> The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle because there’s always cost in tooling involved. Whether you buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that point why stop there, why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?
Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There’s nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of compiling a program, it’s again anti-competitive.
And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.
> Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
Oh, ok, so because Apple forces me to buy internet and electricity but not any specific internet or electricity, Apple gets a pass?
I'm glad that’s cleared up.
Whether something is overpriced is a subjective opinion that we seem to differ on. Still, somehow, I suspect you’ll struggle to provide me an example that can match, say, the latest MBP with an M3 chip in performance and power draw at a lower price.
> Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer.
You call it forcing. I call it not going out of their way to spend resources on developing tooling for a platform other than their own.
And yet, despite them not going out of their way to spend resources, many alternatives have developed over the years to create an app for iOS on Windows.
Seems like it’s not that big of an issue.
I’m not particularly fazed by the notion that I need an Apple device to create an app for Apple devices.
But what do I know? Perhaps I got brainwashed after they forced me to buy an iPhone to debug my iPhone apps.
> it’s again anti-competitive
Is it anti-competitive for a company not to go out of its way to create tooling that runs a competing platform?
> And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays
You’re contradicting yourself. What is it?
Is there zero cost of tooling, and can I pick up a free laptop at my nearest handout spot, or are we to pretend it’s “zero cost” just because there are options on how much I spend?
If it’s the latter, where is the line in the sand? Is it anti-competitive that I must purchase a laptop with specific minimal specs to have a smooth compiling experience? Does the line start when I want to develop games, and I have to pull my wallet to buy a decent GPU?
I’m sorry; I have difficulty taking any of this seriously.
Yes, I will have to make some financial investments if I want to have the tools to create something that is pretty much a given for pretty much anything.
And yes, sometimes I’ll need a specific tool for a particular job.
Are we to admonish every such instance or only when you feel something is overpriced?
Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There’s nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of compiling a program, it’s again anti-competitive.
And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.