dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) (05/07/87)
Recently there have been some messages here and elsewhere complaining about
the $100/year licensing fee for distributing applications developed with
MacApp. Specifically, people have been worried about paying such a fee
for the right to distribute public domain or not-for-profit software.
We are now looking into this matter and hope to have a solution available
soon. In the meantime, I would like to point out the reason why there is
a MacApp licensing fee. It is not because we are greedy, since a fee of
$100 per year per developer for an unlimited number of applications is not
a way to get rich quick. Rather, since MacApp is an important asset of
Apple, and is only licensed to the developer (just like the system file
and finder), there are legal requirements that we charge some kind of fee
in order for the licensing arrangement to hold up (I'm not a legal expert,
so any questions on this should be directed to Apple's licensing department).
This is reminiscent of the old "For $1 and due consideration, etc." except
that it's not $1. In any case, we are not out to make money on MacApp and
we are working on a solution for non-commercial applications. Stay tuned.
--
David Goldsmith
Apple Computer, Inc.
MacApp Group
AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1
UUCP: {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold
CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY
BIX: dgoldsmithsbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (05/07/87)
In article <727@apple.UUCP> dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) writes: >Recently there have been some messages here and elsewhere complaining about >the $100/year licensing fee for distributing applications developed with >MacApp. > >It is not because we are greedy, since a fee of $100 per year per developer >for an unlimited number of applications is not a way to get rich quick. >Rather, since MacApp is an important asset of Apple, and is only licensed to >the developer (just like the system file and finder), there are legal >requirements that we charge some kind of fee in order for the licensing >arrangement to hold up (I'm not a legal expert, so any questions on this >should be directed to Apple's licensing department). > >David Goldsmith >Apple Computer, Inc. >MacApp Group And of course these ``legal requirements'' don't apply to Think Technologies, right, David? It's bad enough that you guys are charging hundreds and hundreds of dollars (for what is admittedly a decent development system -- at least from what I understand, since I can't afford it), but to have to pay royalties on top of that? How 'bout some _pricing_ for the rest of us? When I use Lightspeed C to develop an application I don't think twice about crediting Think for supplying portions of my code. In fact, I'm happy to do so because there are a number of programs which I could not have developed without it. Lightspeed C is an excellent development environment, extremely well-supported (no charge for updating from version 1.0 to 2.0, unlike the extra charges imposed on those who bought and helped debug the beta version of MPW), and very reasonably priced at about $120. No problems, no hassles, no license fees, and just generally no BS. So except that Apple's red seems to be turning bluer these days, what gives? And please don't say that it cost so much to develop MPW that you need some way to recoup your expenses. That's what Lotus used to say about 1-2-3 (although they never said it while anyone from Borland was nearby... ). I'm sorry if this sounds a little cranky, but I just had to respond, and this is the way it came out. Please realize that this is directed more at Apple in general than at you, David, since I know you weren't personally involved in these decisions. But please do respond and set me straight. I do want to hear Apple's side. - Steve
omh@nancy (Owen M. Hartnett) (05/08/87)
> >We are now looking into this matter and hope to have a solution available >soon. In the meantime, I would like to point out the reason why there is >a MacApp licensing fee. It is not because we are greedy, since a fee of >$100 per year per developer for an unlimited number of applications is not >a way to get rich quick. Rather, since MacApp is an important asset of >Apple, and is only licensed to the developer (just like the system file >and finder), there are legal requirements that we charge some kind of fee >in order for the licensing arrangement to hold up (I'm not a legal expert, >so any questions on this should be directed to Apple's licensing department). >This is reminiscent of the old "For $1 and due consideration, etc." except >that it's not $1. In any case, we are not out to make money on MacApp and >we are working on a solution for non-commercial applications. Stay tuned. >-- >David Goldsmith >Apple Computer, Inc. >MacApp Group > As a commercial developer, and a purchaser of MacApp, there is *no way* I would ship a commercial package with MacApp because of its restrictive "licensing" agreement. First off, this is an old argument which forward thinking companies like Aztec and Lightspeed have resolved in a perfectly rational manner: They don't demand a fee for the *products* of their compiler. True, MacApp is novel and it's object oriented languages are currently in vogue but that's no excuse for these restrictions and royalties. However, this