decision. I welcome any community of any size to create a good open-source 3D game engine. I've been waiting for a long time for equivalent-quality free alternatives to paid software for multiple disciplines and there are very few, if any. Turns out that almost no one wants to work for free, and those that do don't seem to understand what makes paid software worth using, because almost all open-source tools like this are little more than toys with very narrow and specific use cases which are fleshed out. the use cases which do have something resembling support are not what I have ever wanted to build, so those feature columns are useless to me, and many others.

Crosseye_Jack 3y ago

> Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself. Because most users are not looking for a device that is a full blown computer they can fully control. The toy computer they have in their pocket is good enough for them. Heck I'm a dev & power user and the toy computer of a phone I use as my daily driver is good enough for me when I'm chilling on the sofa/lying in bed/out with friends and I just want to query something and I just want/need an "internet consumption device" as I still have my laptop/desktop when I need a full blown computer.

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is.
freedomben 3y ago
Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said.
- Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
  But most of Apples customer base wouldn't care if they did/didn't. If there was market demand for a fully open iPhone Apple would open up the iPhone more.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Agreed, now that I know the question you were answering was about the market as a whole, I see the source of disagreement. We weren't interpreting the GP question the same way. The question: > Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? The question to me was about a person's personal motive for choosing iPhone or Google Android, etc, not a macro argument about market demand, but I think it's reasonable that "you" could be interpreted as either micro or macro level
    - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
      Well for me SAI_Peregrinus worded it better: "A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is." Speaking to my non-geek friends, they simply don't care that their phone can't run every piece of software out there, they only care if they reach for their device and can't complete a task they wanted to do in the manner they expected to complete it, and I could prob count on one hand the times I've had people come up to me over the years with a question about a task that couldn't completed within the eco-system of their phone. You said "Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said." And that is true, Nothing I said and have seen in the wild is preventing Apple/Google/Samsung releasing a full open phone, apart from that the vast majority of their customer base (at the moment) simply does not care if its open or not so manufacturers have no reason to be open. Even if I ask them about cost of software and suggest to them that the cost of their apps could be lower if they downloaded them directly from the dev or even from a 3rd party store they don't seem too bothered even then, I mean look at the game console market of another example of consumer apathy about open eco-systems. Though tbf, due to the Steam Deck I have seen a bump in "Oh, I can run pretty much anything on it? even those old childhood games I loved via emulation?" and "Oh I can purchase my games cheaper via key resellers?" once they get a hold of it, so maybe the world isn't as lost as it seems to be.

Linosaurus 3y ago

> To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it? From what I can tell, it’s more like they have a short term contract they are happy with, but their business model requires them to be able to extend it. They can avoid the new fees ‘simply’ by not letting any user download their Unity games after Jan 1. But yeah, using free software would avoid this.

WHYLEE1991 3y ago

I can't imagine arguing or thinking seriously that the majority of computers exist even "effectively" to only hurt us in some way. By computer did you actually mean some sort of antique ball torture device? I won't argue that the companies that control and make these devices aren't evil and responsible for some pretty awful things but it's really odd to argue that most users are "hurting" themselves by using the devices they use. I promise they would consider having the type of full control and responsibility you're describing as far more harmful and annoying than anything those big 4 could accomplish to them individually.

anonymousab 3y ago

Unity silently changed the contract a little while back to remove the "we can't change this contract arbitrarily without you agreeing" clause. Which is to say, the terms that most of these devs would have agreed to when they started their current games _was_ one where Unity agreed not to force contract changes onto them. Which is why it is not unreasonable for the devs to be both pissed off and feeling like they might have legal recourse as well.

alex7734 3y ago

The problem here is not using propietary software but building your product/business on top of a contract that can be changed by Unity whenever they feel like squeezing you for more money.

justin66 3y ago

> This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be infinitely and effortlessly copied. Meanwhile, people like to actually play games.

naikrovek 3y ago

"I told you so" isn't really helpful, you know. You also didn't predict this; at best people have predicted the possibility. This decision is not an inherent property of non-free software. Maybe it's inherent to some types of management, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Believing that this is inherent in non-free software is belief that Unity is blameless for making this decision. I welcome any community of any size to create a good open-source 3D game engine. I've been waiting for a long time for equivalent-quality free alternatives to paid software for multiple disciplines and there are very few, if any. Turns out that almost no one wants to work for free, and those that do don't seem to understand what makes paid software worth using, because almost all open-source tools like this are little more than toys with very narrow and specific use cases which are fleshed out. the use cases which do have something resembling support are not what I have ever wanted to build, so those feature columns are useless to me, and many others.