3 ms·

>The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous

by mthoms 6y ago

>The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous. Are you kidding? He "mentions" it right here - >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers. The author doesn't think Epic even wants its own store and that the ask is merely "a negotiation tactic". I don't see how you can interpret that as wanting Epic to have their own store like you claimed. How can he want Epic to have their own store when he thinks they don't even want one!? Secondly, you said he advocates for Apple earning 0%. Here's the closest thing I could find: >30% share is too much. 30% is what a run operation makes in profit. It’s higher than the highest tier in corporate tax. every developer we talk to and Business analysts around the world say 30% revenue share comes from a dark fairytale. What would be a fair share? 5% would be a fair share. Is there hope? From this you claimed the author wants Apple to earn 0%? Really? The author merely suggested 5% is closer to a fair share. He never said what you claimed he did. I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own. 1) He didn't advocate for Apple earning 0%, and 2) didn't advocate for Epic having their own iOS store, and (3) absolutely did mention that Epic claims to want an app store. Per the above, you've now mis-represeted the authors` words several times in the space of two comments. That's not cool, no matter how "bad" you think the piece is.

zepto 6y ago
I believe you would be correct under only one circumstance. That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct. If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in fact support Apple getting 0%. I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and that they support Epic. However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity. Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing not to take other people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’) I am not being disingenuous. If someone wants to make the argument that Epic is being disingenuous, that is fine. Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the disingenuous ways I have already outlined. The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s but Epic is the hero. Your reading just reinforces that.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false. You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store. Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store? You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes). You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out). >Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote. Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I’m doing just fine, but you are misrepresenting me now. If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will get nothing from those sales. Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me: >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which you gave chosen to now disregard. This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store. I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants. I’m focusing on what Epic says that they want, and what the author says. Why should I only base my view on the author’s words? Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we critique the piece purely as a work of fiction. The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic reasons. As you say, a bluff. But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as “bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about etc. My reading is based on the words the author is saying. You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting them. The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it. It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism. An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade. See how the piece is bad? If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which are worth exploring. If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.

by mthoms 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

I believe you would be correct under only one circumstance. That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct. If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in fact support Apple getting 0%. I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and that they support Epic. However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity. Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing not to take other people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’) I am not being disingenuous. If someone wants to make the argument that Epic is being disingenuous, that is fine. Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the disingenuous ways I have already outlined. The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s but Epic is the hero. Your reading just reinforces that.

mthoms 6y ago
>I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false. You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store. Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store? You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes). You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out). >Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote. Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.
- zepto 6y ago
  I’m doing just fine, but you are misrepresenting me now. If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will get nothing from those sales. Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me: >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which you gave chosen to now disregard. This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store. I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants. I’m focusing on what Epic says that they want, and what the author says. Why should I only base my view on the author’s words? Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we critique the piece purely as a work of fiction. The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic reasons. As you say, a bluff. But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as “bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about etc. My reading is based on the words the author is saying. You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting them. The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it. It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism. An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade. See how the piece is bad? If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which are worth exploring. If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.