Many studies have shown that app developers make much more money in the Apple app store than in the Google Play store, because Apple users love spending money on stuff, and Android users tend to be much more frugal. On top of that, Apple users are happy to pay through the nose for Apple products, plus apps in the Apple app store.

If you believe 'software should be Free!', then you're going to be using a Linux (or other FOSS) system, not MacOS. The folks who care about free-as-in-freedom won't be affected by this. It's still FOSS for FOSS-systems, while support for non-FOSS systems is non-FOSS. How many businesses are so constrained by link times on Mac that they're willing to pay to reduce them? (And go through the admin effort of paying for something.)Ī reasonable amount of software is 'free-as-in-£ for personal use, paid for professional use.' Lots of orgs are willing to ask individual devs 'are there any dev tools you use that we should be paying for' and are willing to pay the $50/mo for IntelliJ, so $10/mo for `sold` seems to me like it stands a chance? Note that `sold` is still free-as-in-£ for use in CI/CD, and is only paid for individual-developer use. And even then, the non-FOSS `sold` is source-available, which covers 3 of the 4 freedoms and IMO that missing freedom is the least important. Plus, even beyond the 'moral should', practically speaking, going non-FOSS this means it gets excluded from GNU/Linux distro packages, which IMO would be a fatal hit for something like this.īut honestly, I'm fine with this move. But I hope we don't see any tedious comments here about how this is a moral outrage because all software should be fr£e.Īll software should be free-as-in-freedom, but not nescessarily free-as-in-£ though I acknowledge that the former without the latter is often problematic.

For mac instal Shoulders of Giants