This isn't about charging a third party to use the platform. This is about rules that require app developers to use their payment service when running apps on their platform.
This is most commonly known as a business arrangement with a third party and nothing to do with being anticompetitive.
In this case, Apple's agreement with app developers forces the use of a payment processor that, while possibly cheap for app developers that take micropayments, is downright extortionate when compared with normal payment processors for app developers that charge double-digit-per-month subscription fees, sell expensive digital downloads, etc.
Which would be a problem only if Apple had the market power of a monopoly. They don't. Take your business elsewhere.
And you cannot argue that it not an anticompetitive practice
Of course you can, mainly because you can't be anticompetitve against people you don't compete with. Apple blocking Google maps when introducing their own service was anticompetitive. A general case where a bunch of people are whining that they don't like the terms of entering a closed ecosystem is not.
So under what legal theory are you arguing that this is not an anticompetitive restraint of trade?
Because there is no restraint of trade. There is no legal basis for opening up a closed platform to third parties.
You should see who is a shareholder and who sits on the board before you make pointless statements.
shareholders getting wiped out. Workers wouldn't lose their jobs or pensions
It's not the worker's pensions I was talking about. Again you should look at who the shareholders are before you punish the population of a nation for your silly vendetta against a few.
No, availability is the tool against piracy. That doesn't mean that DRM isn't still inherently bad. Good lucky with your library if Steam goes out of business. You'll be relying on the kindness of strangers.
You don't really need that, with current-day levels of ISO performance
Huh? Who cares about ISO performance? Large sensor, low aperture, the point is to take photos that look like melted chocolate with a background of smooth jazz.
Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work
Wow. Alcoholic much? Why do you need beers to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Go to the gym, take up combat sport, turn on the lobotomization box and set to binge.
Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on alcohol to tolerate others then get some professional help quickly!
It seems like a political statement more than anything.
This is the same political statement Australia has been sending out for the past 20 years: "We are the 51st State of America and the Feds told us to do something."
Those skeletons are left to lay in their closets unless unless you extol the wrong politics or tick off the wrong person.
I don't agree with this completely. There have been plenty of examples where good people have been let go due to skeletons entirely because of fear of public opinion. The fact that workplace relationships at Intel are banned in the first place is a very crude example of this. It's excessive nonsensenical application of something that in some conditions goes against the social code (specifically power over others in a employer / employee relationship).
You don't need to piss off anyone for a SJW to go rambo on your arse.
Update: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions.
A verizon policy, and nothing to do with their terms of service for the plan, as I said.
Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.
What a customer service person says and what a company choses not to read in its terms of service are two different things. Of note specifically that regardless of what was communicated the fire department didn't make use of the plans specifically for emergency services.
As for the myth that the fire department had a consumer plan: Verizon specifically says: *"This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost."*
There's not myth about it. The immediate next sentence said that plan is subject to throttling and if you keep reading the rest of the article: "The short of it is, public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations," Buss told Prziborowski. "However, the current plan set for all of SCCFD's lines does have data throttling limitations"
Metabolism is a big one, which itself is a wonderfully large equation with variables which among other things include calorie intake with some nice time dependent integration in the formula as well.
But by all means ignore science and continue thinking this complex topic can be simplified to calories in vs out.
Your browser is running some outside unprivileged JavaScript for almost every page you visit.
Which would worry me if the browser ran that script long enough to build up a detailed profile of my machine, and then customised it's own malware attack to make a side channel attack at all relevant.
The reality is side channel attacks MUST be targetted at a specific system setup, or in many cases with modern OS security measures the actual specific currently running system with the hope it doesn't reboot at some point. Just because your browser executes Javascript doesn't mean anyone in their right mind would attack or even be able to successfull attack your system in doing so.
The fact that it has not been demonstrated yet does not mean it can't be done.
It can be done. Everything CAN be done. The point is it WON'T be done because of the sheer amount of effort requried when there are far more effective attacks. Even for malware writers and hackers time ultimately is money and a generic bug is many orders of magnitude more valuable to them than a side channel attack on memory.
If you took nothing away you would likely be legitimately looking in AMD's direction anyway. AMD have made some amazing strides back into the market place in the past few years.
Don't guess. Intel has absolutely nothing to lose by saying the CEO steps down due to Spectre and Meltdown. Hell their share price may even spike up as a result. While you're not guessing, also don't underestimate the stupidity of past actions in the moden Code of Conduct / #metoo world we live in. Many people have been undone for things they have done in the long past that don't conform to modern social norms*. There are countless people out there who are bleeding from their self inflicted character suicide wounds, they are just waiting for the end to come.
