NotoriousDEV
About
- Username
- NotoriousDEV
- Joined
- Visits
- 2
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 103
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 55
Reactions
-
Apple says reduction in App Store commission rate would impact bottom line
I think you’re headed in the right direction and I’d propose this change which would probably earn Apple enough good will to get the Wealth Redistribution people in DC to go after Amazon and Google (who deserve it): for devs makes very little (maybe under $500 or $1000/yr), 5%. Keep 30% for everyone else (sorry Epic! Go pound sand). It’s still $99/yr to place your apps; Apple wouldn’t lose much.elijahg said:I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
-
Zuckerberg: Apple's ad-tracking block will impair COVID-19 economic recovery
When someone blatantly lies what they’re really saying is they think they’re smarter than you. He’s not smarter than me; refused to use the product after finding out the truth about its origin; certainly won’t know that he is trying to justify misuse of personal data.He’s a sad little man. History will not be kind to him.
-
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $503M for infringing patents
That’s not how patents work - first to file wins. Period, end of discussion. Why do you think Apple made the (in the eyes of the jury) lowball offer? And the appeal
certa would have gone the other way if invalidated patents pertaining to this specific cases were involved.I’m no fan of NPEs - I’d love to see patents revoked if there’s no product in some amt of time (5 yrs seems reasonable). But it’s cases like this that get Apple caught up in the ‘too big and powerful, must be broken up’ discussions.chasm said:
Yes. Two things, actually:flydog said:
Virnet owns a valid patent, and Apple infringed it. Am I missing something?1, As referenced in Apple's statement regarding the verdict, at least some of the patents under question in this case have since been found invalid.2. I have yet to see any evidence in the filings that Apple actually infringed rather that "happened to come up with the same method." That's not to say none was presented, but I find it odd that no article I can find on the matter from any previous trial actually lays out Virnet's evidence that Apple knowingly infringed -- or that they were notified of this until years after the alleged infringement occurred. The fact that they have to file in the Eastern District of Texas undermines any claim they have that Apple willfully and with full knowledge infringed their patents.
-
Evidence mounting that Apple is preparing alternative to Google search
I’m sure Apple stockholders won’t be happy; that’s a big slice of revenue gone and given Apple’s privacy stance they won’t monetize the data to make up for it.For those saying this would put Apple in the crosshairs for monopoly rulings, I disagree. Apple customers willingly pay a premium for the quality of service - hw and sw - and security. There are options.
-
Samsung considering copying Apple's AC charger removal despite mocking ads
For all the talk that ‘the future is in Asia’ we have Case Number 104,385,287 of Asia looking to the US (and EU/AU/Canada to lesser extents) for ideas and initiatives. And the knee jerk initial mocking just makes them look all the more ridiculous.One thing I think everyone can agree Asia Tech firms haven’t copied from Apple: Steve Jobs’ ‘hire smart people and let them do their job, don’t tell them what to do.’
