Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 18/08/20 in all areas

  1. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. EDIT: It's very weird to me how hard people are defending Apple here. One multi-billion dollar company is standing up to another multi-billion dollar company in a way that the small devs can't, in a move that may end up being profitable for those small devs. And people are.... Upset about that? I guess? Or something?
    14 points
  2. I don't understand Android, wasn't Project Treble supposed to bring Android upgrades for all phone above the version Treble was introduced in? Honestly, I don't think companies shouldn't even bother making the product if they're not going to deliver updates. Such a wasteful society.
    4 points
  3. Good for Epic, someone needs go fight Apple's atrocious business practises, and I hope other devs join in. Apple doesn't exactly have a history of losing a lot of court cases, but with enough support they may be forced to ease restrictions on alternate ways to install apps and their literal robbing the customers. Apple claiming they're right because it's part of their contract is like slave owners denying human rights because they own slaves 'according to contract'. Just because it's on paper doesn't mean it's right. They'd be more successful were this EU where courts actually support consumer interests instead of big corporations.
    4 points
  4. Break the rules and cry when you get punished.
    4 points
  5. Aussie here. Been using Edge Chromium since its first build, and Bing. Never looked back.
    3 points
  6. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services? Because that's the limitation of the platform. Don't like it - welcome to switch to another one. Don't like the other one? Welcome to develop your own. What limitation? Can you be more specific? Remember, people were able to buy V Bucks via both App Store and via EPIC before Fortnite got booted. Retailers and online marketplaces are all able to do everything without paying Apple anything. There is no limitation other than Apple's greed here. Develop your own? Haha, ask Microsoft about that. Even if they are able to develop their own, do you think Apple and Google will just sit around and not do anything about it? The limitation is that the in-app purchases must be made via the platform payment system. Speaking of which, the people could just use their browsers and go directly to Epic and buy there (without paying Apple anything, just as you said) but if they choose to buy the in-game money in the said game, that's where the platform restriction comes. Ask Microsoft about what? If Epic doesn't like at least two platforms, that's their own problem. Or they could have just educated their fanbase to buy the money via the checkout on the website method. Instead, they have decided to violate the rules and got the deserved punishment. that's part of the point as well; developers/end-users shouldn't have to go through hoops like that to achieve the same goal. Times have changed; Apple is just refusing to change with it ...
    3 points
  7. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. The Tweet ...read as if they were surprised. Neither Tim's or Epic's tweet reads as if they were surprised.
    3 points
  8. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. The Tweet ...read as if they were surprised. I guess we're both reading it differently. All I'm saying is they knew exactly what they were doing. They're starting this on purpose. And I'm all for it. At worst it does nothing, at best it benefits small devs with no power. Of course I want Apple to lose and/or change things. Not because I give a single crap about Epic, but because it benefits everyone else.
    3 points
  9. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. EDIT: It's very weird to me how hard people are defending Apple here. One multi-billion dollar company is standing up to another multi-billion dollar company in a way that the small devs can't, in a move that may end up being profitable for those small devs. And people are.... Upset about that? I guess? Or something? If you have a problem with the way Apple (and Google in this case) do business... violating their agreements is a sure fire way for for them to remove developer access for them, as well, when signing up for said access, they agreed to not do what they did. If a company/entity has a problem with an agreement, there are legal avenues that can be pursued, opposed to acting like a teen who got their first paycheck and having a temper tantrum about taxes getting taken out of it.
    3 points
  10. I'm still astonished how many people will actually defend Apple in this case...
    3 points
  11. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. aka A Monopolistic platform of hardware and software. They have no obligation to make their OS available for the other devices, neither they have any obligation to allow third-party OS on theirs. Take it or leave it. Or go sue Cisco, for example. Yeah, just like MS has no obligation to allow other web browsers, right? Oh wait, they did get an anti trust because of that... You keep using this example without understanding it and how it doesn’t apply. Microsoft lost because they were the only dominant player in that space , therefore de facto ‘abusing their power’ on other browsers. ios is not the only mobile platform. It’s not even the biggest mobile platform. Developers can pick and choose where their apps go if they accept the terms of either platform, so this is not the same. Educate yourself a little rather spending your life in comment sections regurgitating irrelevant things. Ironic, you telling people to educate themselves. You're comparing apples to elephants. Nobody is saying Apple has a monopoly in the OS space. Just like that wasn't the issue with MS. The issue was that other browsers couldn't compete, just like other app stores can't compete on iOS. Because they're not even allowed on. Would you be OK with MS not allowing other browsers on Windows? Once again, you don't get the concept. MS develops the OS, Apple develops the whole device+OS bundle, they are an inseparable entity. That's why what applies to one does not apply to the second. wth? So Microsoft could ban other browsers on Surface devices and you'd be cool with it? What are you on about? Is Windows an inseparable part of the Surface devices? Read the terms, they will tell you. BTW, I'm not saying if I'm cool or not, I'm pointing at the thing you don't seem to get, that different rules apply to different entities. And by the way, there are other browsers and search engines on both desktop and mobile Apple OSes, so your point stands even less. Oh for ffs FINE if we're gonna be THAT technical. Would you be fine with Microsoft banning Steam from Windows??? Whether Windows is inseparable from the device is irrelevant. Only it is relevant because the other rules apply but your world of pink ponies is better than mine by a lot, I like it much more. Then apply your rules equally, aka to MacOS. Oh wait, you can have different stores on MacOS, what a shocker! And who developed MacOS? Oh, Apple. For what? For Macs.
    2 points
  12. Oracle makes some of the biggest corporate database solutions in the world. Oracle knows how to store data in databases. TikTok generates a hell of a lot of userdata, that Oracle would probably find ways to use or sell in many ways. Oracle is also loosing marketshare weekly on its core business thanks to insane costs, horrific licensing models, and just generally being one of the absolute worst companies in regards to treating their customers good. Honestly, the TikTok brand is more or less destroyed already. Who would want to buy it in its current state? Most people won't pick it up again. The brand is tainted. I think it would be wise for MS to stay well away from it, it's just gonna be another Zune or Mixer, if not worse.
    2 points
  13. Netflix adds HDR10 support for new Samsung and TCL devices