*Note here we're talking about social norms, not something actually illegal like touching little boys or sexual assault which were the very legitimate components of the #metoo movement.
Anticompetitive practices are more strictly regulated in monopoly situations
Charging a 3rd party to use your closed platform is not an anti-competitive practice unless you are in a monopoly situation and in a situation to provide the same thing that you are charging that party for.
, but nothing in any of the relevant laws precludes legal action against a company that is not a monopoly.
There's nothing in the laws that would prevent me suing you for your post either. That doesn't mean I would win or that it makes sense.
Second, every one needs to stop comparing the plan process the Fire department was paying for that one SIM card to their own data plans. Their monthly bill is probably in the thousands, if not tens of thousands and as such they have access to a whole bunch of tiers and plans that consumers do not have.
You are talking about what should be happening. Not what IS happening. Verizon provides emergency service personnel with relevant plans that have no throttling what so ever. The fire department however is subscribed to a $37.99/month consumer plan. Nothing in the thousands, and the plans available to emergency service operators don't cost thousands either.
Verizon came out and said they (Verizon) had misrepresented the terms of the data agreements
No they didn't. They said that the firedepartment didn't read the terms of the data agreements and were on the wrong plan. They have also said they have a standard practice to life any caps in emergency scenarios anyway but this didn't occur due to their own fault.
They actively came out and admitted they were wrong and what they did which was wrong, but you insist on making up some other bullshit story. Don't do that.
Slashdot Mirror
You are trusting third party with your enc pub key.
Well yes that's how it works.
And we have way to do it already. [GPG Link]
Well yes that's how it works.
You're right. Clearly Cohen needs a lawyer like you to tell him he's not guilty and to not plead as such.
I know my next upgrade is going to be a ryzen because of spectre/meltdown
My next upgrade is going to be Ryzen because of performance per dollar. Spectre / Meltdown isn't relevant.
This isn't about charging a third party to use the platform. This is about rules that require app developers to use their payment service when running apps on their platform.
This is most commonly known as a business arrangement with a third party and nothing to do with being anticompetitive.
In this case, Apple's agreement with app developers forces the use of a payment processor that, while possibly cheap for app developers that take micropayments, is downright extortionate when compared with normal payment processors for app developers that charge double-digit-per-month subscription fees, sell expensive digital downloads, etc.
Which would be a problem only if Apple had the market power of a monopoly. They don't. Take your business elsewhere.
And you cannot argue that it not an anticompetitive practice
Of course you can, mainly because you can't be anticompetitve against people you don't compete with. Apple blocking Google maps when introducing their own service was anticompetitive. A general case where a bunch of people are whining that they don't like the terms of entering a closed ecosystem is not.
So under what legal theory are you arguing that this is not an anticompetitive restraint of trade?
Because there is no restraint of trade. There is no legal basis for opening up a closed platform to third parties.
Now that we've settled that question
I speak therefore it is.
Easy answer: the company is nationalized
You should see who is a shareholder and who sits on the board before you make pointless statements.
shareholders getting wiped out. Workers wouldn't lose their jobs or pensions
It's not the worker's pensions I was talking about. Again you should look at who the shareholders are before you punish the population of a nation for your silly vendetta against a few.
No, availability is the tool against piracy. That doesn't mean that DRM isn't still inherently bad. Good lucky with your library if Steam goes out of business. You'll be relying on the kindness of strangers.
Vampires live in the dark, liveview is worthless in the dark.
You don't really need that, with current-day levels of ISO performance
Huh? Who cares about ISO performance? Large sensor, low aperture, the point is to take photos that look like melted chocolate with a background of smooth jazz.
Many people used to die from malaria
To be fair, there's no healthy level for drinking malaria either.
Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work
Wow. Alcoholic much? Why do you need beers to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Go to the gym, take up combat sport, turn on the lobotomization box and set to binge.
Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on alcohol to tolerate others then get some professional help quickly!
It seems like a political statement more than anything.
This is the same political statement Australia has been sending out for the past 20 years:
"We are the 51st State of America and the Feds told us to do something."
You don't understand. It's okay as long as a Chinese person isn't spying on us. America is an "ally"
Those skeletons are left to lay in their closets unless unless you extol the wrong politics or tick off the wrong person.
