flydog
About
- Username
- flydog
- Joined
- Visits
- 195
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,631
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,149
Reactions
-
Apple increases credit for returning DTK to $500 following developer outcry
stompy said:
You make some valid points, but Apple could have done better.dewme said:
The DTKs were leased equipment,...wood1208 said:Apple should have offered DTK at lower price and let them keep it. Not sure what Apple will do with returned DTK unless rip off processor,memory,etc from it and use in Macbooks products because of component shortages.I do realize that in the current mindset of universal entitlement, anything that goes against one’s personal wishes and desires, regardless of anything else, is viewed as an offensive move by an overlord. ...Apple knew, going in, that they needed to get these DTKs back,...Anything they don’t like is instantly viewed as a personal affront and categorically labeled as an offense, and of course, they’re now the victim. Business agreements and keeping your word don’t seem to matter. If I’m not happy, it must be wrong.
I'm definitely not saying Devs / commentators are completely right.
Mistakes that are 100% on Devs (and commentators)
1. Many lesees assumed this DTK program would closely resemble the Intel DTK program, even down to getting a voucher equal to (or greater than!) the cost of the lease.
2. Many lesees are unaware of the hefty fees Apple Developers paid in 2005 in order to qualify for the ability to lease a DTK. These fees quite literally offset some DTK / voucher expense.
3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
Mistakes that are 100% on Apple
A. Lease should have spelled out that if Apple requested early return of DTK, a refund or voucher, say, equal to x/365 * $500 would be provided, where x = days Dev had the box.
B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned)
C. Voucher/credit should expire when the original lease would have ended.
Hindsight should be applied by all parties.Everything you've stated is nonsense, and if you know nothing about the contract and the relationship between Apple and developers vis-a-vis this program, it's best to keep your mouth shut rather than make ridiculous assumptions.
First, I'm not aware of any developer claiming the he or she is entitled to more than $200 because "that's how it was under the Intel program." If you have a source for this ridiculous claim post it here. There certainly were people hoping it would turn out the same way, but many would be have been ok with receiving nothing since they were promised nothing other than a unit they could use for development.
The only expectation that developers had was that Apple provide what it promised: (a) a working unit to develop universal apps ,and (b) support to help develop those apps, which was supposed to consist of a private forum and a couple of tech support incidents. But most of us received neither of these things. The units turned into non-working garbage upon trying to update to the latest beta, and Apple provided no support to fix them (or with issues relating with universal app develpment). The special private forum Apple set up is full of threads with no response of any kind from any Apple engineers, and most developers were not succesful in getting replacement units. The entire program was a farce, and Apple should have been sued. Most of us are used to this kind of developer support from Apple, and simply chalked it up as another bad experience.
The least Apple could have done is refunded the $500, but instead it offered $200 to spend on a new Mac within barely 60 days. Given the circumstances, it was a big F U.
-
Apple named world's most valuable brand, beating Amazon and Google
You don't understand the meaning of the word value? Here is a simple example that may reduce the fog in your brain:lkrupp said:So what? Does this ranking translate to anything meaningful or is it just the bullshit it appears to be? How does one determine the ‘value’ of a brand anyway and how is it useful?
The value of a $100 bill is higher than a $1 bill. Because the value of the $100 bill you can buy more things with it. For example, if a pack of gum costs $1, you can buy 1 pack of gum with the $1 bill. But with the $100 bill, you can buy 100 packs of gum.
So the $100 bill has more value than the $1 bill
Hope that helps!
-
Google apps to stop using ad tracker highlighted by iOS 14
I'm sorry, what?gatorguy said:roake said:"At Google, we've always put users and their privacy first."This actually made me laugh out loud.
Maybe they meant first on the auction block...?
At least the data itself never left Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Google_data_breach
https://hub.packtpub.com/google-is-circumventing-gdpr-reveals-braves-investigation-for-the-authorized-buyers-ad-business-case/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-1539017194
-
Lawsuit claims Apple facilitates, benefits from illegal gambling on the App Store
22july2013 said:
However I think the restriction on card counting apps should be removed. The reason given below is that card counters are "illegal." I don't live in the US, but I googled whether card counting is illegal, and the answer was no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status Wikipedia documents no country in the world where card counting is "illegal." So the Apple rules are wrong when they claim that card counting apps are "illegal gambling aids".
I find it interesting that Apple won't sell apps that help you defeat the casinos (card counting apps) but they will sell apps that let you defeat the police (police location apps). Apple supports "casinos over people" but not the "police over people."
The difference is that "defeat the police" is a collection of meaningless words that you made up to substantiate your nonsensical argument. You haven't offered anything that is illegal that Apple allows on the App Store, only your personal opinion that things that help "defeat the police" shouldn't be allowed.
Gambling on the other hand is a concrete thing, and is defined as wagering money on the outcome of a game, which is (a) illegal or regulated in all states, and (b) an objective standard that can be applied to determine whether somethign is or isn't "gambling."
Second, card counting with the aid of anything but your own brain is in fact illegal in every state with legalized gambling. See, e.g., Nevada Revised Statues 465.075:
It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that . . . Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game . . .
-
Apple Car US production reportedly assigned to Hyundai subsidiary Kia
Kia is a separate company with a separate board and leadership structure. Hyundai owns just 35% of Kia and has 1 seat on the board, so yes, Kia would need to agree.mike1 said:If this is all true, I'm very surprised to learn that Hyundai uses separate plant(s) to manufacture essentially the same car(s).I also doubt that Kia would need to "agree to take control of production". They'd be told they are producing the car.
