431–440 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey now, they’d have to read all the way to the second paragraph to get to the nuance. You can’t expect people to read two paragraphs before starting to argue.
Contradicting yourself isn't "nuance," it's bad writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other titans tried, they all failed to capture. Blackberry lagged for too long and Microsoft simply lacked the network effects since early advertisement was based on how large the app stores were. The only solace is that you can modify Android to the point where there's almost no Google interference whatsoever. But of course some apps choose to rely on that (e.g. Banking).maybe one day Apple will begrudgingly get to…
> Microsoft simply lacked the network effects Microsoft execs had their heads buried too deep in their own asses to be able to understand what was needed at the time. They pushed a platform (Windows phone) that lacked interesting features out of the box, lacked cloud services integration to fill the gap left by the lacking base features, and required Windows as a development platform (and, iirc, C# as well?). It didn…
Now, Apple is achieving per-eminance in the cross-device consumer OS market in the latop+tablet+smartphone space and Windows is slowly dying. Microsoft will just set to become yet another boring cloud services company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That only makes sense if we assume Apple’s world class legal team didn’t see what every lay person could. Apple banned Epic the day before DMA came into effect when doing this sort of thing was still legal, they 100% saw this. They did probably bet on the chance EU would overlook it if they did it before the law came into effect, they lost that bet but they thought it was worth a try.
No, they banned Epic's account after the DMA took effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of those things where there is only upside for everyone involved. Apple (and Google) need to be saved from themselves sometimes. Meanwhile the repeated reversals are making Apple look guilty and nefarious.
> This is one of those things where there is only upside for everyone involved. Except all of us who value privacy and security. Face it: the major competition between app stores is not going to be on price, but a race to the bottom on who can allow apps to fuck over users the hardest.
If there's one company I don't expect that from, it's Apple. They may have highly dubious ethics but they are damn good at business and marketing, and I would be utterly shocked if they don't position themselves as the safe, privacy-friendly official app store. For people who don't enable side-loading, I wouldn't expect they'll even notice any changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article it was because Epic met with Apple and gave better assurances that they'd play ball rather than deliberately break their contract like they did last time. Regulators don't seem to have had anything to do with it. --- So what changed? Apple tells 9to5Mac that it has held further discussions with Epic. The result is that Apple has received proper commitment that Epic will play by the rules as l…
> According to the article it was because [...] Not fully the truth, however -- according to APPLE, who are quoted in this one article. Tim Sweeny tweeted that the change was due to the EU DMA political proponents applying pressure to Apple. The truth is not known, and it's not limited to Apple's side.
> “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X.
We can't be certain it was the EU's pressure that made Apple react, but anything else seems rather unlikely.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/fortnite-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wrote that didn't fully trust Epic's version of the events posted on EpicGames.com, and by the same logic I'm sure not going to trust Apple's version This fallacy plays out a lot in politics. "Epic has lied in the past, so all parties involved must be lying."
That's not what I'm saying. I can't take both of them on faith alone , because at least one of them must be wrong. I'm not qualified to decide between them, so I should weight them equally. Public statements from the parties, or fans of the parties, are reasonable to suspect of being tactical with the truth even when no falsehoods are stated, rather than giving a complete picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed to be said (good faith effort to follow the rules) succinctly and professionally. Should he have offered a pinky swear or a blood oath? Or an essay pledging his allegiance? I generally like Apple and their products but in this instance they came across as bitter and petty.
[flagged]
Also I should point out that there's a significant difference between breaking a contract mutually agreed upon and negotiated by two companies, versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic's "rule breaking" was essentially a legal strategy to force Apple to legally justify their control. It wasn't some random hooliganism.
Apple believes this is an existential threat and they are fighting against it as hard as they can. But is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? These actions come with a cost. This gives Epic visibility and it harms trust in Apple’s brand. How do they balance these costs against the perceived threat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Culture is a very hard thing to change at any company, including in the face of existential threats. Look at what's happening at Google with AI. "We are a walled garden and will not interoperate or tolerate alternatives" is in Apple's DNA, and no decision maker at any level at the company will risk suggesting otherwise for fear of being branded a traitor, even if it is a very good idea.
We are a walled garden and will not interoperate or tolerate alternatives" No. Before Apple got their monopoly they absolutely begged developers, even tried to shame them, for not developing for MacOS. They evened threatened lawsuits against Microsoft.
Between this and the PWA decision, Apple seems to be flailing. What is leadership doing?
they don't seem to realise that they can't win against a sovereign power that is actively legislating against them