3 ms·

This is what drove me to GNU/Linux. Was OS X user, saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store, and saw 8-year-old kid with iPod touch getting his allowan

This is what drove me to GNU/Linux. Was OS X user, saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store, and saw 8-year-old kid with iPod touch getting his allowance stolen by a solitaire iOS game that charged him real money to cheat when he got stuck (which you can do with real cards, obviously) while advertising at him to eat at McDonald's. I decided I couldn't trust Apple anymore, and no way would I trust Microsoft. This is so blatant. Like there's nobody who can reasonably make the argument "yeah, but how else can we fund the development of solitaire computer games?" It already existed. This freemium / ad-infused software trend is effectively extortion.

shin_lao 11y ago
Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop. You can be disappointed if they make you pay for what was previously free but saying it's extortion to make people pay for software isn't very considerate to all of us who make a living of writing software, isn't it?
- scrollaway 11y ago
  I work in the games industry. A lot of the freemium models are absolutely extortion. Some of the worst ones explicitly target children and gambling addicts to maximize profits on vulnerable people or abuse the family's card details. When done right, Freemium is a fantastic model which can not only generate more revenue to the company (both short and long term), but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. When done greedily, it's extortion and is by far the most disgusting sales model known to mankind. The latter is most common.
  - emsy 11y ago
    >but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. It's hard not to be sarcastic about this topic, but I honestly want to know which game is more fun freemium than pay once?
    - zilean 11y ago
      Any multiplayer game when you cant buy anything that helps you win, yet receive constant free gameplay content built with moneys of those who want to buy cosmetics, i.e. league of legends, team fortress and the like.
      - pnt12 11y ago
        Disclaimer: I was a dota player, which has some rivalries with LoL The LoL model is controversial. You may not pay anything, but it will take you literally thousands of hours to get most champs and runes. Do you need all? Thats arguable. Can you get IP fast enough to buy champs as they come out? Most people cant, from what i understand. Dota and tf2 fit in the freemium that cares for the users.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm come to mind. They are free to play games which can be 100% played without paying once (even at a high level, although it takes time). In-game items can be earned or paid for with money. And overall it's quite a fun experience to pay for bonuses (optional gameplay or cosmetic items) in both games. Blizzard has a very solid F2P model, even though theirs is one of the most expensive of the lot. There is a lot of enjoyment in earning bonuses over time rather than getting everything at once. Since the developer wants you to keep playing the game, they need a hook. For subscription-based games, that hook tends to be anti-fun (spend time grinding, time-gating content, etc). Store-based content allows for a non-time-based hook and pushes the developer to keep releasing content. So yeah, if done right, it's beneficial for everybody.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    > When done right, Freemium [...] is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. I find it the contrary. It's a rare sight to find a modern non-indie mobile game that you can pay for and get a version that's completely free of advertisement, phoning-home analytics and other stuff I don't want, except for an actual game. (Returning to article in question, Microsoft is actually the worst case imaginable. You don't pay to remove ads once, but subscribe for ad-free experience.)
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      "Freemium" is usually means you pay for extra gameplay or cosmetic content (or in the case of non-games, extra features). "Pay to remove ads" is usually separate. I was specifically addressing the "freemium" part of the sentence "This freemium / ad-infused software trend is effectively extortion.".
- drdaeman 11y ago
  While your point that software development is not free is valid, it's more a matter of ethics, not economics here. While the stuff parent comment had mentioned is legal, it's at least questionable, and is perfectly valid to complain about, and even call this extortion (given that the comment was about a mild case of gaming addiction). When I'm reminded of this I'm somehow saddened by the fact users en masse seems to have very self-respect when it comes to such stuff (and/or lack choice), so voting by feet doesn't work.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop. Software that has already been written and does not require changes is free to maintain and develop. There is a trend recently for newer versions of software to remove features that older versions had, for varying reasons that are invariably not in the users' interests. Removing something but then offering to put it back in return for money or accepting ads or accepting spyware or whatever other onerous condition is user-hostile. Some would say it's just business, but to many it seems malicious. Promoting new software that does this as being an upgrade, and trying to seduce users into making the switch by giving away the new software freely but not openly disclosing what the user will lose by switching is misleading advertising.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Seriously? You're going to use the very argument I mentioned? You're arguing for "there are costs to cover" for the concept of running solitaire on computers? There are cases where the "gotta cover the costs" argument applies, but this is not one of them. Otherwise, I said NOTHING even close to suggesting that "software developers shouldn't make a living." That straw man you just made doesn't look even slightly like me.
- xenophonf 11y ago
  It's Solitaire. That's the video game equivalent of "Hello, world!"
7952 11y ago
I don't have any particular moral objection to this kind of business mode, I just doubt it will be good for Micrsoft. It coninues the trend of devaluing the PC and elimating any kind of premium pricing (outside of Apple). I think that a lot of traditional users just want to buy something that does what they want without being nagged for further paytments. That is why thousands of people bought MS Office for normal domestic use. It was expensive but they bought it anyway. Now all they get is an invitation to an app store or a monthly payment plan. It is like selling a toy without batteries included. Strangely Ubuntu feels like a premium product in comparison. It comes with lots of good software pre-installed that just work. The app store is filled with high quality free software with no spam or malware in sight. A lot peripherals will just work without having to install new drivers. In comparison Windows feels cheap and tacky. Microsoft should sell Windows with Office bundled and make it expensive ($200+). Include a collection of high quality free software to get people started and emphasise content purchases instead of apps.
rimantas 11y ago
> saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store GPL censors GPL software from App Store.
- xenophonf 11y ago
  Apple could amend their ToS to allow GPL'ed apps: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/
- lorenzhs 11y ago
  The problem is not the GPL, the problem is Apple's rules for the App Store. The GPL prohibits restrictions on the rights granted by the license. Yet the App Store terms contain restrictions (most prominently, the freedoms to redistribute copies or copies of modified versions) on what you can do with the software obtained therefrom. Thus, they are not compatible with the GPL. GPL grants you freedoms. App Store terms take them away. I think it's clear who's doing the censoring.

