Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws... Its rather obvious its about SOX.
No, it's not at all. The only "evidence" for that is a bunch of uninformed developers speculating about things they know nothing about.
OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence that this isn't the case:
1) Why didn't they charge before? They've used the same accounting standards since the iPhone was released, so if they "suddenly" discovered they'd been doing the wrong thing, they can't just fix it going forward. At the very least they would need to make a statement to the stockmarket they had discovered a problem.
2) There are a huge number of companies that have similar accounting practices to Apple and yet manage to give away their tools. RIM & Nokia are two obvious ones.
3) It would be trivial to work around the problem, if there were one (which I don't believe there is). For example, they could spin off developer tools into a wholly owned operating company that would receive income from Apple and release free tools. The accounts would be separate, and this wacky SOX accounting theory would not apply.
Edit: 4) (from further down the thread): Why don't they charge for iTunes?
I don't know why Apple pulled this move, but it's not about SOX compliance.
Just a law student, but I can buy the SOX thing. Companies have very different approaches to compliance, get advice from different counsel, account for things in different ways, etc.
I feel like there is a Occam's Razor argument in here. What purpose besides SOX could Apple have in not giving away XCode 4? Could be pure greed as others are saying, but when Apple wants to make money they're incredibly good at it. How many people are going to download XCode? Tens of thousands? Apple might stand to make, what $100k off the venture? If they were really trying to monetize XCode why would they price it so they don't make any money off it?
I think you might be right and I might be wrong on this.
After reading how Apple pulled this previously (on the iPod Touch upgrade) I now think it's possible they may use SOX as justification for this more.
I still don't think it's good a justification, and I still think Apple could have worked around it if they wanted, but yeah - you are possibly more right that I am.
(I know admitting you are wrong on the internet is unheard of, but Strong opinions, weakly held & all that.. )
They why $5? Why not 1c, or 99c, or make it $99 and include a year's membership?
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: can you really imagine Steve Jobs agreeing to charge for something he didn't want to charge for because of accounting practices?
“The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,” said Teresa Brewer, Apple’s Mac hardware public relations manager.
The SOX rules are about products. Developer tools are a service that repays OS sellers in their being used, because without tailoring the tools developers use, they lose influence on the direction that
Lawyers are good at scaring people, but the SOX thing sounds too much of a stretch for something that is not a revenue item. Charging for it will complicate the accounting. I guess they want to simplify the way they run the ADC.
You could always get the dev tools for free* because they always came with some other purchase. That seems like it would cover the "SOX" compliance to me.
Examples: you bought a copy of Mac OS X (the dev tools were in the box), you bought an ADC membership (dev tools are included with your membership). Now, XCode 4 from the App Store is the first time you could get them standalone. And they charge for it.
While I can't explain Apple's inconsistency, here's a little bit of "evidence" (admittedly second-hand) from someone who I would not consider to be "uninformed":
No, it's not at all. The only "evidence" for that is a bunch of uninformed developers speculating about things they know nothing about.
OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence that this isn't the case:
1) Why didn't they charge before? They've used the same accounting standards since the iPhone was released, so if they "suddenly" discovered they'd been doing the wrong thing, they can't just fix it going forward. At the very least they would need to make a statement to the stockmarket they had discovered a problem.
2) There are a huge number of companies that have similar accounting practices to Apple and yet manage to give away their tools. RIM & Nokia are two obvious ones.
3) It would be trivial to work around the problem, if there were one (which I don't believe there is). For example, they could spin off developer tools into a wholly owned operating company that would receive income from Apple and release free tools. The accounts would be separate, and this wacky SOX accounting theory would not apply.
Edit: 4) (from further down the thread): Why don't they charge for iTunes?
I don't know why Apple pulled this move, but it's not about SOX compliance.
Edit 2: I think I might be wrong on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2311934