davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,764
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,198
Reactions
-
Phil Schiller recounts concerns over App Store fees for external purchases in hearing
DAalseth said:
And I always thought that was a very bad idea. If I buy a grocery bag from Target, Target doesn’t get a cut if I use it at Fred Meyers.davidw said:DAalseth said:When I first heard about Apple getting a cut from sales outside of the AppStore I thought it was wrong and would come back to bite Apple in the ***. 30% to offset the cost of running the store was fine. But once someone loads the app I never agreed with Apple claiming a cut of sales from other people’s stores. That always struck me as abusive.If one purchased the digital downloaded version using the Amazon app, then Apple charged a commission.
If you buy a grocery bag from anywhere, you own the bag out right. The seller has no say on where or how you can use it. But IP is different. You never own the IP. You are licensed to use it based on the terms of the license. Target don't own any rights to the grocery bag, after you paid for it.When you buy a CD, you can not use the CD or any of the songs on it, like you could with the purchase of a grocery bag.The artists of the songs (or copyright owner) deserves to get paid, if you were to make money using their songs. Commercial use of someone else's IP is not covered under "fair use". But you are allowed to sell that original physical CD, even at a profit, under the First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Laws. But you can never use the IP on it to make a profit, without the permission of its owner.If Apple (along with Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) did not charge a commission for the purchase of Fortnight Bucks (IAP), when playing Fortnight, using a free app on their devices, then how is Apple suppose to recover the cost of hosting Fortnight on their devices? Fortnight was one of the most downloaded apps from the Apple App Store and Epic made hundreds of millions of dollars selling Fortnight bucks through that free app. The very bad idea was that of Sweeney, when he violated Apple App Store policies and bypassed Apple commission. Policies he had to agreed to before Fortnight was allowed to be a free app in the Apple App Store. This cost him hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion) by now, by getting kicked out of the Apple App Store. (Not to mention the loss from getting kicked out of the Google Play Store, on Android.)
-
Phil Schiller recounts concerns over App Store fees for external purchases in hearing
DAalseth said:When I first heard about Apple getting a cut from sales outside of the AppStore I thought it was wrong and would come back to bite Apple in the ***. 30% to offset the cost of running the store was fine. But once someone loads the app I never agreed with Apple claiming a cut of sales from other people’s stores. That always struck me as abusive.The commission (30%) for purchases made outside the Apple App Store, by way of an app that was free from the Apple App Store, only applies to digital goods purchases that ends up being downloaded into the Apple devices using iOS, iPadOS, tvOS , MacOS or WatchOS. Why should developers get a free ride to profit from Apple IP? The commission do not apply to purchases made through any app where the goods are delivered by other means. If one purchased a physical CD using the Amazon app, no commission. If one purchased the digital downloaded version using the Amazon app, then Apple charged a commission. Which is why Amazon do not allow the purchase of digital downloaded goods (music, movies, books, software, etc.) using the Amazon App.The commission is not just for using the Apple App Store to sell your apps and/or for payment processing. The commission also includes the charge for using Apple IP to profit from. This includes using Apple IP to develop the apps that runs on Apple devices. An Apple Developer account only cost $99 / year (for individual). But Xcode and Swift are free.If developers like Sweeney don't want to pay Apple a commission, then he shouldn't be charging Epic game players for the virtual bucks used to buy virtual items that have over a 90% profit margin, when playing games by Epic Games using a free app from the Apple App Store. Problem solve.Or Sweeney can email the purchasers of VBucks a code where the purchasers can enter the code in their account to get their VBucks. But Sweeney would rather have the VBucks credited to their purchaser account immediately, using an app on the Apple device the player is using to play the game and that requires using Apple IP.Or Sweeney can only sell VBucks (for iOS) on their own website. Which means the game player would need to log on to the internet using a browser to make the purchase. But this reduces impulse and unintentional in-game buying by the game player. And Epic Games have been known to prey on their users (specially kids) with these type of in-game purchases.
-
How Apple Music stands firm amidst Spotify's Premium plan hikes
AppleZulu said:
No, I think “enraging” is correct. I think it would be pretty enraging for any artist who has put their blood, sweat, heart and soul into creating their music only to have Spotify package it with a set of tools to immediately f*¢k it up. That would be like a fine art gallery including a box of crayons, some scissors and a can of krylon with every painting sold.Pema said:They could also get tools to edit songs, which for enraging artists and record labels has got to be right up there with how Spotify still pays musicians far less than Apple Music ever has.
