4 ms·

> So what is the desired outcome? Use Apple’s IP for free? Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assemble

> So what is the desired outcome? Use Apple’s IP for free? Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler? If not, then this argument about Apple IP is in bad faith, and not the real reason for anything.

jasomill 3y ago
Maybe so, but I have no doubt Apple lawyers could make a plausible argument — in good faith, even — that you might need a license to link against required iOS libraries.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler? iOS apps can be written in assembly. I’ve done so myself out of curiosity, and it seems others have done so as well[0]. Of course, I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s excruciating. That said, isn’t this just a bad-faith argument wrapped in an attempted gotcha? Where your premise is that if you don’t have a choice, then you shouldn’t be charged? If Apple would say: “Hey, you can use Swift for free because it’s open source, and you’re welcome to benefit from our contributions to it, and while you’re at it, you’re allowed to use all the basic low-level frameworks that communicate with the OS for free as well. But anything more than that, and we want you to pay us for it.” Would you then be fully on board with them charging for using the remaining IP they own? Are IP and ownership rights fluid based on your own moral framework, depending on if one has a choice or not? Should I just blow past the toll booth of the only bridge here that allows me access to the rest of the country? How about the only ISP that provides service here? Should they just allow me to use their infrastructure so I can write you this comment? The other day I saw a nice TV at the local store. It’s pretty much the only place I can get this TV. Do I have your blessing to take it because I don’t have much of a choice? I make apps for a living, I’m literally the only place on earth where you can get my app. My app saves users a lot of money. Should people just pirate my app and force me on a diet of hardtack? Where does this fluidity start and where does it end? I thought, for better or worse (and we can spend hours debating this part alone), we decided that when someone owns something, and especially when they create something, they get to decide who, if anyone, gets to use it and at what’s price if any. 0: https://github.com/richardjrossiii/iOSAppInAssembly https://github.com/richardjrossiii/iOSAppInAssembly
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The point is that Apple can't say "this fee is required to distribute out precious IP, and this is a fair price for our IP, look how happy people are to use it", while also saying "oh, and if you don't use our IP, you aren't allowed to publish an app at all". And no, this doesn't entitle others to steal the IP in question. The problem is the second part, not the first.
saagarjha 3y ago
Writing your app in assembler still means you're using "Apple's IP". You cannot make an iOS app that does not check in with the system and draws to the screen and responds to touch events without using platform APIs.
dann0 3y ago
This is, in fact, a bad faith argument. Developers are not forced to develop iOS apps. There are other alternatives like web apps or only developing for Android. Developers have choices. If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage. These arguments always seem to break down to an entitlement to sell things without paying for the products and services used to make the thing. It should be a conversation more about reasonableness than entitlement.
- unusualmonkey 3y ago
  > If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage. An iPhone is not a mall. An iPhone is a device owned by the end user. If the end user wants to use an app by some third party developer, they should be able to. We don't let car dealers from prevent customers from installing aftermarket addons.
- stale2002 3y ago
  That great. But if Apple wants access to the EU then it has to follow the law. Otherwise, it is within its full freedom to shut down their company in the EU. They aren't "force" to operate in the EU after all. They could just shut down the company. > If you want a store in a mall If Apple wants to operate in the EU then they will have to follow the law. > It should be a conversation more about reasonableness than entitlement. Or, instead of that, the conversation could be able what a population can democratically decide what they want for their own country.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  > If you want a store in a mall [...] If any global entity owned such a large percentage of malls that suppliers had little choice but to appear there in order to be competitive, and charged for mall use via a general tax on original and follow up economic activity (instead of in proportion to mall resources used), requiring products be registered with them, and copies of direct and follow up sales records, many people might protest that too.

jasomill 3y ago

Maybe so, but I have no doubt Apple lawyers could make a plausible argument — in good faith, even — that you might need a license to link against required iOS libraries.

turquoisevar 3y ago

> Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler? iOS apps can be written in assembly. I’ve done so myself out of curiosity, and it seems others have done so as well[0]. Of course, I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s excruciating. That said, isn’t this just a bad-faith argument wrapped in an attempted gotcha? Where your premise is that if you don’t have a choice, then you shouldn’t be charged? If Apple would say: “Hey, you can use Swift for free because it’s open source, and you’re welcome to benefit from our contributions to it, and while you’re at it, you’re allowed to use all the basic low-level frameworks that communicate with the OS for free as well. But anything more than that, and we want you to pay us for it.” Would you then be fully on board with them charging for using the remaining IP they own? Are IP and ownership rights fluid based on your own moral framework, depending on if one has a choice or not? Should I just blow past the toll booth of the only bridge here that allows me access to the rest of the country? How about the only ISP that provides service here? Should they just allow me to use their infrastructure so I can write you this comment? The other day I saw a nice TV at the local store. It’s pretty much the only place I can get this TV. Do I have your blessing to take it because I don’t have much of a choice? I make apps for a living, I’m literally the only place on earth where you can get my app. My app saves users a lot of money. Should people just pirate my app and force me on a diet of hardtack? Where does this fluidity start and where does it end? I thought, for better or worse (and we can spend hours debating this part alone), we decided that when someone owns something, and especially when they create something, they get to decide who, if anyone, gets to use it and at what’s price if any. 0: https://github.com/richardjrossiii/iOSAppInAssembly https://github.com/richardjrossiii/iOSAppInAssembly

tsimionescu 3y ago
The point is that Apple can't say "this fee is required to distribute out precious IP, and this is a fair price for our IP, look how happy people are to use it", while also saying "oh, and if you don't use our IP, you aren't allowed to publish an app at all". And no, this doesn't entitle others to steal the IP in question. The problem is the second part, not the first.

saagarjha 3y ago

Writing your app in assembler still means you're using "Apple's IP". You cannot make an iOS app that does not check in with the system and draws to the screen and responds to touch events without using platform APIs.

dann0 3y ago

This is, in fact, a bad faith argument. Developers are not forced to develop iOS apps. There are other alternatives like web apps or only developing for Android. Developers have choices. If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage. These arguments always seem to break down to an entitlement to sell things without paying for the products and services used to make the thing. It should be a conversation more about reasonableness than entitlement.

unusualmonkey 3y ago
> If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage. An iPhone is not a mall. An iPhone is a device owned by the end user. If the end user wants to use an app by some third party developer, they should be able to. We don't let car dealers from prevent customers from installing aftermarket addons.
stale2002 3y ago
That great. But if Apple wants access to the EU then it has to follow the law. Otherwise, it is within its full freedom to shut down their company in the EU. They aren't "force" to operate in the EU after all. They could just shut down the company. > If you want a store in a mall If Apple wants to operate in the EU then they will have to follow the law. > It should be a conversation more about reasonableness than entitlement. Or, instead of that, the conversation could be able what a population can democratically decide what they want for their own country.
Nevermark 3y ago
> If you want a store in a mall [...] If any global entity owned such a large percentage of malls that suppliers had little choice but to appear there in order to be competitive, and charged for mall use via a general tax on original and follow up economic activity (instead of in proportion to mall resources used), requiring products be registered with them, and copies of direct and follow up sales records, many people might protest that too.