I don't agree with this completely. There have been plenty of examples where good people have been let go due to skeletons entirely because of fear of public opinion. The fact that workplace relationships at Intel are banned in the first place is a very crude example of this. It's excessive nonsensenical application of something that in some conditions goes against the social code (specifically power over others in a employer / employee relationship).
You don't need to piss off anyone for a SJW to go rambo on your arse.
If you think I said something out of line with physics then you didn't read my post properly.
and tell us all that America was actually a force for good
If you generalise our discussion to this statement then your problem is reading comprehension and not the actions of your country.
So the whole time you weren't serious. Typical.
Nope, I am very serious. However if you keep changing the scope of discussions then I really can't help you.
Update: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions.
A verizon policy, and nothing to do with their terms of service for the plan, as I said.
Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.
What a customer service person says and what a company choses not to read in its terms of service are two different things. Of note specifically that regardless of what was communicated the fire department didn't make use of the plans specifically for emergency services.
As for the myth that the fire department had a consumer plan: Verizon specifically says: *"This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost."*
There's not myth about it. The immediate next sentence said that plan is subject to throttling and if you keep reading the rest of the article:
"The short of it is, public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations," Buss told Prziborowski. "However, the current plan set for all of SCCFD's lines does have data throttling limitations"
Metabolism is a big one, which itself is a wonderfully large equation with variables which among other things include calorie intake with some nice time dependent integration in the formula as well.
But by all means ignore science and continue thinking this complex topic can be simplified to calories in vs out.
Did it not work! Damn?
Your browser is running some outside unprivileged JavaScript for almost every page you visit.
Which would worry me if the browser ran that script long enough to build up a detailed profile of my machine, and then customised it's own malware attack to make a side channel attack at all relevant.
The reality is side channel attacks MUST be targetted at a specific system setup, or in many cases with modern OS security measures the actual specific currently running system with the hope it doesn't reboot at some point. Just because your browser executes Javascript doesn't mean anyone in their right mind would attack or even be able to successfull attack your system in doing so.
The fact that it has not been demonstrated yet does not mean it can't be done.
It can be done. Everything CAN be done. The point is it WON'T be done because of the sheer amount of effort requried when there are far more effective attacks. Even for malware writers and hackers time ultimately is money and a generic bug is many orders of magnitude more valuable to them than a side channel attack on memory.
what I took away was "Go buy an AMD processor".
If you took nothing away you would likely be legitimately looking in AMD's direction anyway. AMD have made some amazing strides back into the market place in the past few years.
You are allowed the occasional error.
Not on Slashdot your not.
Don't guess. Intel has absolutely nothing to lose by saying the CEO steps down due to Spectre and Meltdown. Hell their share price may even spike up as a result.
While you're not guessing, also don't underestimate the stupidity of past actions in the moden Code of Conduct / #metoo world we live in. Many people have been undone for things they have done in the long past that don't conform to modern social norms*. There are countless people out there who are bleeding from their self inflicted character suicide wounds, they are just waiting for the end to come.
*Note here we're talking about social norms, not something actually illegal like touching little boys or sexual assault which were the very legitimate components of the #metoo movement.
It's called steam ...
... But when you put DRM in a game...
To be clear, do you actually believe that Steam doesn't have very stronly enforced DRM?
Anticompetitive practices are more strictly regulated in monopoly situations
Charging a 3rd party to use your closed platform is not an anti-competitive practice unless you are in a monopoly situation and in a situation to provide the same thing that you are charging that party for.
, but nothing in any of the relevant laws precludes legal action against a company that is not a monopoly.
There's nothing in the laws that would prevent me suing you for your post either. That doesn't mean I would win or that it makes sense.
Second, every one needs to stop comparing the plan process the Fire department was paying for that one SIM card to their own data plans. Their monthly bill is probably in the thousands, if not tens of thousands and as such they have access to a whole bunch of tiers and plans that consumers do not have.
You are talking about what should be happening. Not what IS happening. Verizon provides emergency service personnel with relevant plans that have no throttling what so ever. The fire department however is subscribed to a $37.99/month consumer plan. Nothing in the thousands, and the plans available to emergency service operators don't cost thousands either.
Verizon came out and said they (Verizon) had misrepresented the terms of the data agreements
No they didn't. They said that the firedepartment didn't read the terms of the data agreements and were on the wrong plan. They have also said they have a standard practice to life any caps in emergency scenarios anyway but this didn't occur due to their own fault.
They actively came out and admitted they were wrong and what they did which was wrong, but you insist on making up some other bullshit story. Don't do that.