The one where Apple upset Facebook
-
@Mason_Wheeler good point. Let's make it mandatory that at least 15% of spending must be from companies worth less than a million
-
@Mason_Wheeler I haven't read the whole thing yet but it seems reasonable.
However, when I went to the root of the site, they promised me a meatloaf recipe, which they failed to provide. 0/10, would not recommend
-
@anonymous234 said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
If I were supreme overlord of the world I'd just ban all advertising now, then consider selectively unbanning some of it. You know, whenever I get the time.
There's a fun legal theory that advertising is illegal under current US anti-trust law, because it persuades a consumer to buy something that they otherwise wouldn't have purchased. From "Advertising is obsolete – here’s why it’s time to end it" by Ramsi Woodcock (Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky):
The courts have long held that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits conduct that harms both competition and consumers, which is just what persuasive advertising does when it cajoles a consumer into buying the advertised product, rather than the substitute the consumer would have purchased without advertising.
That substitute is presumably preferred by the consumer, precisely because the consumer would have purchased it without corporate persuasion. It follows that competition is harmed, because the company that made the product that the consumer actually prefers cannot make the sale. And the consumer is harmed by buying a product that the consumer does not really prefer.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for a court to uphold that view, of course.
-
@pcooper I don't see how that view could be upheld, unless advertisements started using mind control or force while I wasn't looking
-
@hungrier I’m sure they would if they could.
-
@topspin Probably, but that's not the reality that we live in
-
-
-
@Dragoon I'll bet Apple is putting FB updates thru an super intense magnifying glass that (almost) no other app goes thru. Mind you, I'm not saying that's a bad thing... FB has earned that.
-
@hungrier said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
advertisements started using mind control
Advertising companies are very good at mind control. It’s just not the sci-fi telepathy kind, but they most definitely know how to manipulate
yourpeople’s minds in order to sell more products.
-
-
@Dragoon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
This seems like the right way to actually effect change. Just stating "Apple takes 30% of this purchase" seems like something Apple shouldn't be allowed to block.
-
@Gurth said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@hungrier said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
advertisements started using mind control
Advertising companies are very good at mind control. It’s just not the sci-fi telepathy kind, but they most definitely know how to manipulate
yourpeople’s minds in order to sell more products.They can influence people for sure, but ultimately the people are the ones who go to the store and buy Coke or iPads or whatever. So far ads are not at the point yet where they directly extract money and make purchasing decisions.
-
@dcon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Dragoon I'll bet Apple is putting FB updates thru an super intense magnifying glass that (almost) no other app goes thru.
Quite the opposite, actually. They've been allowed much more leniency than other apps, especially with regards to mandatory filtering of user-generated content.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@dcon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Dragoon I'll bet Apple is putting FB updates thru an super intense magnifying glass that (almost) no other app goes thru.
Quite the opposite, actually. They've been allowed much more leniency than other apps, especially with regards to mandatory filtering of user-generated content.
I meant now, since FB is upsetting Apple.
-
@dcon Apple is only upset about making the 30% "tax" public. They're fine with every other violation of their own rules.
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@dcon Apple is only upset about making the 30% "tax" public. They're fine with every other violation of their own rules.
But the 30% "tax" isn't in any way a secret. We've known about it for ages. Well, I have, and I only pay half an eye's worth of attention to that sort of thing.
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@dcon Apple is only upset about making the 30% "tax" public. They're fine with every other violation of their own rules.
But the 30% "tax" isn't in any way a secret.
Neither is Facebook's privacy policy, yet people were absolutely shocked by it last year or so. But yes; wrong word. Should've said "giving it publicity".
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
Was there anything on App Store by Epic other than Fortnite? Anyway, the point is that Apple will gladly welcome Epic back as soon as they stop acting up. A smaller developer that brings much less revenue wouldn't have that chance, though.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@dcon Apple is only upset about making the 30% "tax" public. They're fine with every other violation of their own rules.
But the 30% "tax" isn't in any way a secret.
Neither is Facebook's privacy policy, yet people were absolutely shocked by it last year or so. But yes; wrong word. Should've said "giving it publicity".
OK, fair enough, and there I agree.
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
Was there anything on App Store by Epic other than Fortnite? Anyway, the point is that Apple will gladly welcome Epic back as soon as they stop acting up. A smaller developer that brings much less revenue wouldn't have that chance, though.
I'm not sure that "gladly welcome" is quite right here. They might allow them back, but they will get an ... um ... epic level of scrutiny (sorry) for quite a while, which is a big part of the reason that Apple will accept Epic and not smaller outfits. That level of scrutiny costs Apple money, and while Fortnite's income (for Apple) will be enopugh to cover it, SmallGamesForYou, with 37 users world-wide, will not be able to cover that cost, and won't get back in.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
Was there anything on App Store by Epic other than Fortnite? Anyway, the point is that Apple will gladly welcome Epic back as soon as they stop acting up. A smaller developer that brings much less revenue wouldn't have that chance, though.
I'm not sure that "gladly welcome" is quite right here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
Fortnite is the biggest microtransactions sink in existence right now, revenue-wise. All Apple wants is a cut of the cake - as big cut as possible. They believe that upholding the status quo is worth more than the cost of the battle, so they chose the battle. Likewise, Epic believes upsetting the status quo is also worth more than it costs. That 30% is worth hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
-
@hungrier said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
They can influence people for sure
That’s what I’m saying: mind control, but not the SF kind.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
Was there anything on App Store by Epic other than Fortnite? Anyway, the point is that Apple will gladly welcome Epic back as soon as they stop acting up. A smaller developer that brings much less revenue wouldn't have that chance, though.