    I don’t think they are doing it per device as much as certifying devices that work once the baseline requirements are met. I’m guessing a certain version of wildvine is not present in a lot of devices? Just a guess.
    2 points
  14. Nvidia's GeForce NOW streaming service is coming to Chrome OS

    I would purchase way more games if they allowed them to be streamed on the service, just hope the game distributors understand this simple thing before this service get's discontinued due to lack of content.
    2 points
  15. Netflix adds HDR10 support for new Samsung and TCL devices

    From looking at the title, I thought it was talking about TVs.
    2 points
  16. Normally i'd be right in line to agree about Apple's unethical behaviour, but I find all of this very ironic given the way Epic are trying to corner the gaming market with their store. This isn't a victim vs abuser narrative, it's an abuser crying because they think they're too big to have the same rules apply to them as every other developer that uses Play and the App Store.
    2 points
  17. why people use apple useless phones are beyond me
    2 points
  18. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. Oh yes, poor Apple giving away their devices. Oh wait, no, that ain't right. You pay 300 dollars for an iPad, 800 dollars for an iPhone, 1200 dollars for a MacBook. And developers pay 99 dollars/year for a dev account. Oh, what is supposed to pay for the AppStore again?
    2 points
  19. Epic says that Apple is going to cut off its access to iOS and macOS dev tools

    Nope. The blind hatred of Linux community towards Microsoft has made them mentally retarted and they will take anything *that is not from Microsoft* even if it means to feed a snake!
    2 points
  20. Certifications vs Degree?

