5 ms·

And Apple is a company built on anti trust violations[1]. Every company that sees it profitable to break the law and pay a fine seems to do it. There are no “g

And Apple is a company built on anti trust violations[1]. Every company that sees it profitable to break the law and pay a fine seems to do it. There are no “good guys”. [1] https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-compliance-court-ruling-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-complianc...

mhdi_kr99 3mo ago
steam/valve are good guys
- sunnybeetroot 3mo ago
  Yeah they’re not too shabby
- jchw 3mo ago
  Even Valve has its sins with questionable monetization, alleged anti-competitive practices, and of course DRM, it's just, for their size it's challenging to find companies that aren't much worse for these bullet points. Still, a rare exception of a company that seems worth the openness of one's mind. It's pretty shameful that this alone is worthy of praise, even forgetting the things Valve does that are just generally positive.
  - rcxdude 3mo ago
    Questionable monetization meaning essentially turning a blind eye to and profiting from the gambling industry that skirts regulations and targets kids that is enabled by the market for rare skins in their games (as well as the inherently gambling-like means that those skins are sold in the first place).
    - jchw 3mo ago
      I'm not even exaggerating when I say that feels utterly benign these days. Merely just choosing to not police it is certainly a choice, but it's still a far cry from the more active participation in basically exploiting people that is pretty much normalized these days with stuff like sports betting and prediction markets. I don't say this feeling that it is good, just that it is where it feels like we are at right now.
- Closi 3mo ago
  I'm not sure on that: 1) Lots of people think they are partly complicit in all the skins trading/gambling that children do, which is basically skirting gambling laws. This has culminated in a current lawsuit in New York which claims they broke gambling laws. 2) They also currently have a large antitrust lawsuit going on, due to them requiring Most Favored Nation pricing while setting a 30% commission fee vs 12% on competitor platforms, which exploits market position and artificially raises game prices to Steam's benefit.
  - inexcf 3mo ago
    1) This is a legit point although i don't see Valve as a big problem in that area. They invented lootboxes but refused to be as bad as others who followed them. Today with valve these things are restricted purely to cosmetics. 2) is weak. The 30% rate was set in 2003 when Steam had zero market power and was identical to the rate used by Apple, PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo. Valve later added tiered reductions (25% above $10M, 20% above $50M), bringing the effective average to ~24%. The rate moved downward while the platform added massive infrastructure: free multiplayer matchmaking, cloud saves, Workshop, Proton, anti-cheat, global CDN, refunds, and community tools. The 30% buys far more today than it did two decades ago. Developers can also generate unlimited(or i think now limited to some ratio of steam sales) Steam keys and sell them anywhere else with Valve taking 0% commission. If valve were extracting monopoly rents, this escape route would not exist. The actual lawsuit targets the PMFN price parity clause not the commission itself. And on PC, which is an open platform where Epic's 12% store gained roughly 3% share in seven years despite hundreds of millions in investment, the monopoly framing falls apart. That 12% is also based on EPIC using lots of anti-competitor and anti-consumers tactics and using Fortnite money to prop up the store.
    - BoorishBears 3mo ago
      30% was set when they were handpicking every title, a home internet line today was a $10,000+ a month DC connection, and they could legitimately replace a publisher taking 60%. The fact they whittled away the value they provided time and time again until they became a market of slop and had the audacity to keep a 30% cut is insane. It's funny that gamers villainize Sweeny for being the person that they think Newell is. It turns out trying to deliver value in a market has tough as gaming is not easy, and you will make tons of mistakes... at least compared to extracting nearly every dollar you can and leaving a skeleton crew to run the ship. And I guess make $1,100 PS4s as a side hustle.
- madeofpalk 3mo ago
  Valve is a company built on getting children addicted to gambling.
  - bensonperry 3mo ago
    _built on_? not built on the games they developed or the platform they built?
    - madeofpalk 3mo ago
      Both!
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3mo ago
  Valve had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Australia just to provide the basic fundamental right of refunds. Large corporations are not your friend. They are the enemy; they vary only in type and depth of diabolicalness.
  - protimewaster 3mo ago
    I do always think it's interesting that the "bad" guys like EA had, for a long time, much friendlier store terms (refunds) than Valve did. I also never thought that it was very nice of Valve to historically have security practices that are so bad that a group of security experts wrote them a letter begging for better security practices.
fny 3mo ago
Developers walked into their walled garden with joy. It's no where near what this article describes.
- bigyabai 3mo ago
  Developers didn't get a choice. It was either "pay for Apple's development services" or "don't publish apps" which isn't a very competitive or fair option when the App Store can arbitrarily reject you.
  - fny 3mo ago
    Of course they did: they could have just chosen to not publish apps which would have crippled iOS. The only reason it feels existential is because developers made a Faustian bargain from the beginnning.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - bigyabai 3mo ago
      That's the thing - even when you choose to pay for Apple's developer program, they can kick you out. This is why Fortnite kickstarted an important discussion around App Store centralization. Today, Apple removes apps like ICEBlock and Navalny's voting guide; they're directly complicit in using the App Store to steer political agendas. This is what developers were unhappy with, and we're seeing this type of censorship specifically because iOS has no App Store alternative. On macOS, for example, there is no way for Apple to be strongarmed into censorship because users can install any valid binary they choose. On iOS, developers and users do not have that same choice. There is no natural competition.
  - hiworld6543 3mo ago
    Apple Developers could have developed the skills and expertise to create their own products. App development tools and coding is within the skill set of a smart 10 year old child. “Apple Developer” is a job title for those at entry level. If any want to grow up, there’s a whole world of opportunities for them that don’t require permission from Apple, including development for government, academia, and crowdsourced machines.
anon7000 3mo ago
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. Ok, so every massive company (including OpenAI) is built on anti-trust violations. I agree we should go after everyone for this, but whether Apple has done bad stuff is a complete distraction from IP violations at OpenAI
overgard 3mo ago
That doesn't make any of it morally excusable. "The other guy is just as bad!" is an argument for toddlers. The reason why "the other guy is just as bad" is we've removed real consequences from these companies and people. Someone should probably be in prison for the Grok CSAM thing for instance. While we're calling people out, this one is extremely rich: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-death/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-... . The old man dying, to me, is not that most extreme part. It's the part where Meta has internal documents about guidelines for minors having romantic relationships with chatbots. WTF! Quoting: “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month. "The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialogue during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.” Those examples of permissible roleplay with children have also been struck, Meta said."
- bigyabai 3mo ago
  This isn't a very great defense, either. Apple started the trend of seeking federal protectionism to avoid liability for market damages. Now OpenAI, with their own federal connections, are going to seek to exert political pressure for a settlement. This is a turnabout-is-fair-play moment in the ugly, lawless Thunderdome arena of modern businesses. Grok and Meta are non-sequiturs here. Their reputation isn't being put under a microscope - Apple's is. And just looking at Apple's history suing businesses like NSO Group and Corellium doesn't instill much confidence in their ability to protect their IP or exact damages outside of a legal settlement. Up against OpenAI, they'll be forced to fold for all the same reasons they had to throw away their (entirely justified) case against NSO Group.
  - overgard 3mo ago
    I think you're incorrect here, what's being put under the microscope is not Apple, it's OpenAI and as a consequence a large swath of the AI industry. (It's the same people moving between the same companies -- probably similar ethics at all these places) They absolutely deserve to be under a microscope.
gtirloni 3mo ago
This is irrelevant and simply whataboutism.

