Yeah, and the usual suspects are now claiming that this goose's firing is somehow horrible and wrong. For example, here's venture capitalist Paul Graham:
The author is a random twitterer. Images are of Paul Graham's tweet defending said misogynistic goose, juxtaposed with quotes from said goose's book illustrating his misogyny.
Did anyone at either company trip on their own dick after it fell off? And did they die?
+2
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
This seems like it should happen more often. "You're all assholes who are wasting everyone's time. All lawyers involved, here's the number of successful pro bono public defender cases you need to successfully argue before you're allowed to make money again. Fuck off the lot of you."
kind of a sloppy verdict, but i think people are making too much of "both sides lost lol"
the loser here is apple. pending appeal (i assume?) they will be forbidden from preventing app makers from offering micropurchases that evade their fees. epic's loss is negligible.
this is going to trigger some sort of app store realignment where they give preferential treatment to people who pay the fees, and then someone will sue for that and we'll go for round 2
the consumer does not benefit at all from this really... except for potentially 20% cheaper angry birds... for a while... the best thing for consumers would have been to have allowed competing app stores, which this doesn't seem to do
Competing app stores does have security risks and reduces the simplicity of the iphone. The simplicity and security, for some people (myself included), are selling points of the iphone over android's somewhat more open system.
I'm OK with apps being able to bypass the app store's payment processor as a stopgap if it still allows for that simplicity to be an option.
+1
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
kind of a sloppy verdict, but i think people are making too much of "both sides lost lol"
the loser here is apple. pending appeal (i assume?) they will be forbidden from preventing app makers from offering micropurchases that evade their fees. epic's loss is negligible.
this is going to trigger some sort of app store realignment where they give preferential treatment to people who pay the fees, and then someone will sue for that and we'll go for round 2
the consumer does not benefit at all from this really... except for potentially 20% cheaper angry birds... for a while... the best thing for consumers would have been to have allowed competing app stores, which this doesn't seem to do
Epic's loss is that Apple was not ordered to let Fortnite back onto the app store.
Competing app stores does have security risks and reduces the simplicity of the iphone. The simplicity and security, for some people (myself included), are selling points of the iphone over android's somewhat more open system.
I'm OK with apps being able to bypass the app store's payment processor as a stopgap if it still allows for that simplicity to be an option.
It really doesn't reduce the simplicity at all to allow people to install other app stores. Or security. That's always been nonsense, since it's fundamentally an opt-in thing.
kind of a sloppy verdict, but i think people are making too much of "both sides lost lol"
the loser here is apple. pending appeal (i assume?) they will be forbidden from preventing app makers from offering micropurchases that evade their fees. epic's loss is negligible.
this is going to trigger some sort of app store realignment where they give preferential treatment to people who pay the fees, and then someone will sue for that and we'll go for round 2
the consumer does not benefit at all from this really... except for potentially 20% cheaper angry birds... for a while... the best thing for consumers would have been to have allowed competing app stores, which this doesn't seem to do
It's not going to result in cheaper games for the consumer. If the market was willing to pay X for a game, you don't voluntarily cut the price to X-20%, you just continue charging X and pocket that 20%.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
here's an ongoing twitter thread about the nitty-gritty of the judge's actual ruling, what legal (and philosophical) implications are and are not in the ruling, and where we go from here
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
here's an ongoing twitter thread about the nitty-gritty of the judge's actual ruling, what legal (and philosophical) implications are and are not in the ruling, and where we go from here
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
The thing that concerns me about this ruling is that it seems to give carte blanche to developers to make apps that send you offsite for whatever reason they want. And that is something that can be easily abused by the same minds that brought you gacha gambling.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
If I understand this correctly, this means that all Apple needs to do is change it so all apps on the store have to pay a licensing fee but said fee is waived if they opt into their payment processor, and they get to essentially keep the status quo.