is mild compared to the "licensing agreement" which you are required to submit. You're giving Apple some pretty significant rights over your product, including the power to cease distribution of your product in the face of "incompatibility." Imagine being required to pull your products off the shelf while Apple figures out what to do. They still haven't decided how to handle electronic distribution of software. Admittedly, the word "compatible" is vaguely defined earlier in the agreement, but the word compatible has other meanings as well which, in the hands of a good lawyer, could place your software in peril. Some might feel that Apple is justified because a great deal of the object code is generated from Apple written source code. The same argument might be made of any compiler. After all, what is a compiler? A tool to generate object code. What is the only thing MacApp can be used for? Generating object code. Whether I can code: Put a scroll bar on that window. or kWantHScrollBar or TrackControl( or $A968 the same thing happens. Why does Apple require a license? Obviously, to protect their user interface from infringement. But Apple already does this, by requiring licenses for System and Finder, which are, of course, necessary to run any MacApp program. I submit that the legal requirements are overkill and counterproductive to Apple's intention to provide an hospitable programming environment. I believe Apple is shooting itself in the foot with this license. So, Apple, if you're rethinking your ideas about licensing MacApp, why not open up the box? Owen Hartnett Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET omh%cs.brown.edu@relay.cs.net-relay.ARPA {ihnp4,allegra}!brunix!omh
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (05/08/87)
In article <81@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) ... was a fairly strong diatribe against Apple. I would like to respond as a developer and MPW user in their defense. > And of course these ``legal requirements'' don't apply to Think Technologies, > right, David? It's bad enough that you guys are charging hundreds and hundreds > of dollars (for what is admittedly a decent development system -- at least from > what I understand, since I can't afford it), but to have to pay royalties on > top of that? How 'bout some _pricing_ for the rest of us? There are no royalties for program MPW assembler, Pascal or C. The C compiler is of comparable quality, the shell/development tools are much better, but it is somewhat slower and less mac-like. If there were a competing product to MacApp without royalties, I'd be interested, but right now it offers unique advantages. > When I use Lightspeed C to develop an application I don't think twice about > crediting Think for supplying portions of my code. I object to this violently, since it dilutes my own advertising message. Needless to say, any final product gets recompiled with MPW even if it was prototyped in LSC. > Lightspeed C is an excellent development environment, extremely > well-supported (no charge for updating from version 1.0 to 2.0, unlike the > extra charges imposed on those who bought and helped debug the beta version > of MPW), Although originally threatened, there was no charge for going from MPW 1.0bxxx to 1.0. 2.0 (Mac II version) isn't realized so it's not clear what that charge will be, if any. Apple is releasing new manuals with 2.0, which I'm willing to pay for (I hate Think's addendum.) > No problems, no hassles, > no license fees, and just generally no BS. My experience (and that of developers I know) with MPW is No problems, no hassles, no license fees, and just generally no BS. Don't forget, Apple needed a serious development system for their own use and their major developers, to replace the Lisa Workshop. That's what MPW was intended for. If it's too expensive or bulky for many hobbyists, that's actually fine. Apple does *NOT* want to put Think, Consulair, TML, etc out of business. Quite frankly, I'm glad they're doing it this way. There's no innovation without competion and if Apple had the fastest, smallest, most powerful, easiest to use and cheapest system (if that's possible) there wouldn't be any alternatives. I regularly use MS-Basic, MPW Pascal, MPW Object Pascal, MacApp, Lightspeed C and MPW C, depending on my requirements. -- Joel West {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel if I ever fix news) jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (05/08/87)
In article <81@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: > >And of course these ``legal requirements'' don't apply to Think Technologies, (I am not a lawyer either, so take this with a grain of salt.) I think that David does not mean you HAVE to license your software and charge a license fee. Rather, if you WANT to control the distribution of your software and WANT to make a licensing arrangement, then you must charge a fee. It is up to Think Technology to decide if they care how their libraries are distributed. They set certain requierments for using their libraries, and Apple sets other requiements. >When I use Lightspeed C to develop an application I don't think twice about >crediting Think for supplying portions of my code. In fact, I'm happy to do >so because there are a number of programs which I could not have developed >without it. Most MacApp users feel the same way. >So except that Apple's red seems to be turning bluer these days, what gives? >And please don't say that it cost so much to develop MPW that you need some >way to recoup your expenses. As David said, license fees to don't make money. Also, there is no license fee to distribute programs developed with MPW. MacApp, however, represents a much larger body of code, and one thaty Apple considers to have more value. As David also mentioned, other Apple software (such as the Finder) is licensed; one cannot distribute copies of the Finder with out a proper license. > I do want to hear Apple's side. I think David did present Apple's side. He also said that Apple's Licensing department was looking into the issue. What more do you want? -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (05/11/87)
