Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

>I've seen a large volume of creative software, often free, that is used to produce output, that requires, as part of its license, that you give the creator of the software a cut if you sell any of the things you make with it.

Comparing the history of "Apple-branded Mac software for which Apple does not charge users license fees" with the history of the "free for non-commercial use" software projects of the world is...a stretch.

Xcode is free. GarageBand has been included free on any semi-recently purchased Mac. iWeb who knows; Keynote, Pages, and Numbers are very low cost (and FWIW they each probably share code with iBooks Author).

Imagine for a moment that the next update to Xcode or GarageBand included EULA language similar to what the OP is complaining about. Would you defend it on the grounds you cite above, or not? And if not, why not?

Are there any other free applications on the Mac App Store that contain similar license language? If a third-party developer had a free application rejected from the Mac App Store for including this type of license language in the EULA, would you be surprised, or would you find the rejection consistent with the expectations that Apple has set for non-expert users on the platform?

If the "iBooks Author" application were something that had to be downloaded from inside an iBooks Developer Program portal, where you had to accept the license language as an explicit step to getting a portal account, I wouldn't care so much. But Apple literally held a press conference to tell the whole world "hey this shiny free shovel is going to enable happy rainbow pony time for the children, and everyone with a Mac and something to write for the children should download it right now and start digging."

>Very often today we've seen Apple offer all kinds of new and innovative things, and I've seen a content stream of comments along the lines of "these are bad because apple profits from them". Of course Apple profits. We all profit, though, because they changed the economics of the education situation. If you want something different, create it.

I totally agree with you on this point. And I would even agree that it's the most important point. In return, all I ask is that you join me in finding their EULA shenanigans slightly scummy in their bait-and-switchness.

> Imagine for a moment that the next update to Xcode or GarageBand included EULA language similar to what the OP is complaining about. Would you defend it on the grounds you cite above, or not? And if not, why not?

The Xcode example is already a reality. If you produce an iOS app using Xcode, you have two choices: sell it for a price in the App Store and pay Apple a cut, or give it away.

I would not be at all surprised if the Xcode EULA contained language enforcing this now that you are no longer required to have an ADC account (free or otherwise) to download Xcode.

The greater point stands. If Apple had made iBooks Author only able to publish to the iBookstore, no one would have been surprised. It's their platform, and they do as they please. Don't like it, don't use it. I know a few publishers that are making this very judgement call right now: build our own web-based platform, or pay Apple's vig. Sure, they'd love to use Apple's tool for free. They'd also like to stop paying $1200 for Adobe's Creative Suite, but that's not happening either.

A couple of points on what you say:

* The Xcode example isn't a reality. I can see my Mac application outside of the appstore without giving Apple a penny. I can sell my corporate iPhone / iPad application without giving Apple a penny (corporates can obtain management tools that allow them to load applications without using the appstore). It's true for a subset - consumer iOS apps.

* I've had Xcode prior to it's free availability in the appstore and have never had an ADC account - it was on the CDs with my MacBook.

Neither of those points negate what I have said.

On the first point, I was specifically referring to iOS apps, and you cannot "sell my corporate iPhone/iPad application" in the way you describe. Side-loading is only available to businesses with more than 500 employees, and as far as I understand, is only for internally developed applications.

Fair enough on the second, but it's tangential to the point. Apple constrains the distribution channels of iOS apps built using Xcode. This specific case is analogous to the iBooks Author tool restrictions.

No, sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out a couple of inaccuracies (though re your response, a corporate can load anything, whoever wrote it, so long as they have the required files).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact