nodamage

58 ms·

571.
by nodamage 6y ago
I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes meaningless. Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales on its own devices might be technically true but is not a
572.
by nodamage 6y ago
As a recent and somewhat topical example of this, there is an article circling around the internet right now that cites about a dozen studies proving that "masks don't work". If you actually read through the quoted studies yo
573.
by nodamage 6y ago
Perhaps you should re-read the comment I was replying to. The original claim was that Apple didn't pay US taxes at all. I simply pointed out that they did. A temporary change in the tax rate during 2018 is, by definition, the tax rate
574.
by nodamage 6y ago
In the case of Apple it's not really accurate to say they paid 0%. Instead, their taxes on overseas sales were deferred until they were repatriated into the US. Upon repatriation they paid $38 billion in taxes on $252 billion of inco
575.
by nodamage 6y ago
You could certainly make that argument but with a multinational company with sales in every country it's not exactly obvious where the money is "made": Scenario A: Apple (USA) pays $200 for an assembled iPhone from their Chin
576.
by nodamage 6y ago
I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". You're free to argue that 15% is not a high enough corporate ta
577.
by nodamage 6y ago
There's an argument to be made that since Apple is a US company, ultimately their revenue should be taxed in the US. And ultimately that is what happened: the money Apple made outside the US was eventually taxed when they repatriated i
578.
by nodamage 6y ago
Yes, it was. Their arrangement only helped them defer US taxes, but the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repa...
579.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not surprised by this. The European Commission's original decision was based on a technicality related to the fact that Apple did not use the "classic" double-Irish arrangement when setting up their companies in Irel
580.
by nodamage 6y ago
While Sweden did not have a mandatory lockdown, it wasn't like they stood by and did nothing either. They actually implemented many measures to reduce the spread of the virus: - Closed high schools and universities. - Banned gatherings
581.
by nodamage 6y ago
Remember that IFR (infection fatality rate) is the (total number of deaths / total number of infections). You can't use 10 million as the denominator because not everyone in Sweden has actually been infected. An antibody study[1]
582.
by nodamage 6y ago
I've run into a similar problem on the Mac version of Safari for a while now: I'll paste in a full ( http:// or https:// ) URL and hit Enter, but instead of loading the requested URL it just reloads the curre
583.
by nodamage 6y ago
> It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description. Now you're no longer talking about a money back guarantee . Come on, the idea that a credit card chargeback i
584.
by nodamage 6y ago
As I said in my other comment, disputes are meant for unauthorized charges. If you actually purchased and received a product and you wanted a refund just because you didn't like it, you might not actually win a dispute under those circ
585.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my
586.
by nodamage 6y ago
Also, the dispute process is intended for fraudulent/unauthorized charges. You might not actually win a dispute if you purchased a product, it was delivered to you, and you wanted a refund just because you ended up not liking it.
587.
by nodamage 6y ago
If you pay with a credit card. And the merchant can dispute your dispute. And it would be pretty annoying to have to file a chargeback every time you needed a refund. Last time I did it, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork and send it
588.
by nodamage 6y ago
Re-read the quote and note the word "don't" which flips the meaning of the entire sentence.
589.
by nodamage 6y ago
Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment sys
590.
by nodamage 6y ago
Fair enough, but it's not like they couldn't provide a more direct signup option in the Android version if they wanted to. The fact that they didn't is telling, IMO. To circle back to the original point, blaming Apple for the
591.
by nodamage 6y ago
Why would anyone be angry or frustrated that "Apple designed their rules so most of the key businesses in this world don't pay an insane 30% of their revenue to Apple"?
592.
by nodamage 6y ago
You can't sign up for a Wells Fargo online user account without first having a Wells Fargo bank account. Therefore there is an external requirement. Update : I just double checked. The Wells Fargo Android app and Wells Fargo iOS apps
593.
by nodamage 6y ago
This makes me wonder if they could charge $99/year on their website but $999/year via in-app purchase. Basically a price so high that no one would realistically buy it from within the app. It technically fulfills the requirements
594.
by nodamage 6y ago
The actual reason is the app does not follow the rules for in-app purchases. This hasn't really been in question. Anyone who has been an iOS dev for more than a year or two will be familiar with the App Store review guidelines. Are the
595.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except the policy doesn't create the trend. The Tesla app won't work if you don't own a Tesla. The Wells Fargo app won't work if you don't have a Wells Fargo account. These apps have external requirements by their
596.
by nodamage 6y ago
Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market. If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not
597.
by nodamage 6y ago
Because at that point you've redefined the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes tautological.
598.
by nodamage 6y ago
Netflix and Amazon Prime Video as digital video content providers are specifically exempted from the IAP rules according to section 3.1.3(a) of the App Store review guidelines.
599.
by nodamage 6y ago
I agree that's a crappy explanation by the VP but that's not the actual reason for the rejection.
600.
by nodamage 6y ago
I mean, 1) why is anyone surprised by this? 2) If you make an app that sells cat videos you would also qualify for the digital content exemption, "key business" or not.

More ›