turquoisevar

18 ms·

91.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
This falls squarely under the exemptions for security reasons under article 6 sub 4 of the DMA. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure tha
92.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
That was due to a specific statute on intermediary fees in tenancy laws. It doesn’t silly to this situation. Disclaimer: was an attorney, now just of the armchair variety when I’m not buy as a code monkey, NL was where I went to law school
93.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the matter at hand. Mainly floated around by Sweeny as he practices his best Pikachu face. > So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperl
94.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> Laws are made when some group with sufficient political power wants them to be made, and such groups are often driven by tradition, what they perceive to be tradition. This can certainly be a motivator. In Europe, and the EU in particu
95.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
The law calls for this choice, the law doesn’t prohibit Apple from offering their preferred option. That said, if you have a an article of the DMA that says otherwise, I’m all ears. It’s a bit hard for me to prove no such thing exists, oth
96.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is. So this is not going to be very productive. > Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim
97.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Have you ever developed an iOS app? I ask this not as a gotcha, it’s a serious question. There is no way to write an app that doesn’t use a single piece of Apple code. Create a new project in Xcode, simply write print(“Hello, world!) right
98.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
I’ll preface this with saying that this is not a dig at you personally. That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”. If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something
99.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> This is a distinction without a difference. Paying Apple millions per year to merely allow users to download apps that make no revenue from third parties is ridiculous no matter who's paying. You’re preaching to the choir here. I’
100.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they? Oh, ok, so because Apple forces me to buy internet and electricity but not any specific internet or electricity, Ap
101.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
By my logic, TV manufacturers can also charge TV app developers for the use of their IP if they so desire, yes. I don’t see how that’s nonsense or hogwash. It’s a very basic concept since the dawn of men. You want to use or own something I
102.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler? iOS apps can be written in assembly. I’ve done so myself out of curiosity, and it seems others have done so as well[0]. Of course, I
103.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy. It crumbles under the most benign forms of scrutiny. The comment below already pointed out that vendors charged for all kinds of stuff. Your reply seem
104.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
The DMA doesn’t abolish gatekeeping, otherwise it would’ve simply stated “Entities designated as gatekeepers are to cease business”. The DMA aims to regulate them to create a more level playing field. Making sure that third party stores ha
105.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Of course. Article 6 sub 4 second and third paragraph of the DMA[0] states the following: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that thir
106.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
This sounds as a “want my cake and eat it too” argument. Apple’s default construction for getting payments for the usage of their IP is via commission on revenue. This is by definition a differential pricing strategy because not everyone ha
107.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Oh is that what GP meant by “truly free”? I thought free as in free beer. Yeah GPL licenses are not allowed, at least from GPL2 onwards. Then again, FOSS can get a CTF exemption if they form a nonprofit.
108.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
GP was talking about alternative stores picking up the tab for the apps they distribute. That’s simply not the case. Now you bring up a new concern. Namely that useful free apps would get so popular outside of the App Store that they’ll rea
109.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome. They can either stick with the 15%/30% commission without install fees. Let’s assume it has a revenue of >$1m, so
110.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Truly free apps can remain on the current agreement of 15%/30% without install fee. The new EU stuff is opt-in.
111.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers fees[1] To a much lesser degree, but yes. The DMA explicitly allows for this. > In fact, it will be impossibl
112.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Third party stores don’t pay the per install fee, at least not beyond the install fee for their own store. Any apps distributed through third parties pay their own CTF if they meet the threshold. Threshold doesn’t apply to third party app s
113.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
This only applies to install numbers within the EU. It’s exactly what many have said Apple should do to get payment for usage of their IP: split it from the commission. So now you can pay separately for the IP, separately for payment proces
114.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
> The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively. This purely opinion. I can’t do anything with this other than to strongly disagree with you. > What you&#x2
115.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
This is not a non-story. What would be considered normal is if the police kindly requests the footage and the citizen, that is otherwise unrelated to the case, has the option to refuse or cooperate. What also would be normal is if the polic
116.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
The source article the English article is based on actually touched on this. It seems that enforcement of the privacy law is purposefully lacking so that the cops can white wash, what would otherwise be illegal, through seizure.
117.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Ah, I see now what you’re getting at. Thanks for elaborating. Let’s first address the actual GP, because we’ve drifted quite a bit away from it. That’s partially my fault because I mentioned frameworks. > The $99/year paid by every
118.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Not sure what you’re getting at here?
119.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
I actually agree with pretty much everything you said. My comment was already getting quite long so I chose to summarize it as “money” because I think that ultimately, if I had to choose just one primary motivation, it comes down to money.
120.
by turquoisevar 3y ago
Please. The $99/year wouldn’t even cover the cost of App Review reviewing my builds in any given month, even at minimum wage. Not to mention the frameworks I use on a daily basis to create my apps.

More ›