thrang

22july2013 said:

Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?

If Epic adhere's to all the stipulations, I'm sure Apple would being them back in - Apple might be viewed negatively if the denied access to them.

Having said that, there may be aspects to the developer agreements that also stipulate that certain actions may lead to a permanent barring. 

I don't play games, but Epic is big an popular so it makes sense to have them back in the fold once their tale is tucked deeply between their legs.

The stupidity of Epic's action/claim is boggling to me...

I guess it's not dissimilar to someone driving a nice car or a clunker, or someone who wears nice clothes vs Amazon garments, or a person who gets their hair cut at a stylist vs Supercuts. Apple is perceived to be the more polished, better thought out, higher-end brand, on which demands the ability to pay more. So the ability to own one implies a better level of success than an Android owner might have  (and yes, while some Android phones are equality expensive, their overall ASP is much lower du to the dearth of crappier phones out there).

I'm not saying this is right of course, just saying. To a surprising extent, we do make judgments on people and things based on early impressions, because it's quick way for us to process and filter whats "worth" pursuing or not. This applies to a lot of things, not just people. You can sit in a car brand you've never tried before, and see a few things regarding fit and finish that leads you to considering or abandoning. You pick up an article of clothing and look at the stitching and feel the fabric and know if it's even worth trying on.

Epic Fail...

The fact is many businesses have, or are in the process of, re-evaluating the benefit of being in a larger city. I work for a large (150k employee) multinational firm headquartered in NYC (actually they own several building outright, or lease multiple floors in about 15 locations in Manhattan) The process for virtual PC access for at least half the workforce is already underway. Space utilization will be cut significantly. My wife works in a smaller NYC-based firm, but all 30 people are remote and the ownership has all but stated this will be permanent.

My son works with hundreds of businesses in NYC for auditing purposes, and all are now remote (understandably) -  but more than half will remain that way going forward.

There are countless stories about the realities of this. Whether its rioting (real or perceived), COVID or whatever combination of factors (certainly city leadership has been atrocious), when people not only start to evaluate alternatives, but actually put them into practice, mindsets change. 

So once commercial real estate begins to drop, supporting businesses (those that have even survived the prolonged shutdown), will also begin to close... residential real estate will also be impacted commensurately... efforts to tax even more will only drive higher income people out even faster (as will the natural relocation of businesses regardless)... and the net loss to the city (and many other) may very well be deep and long lasting.

For many, there is no personal benefit being in a big city. Compared to surrounding suburbia, they are intensely crowded, relatively dirty, lack sky and greens, are more expensive to shop or dine, and waste tremendous time and personal energy to commute to and from (my wife and I save 10 hours A WEEK each not commuting)

Yes, entertainment, museums, etc are in the cities. In the larger picture, so what. If they still can survive, one can always visit the three or four times a year you might partake in the arts. That has no bearing on working or living there.

svanstrom said:

macgizmo said:

Seriously? With all the problems in the world, THIS is what people are choosing to focus their frustration and paranoia on? How does this, in any way, violate someone's privacy?

Besides the fact that technically speaking a global entity is now forcing you to undergo a medical procedure to be allowed to exercise your rights for support etc, which was part of the deal when you purchased your equipment?

You can twist and turn the words back and forth as much as you want, but the fact remains that here's a corporate giant that sets the precedent that they can force individuals to undergo medical procedures (in a way that's easily linked to your person) for you to gain access to what a lawyer easily could argue came as part of your purchase; or even to for you to gain access to what according to the law is more a public than a private space.

If this isn't checked early on you'll soon find yourself with your medical data linked to your id/person, as aggregated, de-anonymized, and monetised by the same people doing that today with your physical membership cards, and your online habits (as tracked by cookies/websites/advertising networks).

So what would your solution be? Honor system? Permit infections? Stay closed for another year or so?