In article <15309@brunix.UUCP> omh@nancy.UUCP (Owen M. Hartnett) writes: > >As a commercial developer, and a purchaser of MacApp, there is *no way* >I would ship a commercial package with MacApp because of its restrictive >"licensing" agreement. First off, this is an old argument which forward >thinking companies like Aztec and Lightspeed have resolved in a >perfectly rational manner: They don't demand a fee for the *products* >of their compiler. True, MacApp is novel and it's object oriented >languages are currently in vogue but that's no excuse for these >restrictions and royalties. The situations are not comparable. MacApp is not the output of a compiler. There is no license required to distribute the output of the MPW compilers. MacApp is several thousand lines of code that becomes part of your application. It represents a significant investment on Apple's part (more than 6 man-years or engineering). The only comparable thing would be the runtime libraries that 3rd party language vendors provide. These libraries are trivial compared to MacApp, and anyone could duplicate them in a few days. >Some might feel that Apple is justified because a great deal of the object >code is generated from Apple written source code. The same argument >might be made of any compiler. After all, what is a compiler? A tool >to generate object code. What is the only thing MacApp can be used for? >Generating object code. Whether I can code: MacApp does not generate object code! It is the source code of a complete Macintosh program. A compiler doesn't generate object code out of thin air. >Why does Apple require a license? Obviously, to protect their user >interface from infringement. No. It's to protect the intellectual property and investment that MacApp represents. Its to protect against someone porting MacApp to other machines. The user interface is protected by copyrights, which is entirely separate. If the cost of the license bothers you, look at it in terms of the time you save in implementing your application. $100 represents about 1/2 day's work by a competent programmer. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (05/11/87)
In article <3115@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > >If there were a competing product to MacApp without royalties, I'd be >interested, but right now it offers unique advantages. The word "royalties" is misleading. Paying the licensing fee entitles you to distribute as many copies of as many applications as you want. There is no royalty per unit shipped. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
sbb@esquire.UUCP (05/11/87)
In article <3115@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: ... a good defense of the MPW tools and programming environment, and he correctly points out that MacApp is unique in the marketplace ... >If there were a competing product to MacApp without royalties, I'd be >interested, but right now it offers unique advantages. > >Don't forget, Apple needed a serious development system for their >own use and their major developers, to replace the Lisa Workshop. >That's what MPW was intended for. > >If it's too expensive or bulky for many hobbyists, that's actually >fine. Well, you're right, but I was never arguing that MacApp and MPW weren't fine products. Apple is, of course, entitled to charge what they wish and impose any sort of licensing agreements their lawyers construct. My original point was, however, that to force developers to pay a license fee on top of an already steep purchase price just seems to me wrong. Not illegal, but wrong. And in particular, to justify it by saying (as David Goldsmith said) that Apple has to charge "something" to make the agreement legally binding is almost insulting. That may be what Apple would like us to believe, but it just isn't true. There are a lot of "hobbyists" out there who would like to benefit from MPW (and MacApp in particular), Joel, and to say that well, if you can't afford it, don't use it is kind of arrogant. Because that's the same response you'll get when you ask Microsoft/IBM why their pascal compiler is so expensive. And attitudes like that distress me, especially when they come from companies that are successful today not because of a couple of major software houses (witness the Jazz debacle), but because of a thriving development community. And even though you ably defended MPW and MacApp, the fact remains that Borland, Think, TML, etc. all seem to be able to produce useful and clever products, sell them for reasonable prices, and still make money. Except for that "real developer" vs. "hobbyist" arrogance, why can't Apple? - Steve
rcopm@yabbie.UUCP (05/13/87)
In tribute to...
