_qulr

65 ms·

541.
by _qulr 6y ago
Interesting, I hadn't seen that news yet. But it doesn't change the fact that the judge did suggest during the hearing that the case should go to a jury. I'm kind of puzzled why Epic doesn't want a jury.
542.
by _qulr 6y ago
> The judge presiding over the case disagrees. This was merely a preliminary hearing, and the judge also suggested the case should go to a jury.
543.
by _qulr 6y ago
It's important to keep in mind that this was merely a preliminary hearing, not the full trial. It was abbreviated by design. The entire thing was a couple hours at most? The only question at issue here was temporary injunctions. Nobody
544.
by _qulr 6y ago
No. This lawsuit would have been thrown out in 2008 or 2009. Size and market power matter. Apple has over 50% of the US smartphone market and most of the smartphone software revenue. There are over 2 millions apps in the App Store. That&#x2
545.
by _qulr 6y ago
> PCs are availble from lots of different brands Macs aren't. > For PCs, there is no central developer shouldering all the R&D costs. I'm not sure how R&D costs are even relevant, legally. PCs, Macs, iPhones, iPads a
546.
by _qulr 6y ago
> the question of whether it should be legal to sell "walled garden" device That's not the question. One of the questions is whether the relevant market is iOS apps, as Epic claims, or video games, as the judge suggested.
547.
by _qulr 6y ago
> there's nothing in US law that says general-purpose computing devices are supposed to be treated differently than other products for the purposes of antitrust analysis Other products include Macs and PCs, which allow "sideloa
548.
by _qulr 6y ago
> lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the dissent to limit its applicability The dissent... of the Supreme Court opinion??
549.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." It's not clear to me that the timing was essential. Apparently Kodak had a policy since 1975 to only sell parts to direct pu
550.
by _qulr 6y ago
Could you explain this in more detail? I read about this case, and my understanding is that the Independent Service Organizations ("ISOs") didn't actually have a direct contractual relationship with Kodak. They were truly ind
551.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Apple doesn’t even have 60% market share in the US. They have over 50% market share though. They're by far the largest smartphone manufacturer in the US. And they also get the vast majority of app developer revenue, much more than
552.
by _qulr 6y ago
The is the wrong history though. It only matters if you accept the App Store == console analogy, which I don't. Historically speaking, App Store was not based on game consoles, it was based on the iTunes Music Store. Everything about
553.
by _qulr 6y ago
Scale and market power are what makes a monopolist, by definition. It doesn't matter if the terms have changed; what has changed since 2008 is the scale and power of Apple. Incidentally, the 30% came from the iTunes Music Store, on whi
554.
by _qulr 6y ago
> It doesn’t pay to be on Apple’s bad side and it’s a promotion opportunity to advocate for the newest and shiniest. This tends to be overestimated. There's rarely a good reason to fear criticism. Apple is too huge to notice you, un
555.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Ok, you are talking about constructor overloading No, I'm not. I'm talking about, for example, "Classes and structures must set all of their stored properties to an appropriate initial value by the time an instance of th
556.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Optionals doesn't exist because of ObjC compatibility. The problem is that every Objective-C type is essentially an optional, so any Swift code using Cocoa frameworks, based on Objective-C, is a deluge of optionals. Your entire co
557.
by _qulr 6y ago
I would also say that Swift by design is very much constrained, you might say held back, by the needs of Cocoa compatibility. For example, Swift takes features that are mere conventions in Objective-C, such as initializer patterns (which ca
558.
by _qulr 6y ago
> My understanding is that you can't iOS home screen widgets in Objective-C, correct? I don't know, I haven't looked into them. But Swift is now more than 6 years old, and iOS home screen widgets are literally only days ol
559.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I said backwards compatibility This phrase isn't entirely clear. > Objective-C is a superset of C This phrase is clearer. In any case, I'm not fully convinced which language has the advantage and which the disadvantage in
560.
by _qulr 6y ago
> For Swift it's a modern language that doesn't need to have backward compatibility with C that Objective-C had. That doesn't seem accurate. Interoperability with C and Objective-C was a fundamental design requirement of S
561.
by _qulr 6y ago
> You quickly get left behind in the Apple ecosystem if you don’t move with Apple. The number of binaries and frameworks in iOS 14 using Objective-C vastly exceeds this relatively small list. Objective-C hasn't been jettisoned by Ap
562.
by _qulr 6y ago
> If Samsung announced that next year they weren't releasing a new Galaxy phone, the entire industry would freak out. The smartphone industry has only themselves to blame for setting up this expectation. But it is possible to get of
563.
by _qulr 6y ago
> doesn't really matter if someone else dumps a bunch of buggy new features in the meantime, converts our customers, and forces us out of business This is always presented as the doomsday scenario, but how often does it actually hap
564.
by _qulr 6y ago
There's a big difference between not caring and making a tradeoff. You can care about A and B but decide B is more important than A. But if you don't care about A, then there's no tradeoff, you just choose B no matter what. T
565.
by _qulr 6y ago
> engineers care about quality; customers care about the fastest way of solving their problem Almost all customers care about quality. The problem is that many customers have only very limited information about products, so they have a h
566.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I think consumers would prefer subscriptions if they understood how it aligned incentives. Funny how consumers tend to despise them though. The term "subscription" itself a typically a euphemism for "rental". There
567.
by _qulr 6y ago
> they also expect bugs to continue to be fixed after the sale I wasn't disagreeing with that. I mentioned "long periods of stability and refinement" — refinement including bug fixes — and "any issues with the new tec
568.
by _qulr 6y ago
This is a straw man argument. Cars vary widely in their product quality. Houses vary widely in their product quality. Some things in life are inevitable facts of nature, but product quality is not. Quality is to a large extent determined by
569.
by _qulr 6y ago
The problem is with the idea of "continuous delivery". Many people fail to understand that technological advances only increase productivity if the innovations, the great leaps forward, are relatively rare, with long periods of st
570.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here. I wouldn't say it's kids these days. Facebook employees are not representative of the wider public. The question that really made me shake my hea

More ›