tommikele

hackintoisier said:

I hope Apple loses, as it is stifling competition. Why is it that apps that offer physical goods are treated differently than those that offer virtual goods? Also, how is Apple entitled to 30 percent revenue of billions of dollars of virtual good revenue, when it doesn’t cost nearly that much to run the App Store and offer the services that it does ? Also, why is it that some apps are restricted from being able to even a mention an alternative payment system? Seems draconian. 

I’m not advocating For an end result that leads to alternative app stores in iOS. But at minimum I think there should be competition in regards to in App payments. Apple shouldn’t be the sole supplier. I’m sure if competition opened up, costs would come down for consumers. 

How is Apple sniffling competition? They aren't. What is Apple selling that Epic sells? How are they taking sales from Epic? All developers that sell on the iOS platform are under the same rules = a level playing field = fair competition between developers. Apple does not compete with developers. Every single developer agreed to the terms and conditions before they ever put their first product up for sale. No one forced them to agree, did they? 

Can you show me where Epic has committed to lowering their prices by the amount they want Apple to cut their commission by? I don't think you can.

How much it costs Apple to run the app store or any other part of their business is not your business or mine or anyone else's except those who own and run the company. It's their business, their platform, their  hundreds of billions invested in developing it and supporting it.

Fair market pricing  is determined by a free market and supply and demand. If Epic or Apple is charging more than the market will bear they will suffer. and have to change to stay in business. Neither of them is suffering. Make no mistake about it, Epic in no way is looking to give you or any other gamer a piece of their pie. They are arguing with Apple over how much of the pie Apple gets for providing the platform, store and eco system that allows Epic to exist on iOS. How are you going to benefit from the result of that argument?

How do you feel about living up to your legal and contractural agreements? If you make an agreement that doesn't work out for you, whose fault is that? Apple should take less because Epic regrets making  the deal they did?

Here's some facts for you - In 2019, Epic Games reported $4.2 billion in revenue and $730 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA, a key measure of profitability). Revenue for 2020 is forecast to be $5 billion, with EBITDA of $1 billion. I guess Epic is in dire straights and struggling to survive and make money. I also guess they are "victims" of big bad Apple. Come on, give me a break.

Epic has no intention of passing on any gains to consumers. It will go right in the pockets of the company and owners. Competition between developers would benefit consumers. There is no competition between Epic and Apple. Neither sells the same product. You want to sell in my store? Good, then you will give me the cut I tell you I have to have or you won't sell in my store or on my closed platform you knew from day one was closed.

I am sick of what amounts to whining about Apple especially when it is based on erroneous information or claims that are not true. This has not a thing to do with competition. Apple has not done one thing to stifle competition between gaming developers. They are free to raise or lower their prices as they wish. The reality is the level playing field Apple has created has kept prices down for consumers and spurred development and competition. 

Interesting, in three articles I just found, Lufthansa denies they have banned AirTags despite what that tweet says.

lkrupp said:

Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.

What is a "reasonable" porn filter versus an unreasonable one? I would like automatic default filters on Fox News, Donald Trump, Trump's children, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. I find them incredibly more offensive and damaging than pictures of naked people engaging in sexual activity and certainly they are vastly more damaging to our country and youth's development as mature, emotionally healthy adults than those naked people I mention and what they might be doing on camera or in pictures.

It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic? The means to restrict minors access is there and publicized by Apple. The idea there should be automatic filters applied to non-minors is close to being offensive. Don't like it, don't look.
Automatic is just another extension of the the government and religious conservatives into other's lives. "God" forbid someone should unintentionally see someone's genitalia or naked breasts. I am sure they would be scarred for life.

GeorgeBMac said:

That is the mark of a quality corporation as well as a quality individual:   Realizing that they are not perfect and everything thing they do is not inherently the right thing.

It's a humility that enables one to admit and correct mistakes -- or at least examine that they may have been mistakes.

Was this the right thing or the wrong thing to do?  The mere fact that Apple sees that as a valid question speaks highly of them.

