It never said it will stop right away. It put a target and the process is called phasing out. The same way you migrate away from AWS. You don’t just stop your platform you move over while still using some AWS services.
I don’t record my conversations and if some lawyer tells me that they have a recording of me saying something I’d be more inclined to believe them. “Maybe I actually said that? Maybe I made a mistake? Maybe I don’t remember it now correctly?”
So I’d take it with a pinch of salt but the lawyers might be absolutely correct as well. I’m just saying I can see it as a tactic but maybe I’m a bit paranoid. Wondering if just I jumped to this conclusion?
It's not a bluff, it's basic practice to record calls when the interactions are high stakes. This was just a social media fight, but when the issue is malpractice or someone has died you can guarantee the lawyers will want recordings of those calls.
In states where recording requires consent you will get a pre-recorded message at the beginning of the call warning you that it's being recorded.
I'm the PM of LiveSync at Ably. We started working on this quite recently after we established a partnership with Mongo and they deprecated Realm. I'm looking to expand the product to mainly cover the sync functionality of Realm but the roadmap is not set in stone yet
Would also be funny, if they were allowed to increase the penalty, based on how much they could have done with that money during that time. Opportunity cost.
Having US corporations obey the laws of the countries they operate and do business in, is historically a foreign concept for them and the US government.
But that’s how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free. I still don’t understand the logic behind the complaint. If the developers don’t want to pay, why not just drop support for iOS? If the answer is because customers are on iOS then… idk respect that this is the decision of the user. Don’t force me to install another App Store or give you my card data so you can charge me the same amount and keep more profit while compromising my privacy and security
> idk respect that this is the decision of the user.
You have it completely opposite.
The argument is that the user should be given full power and permission over their own device that they own, and should be allowed to choose, on their iPhone, to install whatever they want.
If a user doesn't want to install an app, thats fine. But give them the choice to do so.
> Don’t force me to install another App Store
Then don't install another app store! Just don't do it!
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
See, the problem is that if I name one as an example, you will just fall back to silly games like "but the EU defined the term 'gatekeeper' in such a way that your example does not count". It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers, whether the market shares are similar, or anything like that. Your side will shut down any debate with logic such as that. So why bother engaging?
It's like arguing with a hardcore religious person about god. "Oh, but that's not what I meant by 'god'".
I like seatbelts but that doesn’t mean I’ll drive into a truck… I still use critical thinking when I buy stuff. But when I forget to cancel a subscription I can ask for a refund and 99% I get it back from Apple. Like 20-30% when I haven’t used the App Store and went directly to the merchant.
The worry is that after asking apple for a certain amount of refunds they flag you as a troublemaker and block you from using any of their services. This happens all the time.
Going directly to companies and merchants keeps this control in your own hands, nobody can block you from buying other software just because you had issues in the past.
I’m assuming many will consider buying an iPhone 15 pro or the next one. I’m really not a trader, but thought this + the stronger ecosystem lock-in effect would bump the share significantly.
reply