5 ms·

> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK How do you not use their SDK?

by lapcat 2mo ago

EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  > Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
  - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
    I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
    - lapcat 2mo ago
      > I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
      - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
        What would be so outlandish about that?
        lapcat 2mo ago
        I'm not going to argue with you, because I continue to suspect that you have no iOS development experience and are just making hand-wavy claims with no empirical basis.
        EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
        ? It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.
        lapcat 2mo ago
        I asked a question: "How do you not use their SDK?" Your answer seemed nonsensical to me. What I meant, though, is that I'm not going to argue about a specific point, the viability of "some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality." If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?" In any case, most iOS devs don't want to opt out of using the SDK. That would not be a particularly attractive route for making iOS apps. What I want as an iOS dev is the same freedom of software distribution that we have on macOS.
        EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
        > If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?" The basis for my claims about the subject is my knowledge of computing and development in general. I dipped my toes into iOS dev a few times and there's nothing that seemed to set it apart from any other SDK situation beyond Apple's restrictions, at least nothing that would make my claim outlandish.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2mo ago
    If you don't intend it as an insult, you might try providing literally any substance to your argument rather than just lobbing ad hominems.
- dwaite 2mo ago
  I assume you mean on an open hardware platform, because underneath Apple's SDKs are just more Apple APIs until you get to Apple's IPC interfaces to talk to Apple-designed hardware register interfaces. Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.
realusername 2mo ago
Personnally I use Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK. Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface. And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.
- Someone 2mo ago
  > Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK. > Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface. I suspect it uses much more so that it can support - audio - file I/O - accessibility - …
  - realusername 2mo ago
    I agree but you expect those from a consumer OS since at least Windows 95.
    - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
      But as the API surface expands, making a compatible competitor becomes increasingly difficult. Look at how long WINE has been developed and how it still isn’t done.
      - realusername 2mo ago
        But I don't want to make replacement API? I'm just expecting these API to be freely available on any OS, you can't seriously say that you will charge for these. It's not an "SDK" but basic OS primitives. I doubt Apple can even ship a mobile phone without audio or I/O support even without third party apps...
burnte 2mo ago
> How do you not use their SDK? The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.
- lapcat 2mo ago
  This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet. If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
  - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
    Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
    - stouset 2mo ago
      > the technology is already fully paid for by the user This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
    - lapcat 2mo ago
      > Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay. I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12

> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK How do you not use their SDK?

by lapcat 2mo ago

> there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK How do you not use their SDK?

Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. If the DMA was enforced correctly this would have already happened.

lapcat 2mo ago
> Nowadays with LLMs people could probably patch up some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality without infringing Apple's copyrights. I don't intend to insult you, but as an iOS developer myself I have serious doubts about whether you have any expertise in the subject you're talking about here.
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. I'm no LLM evangelizer and hate the hype train as much as any competent dev. The truth is though that LLMs are uniquely suited for work of this kind, and a team that knows what they're doing could make short work of the whole thing much faster.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    > I didn't mean to imply that this would be a vibe-coded slop project. That's not really the issue. LLM participation is a red herring. The issue is "replicates the original's functionality".
    - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
      What would be so outlandish about that?
      - lapcat 2mo ago
        I'm not going to argue with you, because I continue to suspect that you have no iOS development experience and are just making hand-wavy claims with no empirical basis.
        EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
        ? It's you who has started to argue by replying to my comment in the first place.
        lapcat 2mo ago
        I asked a question: "How do you not use their SDK?" Your answer seemed nonsensical to me. What I meant, though, is that I'm not going to argue about a specific point, the viability of "some FOSS SDK that perfectly replicates the original's functionality." If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?" In any case, most iOS devs don't want to opt out of using the SDK. That would not be a particularly attractive route for making iOS apps. What I want as an iOS dev is the same freedom of software distribution that we have on macOS.
        EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
        > If you don't even have any experience with iOS development, then you have no basis for making any claims about that subject, and thus I'm not going to bother explaining "What would be so outlandish about that?" The basis for my claims about the subject is my knowledge of computing and development in general. I dipped my toes into iOS dev a few times and there's nothing that seemed to set it apart from any other SDK situation beyond Apple's restrictions, at least nothing that would make my claim outlandish.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2mo ago
  If you don't intend it as an insult, you might try providing literally any substance to your argument rather than just lobbing ad hominems.
dwaite 2mo ago
I assume you mean on an open hardware platform, because underneath Apple's SDKs are just more Apple APIs until you get to Apple's IPC interfaces to talk to Apple-designed hardware register interfaces. Unfortunately when it comes to technology licensing, it is rarely successful to say you should pay less because you purposely made your job harder.

realusername 2mo ago

Personnally I use Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK. Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface. And I'd argue that this is a core OS feature that you expect on any modern OS.

Someone 2mo ago
> Flutter which has a very minimal use of their SDK. > Basically enough to render inputs to a gpu accelerated surface. I suspect it uses much more so that it can support - audio - file I/O - accessibility - …
- realusername 2mo ago
  I agree but you expect those from a consumer OS since at least Windows 95.
  - NetMageSCW 2mo ago
    But as the API surface expands, making a compatible competitor becomes increasingly difficult. Look at how long WINE has been developed and how it still isn’t done.
    - realusername 2mo ago
      But I don't want to make replacement API? I'm just expecting these API to be freely available on any OS, you can't seriously say that you will charge for these. It's not an "SDK" but basic OS primitives. I doubt Apple can even ship a mobile phone without audio or I/O support even without third party apps...

burnte 2mo ago

> How do you not use their SDK? The first third party iPhone apps existed before the SDK existed. iPhone OS was jailbroken pretty quickly and apps emerged fast. SDKs are nice references and tools but the're not the only way to skin a cat.

lapcat 2mo ago
This is not a useful distinction. The API existed and was used by Apple apps and by jailbreak apps. In fact Scott Forstall intentionally prepared iOS to have third-party apps. The API was just not public yet. If you think the header files are the thing that Apple thinks is worth of a cut of app revenue, I think you're way off base. It's the technology, whether you access it with permission or not.
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. By "the SDK" I meant the dev environment stuff, not the API base on the phone.
  - stouset 2mo ago
    > the technology is already fully paid for by the user This seems like a very large and unfounded assumption on your part, particularly in a world where we no longer pay for Apple operating systems or their updates.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    > Right, and my point is that the technology is already fully paid for by the user. That's your claim. Neither Apple nor the EU appear to agree. Nor do US courts appear to agree in the Epic v. Apple trial. Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone, and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer. When you said, "there's no way to signal to Apple that you have opted out of using their SDK and have the fee waived", which fee did you mean exactly? The quote in your comment refers to the Core Technology Commission, which is a percentage of app revenue. There's also the $99 developer program fee, which all App Store developers pay. I know that some developers are annoyed by the $99 fee, but for professional iOS developers, $99 is a drop in the bucket, and the revenue % cut is the vastly larger and more important thing. So if by "the SDK" you mean only the header files and such, that seems like mostly a red herring to me, and if you were allowed to use the technology for free, then there wouldn't be much reason for Apple to charge for the SDK. And indeed, Xcode has always been available for free. https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12