mhdi_kr99 3mo ago

steam/valve are good guys

sunnybeetroot 3mo ago
Yeah they’re not too shabby
jchw 3mo ago
Even Valve has its sins with questionable monetization, alleged anti-competitive practices, and of course DRM, it's just, for their size it's challenging to find companies that aren't much worse for these bullet points. Still, a rare exception of a company that seems worth the openness of one's mind. It's pretty shameful that this alone is worthy of praise, even forgetting the things Valve does that are just generally positive.
- rcxdude 3mo ago
  Questionable monetization meaning essentially turning a blind eye to and profiting from the gambling industry that skirts regulations and targets kids that is enabled by the market for rare skins in their games (as well as the inherently gambling-like means that those skins are sold in the first place).
  - jchw 3mo ago
    I'm not even exaggerating when I say that feels utterly benign these days. Merely just choosing to not police it is certainly a choice, but it's still a far cry from the more active participation in basically exploiting people that is pretty much normalized these days with stuff like sports betting and prediction markets. I don't say this feeling that it is good, just that it is where it feels like we are at right now.
Closi 3mo ago
I'm not sure on that: 1) Lots of people think they are partly complicit in all the skins trading/gambling that children do, which is basically skirting gambling laws. This has culminated in a current lawsuit in New York which claims they broke gambling laws. 2) They also currently have a large antitrust lawsuit going on, due to them requiring Most Favored Nation pricing while setting a 30% commission fee vs 12% on competitor platforms, which exploits market position and artificially raises game prices to Steam's benefit.
- inexcf 3mo ago
  1) This is a legit point although i don't see Valve as a big problem in that area. They invented lootboxes but refused to be as bad as others who followed them. Today with valve these things are restricted purely to cosmetics. 2) is weak. The 30% rate was set in 2003 when Steam had zero market power and was identical to the rate used by Apple, PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo. Valve later added tiered reductions (25% above $10M, 20% above $50M), bringing the effective average to ~24%. The rate moved downward while the platform added massive infrastructure: free multiplayer matchmaking, cloud saves, Workshop, Proton, anti-cheat, global CDN, refunds, and community tools. The 30% buys far more today than it did two decades ago. Developers can also generate unlimited(or i think now limited to some ratio of steam sales) Steam keys and sell them anywhere else with Valve taking 0% commission. If valve were extracting monopoly rents, this escape route would not exist. The actual lawsuit targets the PMFN price parity clause not the commission itself. And on PC, which is an open platform where Epic's 12% store gained roughly 3% share in seven years despite hundreds of millions in investment, the monopoly framing falls apart. That 12% is also based on EPIC using lots of anti-competitor and anti-consumers tactics and using Fortnite money to prop up the store.
  - BoorishBears 3mo ago
    30% was set when they were handpicking every title, a home internet line today was a $10,000+ a month DC connection, and they could legitimately replace a publisher taking 60%. The fact they whittled away the value they provided time and time again until they became a market of slop and had the audacity to keep a 30% cut is insane. It's funny that gamers villainize Sweeny for being the person that they think Newell is. It turns out trying to deliver value in a market has tough as gaming is not easy, and you will make tons of mistakes... at least compared to extracting nearly every dollar you can and leaving a skeleton crew to run the ship. And I guess make $1,100 PS4s as a side hustle.
madeofpalk 3mo ago
Valve is a company built on getting children addicted to gambling.
- bensonperry 3mo ago
  _built on_? not built on the games they developed or the platform they built?
  - madeofpalk 3mo ago
    Both!
HeatrayEnjoyer 3mo ago
Valve had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Australia just to provide the basic fundamental right of refunds. Large corporations are not your friend. They are the enemy; they vary only in type and depth of diabolicalness.
- protimewaster 3mo ago
  I do always think it's interesting that the "bad" guys like EA had, for a long time, much friendlier store terms (refunds) than Valve did. I also never thought that it was very nice of Valve to historically have security practices that are so bad that a group of security experts wrote them a letter begging for better security practices.

