wonkothesane

Meson said:

9secondkox2 said:

Apple did nothing wrong. 

Epic created a gigantic case just to get the courts to settle for something smaller. Unfortunately it worked. 

And now apple is supposed to give free access to competitors. 

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. If they want to charge a developer 99% for being listed on the store, they can do thst. 

But they’d lose partners. That’s how the free market works. 

27% is fair. And if they want to go to 20%, that’s fair too. 

But to try to force them to take nothing? That’s criminal. 

"Apple has a right to charge whatever they want." Really. You do understand that your the one who is paying at the end, correct. Don't you want competition on the iPhone? Or are you just happy with Apple just charging "whatever they want". 

This is just like tariffs. 😒

I think both of you have a point. In a free market, in generally good products prevail, bad ones disappear. From that POV one can argue that “let Apple charge whatever they want, if this leads to loosing developers, and through this to loosing customers, they either change, or go down.” The reason for this is exactly what you stated: The customer has to decide whether the value-proposition of Apple is still attractive enough to pay for it. Just because I wish it would be cheaper, more competitive etc, does not make it happen, or a legal requirement. Just like you cannot demand Ferrari to make more affordable cars, or have them implement certain features, just because you wish for it. I also am somewhat sceptical  regarding developers complaining, since they knew the rules from day one, and willingly agreed to the terms. Saying “I do not earn enough, and others charge less, but I cannot move to a different platform because I am more or less depending on this platform” is actual reality in many other industry areas, e.g. the supply chain in automotive often has tier 1s or tier 2s squeezed to the last drop, while fully depending on the OEM. You can argue to wheat extent this is 

On the other hand, there is a concern that companies abuse their actual market power. Which IMHO can go in the way of Amazon, squashing competition by being loss leader, or by stepwise deteriorating conditions, which can also mean, not changing while competition becomes cheaper across the line. IIRC, Apple is on the latter side. My interpretation of what is going on more or less in all relevant markets is that government takes the view that Smartphones have become an indispensable part of our lives, and hence some “FRAND” rules should apply, not matter which manufacturer, or service provider, in order to prevent a perceived abuse. 

Both sides have a point, and I think overall also regulators and courts have to find their position in a non black-and-white field, which is obviously also heavily lobbied by the affected companies, and on top a political item of discussion.

Completely OT: John Srouji always reminds me Christopher Walken, Also, in his movements. 
I like both of them. Great Chips. Great Movies.

Marvin said:

blastdoor said:

When I first read that Apple executives wouldn’t be talking to John Gruber this year (https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/29/the-talk-show-live-tickets-2025) I interpreted it as a snub. But now I wonder if the Apple executives are just going into hiding. 

John Gruber was rude with his recent unforgiving article about Apple. He definitely deserved a snub.

Just because Apple goes the extra mile to do their normal quality assurance doesn't justify attacking them for it the way he did.

AI is a constantly evolving technology and every month there's a new bar being set for what it can do like Google's Veo 3 video generator and others:







Apple hasn't been involved nearly as much with large scale cloud computing as other companies like Google and Microsoft so they have to scale up cloud infrastructure to handle this or figure out how to do more locally. Apple would probably prefer to do it locally but there are too many constraints on low-end hardware.

They should start with small, meaningful features that are done reliably and give people the assurance of privacy like being able to generate photoreal backgrounds for Facetime and wallpapers. They just need to manage expectations better so that people know this will be a multi-year technology and it won't come all at once.

Two points here from my side:

1. I don’t think John was rude.  Provocative, maybe. Also, I feel that a number of years ago, stating strong opinions were not as easily perceived as offensive and met with attempts of moral discreditation. I’m not saying you’re doing this. Far from this. I just want to express that I express a clearly stated POV, especially from someone with a background like JG, in order to stimulate constructive discussion.  

blastdoor said:

When I first read that Apple executives wouldn’t be talking to John Gruber this year (https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/29/the-talk-show-live-tickets-2025) I interpreted it as a snub. But now I wonder if the Apple executives are just going into hiding. 

While there could be many reasons for Apple to decline  the invitation, I cannot help myself but think how telling this is for the state of Apple. Maybe they are angry at his piece “Something’s rotten…”, and maybe it’s just this fact that they duck away instead of living a culture of honesty and transparency. Again, it could be for other reasons but I just don’t feel this a good sign…

I’m wondering whether we are already reaching the end of each subsequent M chip providing significant speed increases due to their design, and we’re already depending mostly on shrinking the transistors.