The on-going saga of
"I thought of it (maybe not first),
You pay for it, and will do so for the rest of my natural life "
Joel West writes...
> If there were a competing product to MacApp without royalties, I'd be
> interested, but right now it offers unique advantages.
Thats Funny, Think and Xerox could have said something similar about their
products (while they were still unique - in Xerox's case). Oh, sorry,
I forgot that *ALL* the Dolphin and Dorado (not to mention SmallTalk) creators
were/are employed by Apple at some stage or another :-]. Thus Apple owns their
thoughts, even though some of them don't work there any more. OK so Xerox has
a finger in Apple's pie, so what?
All credit to Apple for producing a beautiful series of machines.
All credit to Apple for producing a wonderful user interface.
All credit to Apple for Challenging the IBM Monopoly.
What do they want to be now? A Monopoly? Or "Thought Police?"
Read your own Technical Notes, Apple!
A Compiler is a compiler!
Homage is paid since the only machines that MacApp (currently) works on
are Apples.
So why the Royalty?
No excuses, No BS!
Paul Menon.
Dept of Communication & Electronic Engineering,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
124 Latrobe St, Melbourne, 3000, Australia
ACSnet: rcopm@yabbie UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!yabbie.rmit.oz!rcopm
CSNET: rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz ARPA: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@seismo
BITNET: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@CSNET-RELAY
PHONE: +61 3 660 2619.jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (05/15/87)
I would have mailed a response, but the local mailer has had poor results sending mail down under. In article <500@yabbie.oz>, rcopm@yabbie.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > A Compiler is a compiler! MacApp is not a compiler, but an object-oriented extensible library of behaviors for Macintosh applications. Compilers are offered by Apple, Think, TML, Borland, Consulair, etc. but, to my knowledge, this is the only such complete library available. -- Joel West {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel if I ever fix news) jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must
thompsn@SouthBank.UUCP (05/20/87)
About the problem of a $100 licence ($10 if you are giving it away).
Larry, I for one would like to thank Apple for the MacApp product. I have
been using MacApp for some two weeks now. I have produced a couple of demo
applications (kinda feeling my way). There is no way that I could have
done what I have done (albeit not much) in the time using conventional
development systems.
I saw Barry Haines (hope that is spelt right) of Apple Computer at an
OOP conference in London. He demo'd MacApp and a version
of Smalltalk with MacApp in st-80. Apple seem to have dedicated
a lot of time and effort to MacApp and is, I feel, totally justified
in protecting its property.
To the people that wish to criticise I ask you this: $100 is not a lot to
pay for a development system with this much potential. I have seen people
charging $1000+ for Lisp systems. MPW + Object Pascal + MacApp is going to
cost around $400, which is what you would pay for an MS-Dos compiler. Add the
cost of Windows development kit and you still dont get as much for twice the
price (get as much for your money).
Pay the licence out of the money you save, and think of the time you
are going to save in the future.
Nick Thompson.
--
Nick Thompson. ..mcvax!ukc!idec!kbsc!lawesn
South Bank Poly & Imperial College, London. Phone +44 1 858 4371
c/o 53 Maze Hill, Greenwich, London, SE10 8XQ, UK.
"A turkey with a PhD is still a turkey"