tenthousandthings
About
- Username
- tenthousandthings
- Joined
- Visits
- 179
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,055
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,068
Reactions
-
Apple has renewed sci-fi original drama 'Invasion' for a second season
I started watching this without knowing anything about it, but I’ve found it enjoyable. It’s an original take on the alien-invasion genre. It hardly shows the aliens at all for most of the time. It doesn’t explain what’s going on. Instead, it focuses on the chaos and confusion on the ground, a portrait of humanity based on the idea that if there were an alien invasion, they probably wouldn’t announce themselves. There are a lot of unanswered questions, which is okay in the context. Each character holds a piece of the puzzle.It isn’t too hard to guess where it’s going, but at this point it’s still not clear, so I’m not going to say, as I don’t want to spoil it. Also, I could be completely wrong…
-
Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction
The “again” in the headline may be correct, in that this could be a second step in the process with the circuit court of appeals, but even if so, then it is still not a reference to the proceeding you were referring to, which was Apple’s first request (in October) for a stay from the original judge in the district court, which was heard November 9 and denied.maximara said:
Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused. I again ask what am I missing?tenthousandthings said:
The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals.maximara said:I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so.
-
Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction
shareef777 said:
Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.maximara said:I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?Apple isn’t exaggerating the impact of changing the methods they use to collect their share of IAPs in mobile games. It’s not a small thing.
They may be exaggerating its effect on customers, but I suppose that really depends on what Apple does, and how developers respond. Higher prices for Apple customers who don’t want to give their personal information to a company like Epic seems a real possibility, for example. -
Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction
The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals.maximara said:I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so.
-
Epic's Tim Sweeney calls Google 'crazy,' says 'Apple must be stopped'
There are more fun quotes at the end of the article, including this: “[Their] policies are so restrictive that if the worldwide web had been embedded after the smartphone, then Apple and Google would have blocked all web browsers from being released on their platforms.”This one is also telling: ”There’s a store market, there’s a payments market, and there are many other related markets. And it’s critical that antitrust enforcement not allow a monopolist in one market to use their control of that market to impose control over unrelated markets.”
I think it’s clear who was directing Epic’s counterproductive legal arguments in its case in the US. Like the judge in that case, in Korea the people charged with the actual enforcement of this law are not going to be impressed with such bullshit.