fny 3mo ago

Developers walked into their walled garden with joy. It's no where near what this article describes.

bigyabai 3mo ago
Developers didn't get a choice. It was either "pay for Apple's development services" or "don't publish apps" which isn't a very competitive or fair option when the App Store can arbitrarily reject you.
- fny 3mo ago
  Of course they did: they could have just chosen to not publish apps which would have crippled iOS. The only reason it feels existential is because developers made a Faustian bargain from the beginnning.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bigyabai 3mo ago
    That's the thing - even when you choose to pay for Apple's developer program, they can kick you out. This is why Fortnite kickstarted an important discussion around App Store centralization. Today, Apple removes apps like ICEBlock and Navalny's voting guide; they're directly complicit in using the App Store to steer political agendas. This is what developers were unhappy with, and we're seeing this type of censorship specifically because iOS has no App Store alternative. On macOS, for example, there is no way for Apple to be strongarmed into censorship because users can install any valid binary they choose. On iOS, developers and users do not have that same choice. There is no natural competition.
- hiworld6543 3mo ago
  Apple Developers could have developed the skills and expertise to create their own products. App development tools and coding is within the skill set of a smart 10 year old child. “Apple Developer” is a job title for those at entry level. If any want to grow up, there’s a whole world of opportunities for them that don’t require permission from Apple, including development for government, academia, and crowdsourced machines.

anon7000 3mo ago

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. Ok, so every massive company (including OpenAI) is built on anti-trust violations. I agree we should go after everyone for this, but whether Apple has done bad stuff is a complete distraction from IP violations at OpenAI

overgard 3mo ago

That doesn't make any of it morally excusable. "The other guy is just as bad!" is an argument for toddlers. The reason why "the other guy is just as bad" is we've removed real consequences from these companies and people. Someone should probably be in prison for the Grok CSAM thing for instance. While we're calling people out, this one is extremely rich: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-death/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-... . The old man dying, to me, is not that most extreme part. It's the part where Meta has internal documents about guidelines for minors having romantic relationships with chatbots. WTF! Quoting: “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month. "The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialogue during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.” Those examples of permissible roleplay with children have also been struck, Meta said."

bigyabai 3mo ago
This isn't a very great defense, either. Apple started the trend of seeking federal protectionism to avoid liability for market damages. Now OpenAI, with their own federal connections, are going to seek to exert political pressure for a settlement. This is a turnabout-is-fair-play moment in the ugly, lawless Thunderdome arena of modern businesses. Grok and Meta are non-sequiturs here. Their reputation isn't being put under a microscope - Apple's is. And just looking at Apple's history suing businesses like NSO Group and Corellium doesn't instill much confidence in their ability to protect their IP or exact damages outside of a legal settlement. Up against OpenAI, they'll be forced to fold for all the same reasons they had to throw away their (entirely justified) case against NSO Group.
- overgard 3mo ago
  I think you're incorrect here, what's being put under the microscope is not Apple, it's OpenAI and as a consequence a large swath of the AI industry. (It's the same people moving between the same companies -- probably similar ethics at all these places) They absolutely deserve to be under a microscope.

gtirloni 3mo ago

This is irrelevant and simply whataboutism.