2 ms·

As an 'app owner', it perhaps benefits you to possess the ability to preserve what you've paid for. In some cases, I'm sure this actually is a benefit, as in t

by bmelton 14y ago

As an 'app owner', it perhaps benefits you to possess the ability to preserve what you've paid for. In some cases, I'm sure this actually is a benefit, as in the times updates are negative, or take away functionality or change the way they do things. In most cases though, it just means that you aren't up to date with what is current, which may or may not be a bad thing. It is offtopic, but still interesting. One supposes that is the reason why apps cost a set amount of money (usually) while web apps are usually a subscription model. That is of course questionable when the app uses web views to your server, as those customers always cost you money so long as they're using the app vs. standalone apps (like games and the like) where you truly are making a one-time purchase.

lukifer 14y ago
Strictly speaking, none of us "own" the majority of the software we pay for. We license it, and we are entirely at the mercy at the vendor's terms, with the only recourse being not buying it in the first place. It's yet another area where the nature of software and the networked world breaks our object-oriented intuitions in ways we're still trying to resolve in the social contract.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I get the implication, and while that wasn't the point I was making, the purchase of a self-contained app from the app store is essentially the same thing as owning the app. You've exchanged money for a good, and as the app owner there aren't any readily available means of getting the good back from the owner should you disapprove of how they're using it, just like it would be with a tangible good. Obviously copyright still stays in effect so their ability to copy, resell, yadda yadda are still restricted, but otherwise it's theirs. That said, in this day and age, fewer and fewer apps are completely self-contained, and/or work without being plugged in to something, so it's effectively a moot point.

by bmelton 14y ago

lukifer 14y ago

Strictly speaking, none of us "own" the majority of the software we pay for. We license it, and we are entirely at the mercy at the vendor's terms, with the only recourse being not buying it in the first place. It's yet another area where the nature of software and the networked world breaks our object-oriented intuitions in ways we're still trying to resolve in the social contract.

bmelton 14y ago
I get the implication, and while that wasn't the point I was making, the purchase of a self-contained app from the app store is essentially the same thing as owning the app. You've exchanged money for a good, and as the app owner there aren't any readily available means of getting the good back from the owner should you disapprove of how they're using it, just like it would be with a tangible good. Obviously copyright still stays in effect so their ability to copy, resell, yadda yadda are still restricted, but otherwise it's theirs. That said, in this day and age, fewer and fewer apps are completely self-contained, and/or work without being plugged in to something, so it's effectively a moot point.