shin_lao 11y ago

Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop. You can be disappointed if they make you pay for what was previously free but saying it's extortion to make people pay for software isn't very considerate to all of us who make a living of writing software, isn't it?

scrollaway 11y ago
I work in the games industry. A lot of the freemium models are absolutely extortion. Some of the worst ones explicitly target children and gambling addicts to maximize profits on vulnerable people or abuse the family's card details. When done right, Freemium is a fantastic model which can not only generate more revenue to the company (both short and long term), but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. When done greedily, it's extortion and is by far the most disgusting sales model known to mankind. The latter is most common.
- emsy 11y ago
  >but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. It's hard not to be sarcastic about this topic, but I honestly want to know which game is more fun freemium than pay once?
  - zilean 11y ago
    Any multiplayer game when you cant buy anything that helps you win, yet receive constant free gameplay content built with moneys of those who want to buy cosmetics, i.e. league of legends, team fortress and the like.
    - pnt12 11y ago
      Disclaimer: I was a dota player, which has some rivalries with LoL The LoL model is controversial. You may not pay anything, but it will take you literally thousands of hours to get most champs and runes. Do you need all? Thats arguable. Can you get IP fast enough to buy champs as they come out? Most people cant, from what i understand. Dota and tf2 fit in the freemium that cares for the users.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm come to mind. They are free to play games which can be 100% played without paying once (even at a high level, although it takes time). In-game items can be earned or paid for with money. And overall it's quite a fun experience to pay for bonuses (optional gameplay or cosmetic items) in both games. Blizzard has a very solid F2P model, even though theirs is one of the most expensive of the lot. There is a lot of enjoyment in earning bonuses over time rather than getting everything at once. Since the developer wants you to keep playing the game, they need a hook. For subscription-based games, that hook tends to be anti-fun (spend time grinding, time-gating content, etc). Store-based content allows for a non-time-based hook and pushes the developer to keep releasing content. So yeah, if done right, it's beneficial for everybody.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  > When done right, Freemium [...] is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user. I find it the contrary. It's a rare sight to find a modern non-indie mobile game that you can pay for and get a version that's completely free of advertisement, phoning-home analytics and other stuff I don't want, except for an actual game. (Returning to article in question, Microsoft is actually the worst case imaginable. You don't pay to remove ads once, but subscribe for ad-free experience.)
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    "Freemium" is usually means you pay for extra gameplay or cosmetic content (or in the case of non-games, extra features). "Pay to remove ads" is usually separate. I was specifically addressing the "freemium" part of the sentence "This freemium / ad-infused software trend is effectively extortion.".
drdaeman 11y ago
While your point that software development is not free is valid, it's more a matter of ethics, not economics here. While the stuff parent comment had mentioned is legal, it's at least questionable, and is perfectly valid to complain about, and even call this extortion (given that the comment was about a mild case of gaming addiction). When I'm reminded of this I'm somehow saddened by the fact users en masse seems to have very self-respect when it comes to such stuff (and/or lack choice), so voting by feet doesn't work.
Silhouette 11y ago
Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop. Software that has already been written and does not require changes is free to maintain and develop. There is a trend recently for newer versions of software to remove features that older versions had, for varying reasons that are invariably not in the users' interests. Removing something but then offering to put it back in return for money or accepting ads or accepting spyware or whatever other onerous condition is user-hostile. Some would say it's just business, but to many it seems malicious. Promoting new software that does this as being an upgrade, and trying to seduce users into making the switch by giving away the new software freely but not openly disclosing what the user will lose by switching is misleading advertising.
quadrangle 11y ago
Seriously? You're going to use the very argument I mentioned? You're arguing for "there are costs to cover" for the concept of running solitaire on computers? There are cases where the "gotta cover the costs" argument applies, but this is not one of them. Otherwise, I said NOTHING even close to suggesting that "software developers shouldn't make a living." That straw man you just made doesn't look even slightly like me.
xenophonf 11y ago
It's Solitaire. That's the video game equivalent of "Hello, world!"

7952 11y ago

I don't have any particular moral objection to this kind of business mode, I just doubt it will be good for Micrsoft. It coninues the trend of devaluing the PC and elimating any kind of premium pricing (outside of Apple). I think that a lot of traditional users just want to buy something that does what they want without being nagged for further paytments. That is why thousands of people bought MS Office for normal domestic use. It was expensive but they bought it anyway. Now all they get is an invitation to an app store or a monthly payment plan. It is like selling a toy without batteries included. Strangely Ubuntu feels like a premium product in comparison. It comes with lots of good software pre-installed that just work. The app store is filled with high quality free software with no spam or malware in sight. A lot peripherals will just work without having to install new drivers. In comparison Windows feels cheap and tacky. Microsoft should sell Windows with Office bundled and make it expensive ($200+). Include a collection of high quality free software to get people started and emphasise content purchases instead of apps.

rimantas 11y ago

> saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store GPL censors GPL software from App Store.

xenophonf 11y ago
Apple could amend their ToS to allow GPL'ed apps: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/
lorenzhs 11y ago
The problem is not the GPL, the problem is Apple's rules for the App Store. The GPL prohibits restrictions on the rights granted by the license. Yet the App Store terms contain restrictions (most prominently, the freedoms to redistribute copies or copies of modified versions) on what you can do with the software obtained therefrom. Thus, they are not compatible with the GPL. GPL grants you freedoms. App Store terms take them away. I think it's clear who's doing the censoring.