Despegar

10 ms·

91.
Any alleged ambiguity in the Epic Games vs. Apple injunction favors Apple(fosspatents.com)
2 points by Despegar 5y ago|0 comments
92.
by Despegar 5y ago
People who believed the propaganda about "charging 30% for payment processing" are in for a surprise when they pay Stripe's fees but then realize they're still on the hook for Apple/Google's commission. It will
93.
by Despegar 5y ago
>Apple is treating CSAM as an engineering problem. No they're treating it as a political and legal problem (with the UK and the EU being the furthest along on passing legislation). Their implementation is the compromise that preserv
94.
by Despegar 5y ago
Websites are unregulated. iOS apps have to abide by Apple's terms. This is exactly why developers are mad about any number of things: paying Apple's commission, but also complying with their privacy dictates.
95.
by Despegar 5y ago
Unless Israel is selling this to Iran, Syria, China, Russia, Cuba or any other Official Enemy of the US, they absolutely aren't rocking the boat in anyway. The other "authoritarian" governments are the good kind, they're
96.
by Despegar 5y ago
Cuba actually has 5 vaccine candidates, and 2 of them have greater than 90% effectiveness. A great showing for a small, socialist island nation under decades of embargo by hostile anti-communist forces. https://www.telesurenglish
97.
by Despegar 5y ago
Their current business model incentivizes Apple to make high quality products that last a long time. The larger Apple's installed base is, the more money they make from the App Store. You can tell from the used market prices for iPhone
98.
by Despegar 5y ago
>If Apple wishes to continue advancing bizarre corporate-accounting arguments, the massive profits from the hardware business are what therefore truly “pay the way” of the App Store, public APIs, developer tools, and other app-developmen
99.
by Despegar 5y ago
That's exactly right. Apple is the users' union that protects them from developers.
100.
by Despegar 5y ago
>The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that develop
101.
by Despegar 5y ago
No they get the billions from their intellectual property. There's a bunch of pro-user, pro-Apple, and pro-developer reasons why they are the single source for apps and payment processing, but that's not the source of the billions
102.
by Despegar 5y ago
>For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple services ma
103.
by Despegar 5y ago
Anyone can purchase currency outside of the App Store and use it in their iOS app, including Fortnite. Roblox doesn't bypass Apple's IAP requirement at all.
104.
by Despegar 6y ago
There's no reason to think that the cut would be any less than 30% even if they allowed side-loading. People just assume it would be like the Mac, but Apple isn't required to license its technology to anyone for free.
105.
by Despegar 6y ago
>And what is Apple going to do if they do identify apps in China using CAID in flagrant violation of the App Store rules, if those apps have the backing (implicit or explicit) of the Chinese government? The CPC is on Apple's side wh
106.
by Despegar 6y ago
Microsoft almost certainly would have preferred if no one had done game streaming through Safari on iOS, because they're a complainant about Apple's App Store policies [1]. That became untenable after Amazon went first. [1] https
107.
by Despegar 6y ago
It was legally very shrewd for Apple to assist Amazon on getting their game streaming service playable over the web [1]: >“We worked with the Safari team to ensure that some of the things that weren't there are there, and that allow
108.
Browser makers are quietly duking it out over the future of the web(businessinsider.com)
2 points by Despegar 6y ago|0 comments
109.
Google, Facebook Agreed to Team Up Against Possible Antitrust Action(wsj.com)
213 points by Despegar 6y ago|109 comments
110.
by Despegar 6y ago
America didn't stop giving aid to Israel despite 53 years of military occupation and apartheid. You think this is going to be the thing that changes the status quo on Israel?
111.
by Despegar 6y ago
It's a nothingburger if all they're doing is just backing up WhatsApp user data. It's not if the terms of the agreement allowed for anything else, which we don't really know because that part of the complaint has been re
112.
by Despegar 6y ago
Ah a classic of American foreign policy.
113.
by Despegar 6y ago
Apple's ads never used the IDFA [1]. They've said this multiple times on the record already. >Apple does not access or use the IDFA on a user’s device for any purpose. The IDFA was only ever used by developers. This change (whe
114.
by Despegar 6y ago
The most interesting thing is the allegation of coordination between Google and Facebook on page 5, paragraph 12.
115.
by Despegar 6y ago
It's in the press release: >The FTC is issuing the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose.
116.
by Despegar 6y ago
It's absolutely not an "overreach." The FTC is actually starting to do their job after decades of letting industries consolidate. Congress should increase their budget so they can do more of it.
117.
by Despegar 6y ago
There's basically nothing new here. This is a similar aftermarket case to Kodak [1]. Like the Epic case, this too will fail. A key element of Kodak was a bait and switch. If Apple had monopolized the aftermarket for iOS app distrib
118.
by Despegar 6y ago
Fortunately I have and they do have standing.
119.
by Despegar 6y ago
>The owners and operators of more than half a million diesel pickup trucks have been illegally disabling their vehicles’ emissions control technology over the past decade, allowing excess emissions equivalent to 9 million extra trucks on
120.
by Despegar 6y ago
>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.

More ›