    I think you both kind of missed my point. At the time the A+ was valuable. Whether or not it's still valuable today isn't the point - the point is if this is something for the original poster to decide, and if the A+ helps reach their target goals, absolutely go for it along with other tests. This is about endorsing someone to not be myopic/focused on one certificate to the exclusion of all others no matter how minor they might seem. I believe it shows dedication in the field. When I see someone with only Microsoft certificates, I have found they're not going to be overly prepared to deal with 3rd party issues. I like seeing ITIL, DevOps, other vendors ... it shows dedication and flexibility. The certs that we think are silly now might be valuable later, even if they do nothing more than point out that you've been in the field that long. Would ITIL3 be useful? Not in 20 years, but if you had an ITIL 3 and an ITIL 7 (in 20 years!) cert it'd show dedication to the field. I know people who have Exchange 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013 certs. Do I say they don't know exchange? Oh hell no. They've done it for 10 years and not much has changed in the product since that point. Etc, etc. Unlike degrees, which this topic is all about, certificates tell the story of your interests in the field, and those stories are great for interviews. So get lots of them from any vendor that relates abstractly to your target career choice. Genuinely not trying to be argumentative here, cause I agree fundamentally with you both, but I'm advocating for any minor certificate that anyone can get no matter what target technical career path they would choose, if they were bypassing a college degree in favor of certifications. The more the merrier - make a map of certs that relate to the topic you want to have a career in and hit the books. There's usually a book for any test out there.
    2 points
  21. I'm pretty sure it isn't the app rejection that's seeing them banned from the dev tools. I tend to agree.
    2 points
  22. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services? Because that's the limitation of the platform. Don't like it - welcome to switch to another one. Don't like the other one? Welcome to develop your own. What limitation? Can you be more specific? Remember, people were able to buy V Bucks via both App Store and via EPIC before Fortnite got booted. Retailers and online marketplaces are all able to do everything without paying Apple anything. There is no limitation other than Apple's greed here. Develop your own? Haha, ask Microsoft about that. Even if they are able to develop their own, do you think Apple and Google will just sit around and not do anything about it? The limitation is that the in-app purchases must be made via the platform payment system. Speaking of which, the people could just use their browsers and go directly to Epic and buy there (without paying Apple anything, just as you said) but if they choose to buy the in-game money in the said game, that's where the platform restriction comes. Ask Microsoft about what? If Epic doesn't like at least two platforms, that's their own problem. Or they could have just educated their fanbase to buy the money via the checkout on the website method. Instead, they have decided to violate the rules and got the deserved punishment. Can you explain to me how Amazon charges you for the things you buy on their iOS app? (Hint: Its called an in-app purchase). Do you think Apple takes a 30% cut of the toilet paper you buy on Amazon?
    2 points
  23. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services? Because that's the limitation of the platform. Don't like it - welcome to switch to another one. Don't like the other one? Welcome to develop your own. an unethical limitation if anything. Microsoft isn't allowed to be so limiting/controlling on Windows and neither is Apple on macOS. So why should the mobile platforms be any different? They're basically mini PCs at this point. Even XBOX you can sideload now so consoles won't have excuse much longer either, but that's a topic for another day.
    2 points
  24. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services? Because that's the limitation of the platform. Don't like it - welcome to switch to another one. Don't like the other one? Welcome to develop your own. What limitation? Can you be more specific? Remember, people were able to buy V Bucks via both App Store and via EPIC before Fortnite got booted. Retailers and online marketplaces are all able to do everything without paying Apple anything. There is no limitation other than Apple's greed here. Develop your own? Haha, ask Microsoft about that. Even if they are able to develop their own, do you think Apple and Google will just sit around and not do anything about it?
    2 points
  25. Oh, FFS. This type of crap is what was predicted to happen with the Microsoft Anti-Trust lawsuit. It was so far from traditional monopolies and monopolistic practices, that lawsuit damaged the definition of monopolies to the point that people are DEFENDING monopolistic practices with pithy statements like, "They signed a contracted, they agreed, Apple can do this." No, they can't, and illegal contracts cannot be enforced. The damage is bigger than the MS Anti-trust lawsuit, as laws favoring investors and predatory capitalism (specifically, what the anti-monopoly laws were designed to stop.) Let us compare other industries to what is happening here, and also notice how technology and digital products have never been properly added to law or regulated.* As few as 10 years ago, companies like Disney and Warner Bros had strict regulations about who aspects of the movie industry they could own. They still do, even though it has changed a lot in 10 years. However, even with lessened regulations, industries and companies like Disney are prevented from controlling or owning a lot of things in the movie industry, from things like owning theaters to little things like marketing and printing posters. This was all to keep the movie industry a free market, and specifically so a company like Disney couldn't own every aspect/pipeline of the market FOR THEIR MOVIES. If they owned all the theaters in an area, they could prevent other companies from showing their movies in that area or market segment. (Which was happening early in the 20th century when we went through BS like this before.) What Apple is doing not only oversteps what would normally be regulated, it oversteps the concise definition of monopolistic behavior. They leverage their 'monopoly' of the Apple products and ecosystem, and they go further, and leverage their product's consumer demand/necessity against anyone that they simply don't like. (And I won't even dig into the collusion aspect of Google and Apple working together on things to kill competition, which they openly admit to doing.) TL;DR The Apple ecosystem technically is owned by the people buying and using the product, NOT Apple. This is where logic fails a lot of people, as they see it as Apple's