Despegar

14 ms·

121.
by Despegar 6y ago
I haven't gotten that popup. Are you sure that's actually a meaningful choice you can make and not just a test to see how many people are going to opt-in when this finally rolls out in iOS?
122.
by Despegar 6y ago
The "yearly fee" could pay for it, it'd just be several billion per year. Their existing business model is the one that's best for Apple, users, and small developers.
123.
by Despegar 6y ago
From page 30 of the DoJ filing: >Over the years, Google has steadily increased its dominant position in general search services. In July 2007, Google estimated its general search services market share at 68 percent. By June 2013, Google
124.
The Cold War’s unfinished legacy(africasacountry.com)
3 points by Despegar 6y ago|0 comments
125.
by Despegar 6y ago
Subsequent decisions by circuit courts have used the lack of an explicit policy change to find against the plaintiff. This case is at the outer boundaries of antitrust law and lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the disse
126.
by Despegar 6y ago
Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." The primary market for their equipment was competitive and they didn't have monopoly power, but the Supreme Court still decided
127.
by Despegar 6y ago
It very much matters if the terms changed, considering that the long shot legal precedent Epic is relying on is Kodak v. Image Technical Services. Terms changing in that case was a key element of why a single brand could be considered a val
128.
by Despegar 6y ago
Yes that's correct. Apple is basically reducing the fidelity of the rest of the ad ecosystem to the level they're already at themselves.
129.
by Despegar 6y ago
That's definitely not true. The only reason notarization exists is to maintain the Mac's open app ecosystem while having some improved level of security over the status quo.
130.
by Despegar 6y ago
It's interesting that you think this because it actually demonstrates the opposite: that Apple's control over iOS is very valuable and has many benefits to customers. Not because human app reviewers are infallible, but because a p
131.
by Despegar 6y ago
Bad faith actors probably aren't going to get away with rules lawyering.
132.
by Despegar 6y ago
There won't be a jury trial. It will be decided in Apple's favor on summary judgement.
133.
by Despegar 6y ago
From Peter Kafka: >Yes. Apple has a detailed answer but essentially says that's not so, and is a misreading of its policy. https://twitter.com/pkafka/status/1298662980457046016
134.
by Despegar 6y ago
Probably because Apple's total control of the platform is why this change could happen. Their ability to not allow a developer to distribute an app update that doesn't comply with the new privacy change stems from the same power t
135.
by Despegar 6y ago
The response to that is to just not allow them to update their app until they comply.
136.
by Despegar 6y ago
>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the indust
137.
by Despegar 6y ago
>All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value. Sounds like a great business incentive to be pro-privacy to me. You can count on profit motive.
138.
by Despegar 6y ago
This is why it'll be both correct and just when Apple wins their antitrust cases.
139.
by Despegar 6y ago
When I refer to consumer welfare I'm referring to the "consumer welfare standard" that is relevant to antitrust cases. Epic's breach doesn't actually aid them in demonstrating that Apple has harmed consumer welfare.
140.
by Despegar 6y ago
>Give me the ability to install apps from any store, website, or platform. Give me the ability to use a device whatever way I decide. Incentive developers to create useful, enjoyable software instead of IAP shovelware. Make it the norm a
141.
by Despegar 6y ago
Then we're in agreement that Epic's breach of the developer agreement wasn't actually required to have standing or to bolster their antitrust claims.
142.
by Despegar 6y ago
Their stunt doesn't actually demonstrate that Apple's commission harms consumer welfare. If it did any retailer with a margin over the price of a manufacturer's goods would also be harming consumer welfare.
143.
by Despegar 6y ago
I really don't understand why people keep saying this. They had standing because they were a party to the Developer Program License Agreement. They would have had standing even if they weren't because they allege they're bein
144.
Emails between Epic and Apple [pdf](cdn.vox-cdn.com)
3 points by Despegar 6y ago|0 comments
145.
by Despegar 6y ago
Apple's case does not "hinge" on being consistent with all app developers. Every app that Apple distributes could in theory be the result of a one-on-one negotiation.
146.
by Despegar 6y ago
I'm not sure why people think this was some great legal trap pulled off here. Everyone already knows that Apple's commission is 30%. Simply charging less in the app doesn't actually show that Apple's commission is harmin
147.
by Despegar 6y ago
Palestinians are an occupied people living under Israeli apartheid.
148.
by Despegar 6y ago
When you accept Apple's developer agreement, you're agreeing to a contract. It absolutely isn't an "open market" for any definition of what that means. Apple has exclusive control of their IP and they are offering a
149.
by Despegar 6y ago
Apple's platforms aren't an open market either. They allow third party developers to develop for their platforms, subject to you agreeing to their terms.
150.
by Despegar 6y ago
As a party to the developer agreement with Apple they clearly have standing to sue. And since one of the counts in their complaint is that they're being denied use of an "essential facility", they wouldn't even need to h

More ›