dann0

This doesn't really work because the big firms that consumers boycott have political leverage and magically become too big to fail.

It also presupposes that unregulated capitalism is the best kind of market. But "unregulated market" only means unregulated in ways that benefit people.

BI and UBI are better ways to ensure that the people that governments actually represent are supported when they need it. They are more direct and have quicker market benefits.

What really gets me is that UBI would be great for everyone, even the rich and the big business. It allows more consumers to buy more, ensures only productive, motivated and properly rewarded workers are in the workforce, lets artists create fine art rather than doing meaningless busy work so that they can eat, and even lowers the cost and inefficiencies of social safety nets.

Conservatives can't see how anything can be anything other than a zero sum game. They are always trying to maximise their wealth, they assume that everyone else is too, but really, most of us are just trying to find enough to eat, have a home and stay alive.

They are scared of losing what they have because they want to take what anyone else has. They hide that by saying it's unearned or whatever, but they mostly haven't earned what they have. They have at best grown what they were given. They don't know what it's actually like to have nothing.

That's not right. The more a term is in the market, the more difficult it is to get a trademark approved.

The difficulty comes from the obligation to protect a trademark - if you have trademark rights to a term and don't take reasonable steps to protect it, you're at risk of losing your rights.

There's a huge survivorship bias in the overall conversation about old things being better than new things.

The poorly made houses from 100 years ago just aren't there anymore.

The junk clothing from 50 years ago was thrown out.

I saw God's Debris by Scott Adams and now seriously doubt the quality of this list.

Not helped by seeing the review of Der Kreativitäts-Code as being "Here’s a book I plan on reading".

Disappointed by this list

It's really not suddenly. They keep making the same mistakes. This is the second or third time the app has changed and they've got it wrong. I have to use two apps to control my Sonos equipment because one of my old units is too old even though it works and sounds great.

They tried to not support old stuff, they tried to make the hardware not work if sold, and they have messed up the app several times.

I want to love them, but it's hard to when you investment could just stop working at any moment.

I sync it with my own synology.

The AMULET Project was an asynchronous version of ARM microprocessors. Maybe one could design away the clock like with these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMULET_(processor)

I like Joplin. Has the features you've asked for

No, people go to where the resources and opportunities are.

Markets are for maximising profits. Housing should not be a market.

I have sympathy for Apple. They are essentially being forced to do business with a known bad actor, and that bad actor has continually demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that is unreliable and untrustworthy.

But Apple really should have handled this better. Being made to look like the bad guys against Epic seems impossible, but they’ve done it.

I guess private toll operators can’t prevent repeat drunk drivers using their roads, even if they do the same “trust us, just because” nonsense Sweeney has written.

First, it’s weird that anyone would take the side of Epic in any argument.

Second, it’s obvious that no one had actually read the article. Epic admitted that they have deliberately broken the App Store rules. That’s enough to have anyone sanctioned in any system.

Apple are certainly not unimpeachable here, but this blind hatred of Apple is out of control.

At least get the facts close to right before spewing your uninformed BS.

That’s fair, but they weren’t out of the woods yet. But probably less important than I previously stated/thought.

I’d argue that the Motorola iTunes phone was a success. I don’t think its goal was to be a great phone, I think it was to bring in some much needed cash.

The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

It is actually very Apple, and perhaps even more so at post-Jobs Apple.

The iPod wasn’t as good on paper as the Rio or Rune. Cost a LOT more too.

The original iPhone wasn’t great, but it was good enough to capture the imagination. It certainly wasn’t cheap.

The Series 0 Watch was also pretty ordinary, especially when compared to other smart watches. Expensive too.

Same with Siri, the HomePod and Apple TV, but these haven’t quite hit the mark. Probably not failures (except maybe Siri), but not in the best of Apple category.

All of these early products were for the bleeding edge. They provide the feedback and insight into how the product is going to be used.

Apple’s special ability is to find the essence of what a good product needs to have, quickly. Sometimes they don’t nail it first time, but they excel at finding out and then iterating until it does.

It’s new to me, but I’m not in the community. Sounds like it might solve many of the challenges I had esp. getting started.

I’d agree, but the developer in this example could still use the iOS App Store for free using the current terms

Only if you choose the new terms. The current ones are still available to you.

I definitely don’t love all of the detail of either option.

However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

Oh, I’m not a blind supporter of Apple. They absolutely could be much less arrogant and handle this and many other things much better.

However, the entitlement that is pervasive here that whatever Apple does is bad and it’s ok to expect them to give their work and infrastructure away for free is just crazy.

If we’re arguing about the value that developers get for what they pay, or if Apple is stifling innovation, or even if Apple is being maliciously compliant, then that’s a different conversation. I’m much more sympathetic to that.

But this is about people demanding Apple give their IP away from free so that they can make money from that expensive to make and operate infrastructure is ridiculous

No, reinstalls and updates don’t get counted. This is in the linked page: “each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold”.

This applies only to iOS Apps. iPad OS and Watch OS isn’t (yet) covered by this Core Technology Fee.

I strongly suggest actually reading the linked page. Most of what you’re saying is clearly and obviously wrong, had you read the page.

Again, that’s a choice you’ve made.

I’d argue that a number way less than 1 million installs would signify enough success to start charging for

Have a look into Westfield / Scentre.

I think a large part of the disagreement here is the idea that all digital things should be free compared to how the physical world has been forever.

To sell to a hardware store, for example, you need to offer the retailer 40% as a minimum. Then you need to pay, often compulsorily, trading terms, ranging fees, advertising levies and other off invoice things.

They have high costs to cover, but they also force shelf prices down as much as they can.

In my opinion, Supermarkets and hardware stores mis-use their market power way more than Apple appears to be doing

Have they? You need to substantiate that claim.

1. Developers can continue to use the existing terms.

2. If a smaller developer elects to use the new terms, they pay less commission (10%) and a 3% transaction fee. That’s 2% less.

3. If they have more than 1 million users download their app, then there is an additional €0.50 Core Technology fee. If the developer is a commercial entity, then yes, they have to pay but in reality, it’s the end user that will have to pay.

3. If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.

4. If the app is offered by a not for profit, then they don’t pay the CTF.

So, the new terms seem better for developers and users in the EU.

This is, in fact, a bad faith argument.

Developers are not forced to develop iOS apps.

There are other alternatives like web apps or only developing for Android.

Developers have choices.

If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage.

These arguments always seem to break down to an entitlement to sell things without paying for the products and services used to make the thing.

It should be a conversation more about reasonableness than entitlement.

Luckily, small developers are unlikely to reach the $1m pa to qualify for the 30% fee. They’ll be subject to 15%.

And Beeper would lose. This isn’t antitrust.

They didn’t buy hardware to make Beeper Mini work. They are using an exploit in the protocols to make this work.

Be honest, if Apple was the party taking someone else’s property without permission, and then selling it for their own gain, would you still be defending this? I wager you wouldn’t.

Did you just unironically use a “would someone think of the children?” argument?

Of all the interesting points in this situation, this is not even close to being relevant

I think it is kind of absurd for private companies to build public infrastructure. Capitalism isn’t going to create more “housing supply”, it’s going to find ways to maximise profit and revenue. That’s diametrically opposed to the social or common good of a utopian city.

If they really wanted to build the perfect city, they should work with local and state governments which supposedly represents the people, not the rich.

Hey! I’ve used Label Live a lot. Great app and excellent value. Thank you!

Also, don't forget referee tracking. Higher level referees work hard on being the right places at the right time, so having some data showing their position at KMI as well as some way to measure their ability to anticipate would be valuable.