platform/market, which it is not. They also can't use the Apple ecosystem to influence or control or harm other markets. More importantly, they cannot harm consumers in their own ecosystem or external markets. Which one could make the claim they are doing this in just this one example by preventing their own customers from accessing Epic's Fortnight. This in of itself is highly illegal, no matter what Epic did or didn't do. It is also retaliatory, which again is another layer of illegal even when a monopoly market is not in consideration. The Android Market and the fact that Android exists as a competitor is irrelevant. Let me take this to an extreme... Even if Apple's store and the iPhone were 1% of the market, it would STILL BE ILLEGAL for Apple to leverage their control of that market against other companies or the consumers of that market. So even inside their 'own market' they cannot be predatory to other companies or their customers. Being 'predatory' is illegal. A side note: What both Apple and Google did to Windows Phone with regard to banking leverage, supply leverage, and cellular carrier leverage was illegal for many reasons, but most egregiously, using their monopolistic power to stop Windows Phone and hurt Microsoft. Which they knew they could get away with, as Microsoft was NOT going to call them out for being monopolies, even if it meant quietly sitting back and watch them kill Windows Phone. - Irony at its finest, as Microsoft never did anything close to this and was still called a monopoly. * What Google does as a business model would be illegal if laws properly extended to the online and digital realm. Just one easy to understand law that Google violates - Insider Trading. If two executives at Google acquired or shared the SAME information via physical paper or on phone audio that they acquire and share digitally, they would be in jail. This is information that Google uses for trading and sells to other companies for investment and trading. Which would normally be highly illegal. Google's use and sale of inside information has also been a huge contributor of artificially keeping the stock markets high, even while key aspects of the economy, like manufacturing, entered into a recession last year. So when the bottom drops out of the Google inflated markets around the world, there might not be a market left.
    2 points
  26. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services?
    2 points
  27. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. EDIT: It's very weird to me how hard people are defending Apple here. One multi-billion dollar company is standing up to another multi-billion dollar company in a way that the small devs can't, in a move that may end up being profitable for those small devs. And people are.... Upset about that? I guess? Or something? If you have a problem with the way Apple (and Google in this case) do business... violating their agreements is a sure fire way for for them to remove developer access for them, as well, when signing up for said access, they agreed to not do what they did. If a company/entity has a problem with an agreement, there are legal avenues that can be pursued, opposed to acting like a teen who got their first paycheck and having a temper tantrum about taxes getting taken out of it. So according to you, people should never complain about taxes because they are already paying taxes. So, has your country never undergone a tax reform? Must be a utopia if not. I certainly don't skip filing my taxes or cheat the system... I'd vote people in on a platform that I agree with in regards to how taxes are allocated. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You win some. You lose some. But I just don't decide to toss the rules out the window because I don't agree with them. Complain all you want, but if you don't file or are sketchy on taxes, prepare for fines/legal issues/audits. Get real. Epic not only complained, they broke the rules. There are plenty of legal avenues they could of taken prior to breaking their agreement, would they have won? Maybe, maybe not. If they don't like having their funds cut in the app, don't have micro transactions process in the app. (i.e a user has to add funds to a wallet on browser). And I don't know of any fortenight players that exclusively play on their phone.
    2 points
  28. Well that's a pretty bad take. So everyone should just roll over and go along with whatever crap Apple, Google, or Microsoft decides to put in there because "them's the rules"? That's ridiculous. Additionally, they deliberately broke the rules in order to start this ****-show. It's not like they're acting surprised, which makes your comment even weirder. EDIT: It's very weird to me how hard people are defending Apple here. One multi-billion dollar company is standing up to another multi-billion dollar company in a way that the small devs can't, in a move that may end up being profitable for those small devs. And people are.... Upset about that? I guess? Or something? If you have a problem with the way Apple (and Google in this case) do business... violating their agreements is a sure fire way for for them to remove developer access for them, as well, when signing up for said access, they agreed to not do what they did. If a company/entity has a problem with an agreement, there are legal avenues that can be pursued, opposed to acting like a teen who got their first paycheck and having a temper tantrum about taxes getting taken out of it. So according to you, people should never complain about taxes because they are already paying taxes. So, has your country never undergone a tax reform? Must be a utopia if not.
    2 points
  29. Seriously? What if you don't like the rules of the country you live in? What if there is a new law that forces all your messages to pass via the govt for scrutiny. Accept it? Their country, their rules right? Accept it or immigrate? Oh wait, what did you say? You can't compare democracies with authoritarian App stores controlled by private companies? So, by that logic App Stores are authoritarian regimes, aren't they? Shouldn't people in authoritarian regimes fight the establishment? When App Stores get revenues more than the GDP of entire nations, I think its fair to compare App Stores to countries, especially when they run the same way.
    2 points
  30. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. aka A Monopolistic platform of hardware and software.
    2 points
  31. That's just a blatant lie. In case of slavery, there's no alternative, in case of Apple - there are other platform. Oh wait, Google has banned them as well because Epic is violating the contract it has signed. In the android world at least you can use other app stores to get fortnite. As for ios forget it apple doesn't allow that.
    2 points
  32. They should announce end of IE11, as a developer that thing is pain. I still received requests from people that why isn't the site working in IE. What a pain in ar#e!
    2 points
  33. Monster Energy may have leaked the price of the Xbox Series X

