nodamage

18 ms·

181.
by nodamage 5y ago
> No one claims NFT proves ownership of entities outside of the used blockchain. But within the chosen blockchain, they do prove ownership of that particular NFT. That's a fact. I think the author's underlying point is: what is
182.
by nodamage 5y ago
> Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? This isn't particularly uncommon for revenue based licensing agreements. For example, Epic requires you to file a quarterly report once you c
183.
by nodamage 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Aside from their password, does the user need to provide additional information to re-enroll in MFA on a new device?
184.
by nodamage 5y ago
What happens when the user gets a new phone or deletes and reinstalls the app?
185.
by nodamage 5y ago
In that specific case there was already an exception for "reader apps" where the user was already subscribed elsewhere and is merely using the app to access content they've previously purchased. Where I suspect this would app
186.
by nodamage 5y ago
Other developers might benefit from the changes to the anti-steering provision, but not Epic, as they will still be banned from the App Store.
187.
by nodamage 5y ago
It's not totally clear and we're in uncharted territory as Apple has never tried to collect commissions on payments that were not made with IAP. However, it is worth noting that the actual text of the developer agreement (quoted o
188.
by nodamage 5y ago
> I'm skeptical that a provision in the developer agreement that requires that the developer allow Apple to audit their financials would stand up in court. See footnote 617 on page 150 of the ruling where the judge suggests exactly
189.
by nodamage 5y ago
That is of course of some benefit to some developers (with products on other platforms), but very different from the headlines suggesting developers could now dodge the 30% commission by taking payments outside the app.
190.
by nodamage 5y ago
It seems the initial media reporting on this decision was way off the mark and the feedback from actual lawyers [1] is that Epic got crushed in court: 1. The judge affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer accounts for
191.
by nodamage 5y ago
> It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it. From the ruling (page 172): > In California, “where a single contract provision is invalid, but the ba
192.
by nodamage 5y ago
You're right and this has been glossed over by much of the commentary in this thread. If you read the ruling the judge repeatedly stated that Apple is entitled to compensation for its intellectual property, regardless of whether that i
193.
by nodamage 5y ago
Well, I wouldn't even consider it much of a win for Epic considering: 1. The court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store which will have underlying consequences to their
194.
by nodamage 5y ago
The main reason is the court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store. In other words, this verdict benefits all other developers except Epic .
195.
by nodamage 5y ago
I agree this is confusing. Pages 149-150 of the ruling explicitly conclude that it is not illegal for Apple to require developers to use IAP for purchases of in-app content. On the other hand, the injuction on page 168 says Apple cannot pro
196.
by nodamage 5y ago
The judge explicitly said, yes, they can (page 179): The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely: (1) damages in an amount equal to
197.
by nodamage 5y ago
It's worth noting that this ruling was not particularly great for Epic as their ultimate goal was to run their own app store under the theory that Apple was unfairly monopolizing app distribution on iOS devices. The court fully rejecte
198.
by nodamage 5y ago
In the United States the courts have consistently said this determination is based on how much market power the competitor wields: Of course where the seller has no control or dominance over the tying product so that it does not represent
199.
by nodamage 5y ago
I mean, that has always been the case. I'm not sure why there is so much paranoia over this hypothetical situation when this hypothetical has actually existed since the first iPhone shipped in 2007.
200.
by nodamage 5y ago
This situation reminds me a lot of the controversy around Google's changes to code signing for Play Store apps. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27176690 ) In both cases people are stretching to come up with hypoth
201.
by nodamage 5y ago
All of the major tech companies already scan images uploaded to their services so isn't this already theoretically possible now? How is the situation changed by Apple using on-device scanning instead of cloud scanning (considering thes
202.
by nodamage 5y ago
I'm sorry but I don't see how any of that actually solves the underlying problem of granting a third-party access to data you don't want to see abused.
203.
by nodamage 5y ago
People always cite sandboxing as some kind of panacea but the problem is sandboxing is entirely incapable of preventing bad actors from abusing permissions that were originally granted for legitimate purposes. For example: I might be okay w
204.
by nodamage 5y ago
No one capable of doing those things would have even bought one of these WD devices in the first place...
205.
by nodamage 5y ago
If you have Messages set up on a Mac you can access your chat archives under ~/Library/Messages/Archive. Each conversation is stored by date in an .ichat file which can be re-opened in the Messages app. https://app
206.
by nodamage 5y ago
The developer had already released a new version of the app that is compatible with iOS 14.5, the problem was the user was using a very old version from 2014. Expecting a 7-year old build of an app to continue to work on a modern version of
207.
by nodamage 5y ago
I mean, since Apple controls the entire OS there is already no guarantee that the code that gets installed is the code that gets executed. In other words, you already had that problem. (Of having to trust Apple in the first place.)
208.
by nodamage 5y ago
I think you're overstating the complexity here, the foreign earned income exclusion is available for anyone that meets the physical presence test (330+ days abroad) and is easy to qualify for if you take an extended trip. Establishing
209.
by nodamage 5y ago
This is a common misconception but actually Apple Inc. (the US corporation) is the sole owner of the legal rights to Apple's intellectual property. The economic rights are split between Apple Inc. (for sales occurring in the Americas)
210.
by nodamage 5y ago
No, you are allowed to offer an alternative on your website. Netflix and plenty of other apps do this just fine. If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app , well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mo

More ›