anome

I've been saying this is where they're heading for years. I expect if they do release it, there will be a huge backlash with people threatening to never buy an Apple product again, just like there is every time they do something.

fastasleep said:

sflocal said:

I just received my 2020 iMac and while I love everything about it, the one thing that just irks me is Apple's decision to limit it to two TB3 ports.  It should have four.

I have dual monitors, and two TB2 drives RAID towers.  Which means for now, I can't plug in any USBc devices.  WTF Apple?

Of course you *can*. Just get USB-A to C cables or adapters if you need them.

No, not "adapters"! We can't possibly use "adapters"! That would ruin the entire user experience...

mknelson said:

Also, WINDOWS!

No mention of Mac as released.

No Macs currently support Thunderbolt 4, and since Thunderbolt 3 doesn't allow you to split Thunderbolt channels like that, it probably won't support them until we have TB 4 Macs. Hopefully either the Apple Silicon MacBooks/Mac mini or the last gasp Tiger Lake x86 Macs.

But, 60W charging isn't the best, unless the Apple Silicon MacBooks are that much more energy efficient. (No reason they can't be, but we haven't seen them yet.)

Doesn't seem to be available on the main Australian affiliate for OWC stuff yet. But then, I'm not in the market for it. Yet.

Have they sent out the phones that far ahead of the launch before? My memory was that in the past, they didn't ship the phones to vendors until the week of release.

greginprague said:

• Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss

Why is that fundamentally different?  Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store?  That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court.  To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own.  If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same.  How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??

I think their argument is that the Playstation and XBox are sold at a loss, and they make their profits from those platforms through the commission. Apple, on the other hand, sells it's hardware at a profit, so shouldn't need the commission. It's a bullshit argument. They seem to be trying to dictate terms on how Apple conducts the business of selling its products to suit Epic.

Another question I have about all of this, is how much those IAP items cost Epic. In other words, what is their profit margin on IAPs? Presumably a shiny new hat for your character costs them something, but that cost is fixed, and then the item can be sold infinitely many times, unlike a real hat which has costs associated with the number of hats manufactured.