Good job Apple!

Drinking the Kool Aid George? 

This is far from dead and you laud them forgetting the implications and actions that led to what they were going to do. It is like the convicted thief who repents after getting caught. He/she/they are still a thief until they establish otherwise through building a history of doing the right thing and one mere act to step back does not establish them as having changed. It just takes one lie to make someone dishonest, but it takes a massive number of honest acts to reestablish yourself as trustworthy after you have violated the compact of trust.

Yes, I give them credit for pulling back, but praising their "humility" and framing it as right thing versus wrong thing speaks highly of them? Come on George. They screwed up big and only temporarily pulled back because the outrage and anger far exceeded anything they expected. This does not equate to "Realizing that they are not perfect or humility or any of the intrinsic characteristics you suggest. 

With that one simple act, Apple destroyed several decades of the good will and trust they had built on the subject of privacy. It is not mended by them pulling back temporarily.

Shame on France for attacking the freedoms of people and using Covid as an excuse. There is no reason to trust governments or companies to protect our freedom. They have all proven time and time again they cant be trusted.

Can't stand Sweeney. He's revolting, but right on this one.

I will get rid of cloud storage.

This article says absolutely nothing.

Sunday filler of zero value.

"Ex-UK politician Sir Nick Clegg, head of global affairs at Facebook parent company Meta,"

Is any more explanation necessary to establish the complete lack of credibility of the individual uttering his BS?

Don't like the conditions and your employer isn't breaking the law? Have conviction and quit. Walking off the job is a very different thing than a protest. By all means protest. Walk off the job? See you at the unemployment office.

Odds are good Cher Scarlett is behind much of this.

BoreDum said:

dtownwarrior said:

tommikele said:

Don't like the conditions and your employer isn't breaking the law? Have conviction and quit. Walking off the job is a very different thing than a protest. By all means protest. Walk off the job? See you at the unemployment office.

Odds are good Cher Scarlett is behind much of this.

I’m not excusing Apple, but No job is perfect.  If there’s a bad manager then they should be let go.  The simple fact that Apple is giving to HBCUs and other gender equality organizations should be a testament to their corporate image.  

Some folks really do have a victim hood mindset that every slight or miss promotions or perceive emotion is a grievance.  I don’t know this “ Cher Scarlett” lady, but according to Wiki (yeah I know) she has a history of jumping companies and filing lawsuits.  

The reality that you might not understand is that if there is a bad manager, Apple has not been taking action to let these people go. Also, there have been instances of Apple as an employer breaking the law directly through not allowing conversations of working conditions or wages to be talked about.

I did quit, sent an email talking about wages and working conditions, and my email got deleted (by the bad manager) from the store's server. Pretty illegal if you ask me.

It's a shame when individuals assume they know the scope of a situation without ever being in that situation themselves.

Although I have the feeling we don't agree on much of this and neither of us is likely to breach that divide, I do applaud you for following through on your convictions and principles.. If more did on all sides of this fence, mutual respect would grow and likely find common ground more often.

That said ...

Someone is a company deleting your email is "pretty illegal?" I don't think so unless it is destruction of evidence in a criminal, civil, EEOC, etc. action. The manager you mention had your email credentials? You made your complaint with the manager and not HR?. IT is my understanding from some in the company that Apple has a specified procedure for sending employee complaints. Not saying that delivers justice just that a system exists and did you use it? Yes, I know HR in any company can not be trusted by employees, even the higher ups. They will always screw the employee and protect the company. That their job. Fair and equitable outcomes is not at all what they do despite what they say in the handbook or whatever they call it these days. I am just not getting the full picture from what you are saying here

 Saying you can not discuss certain business matters is not illegal unless there is a labor law somewhere that gives you that right. Freedom of speech on someone else's property is a figment of the imagination. It is also my guess you signed an employment agreement or were informed what was taboo. You may not have read it in detail or seen the fine print, but these people are specialists in covering their rear ends.