bloppe

56 ms·

931.
by bloppe 3y ago
Not trying to pour cold water, but the "3 requirements" post seems to address straw man problems. There are existing solutions to each problem. 1. "Deployment should be like calling a function" isn't that the mantra
932.
by bloppe 3y ago
If weavers are allowed to charge whatever they want for clothes, farmers must be allowed to charge whatever they want for food (no tractors allowed), etc. We would still have switch-board operators, and everything would be more expensive fo
933.
by bloppe 3y ago
I feel like you're arguing against me, but I could also take your comment verbatim and feel like it backs up my side. Favoring consumers means everybody gets their fair share.
934.
by bloppe 3y ago
Guarding against people doing shit that goes against common sense -- as well as Apple's "very explicit" warnings -- while using a third party battery that maybe might somehow malfunction, is an annoying reason for them to mak
935.
by bloppe 3y ago
Despite sounding like it's zero-sum, fighting for the consumer is actually the only way to lift everybody up. Fighting for workers specifically is playing favorites. Fighting for the ownership class is also playing favorites. Focusing
936.
by bloppe 3y ago
If automation is the exploitation of workers by capitalists, then Luddism is the exploitation of consumers by workers. I don't want to be legally forced to pay double the price for clothing just because some well-connected weavers enac
937.
by bloppe 3y ago
If only there were some way to remove the headset...
938.
by bloppe 3y ago
You don't just multiply employees x time = revenue. Google develops IP, systems, and processes over the course of years which pay out on long time scales. You would probably start feeling the financial effects of these layoffs in a cou
939.
by bloppe 3y ago
The regulatory process is focused on outcomes. Here, the desired outcome is fair browser engine competition. If Apple's rules appear unfair to the EU (as they probably will, since they probably will not create robust competition), then
940.
by bloppe 3y ago
Seems right up Apple's alley to me. They're about to geofence all these App Store changes to the EU, after all. Would make complete sense for them to hobble the USB ports on iPhones despite the existence the iPad which disproves t
941.
by bloppe 3y ago
Europeans: We need you to allow some open competition on iOS. Apple: How about we re-write all the rules while maintaining absolute control.
942.
by bloppe 3y ago
Of course. But if it's not, you shouldn't be stuck.
943.
by bloppe 3y ago
At least you can try
944.
by bloppe 3y ago
There's no reason why a different app store couldn't offer the exact same feature; centralized payments for all apps in their store. They could just charge a competitive fee, forcing Apple to compete fairly, lowering prices for al
945.
by bloppe 3y ago
Nobody wants you to lose your ability to stay in the walled garden. We just want a way out ourselves, without paying exploitative fees.
946.
by bloppe 3y ago
This is what people struggle so hard to get. You wouldn't say 15% was "worth it" if you could get the exact same quality for 3%.
947.
by bloppe 3y ago
App Store payments are independent of customer service for the app itself. App developers would have to provide that either way. App Store refunds are not that different from credit card chargebacks. They mostly happen automatically, with s
948.
by bloppe 3y ago
The vast majority of App Store transactions incur a 30% fee. The most common credit card fee is ~3%. It's gonna make a pretty big difference.
949.
by bloppe 3y ago
At least apps can provide transparent options now. Your payment page could have a "pay us through the App Store" button that costs 30% more than the "pay us through our website" button, and explain why the numbers are di
950.
by bloppe 3y ago
Probably ordered on Amazon.
951.
by bloppe 3y ago
Once upon a time, people installed applications. You installed skype. You installed AIM. You installed iTunes. You installed Microsoft Office. Now, you go to zoom.com, or messenger.com, or open.spotify.com, or docs.google.com. You don'
952.
by bloppe 3y ago
This might be true in Europe, but not in America. In Europe, nobody uses iMessage, because WhatsApp got there first. iMessage is locked down and therefore less useful than WhatsApp. Despite the fact that iMessage is pre-installed in iPhones
953.
by bloppe 3y ago
That doesn't change that fact that they're monetizing it via hardware sales
954.
by bloppe 3y ago
Google can and has done the same thing. They stopped supporting YouTube on FireTV because Amazon refused to sell ChromeCast devices on their website. All these competitors have options to force you to buy their hardware just to use their se
955.
by bloppe 3y ago
> Large-scale distribution is expensive and complicated. Not anymore. Most CDN's will do that for free. Distribution is easy. Spotify makes money because open source pirating networks attract the attention of law enforcement.
956.
by bloppe 3y ago
> there's a reason why these systems have ended up with zero tolerance policies for spam sources The article is not about blackholing spam sources. It's about blackholing mail from sources that have never sent a single spam mes
957.
by bloppe 3y ago
Then ChatGPT should do that.
958.
by bloppe 3y ago
Basically, ya. It's not enough to change just a couple words around. But ya, there's probably some way to engineer around the problem.
959.
by bloppe 3y ago
Look at all the other free, premium messaging apps: WhatsApp, messenger, even Snapchat can do video conferencing. It doesn't cost that much to run a chat app. The wealthiest company in the world can afford to open up their API
960.
by bloppe 3y ago
How often do you get SMS spam? There would be nothing wrong if Apple added a little "this person bought an iPhone" icon to certain conversations. You could use that to scrutinize unknown numbers if you want. You don't need to

More ›