tenthousandthings

foregoneconclusion said:

tenthousandthings said:

NOTE: I’m using the term “clone” loosely here. I don’t know the answer to Shareef’s question above. I think it’s unlikely they can prove code was stolen, because if so the clone would would have been shut down years ago outside of China. It’s more of an intellectual-property claim. That’s why they want a jury.

If not the code, then they'll need to find specific copying of audio/visual elements. The gameplay aspect can't be treated as IP. Players running around in an open world using customizable weapons/outfits can't be copyrighted. If it were, PUBG itself would be guilty of copyright violation relative to prior shooters. 

Ars Technica has an article today with a bit more detail, with some comparisons: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/01/pubg-maker-sues-mobile-clone-apple-google-for-copyright-infringement/

If they can get it into the hands of a jury, then maybe? 

An interesting case. The clone came out on mobile before the original. The clone has tens of millions of active players, but the mobile version of the original is even more successful, with billions of downloads and billions in revenue. 

darkvader said:

flydog said:

darkvader said:

I'm not surprised.  Apple's payment processing rates are highway robbery.

But what REALLY needs to happen is opening the iPhone to allow app installation from any source of the user's choosing.  I'd have no problem with Apple charging 50% on their store if I could bypass it and install apps without it.

Apple doesn't charge a "payment processing" fee.  It charges a comission, and in exchange for that comission Apple provides an IDE and SDKs, distributes and markets that apps, and processes payments from customers.  And in no way shape or form is 15% (or even 30%) "highway robbery," considering what it costs a developer to handle all that on their own. 

It's not a "commission".  It's a payment processing fee.  Apple does NOTHING for in-app purchases beyond taking the money and telling the developer "you got a payment of $x for feature y".  The developer then handles everything else.  And yes, 15% is highway robbery, considering PayPal's cut for doing exactly the same thing is less than 3%, actual credit card merchant accounts charge even less.

Writing something in all caps doesn’t make it true. In my view, this is a ban-hammer-worthy comment. It demonstrates a willful, conscious disregard for the facts.

Apple needs to generate a certain amount of revenue from third-party apps on its mobile platforms in order to support them and, yes, profit from providing third-party developers with a livelihood. They use this simple system to generate that revenue. Yes, it is unbalanced, unfair, and disproportionate for developers who use in-app payments. But it’s transparent and easily understood. It was a revolutionary approach when it came out — nothing like it had ever been done. Third-party developers were fleeced at every turn. Now Apple fleeces them, but there are no surprises, no hidden costs or other tricks.

AniMill said:

I’d be fine with a new iMac Pro at the same 27” like I currently have (2017 first release). But what I want is for Apple to release a simple Mac Mini Pro/Max. Just give me the 2021 MacBook Pro without a screen, but all the guts & glory from inside. That’s it. I should only cost 2/3 of the same spec’ed MacBook, so for a 64GB RAM w/ 4TB SSD it should cost ($4900 * 0.67) $3300. That would be an insane deal. Even at $4000, it would be a solid done deal.

please Apple - make my year.

I feel you, but if they were going to do that, it would have already happened. I imagine the numbers don’t support it, in terms of both profit and customers — they won’t sell enough of them to justify the costs, nor will there be enough new customers just for it. Most people will opt to use a MBP closed on their desktop, or they’ll buy this new iMac XDR. There isn’t room for a high-end Mini. I hope I’m wrong.

Nice job with this article — a well-balanced assessment of what’s been happening in the “rumor mill.” The only thing not mentioned is the supposed leak of codenames for a third stage of M1 silicon, which doesn’t really add anything because so little is known about what those entail.