41–50 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM Commas, dots and spaces are also used. Underscores are unusual, a bit of a vestige of maritime communications. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator
As I said, most publications would use commas, and they'd put the dollar sign in front of the value.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise:
I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…
> 1_000_000$ The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions. As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a p…
> most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM Commas, dots and spaces are also used. Underscores are unusual, a bit of a vestige of maritime communications. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…
It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445
I know that there are people in the industry who will agree with Apple on this.
Just going to repost this comment I made a few days ago to explain:
Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say and they can say nope not that.
Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain.
Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here.
In essence, Apple is encroaching upon individuals' personal property rights, particularly the right of exclusion. By employing cryptography post-sale, Apple effectively reserves the right to control what software can run on a device they no longer officially own.
For a more in-depth exploration of the right of exclusion, I highly recommend reading the paper titled "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]
in particular the section "A. The Logical Primacy of the Right to Exclude"
I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?
As it is now, you cannot publish an app on an alternative app store without Apple's permission. The financial part doesn't even matter, they're still reserving the right to censor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They count as downloads but the count is download/per-user/per-year. Still not going to be cheap but yeah. If you have 2M users and you ship 1 update or 1,000,000 new updates in a year you just pay $0.50/user (for 1M of them, since the first 1M is "free").
However on the flip side a user can be someone who downloads your app, pokes at for 10 minutes and deletes it. Not something I would call a user, but for apples purposes it works.
For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise: https://news.ycombinator.com/i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…
It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445
a) Defending the industry's interests b) Defending US interests c) Defending capitalism
I'd say (c) is the highest calling for someone like Sinofsky. His worldview is that companies like Microsoft should be free to do what they want, as long as they play by (weakly regulated) US rules.
Europe's DMA, like China's Great Firewall, changes the fundamental rules of the playground and put in question the ascendancy of capitalist views and US interests.