I'm not sure that "gladly welcome" is quite right here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
Fortnite is the biggest microtransactions sink in existence right now, revenue-wise
Bigger than Game of War: Fire Age ??? I'm joking there, sort of. GoW:FA is one of the most aggressively monetized and P2W games going, with a series of cases of people embezzling amounts in five to seven figures (of dollars) and spending at least part of that money on it. (I'm not joking. One case involved a guy who stole seven million dollars from his employer and spent a million of those dollars on GoW:FA.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
Edit: that's also why Apple wants to keep Fortnite in their store if they stop the anti-Apple campaign. Pecunia non olet, as Romans used to say.
Um.
So not just Fortnite, but everything by Epic.
Was there anything on App Store by Epic other than Fortnite? Anyway, the point is that Apple will gladly welcome Epic back as soon as they stop acting up. A smaller developer that brings much less revenue wouldn't have that chance, though.
I'm not sure that "gladly welcome" is quite right here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
Fortnite is the biggest microtransactions sink in existence right now, revenue-wise
Bigger than Game of War: Fire Age ???
*googling*
Fortnite made in 2 years what GoW made in 5, so yes.
-
@Dragoon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
No lawsuit here, just speaking out about the App Store Tax, and Apple retaliated.
When will Tim Cook be arrested for lying to Congress?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
When will Tim Cook be arrested for lying to Congress?
At the same time Zuckerberg will.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler
Lying requires intent to deceive, and since everyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size knows what he said isn’t true, he had no intent to deceive because he knew no one would believe him.Then again, there aren’t (m)any Congresscritters with such stratospheric IQs
-
@izzion there have been defamation cases where the defense came down to "you'd have to be an abject moron to believe anything I said, because I have no credibility left." And it succeeded.
-
@Benjamin-Hall There have also been cases in which the defense was, "The reputation of the person I allegedly defamed is so bad, what I said couldn't have hurt it further." That's called being libel-proof, slander-proof and/or defamation-proof, and it's not a thing you want to be.
-
@izzion said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Mason_Wheeler
Lying requires intent to deceiveFortunately, perjury doesn't.
Unfortunately, nobody ever gets tried for perjury.
-
@Gąska said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
When will Tim Cook be arrested for lying to Congress?
At the same time Zuckerberg will.
So, right after James Clapper then.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@Dragoon said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
No lawsuit here, just speaking out about the App Store Tax, and Apple retaliated.
Blocking something that they say (if true or not is a different matter) violates their rules is not “retaliation”.
When will Tim Cook be arrested for lying to Congress?
I’m pretty sure any perjury laws only consider statements about the past/present, not the future.
-
@topspin said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
I’m pretty sure any perjury laws only consider statements about the past/present, not the future.
However, violating a statement you previously made about the future could be a breach of (verbal) contract.
-
@izzion said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
everyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size
Are you using American/British or European shoe sizes? I wear UK 7, US 8, European 41/42(1)... An IQ in the low 40s is marginally functional, while an IQ of 7 or 8 barely qualifies you as more intelligent than a cabbage.
(1) Depending on the brand and the shoe. Timberland boots are more narrow than Doc Martens, so my DMs are 41 and my Timberlands are 42.(2)
(2) Timberlands keep the wet out better, but DMs are ... DMs, no more needs to be said. I love my Docs.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
@izzion said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
everyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size
Are you using American/British or European shoe sizes? I wear UK 7, US 8, European 41/42(1)... An IQ in the low 40s is marginally functional, while an IQ of 7 or 8 barely qualifies you as more intelligent than a cabbage.
(1) Depending on the brand and the shoe. Timberland boots are more narrow than Doc Martens, so my DMs are 41 and my Timberlands are 42.(2)
(2) Timberlands keep the wet out better, but DMs are ... DMs, no more needs to be said. I love my Docs.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
When will Tim Cook be arrested for lying to Congress?
Do we need this again in another topic?
Not unrelated note...
Epic topic is
-
@izzion said in The one where Apple upset Facebook:
everyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size knows what he said isn’t true
Wait... are you saying people with big feet are gullible? Discrimination!!!
-
Here because Apple:
-
“Unfortunately, it’s starting to look like notarization may be less security and more security theater.”
-
Requiring trackers to request your consent before stalking you across the Internet should be an obvious baseline, and we applaud Apple for this change. But Facebook, having built a massive empire around the concept of tracking everything you do by letting applications sell and share your data across a shady set of third-party companies, would like users and policymakers to believe otherwise.
-
When even Louis Rossmann is calling Apple the good guys...
-
The article which I actually meant to post the other day but got sidetracked...
-
Zuckerberg continued the attack on Wednesday by accusing Apple’s new changes around IDFA (IDentifier For Advertisers) as actually being intended to harm Facebook’s business interests and not protect customer privacy.
This sentence doesn’t make sense as the two are the same. And if I could pick between
- increased privacy protection
- harming Facebook’s business interests
- both
I’d pick 3.
-
You just want to watch
the world burn, don't you?Filed under: I'll bring the popcorn
-
@Zerosquare YES PLEASE!!!
-
@Zerosquare Dark theme (hah) makes this look like a KKK gathering.
Although as a dark theme user I suspect I will be lynched by the light theme purists, even when I have a legit reason for preferring it...
-
@Atazhaia Nope, it's just you and the Kekeke
-
@Atazhaia
E_NO_REPRONo matter what I try, I just can’t get it to say “9 hours ago”
-
@Applied-Mediocrity it's not just @Atazhaia, I have it as well. And I am sure I am not the KayKehKee.
Apparently there is a dark theme that isn't crap. But I am too to go find it...
-
@kazitor Well...
Life finds a way!