> To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?
The issue is not that your argument is controversial. It's that it falls flat because it's based on an incorrect assumption.
> Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries
No they can't.
There are a broad set of laws restricting how companies can or can not do business. These laws severely limit the terms Apple can set. Laws restricting anticompetitve behaviors would be part of this set, same for the new regulations in South Korea we are currently discussing.
My apologies, when I said "whatever terms they want" I was being somewhat hyperbolic, even if I do think the spirit of the sentence is clear when read in context. Obviously terms of any such license cannot violate law.
Are you suggesting that Apple charging developers a percentage-based license fee for use of their work is unlawful anywhere, under any law current or proposed?
> Are you suggesting that Apple charging developers a percentage-based license fee for use of their work is unlawful anywhere, under any law current or proposed?
The crux of the discussion generally focus on the parts of the contract preventing developers from using competing works in addition to the fees. That seems to fall squarly into your "whatever terms they want". And yes, I do personaly think there is a case to be made that Apple licensing terms are anti-competitive, an opinion which seems shared by the EU’s competition chief.
Your opinion seems to be that Apple could just stop charging a fee for using the App Store and charge it for the use of a different but similarly unavoidable part of the system instead. But that's merely a technicality. It doesn't fundamentaly change the question.
Microsoft Visual Studio was not free in the past. And even now free version is limited. I don’t see it different from hypothetical paid Apple library as long as there are other ways to write software for the given platform.
Is your argument that anyone who builds a device which runs software is required to ensure that an entirely free way to develop software for it exists? That makes no sense.
Tell that to Nintendo. Sony. Microsoft. Canon. Nikon. Garmin. Alpine. Pioneer. LG. Samsung. Volkswagen. Hyundai. The list goes on. Software is all around us. The traditional general purpose computer platforms are the exception, not the rule.
The issue is not that your argument is controversial. It's that it falls flat because it's based on an incorrect assumption.
> Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries
No they can't.
There are a broad set of laws restricting how companies can or can not do business. These laws severely limit the terms Apple can set. Laws restricting anticompetitve behaviors would be part of this set, same for the new regulations in South Korea we are currently discussing.