    I am siding with $599.99 with free game. $500 is the most logical price and companies always tend to price their products a delta above the 'logical' price.
    2 points
  34. Neowin.net Minecraft Server (Old Server)

    can do 🙂 those are both simple datapacks. I was considering both of those before but held off for the initial release till we knew things were stable.
    1 point
  35. They are making it as closest to reality as possible, by following Boeing computer programing skills....
    1 point
  36. Not sure how people can defend Apple given these practices: 1. Screentime - Apple removed competitors apps off the AppStore to boost usage of Screentime, then allowed those apps back on the store unmodified. 2. Forcing a publisher to use the iBook store by refusing to allow the publishers own apps. This was while they were negotiating the 30% they were willing to pay to Apple. 3. Suing Prepear for using a fruit as their logo. See if you can guess what fruit it was?
    1 point
  37. Microsoft's new Flight Simulator game is now available for PCs

    Assuming you cap the speed, it shouldn't take much longer than an hour/hour and a half.
    1 point
  38. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. aka A Monopolistic platform of hardware and software. They have no obligation to make their OS available for the other devices, neither they have any obligation to allow third-party OS on theirs. Take it or leave it. Or go sue Cisco, for example. Yeah, just like MS has no obligation to allow other web browsers, right? Oh wait, they did get an anti trust because of that... You keep using this example without understanding it and how it doesn’t apply. Microsoft lost because they were the only dominant player in that space , therefore de facto ‘abusing their power’ on other browsers. ios is not the only mobile platform. It’s not even the biggest mobile platform. Developers can pick and choose where their apps go if they accept the terms of either platform, so this is not the same. Educate yourself a little rather spending your life in comment sections regurgitating irrelevant things. Ironic, you telling people to educate themselves. You're comparing apples to elephants. Nobody is saying Apple has a monopoly in the OS space. Just like that wasn't the issue with MS. The issue was that other browsers couldn't compete, just like other app stores can't compete on iOS. Because they're not even allowed on. Would you be OK with MS not allowing other browsers on Windows? I mean, the only reason MS got in trouble is because they held vast majority market, and stifled the competition on their OS. While Apple meets one metric, they do not the other; there are other alternatives. so they have to be the big dog to be forced to a standard? sorry but that's a terrible way to look at it and really not how it should be.
    1 point
  39. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. aka A Monopolistic platform of hardware and software. They have no obligation to make their OS available for the other devices, neither they have any obligation to allow third-party OS on theirs. Take it or leave it. Or go sue Cisco, for example. Yeah, just like MS has no obligation to allow other web browsers, right? Oh wait, they did get an anti trust because of that... You keep using this example without understanding it and how it doesn’t apply. Microsoft lost because they were the only dominant player in that space , therefore de facto ‘abusing their power’ on other browsers. ios is not the only mobile platform. It’s not even the biggest mobile platform. Developers can pick and choose where their apps go if they accept the terms of either platform, so this is not the same. Educate yourself a little rather spending your life in comment sections regurgitating irrelevant things. Ironic, you telling people to educate themselves. You're comparing apples to elephants. Nobody is saying Apple has a monopoly in the OS space. Just like that wasn't the issue with MS. The issue was that other browsers couldn't compete, just like other app stores can't compete on iOS. Because they're not even allowed on. Would you be OK with MS not allowing other browsers on Windows? I mean, the only reason MS got in trouble is because they held vast majority market, and stifled the competition on their OS. While Apple meets one metric, they do not the other; there are other alternatives.
    1 point
  40. Indeed. What is the Apple's value in this case? An operating system, a hardware platform, a software development platform, a content distribution platform, a payment processing platform, user protection and support for all this stuff - pffft, that costs nothing of course, why even bother. In this case, EPIC is ready to take care of its own software distribution, content distribution, payment processing, user distribution and support. It is also ready to take responsibility of whatever happens due to its software and services. Why not lower the 30%? Why still use all of Apple's services? Good point. People keep saying "Oh, but who will pay for the appstore?" Meanwhile Epic's entire point is allowing different Appstore they will pay for out of their giant wallets
    1 point
  41. SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