Related to Apple’s IAP, Twitter has this new thing where you can subscribe to your ”favorite twitterer” for sub-only tweets, whatever worth there is in that.
Right now it’s only available on iOS. And they implemented it by… making each twitter account that has this enabled a separate SKU, so when you check in-app purchases for the Twitter app in the App Store, there’s a huge list of individual user accounts you can pay for. And the store isn’t designed to show them all.
…and isn’t that exactly what Apple argued that Epic should do with each of their individual games on the Epic store, if they wanted to sell them on Apple’s store using an Epic Games storefront app?
Competing app stores does have security risks and reduces the simplicity of the iphone. The simplicity and security, for some people (myself included), are selling points of the iphone over android's somewhat more open system.
I'm OK with apps being able to bypass the app store's payment processor as a stopgap if it still allows for that simplicity to be an option.
It really doesn't reduce the simplicity at all to allow people to install other app stores. Or security. That's always been nonsense, since it's fundamentally an opt-in thing.
Yeah no, this weakens security.
If you have to allow different stores, then you have to allow apps that are installed from different stores which have not been vetted by the Apple security team or whatever.
Which means you can't hardcode 'any app that's not been signed by Apple can't run'.
Which means now there is always a way around that protection on every Apple device, whether you plan to use a second store or not.
Assuming being signed by Apple means anything at all.
Posts
Tweet is a transcript of the trial where shit goes bananas
A
N
A
N
A
S
Part of me wants to ask how this happened, and another part already knows.
Yeah, and the usual suspects are now claiming that this goose's firing is somehow horrible and wrong. For example, here's venture capitalist Paul Graham:
The author is a random twitterer. Images are of Paul Graham's tweet defending said misogynistic goose, juxtaposed with quotes from said goose's book illustrating his misogyny.
Yeah, that reads like he was jerking off into a thesaurus while writing.
Final result: everyone wins except apple and epic!
the loser here is apple. pending appeal (i assume?) they will be forbidden from preventing app makers from offering micropurchases that evade their fees. epic's loss is negligible.
this is going to trigger some sort of app store realignment where they give preferential treatment to people who pay the fees, and then someone will sue for that and we'll go for round 2
the consumer does not benefit at all from this really... except for potentially 20% cheaper angry birds... for a while... the best thing for consumers would have been to have allowed competing app stores, which this doesn't seem to do
I'm OK with apps being able to bypass the app store's payment processor as a stopgap if it still allows for that simplicity to be an option.
Epic's loss is that Apple was not ordered to let Fortnite back onto the app store.
It really doesn't reduce the simplicity at all to allow people to install other app stores. Or security. That's always been nonsense, since it's fundamentally an opt-in thing.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's not going to result in cheaper games for the consumer. If the market was willing to pay X for a game, you don't voluntarily cut the price to X-20%, you just continue charging X and pocket that 20%.
most noteworthy is the fairly naked disdain the judge displays for everyone involved, loosely veiled in legalese
If I understand this correctly, this means that all Apple needs to do is change it so all apps on the store have to pay a licensing fee but said fee is waived if they opt into their payment processor, and they get to essentially keep the status quo.
Right now it’s only available on iOS. And they implemented it by… making each twitter account that has this enabled a separate SKU, so when you check in-app purchases for the Twitter app in the App Store, there’s a huge list of individual user accounts you can pay for. And the store isn’t designed to show them all.
…and isn’t that exactly what Apple argued that Epic should do with each of their individual games on the Epic store, if they wanted to sell them on Apple’s store using an Epic Games storefront app?
Yeah no, this weakens security.
If you have to allow different stores, then you have to allow apps that are installed from different stores which have not been vetted by the Apple security team or whatever.
Which means you can't hardcode 'any app that's not been signed by Apple can't run'.
Which means now there is always a way around that protection on every Apple device, whether you plan to use a second store or not.
Assuming being signed by Apple means anything at all.
Hey, a twofer!