This sentence does not make sense. It is supposed to read emerging artists?But when you buy a painting, you own it and can do what you what with it. The artist has no right to tell you you can't use crayons to add some colors that you think is missing or to cut it into pieces.When you buy a CD or digital downloaded music, you have fair use rights under copyright laws to edit the songs you purchased, so long as you still own the original. You can take the songs on the CD and make changes to it as you wish, so long as its use is covered under fair use. The artist can't stop you. And Macs with OSX included the free software that enable you to edit the songs you purchased (on a CD or downloaded) ........ GarageBand. I'm old enough to remember when the artist were "enraged" when Steve Jobs included features in iTunes that allowed users to .... "Rip, Mix and Burn" ....... to create their own custom CD, using any of the songs in the users iTunes library. And iTunes included the means to remove the DRM on digital downloaded music purchased on iTunes. Music industry wasn't too happy with that.There is also free software in the Apple App Store that will remove the vocals from music.But artist being "enraged" because Spotify included tools to edit streamed music is a reminder that when you pay for streamed music, you own nothing and you might not have any fair use rights to make changes to those streams whether in real time or in a saved file to listen to later. Paying for streamed music only entitle you to listen to the streamed music, so long as you continue to pay for it.
-
UK's iPhone spying backdoor demand sparks bipartisan US lawmaker anger
avon b7 said:
The situation is not the same so why would this be a case of the the pot and the kettle?davidw said:avon b7 said:The pot calling the kettle black:
"The US government must not permit what is effectively a foreign cyberattack waged through political means," they said. "If the UK does not immediately reverse this dangerous effort, we urge you to reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK."
The US isn't in a position to permit or not permit anything outside its sovereign territory but seeing its current president wade into the Ukraine problem (negotiating without consultation with allies) and then hearing Hegseth say the US didn't not have Europe as a primary security focus it is crystal clear that 'America First' means everyone else should roll up their collective sleeves for their collective arms to be twisted or broken if they don't follows 'oders'.
Cowboy Diplomacy.
This from the country that promotes 'clean' networks and yet would love to have its own backdoors installed across the board. The same country that created PRISM and was on the Cypto AG train.
Perhaps the UK should just say no to the threats and shut down intelligence sharing. It was always a two-way setup anyway. Let's see how the US does by going it alone. Maybe Canada could do the same. And Australia. Any country suffering threats.
The threats to the UK were the same over Chinese companies and ICT infrastructure.
The UK is wrong in its requirements but the solution is for Apple to appeal and pull out if it isn't happy with the demands.
Threats are the new normal in Washington and I think the allies need to pushback with threats of their own. It's the only language Trump understands and no doubt 'allies' are making their opinions heard behind closed doors at the NATO meeting today and on the sidelines for non-Nato issues.
Public EU commentary (although measured due to diplomatic protocol) makes it clear that no one is happy with Trump's latest moves.
Although tongue-in-cheek, the recent comments floated around Canada applying to join the EU, could actually be used for some short term leverage. At least until Trump has 'left the building'.Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black ..... That would also be the case if the EU came out against the UK demand of a backdoor. Even if the EU don't call their proposed demand to have all their citizens data scanned for illegal contents, (when going through a third party server), it will essentially have the same result, the end of E2EE in the EU.>Of the 20 EU countries represented in the document leaked to WIRED, the majority said they are in favor of some form of scanning of encrypted messages, with Spain’s position emerging as the most extreme. “Ideally, in our view, it would be desirable to legislatively prevent EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption,” Spanish representatives said in the document.<So would you rather have the EU support the UK in their demand for a backdoor and not be labeled .... the pot calling the kettle black or would you rather it be a case of ....... the pot calling the kettle black ..... by having the EU speak out against the UK demand to end E2EE?
Or has the EU protested against the UK demands?
Hypothetically, maybe. That would have to be seen.
Personally, I am against any such moves for backdoor access to encrypted content like the UK is claimed to have introduced.
The EU situation has nothing to do with the UK situation as nothing has actually happened in the EU.
All you point to is a leaked document (which is a survey) of some EU states' ideas on the subject of CSAM and from what I can tell, those documents were drafted by a law enforcement group:
"The leaked document contains the position of members of the police Law Enforcement Working Party, a group of the Council of the European Union that deals with law".
Should we be surprised they think like that?