    225 tf = 504,000 lbf, a beast And they plan to go higher...
    1 point
  42. Seriously? What if you don't like the rules of the country you live in? What if there is a new law that forces all your messages to pass via the govt for scrutiny. Accept it? Their country, their rules right? Accept it or immigrate? Oh wait, what did you say? You can't compare democracies with authoritarian App stores controlled by private companies? So, by that logic App Stores are authoritarian regimes, aren't they? Shouldn't people in authoritarian regimes fight the establishment? When App Stores get revenues more than the GDP of entire nations, I think its fair to compare App Stores to countries, especially when they run the same way. wow...talk about comparing apples to coconuts.... One are basic privacy rules and rights... The other is companies doing business with each other. YOU do not have to buy an iPhone. Epic does NOT HAVE TO list their apps on the Apple app store. Epic list the app because they want access to a successful company and THEIR network and well built infrastructure/market. We could argue that 30% fees are nuts, and on that we could have a good discussion about, however, trying to validate what Epic is doing and compare it somehow with civil liberties and or rights, is down right silly. I hate apple as much as the next person, i dont like their computers, dont like how close their phones are, and or how restrictive their store is...So what did i do? I bought a freaking Android! A good'le Samsung S10. bah...you wont hear reason, just like arguing about political stuff....too far gone to the right or to the left. Wow, you jump to a lot of conclusion about me based on a single post. You must be fun. It is not about me the consumer. I can switch to Android in a heartbeat. Its about Epic the developer which has nowhere else to go in order to cater to the iOS users. All I just wanted to say is that developers should voice their concerns about App Stores the same way people voice their concerns about the government. If you can't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
    1 point
  43. The IE mode doesn't work. We have a corporate site that doesn't work correctly in that IE mode. It works if configured properly, but only in enterprise environment. correct; it has to be set on a per-site basis in group policies if I remember correctly Which sucks. The IE mode was there and functional, but then MS decided to cut it off... but why? It's about time, isn't it? How long should they wait for sites to get updated?
    1 point
  44. That's just a blatant lie. In case of slavery, there's no alternative, in case of Apple - there are other platform. Oh wait, Google has banned them as well because Epic is violating the contract it has signed.
    1 point
  45. " denying that Huawei has links to CCP? who are you ? are you from NSA ? CIA ? do you any proof Huawei has links to CCP ??
    1 point
  46. SpaceX Updates  (Thread 9)

    I took a quick look at their website; AKA - if you have to ask how much, you probably can't afford it. it would definitely be on my list if I ever won the lottery though
    1 point
  47. That is utter nonsense. Australian media is dominated by the Murdoch empire and Conservative voices are everywhere.
    1 point
  48. Certifications vs Degree?

    Absolutely makes sense, and I did say they are good to get your foot into the door. I would do just enough to get a position, but then focus on experience after that. What language are you using in college? what sort of development do you want to do?
    1 point
  49. General Space Discussion (Thread 1)

    House hearing on the Artemis Moon landing program, 😄
    1 point