Regardless of who has 'the high ground' in this pissing match, it's clear Bezos is being snarky, probably without realizing his own hypocrisy here.
Like how he threaten to move jobs out of Seattle because the local council wanted to add a head tax to fund housing, etc. and then made himself look noble by promising to donate several $million, if not more, to charities to help out with poverty and housing.... which, oh by the way, would net him a nice charitable tax deduction too - double win for him: no new head tax, and gets to claim a charitable deduction!
You obviously didn't RTFA (or even the summary above):
With the IP-addresses that were obtained through this honeypot scheme, Prenda requested subpoenas to obtain the names and addresses of Internet subscribers. These people were then threatened into settling for figures up to $3,000. Whether they were guilty or not appeared to be irrelevant. "Hansmeier was generally content to take this step without investigating whether the subscriber was, in fact, the infringer. Hansmeier thus inflicted plenty of pain on persons who did not, in fact, download his pornographic bait," the Government writes
and that there should be no fine, since restitution will be paid to those damaged by his scheme
Restitution? How exactly?
Either the victims had to pay that $3000, or defend themselves; either carries extra stress (and potential embarrassment/peripheral pain) beyond the costs that was purposely inflicted by this asshole. They should definitively fine the maximum possible.
-Yeah, let me enjoy my life without worry - the most typical probably; throwing caution to the wind and enjoying the moment without worries about the future
-Exactly, I do only live once! - that you only have 1 life to live, so be careful how you live it, and live it the longest possible.
Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.
You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.
About 2 decades ago, I watched some news coverage of innovative (but not really serious) ideas university students came up with to 'enhance' safety of vehicles.
The one that stood out to me was a modified van that, upon detecting it was going to crash head-on into something, would flip its bumper down, from which inflatable arms and hands came out to 'brace' itself for the impact.
Removing the requirement to have a Mac to develop iDevice applications means that it becomes increasingly practical for non-developers to install applications from source on their devices.... applications that might do things that bypass normal App store restrictions.
I don't think Apple wants to do that.
Doing it this way doesn't mean Apple will 'give up' its control - in fact knowing Apple I don't expect it to make it 'easy' for anyone to bypass its store, and will likely eliminate side-loading (betcha we won't be able to 'import' github projects); I don't envision Apple allowing the building process to not go through its own services in order to restrict things.
But I have a pretty strong hunch it'll never happen.
It'll happen, just not the same way Xcode works now...
Think of how they've done the Swift playgrounds. And how they process submitted app builds' byte-code to make it platform-independant, but produce hardware-specific builds for distribution.
Now think of how they can provide a sort of terminal-like version of Xcode, where you program on the iPad, but the building is actually done by a server cluster farm Apple provides. It simplifies development (build-wise) and distribution, and removes the dependency to have a Mac (which I'm convinced Apple wishes they didn't need - more than likely they want to stop bothering to make Macs anymore).
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, the EULA doesn't include a personal arbitration clause? Fuckabug is slackin' when it comes to hiring lawyers...
Wouldn't apply to non-Fuckedbook users whose data was "unintentionally" taken.
And the problem with this type of practice it that it doesn't just violate the privacy of that user, but every single person that user knows.
I smell another class-action lawsuit!
Take the Streisand effect, and multiply it by six!
Regardless of who has 'the high ground' in this pissing match, it's clear Bezos is being snarky, probably without realizing his own hypocrisy here.
Like how he threaten to move jobs out of Seattle because the local council wanted to add a head tax to fund housing, etc. and then made himself look noble by promising to donate several $million, if not more, to charities to help out with poverty and housing.... which, oh by the way, would net him a nice charitable tax deduction too - double win for him: no new head tax, and gets to claim a charitable deduction!
I wasn't even remotely aware of this 'ping' attribute.
Now that I do, I think I'll have some fun having it modified by an extension to 'ping' back a URL with a nasty message in it!
The way this was sneaked in is alarming.
The icing on the cake would be if it turned out one of the talents was underage.
Restitution? How exactly?
Either the victims had to pay that $3000, or defend themselves; either carries extra stress (and potential embarrassment/peripheral pain) beyond the costs that was purposely inflicted by this asshole. They should definitively fine the maximum possible.
From past experience, expect that thread to disappear/get locked soon....
Google kills off pretty much anything they put out.
You live life once,
That expression can summon one of two reactions:
I don’t know what the laws are like in Australia, but this seems to me like a clear case of it.
Seriously, Uber is the Facebook of the ridesharing world.
Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.
You do a good job of outlining what Apple does with that 30%, but you failed to point out that app developers also don't have the option of doing those things themselves if they don't want to go through Apple. That bit's important too.
Just because “Amazon and Google do it too” doesn’t make it any more right.
“......(unless it’s in private between parties)”
Tim Cook: "We'll reduce the price of the MacBook Air by a certain percentage"
Investors: "What percentage?"
Tim Cook: "Zero"
Investors: ......
Tim Cook: "What? Zero is a percent!"
I seem to recall some browser add-on from 10-15 years ago which promised the ability to comment on any website.
Third Voice.
A previous idea.
So they will have to deliberately "cripple" XCode in order to make it viable on iDevices.
"Cripple" is Apple's middle name, because courage.
Like: "FCC Falsely Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband"
About 2 decades ago, I watched some news coverage of innovative (but not really serious) ideas university students came up with to 'enhance' safety of vehicles.
The one that stood out to me was a modified van that, upon detecting it was going to crash head-on into something, would flip its bumper down, from which inflatable arms and hands came out to 'brace' itself for the impact.
Removing the requirement to have a Mac to develop iDevice applications means that it becomes increasingly practical for non-developers to install applications from source on their devices.... applications that might do things that bypass normal App store restrictions.
I don't think Apple wants to do that.
Doing it this way doesn't mean Apple will 'give up' its control - in fact knowing Apple I don't expect it to make it 'easy' for anyone to bypass its store, and will likely eliminate side-loading (betcha we won't be able to 'import' github projects); I don't envision Apple allowing the building process to not go through its own services in order to restrict things.
But I have a pretty strong hunch it'll never happen.
It'll happen, just not the same way Xcode works now...
Think of how they've done the Swift playgrounds. And how they process submitted app builds' byte-code to make it platform-independant, but produce hardware-specific builds for distribution.
Now think of how they can provide a sort of terminal-like version of Xcode, where you program on the iPad, but the building is actually done by a server cluster farm Apple provides. It simplifies development (build-wise) and distribution, and removes the dependency to have a Mac (which I'm convinced Apple wishes they didn't need - more than likely they want to stop bothering to make Macs anymore).