471–480 of 639 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a link to a pdf (which they can just as easily host themselves) that doesn't link elsewhere isn't going to take you to other websites.
If you're reading a PDF then you're not looking at their ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now because of the laws making freelance harder, truck drivers who want to stay freelance are having to move out of California and some writers who are doing freelance writing are also finding it difficult. Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer.
Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer. It's inexplicable to me that both employers and employees seem mostly fine with the current insanity. Do business owners enjoy having to be health insurance brokers? Do employees enjoy having their insurance provider change every few years and having very little choice in pol…
(and no, "just have everybody buy their own policy" is not a realistic answer, virtually every society addresses this on a public policy level because individual purchasers simply don't work well.)
So, if you want your weird gig economy "independent contractor" nonsense, push for medicare for all, it's pretty much that simple. That's the only way having wage slaves be independent contractors isn't going to result in an immediate and massive drop in the quality and availability of health care. But oops lolbertarians don't like that either, they just want to be able to pay someone $0.50 per hour because "free markets are better".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must agree to the developer program's EULA to use Apple's developer tools, as well as sign your code.
you must agree to the Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement to use Xcode and production SDKs, which is a click-through when starting Xcode. You must agree to an Apple Developer Program License Agreement to sign and distribute applications and to get access to pre-release SDKs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must agree to the developer program's EULA to use Apple's developer tools, as well as sign your code.
You don't need to sign your code before being able to write your code.
1. https://github.com/ther0n/UnnaturalScrollWheels/
2. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5874301/88485840-2...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/icyif5/apple_silicon...
Some of my highlights: - "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” - "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 p…
It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either.
Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem.
Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. But, for the sake of those app businesses that fit the right definition, we should allow for a choice of sideloading or competing app stores. And no harm would come to consumers by giving them that choice.
My argument is that some harm does befall at least some consumers. You might judge that harm worth the other tradeoffs, but it’s not zero.
With a law that requires Apple to open their platform to allow actually usable sideloading and/or competing app stores, we'd have removed more harm than we've added.
[0] Me, for example since I can't even comfortably put a program, that I wrote, onto my own device without paying Apple $100 a year.
[1] Every one of my business customers who wants a native app for their customers who they already had a relationship with before Apple came along and stuck their nose in to say what we could and could not do with our customers customers devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer. It's inexplicable to me that both employers and employees seem mostly fine with the current insanity. Do business owners enjoy having to be health insurance brokers? Do employees enjoy having their insurance provider change every few years and having very little choice in pol…
unfortunately any time anyone brings up medicare for all there's a huge pushback from half the country, so yes, people do mostly "like their current insurance" in practice. Or at least like it enough to not want to change the system. (and no, "just have everybody buy their own policy" is not a realistic answer, virtually every society addresses this on a public policy level because individual purchasers simply don't…
Until the current administration, both Republicans and Democrats supported increasing the EITC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You created the hypothetical, not me. So you can feel free to answer your own questions because I'm not exactly sure what your point is. This is about giving users and developers a choice outside of Apple's app store. If you like freedom and choices, you should get on the right side of this debate. If some relatively small group of users had a choice, they would always be able to choose Apple's protection.
I’ve been a part of a small group of users not offered that choice (essentially, install remote access on your personal device or terminate you employment), so I appreciate Apple negotiating for me.
If you're depending on Apple to stop you from making bad decisions about what kinds of employers to work for, I think you've got bigger problems than what might happen if there were an alternate iPhone app store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I definitely think it's in my interest and the interest of the vast majority of iPhone users to have Apple make these decisions. I'd rather every developer leave the App Store than switch away from the current model. I'd just use Apple's built-in apps.
I understand that, as a consumer, you don't want to be bothered to know all the implications of your choices, if you had to make them, so you're happy to delegate them to Apple. But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition. How would you feel…
If they didn't have my interests in mind I wouldn't buy their products (which is why I don't buy any more Google products, their customers are the ad companies, not the people who buy/use their products). Companies make products for their customers with the customer's interest in mind in order to make a product that sells the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand why others find it strange you don't and why they do though, right?
I think it's strange that you don't want me to have the product I want to have. Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple product, and there are plenty of stellar alternative products from numerous other brands.
>Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple product, and there are plenty of stellar alternative products from numerous other brands.
We want to fix things (even in companies that we otherwise might like) that we think are morally unacceptable. That's how progress is made.
You can advocate your own position too, nothing wrong with both of us doing so.
