[MCRed]

Don't be silly- Apple gives Xcode away for free, it is not bloated nor complex, nor particularly proprietary (who do you think made LLVM?) and you don't need to seek anyone's approval to upload your software to github or to run it on your own device. You can write Arm assembly on your laptop and run it on your iPhone even easier than you can on an rPi.

You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free.

Apple is the one who shipped the Apple 1 with BASIC... and they haven't stopped.

[greggman]

XCode is not free. It costs 1 Mac. Given the price difference between the cheapest mac and the cheapest alternatives the cost of XCode something > $0

Posted from a mac

[simonh]

But that argument simply books down to "more expensive computers cost more". True a Linux computer might cost $500 and got $0 more you can program on it. A Mac might cost $800 and for $0 more you can program on it. The marginal cost to develop is the same. But I could easily spec up a Linux workstation costing thousands of dollars. Macs being expensive doesn't make Linux computers more expensive, it doesn't raise he costs for anybody else. So who exactly is being harmed here? I just don't really see what useful point is being made.

[interpol_p]

If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money?

(Unless you receive a computer as a gift or it is freely leased; but then that applies to Macs as much as any computer.)

[scintill76]

The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware.

You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.

[interpol_p]

I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper.

I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.

[scintill76]

Maybe nobody will see this, but consider this thought experiment: You have a replicator like from Star Trek, which can make any computer that exists now, at zero cost (say it uses garbage you were going to throw away.) Presumably if you copied an Apple machine, it would not legally be a true licensed Apple machine, for the same reason that making unauthorized byte-for-byte copies of digital files does not create additional licenses to use them however you'd like. If Xcode's license requires licensed Apple hardware, it can't legally be run on that machine. On the other hand, FLOSS compilers could run on that, or on a free/libre hardware design that is not even in a grey area to replicate.

While the analogy is maybe a bit silly or different than what was originally said (interpreting "free of cost" more like "libre"), I think it illustrates a real difference that is relevant.

(Btw, I don't actually know Xcode's license -- maybe it only needs Mac OS for technical reasons, not licensing reasons, in which case it could legally and practically be run on any sufficiently correct Mac OS emulator.)

[MawNicker]

That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.

[interpol_p]

The argument was made against the statement "Apple gives Xcode away for free."

They do give Xcode away for free. I didn't think that factoring a modern development computer into the price was a reasonable stance to take against that line.

[adrusi]

The argument is that Xcode isn't free because its use requires a previous purchase of a computer from the same vendor.

[interpol_p]

Why does it matter that the money goes to the same vendor?

The argument is about whether the software is "free" or not. This only involves the cost to the end user. It is not concerned with where that money is paid.

[Nullabillity]

> You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free.

Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from? You could install unsigned applications without anyone's permission on old systems like S60 ages before the iPhone.

[cmrdporcupine]

PalmOS devices were touch screen mobile phone devices that were open to development long before Apple entered the market.

There were J2ME devices as well.

[hobs]

Apple didnt even have a mobile store at launch, it took third parties to get them out of their web only approach, you couldnt even write apps for the iphone until later patches.

[SixSigma]

> Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission

I was writing apps for my Nokia smartphone before the iPhone was even a project.