flydog

Peza said:

tenthousandthings said:

Peza said:

Fischer is obviously lying here, under oath no less. You can't have one employee state a group is a whitelist of trusted large scale developers with access to other API's, and then have another employee claim they are only beta testers. If they were beta testers you'd have a much wider scope of devs from big to small. Not hold any exclusive list of those you stand to make the most profit from... and who are substantial in size. 

EDIT looking further into this, it seems Hulu according to Apple internal emails shown in the trial had access to this special subscription cancellation API AT LEAST since 2015, yet Apple today on the stand are proclaiming this year that it's a beta test? Even though no other dev can access the same API today that Hulu uses? Pull the other one it's  got the bell from the Titanic attached to it...
And from what I can gather Hulu still uses this 'special' API.

Does not look very good for Apple.

Based on what it says here in this article, it seems clear that it *was* a live beta, one that ended once Apple “had subscription upgrade/downgrade capabilities built in.” I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the live beta never ended and Apple never finished the job, since they are saying pretty much the exact opposite of that. There’s no discrepancy that I can see.

The “white list” seed program continues, obviously, but that particular live beta ended, equally obviously.

Devs do not have access to the same API, that’s the difference, Hulu still is using a special version no one else can access, and they have been using it since 2015, that’s what people are saying, it’s effectively according to Apple been in beta for several years, so only a select whitelist of devs can use it. You seem to have missed that point?

Trey_Lance said:

Washington Post is an ignorant publication. By their logic, even easier to Stalk  with Tile 

EsquireCats said:

You know Apple must be onto a winner product when the FUD articles come out. It was the same b/s when the Apple Watch was being written up as a target for thieves because the sports band is easy to remove.

The report is b/s for a variety of reasons:

• The majority of stalking crime involves persons who are known to each other. However to stalk with a tracking device requires a stalker to get close enough to personally install it on the victim which isn't feasible. If the stalker knows the victim's location then tracking with an electronic device isn't the problem. In the hypothetical situation where the victim doesn't know the stalker, the same issues apply: getting close enough, and having already known the victim location. (Whereby the stalker can just follow the victim anyway.)
• The device works best when placed in the open. This is why the accessories are all designed to leave the tracker exposed. One can't install the device to something like the underside of a car and expect it to work, the device is still limited by EM physics.
• The tracker itself is linked to the owner. Stalking with this is like leaving your ID at a crime scene.
• It's a highly publicised tracking device and alerts the victim, while being trivial to disable. Anyone that finds it will know what it is, especially when it's beeping at them.
• If the software is smart enough to notify the user about being followed, it's smart enough to not publish that location.

So stalking isn't the issue with this device, the issue with this device is that if an item is intentionally taken/stolen the tracker can be easily disabled. So it makes sense to attach it to low value items such as keys. For more expensive items the route is either an accessory that gives the tracker permanence or purchasing items which already include the hardware (such as the VanMoof bikes and most Apple devices.)

Side note: It would only be "inexpensive" if it didn't require a $600 iPhone just to get started.

InspiredCode said:

In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

 2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

• Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.

DAalseth said:

Ads in the app store suck. I’m searching for an app by name. Just show me the damn thing.