6 ms·

I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users. $100 compared to the development resources that went i

I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users. $100 compared to the development resources that went into this is nothing, and the developers realised that, too.

sschueller 3y ago
100 USD a year (more in Switzerland because Apple doesn't even pay for the taxes) is not nothing. Why should I pay to place apps that I spend my free time to develop and offer for free? Apple should at least not charge a recurring fee if all apps posted are open source and free. At least over at Google it is a one time fee.
- auggierose 3y ago
  I'd also prefer if there was no $100 to pay. But it is a fair price, and I find the attitude of programmers that everything should be free quite damaging. If you want to donate your free time, that's really up to you. Don't construe constraints for other people or companies from that.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    I don't want it to be free. I want Apple to not lie that "This application is damaged" when I don't pay them.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they say it is damaged. They will probably say something like it may be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they have no means of verifying its integrity.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png
        auggierose 3y ago
        Ok, that's bad. I fully agree.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > I find the attitude of programmers that everything should be free quite damaging. Many dead UNIX vendors agree.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
It's more a matter of principle ? IMHO it should be illegal (for a for-profit corporation) to own both the OS and an application store (at least the kind featuring third-party software) - you cannot expect them to be a fair judge of who gets in there and who doesn't !
- tomduncalf 3y ago
  You can still run the software, but Apple make it harder to do so (you probably have to Google how to do it). You could argue this both ways, I think there's value to the defaults making it harder for your average user to run software which could be unsafe... just think how bad the malware problem used to be on Windows for example.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    The malware problem used to be bad on Windows because everything had admin access. And the later "we don't have this program in our database, do you still want to execute it?" dialog wasn't too bad (especially when paired with an integrated blacklist of known malware !). And why do you assume that other software distributors than OS makers aren't going to do due diligence ?
schmorptron 3y ago
Nah, I think it's perfectly fair to charge more for a mac version of a program, especially if it's a donation funded open-source one. If you can afford a macintosh, you're more likely to also be able to afford a couple of bucks to support it.
- redserk 3y ago
  I'd be willing to bet the demographics of those on Hackernews aren't exactly in the "I'm using Linux because I cannot afford to use any other OS" crowd. It is the other way around. Linux users should be more vigilant about donating to the projects they find important if they care for the longevity of the project continuing as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has heavy fragmentation issues within it.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Seconded. I can afford any OS but I'm using Linux out of principle. It's also - at least for me - the most seamless developer experience out there because I'm running the same OS on servers and my desktop. Whenever I have to work with Windows or a Mac I feel like a fish out of the water.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has heavy fragmentation issues within it. It's also free to use and distribute software on, regardless of the hardware/software you own. That's the big difference. Plus, MacOS also commands a relatively small market share with it's own fragmentation issues (doubly so if you're cross-platform). If Mac users want perpetual builds of their software, they have to perpetually fund a development environment. Linux doesn't really work the same way.
- auggierose 3y ago
  Yes, of course it is fair. You can charge whatever you want for your program. But Ardour is free. Accepting donations is not the same as charging for something.
master-lincoln 3y ago
You also need to afford a Mac machine for testing as a dev. That's another few hundred bucks on top. I don't think macOS users have a bigger responsibility for paying, but as a publisher I would always make a paid macOS version just to try to regain those expenses again. Time is not equal to money for many people
diggan 3y ago
> I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users I don't think that either, it's only a hope from my side. A hope that they recognize that the binary they are using cost someone money to generate only because of restrictions put forward by Apple.

sschueller 3y ago

100 USD a year (more in Switzerland because Apple doesn't even pay for the taxes) is not nothing. Why should I pay to place apps that I spend my free time to develop and offer for free? Apple should at least not charge a recurring fee if all apps posted are open source and free. At least over at Google it is a one time fee.

auggierose 3y ago
I'd also prefer if there was no $100 to pay. But it is a fair price, and I find the attitude of programmers that everything should be free quite damaging. If you want to donate your free time, that's really up to you. Don't construe constraints for other people or companies from that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  I don't want it to be free. I want Apple to not lie that "This application is damaged" when I don't pay them.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they say it is damaged. They will probably say something like it may be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they have no means of verifying its integrity.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png
      - auggierose 3y ago
        Ok, that's bad. I fully agree.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > I find the attitude of programmers that everything should be free quite damaging. Many dead UNIX vendors agree.

BlueTemplar 3y ago

It's more a matter of principle ? IMHO it should be illegal (for a for-profit corporation) to own both the OS and an application store (at least the kind featuring third-party software) - you cannot expect them to be a fair judge of who gets in there and who doesn't !

tomduncalf 3y ago
You can still run the software, but Apple make it harder to do so (you probably have to Google how to do it). You could argue this both ways, I think there's value to the defaults making it harder for your average user to run software which could be unsafe... just think how bad the malware problem used to be on Windows for example.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  The malware problem used to be bad on Windows because everything had admin access. And the later "we don't have this program in our database, do you still want to execute it?" dialog wasn't too bad (especially when paired with an integrated blacklist of known malware !). And why do you assume that other software distributors than OS makers aren't going to do due diligence ?

schmorptron 3y ago

Nah, I think it's perfectly fair to charge more for a mac version of a program, especially if it's a donation funded open-source one. If you can afford a macintosh, you're more likely to also be able to afford a couple of bucks to support it.

redserk 3y ago
I'd be willing to bet the demographics of those on Hackernews aren't exactly in the "I'm using Linux because I cannot afford to use any other OS" crowd. It is the other way around. Linux users should be more vigilant about donating to the projects they find important if they care for the longevity of the project continuing as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has heavy fragmentation issues within it.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Seconded. I can afford any OS but I'm using Linux out of principle. It's also - at least for me - the most seamless developer experience out there because I'm running the same OS on servers and my desktop. Whenever I have to work with Windows or a Mac I feel like a fish out of the water.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has heavy fragmentation issues within it. It's also free to use and distribute software on, regardless of the hardware/software you own. That's the big difference. Plus, MacOS also commands a relatively small market share with it's own fragmentation issues (doubly so if you're cross-platform). If Mac users want perpetual builds of their software, they have to perpetually fund a development environment. Linux doesn't really work the same way.
auggierose 3y ago
Yes, of course it is fair. You can charge whatever you want for your program. But Ardour is free. Accepting donations is not the same as charging for something.

master-lincoln 3y ago

You also need to afford a Mac machine for testing as a dev. That's another few hundred bucks on top. I don't think macOS users have a bigger responsibility for paying, but as a publisher I would always make a paid macOS version just to try to regain those expenses again. Time is not equal to money for many people

diggan 3y ago

> I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users I don't think that either, it's only a hope from my side. A hope that they recognize that the binary they are using cost someone money to generate only because of restrictions put forward by Apple.