From a 'survey' drawn up from the results of one group (with a vested interest in some kinds of access to data) to getting a law similar to that of the UK passed there is a huge divide.
Especially as any such law would probably end up at the ECJ.
As the Wired article states, this is a years old debate that won't go away any time soon but is not, in any way, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
'What ifs'? I don't see that as relevant to the case today.And there is no relevance of anything the US has done, whether under present or past POTUS . So far the US politicians has not come close to passing a law that bans E2EE or requiring a backdoor. Law Enforcement agencies in the US have always wants to place a limit on E2EE, but so far, like in the EU, nothing been done to end it. So no ...pot calling the kettle black here either.But both US and EU government have always been able to access personal data of their citizens. Data from land line telephone calls and data from mobile phones have always been accessible to law enforcement under Lawful Interception laws. But so far, these laws do not require telecoms to provide law enforcement with un-encrypted E2EE messages. They can just hand over the E2EE message as is and let the law enforcement agency try to un-encrypt it. (So long as the providers themselves do not have the key.).PRISM fell under this. Thus PRISM is also not relevant as it did not put a ban on E2EE. When PRISM was enacted in 2007, E2EE of private messages, was not commonly used by the average citizens. If anything, once citizens found out about PRISM, E2EE of private messages became a common selling point of nearly all messaging services. But still, Prism did not call for a ban on E2EE.>Almost all countries have lawful interception capability requirements and have implemented them using global LI requirements and standards developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI),<We here in the US also have politicians using the ........ "think of the children ...." mantra, as a way to get a ban of E2EE, with the Earn It Act. Same mantra used in the EU in an attempt to get E2EE ban there. And just like the EU, it has not passed into law. It's still in the committee stage and not been voted on by the Senate or House. It's been around in various stages since 2020. So right now, we're not even close to passing a law that will ban E2EE or requiring a backdoor to E2EE messaging. So for now, there's no ... the pot calling the kettle black ....., here either.No rational citizen in any country, who believes that their private messages should not be subject to search without first being at least suspected of committing a crime(show probable cause), expects their government to think the same way.
-
UK's iPhone spying backdoor demand sparks bipartisan US lawmaker anger
avon b7 said:The pot calling the kettle black:
"The US government must not permit what is effectively a foreign cyberattack waged through political means," they said. "If the UK does not immediately reverse this dangerous effort, we urge you to reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK."
The US isn't in a position to permit or not permit anything outside its sovereign territory but seeing its current president wade into the Ukraine problem (negotiating without consultation with allies) and then hearing Hegseth say the US didn't not have Europe as a primary security focus it is crystal clear that 'America First' means everyone else should roll up their collective sleeves for their collective arms to be twisted or broken if they don't follows 'oders'.
Cowboy Diplomacy.
This from the country that promotes 'clean' networks and yet would love to have its own backdoors installed across the board. The same country that created PRISM and was on the Cypto AG train.
Perhaps the UK should just say no to the threats and shut down intelligence sharing. It was always a two-way setup anyway. Let's see how the US does by going it alone. Maybe Canada could do the same. And Australia. Any country suffering threats.
The threats to the UK were the same over Chinese companies and ICT infrastructure.
The UK is wrong in its requirements but the solution is for Apple to appeal and pull out if it isn't happy with the demands.
Threats are the new normal in Washington and I think the allies need to pushback with threats of their own. It's the only language Trump understands and no doubt 'allies' are making their opinions heard behind closed doors at the NATO meeting today and on the sidelines for non-Nato issues.
Public EU commentary (although measured due to diplomatic protocol) makes it clear that no one is happy with Trump's latest moves.
Although tongue-in-cheek, the recent comments floated around Canada applying to join the EU, could actually be used for some short term leverage. At least until Trump has 'left the building'.Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black ..... That would also be the case if the EU came out against the UK demand of a backdoor. Even if the EU don't call their proposed demand to have all their citizens data scanned for illegal contents, (when going through a third party server), it will essentially have the same result, the end of E2EE in the EU.>Of the 20 EU countries represented in the document leaked to WIRED, the majority said they are in favor of some form of scanning of encrypted messages, with Spain’s position emerging as the most extreme. “Ideally, in our view, it would be desirable to legislatively prevent EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption,” Spanish representatives said in the document.<So would you rather have the EU support the UK in their demand for a backdoor and not be labeled .... the pot calling the kettle black or would you rather it be a case of ....... the pot calling the kettle black ..... by having the EU speak out against the UK demand to end E2EE?
