- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
Well Jobs himself said OSX would last 20 years, so that and the jump to ARM is probably the main reason the next version is called 11
Apple Thread - The most overrated technology brand?
- Thread starter Kot Johansson
- Start date
Sammy
Exhibits no Islamic behavior once given McNuggets
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
Surprisingly just as relevant now as it was 20 years ago
Sammy
Exhibits no Islamic behavior once given McNuggets
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Joined
- May 5, 2019
and then 6 years later they cucked out to the company that made the Pentium
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
And heck, they used Pentiums for their PowerPC-to-Intel transition kit and first gen Apple TV!and then 6 years later they cucked out to the company that made the Pentium
Also, it's more like Apple cucked IBM because they weren't able to produce a 3 GHz PowerPC processor
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
and then 6 years later they cucked out to the company that made the Pentium
In fairness, the Core 2 Duos were fucking amazing at the time, and went like stabbed rats. (Core Duo was... alright but was also sorta obsolete.). After 2012, Intel would basically pretend it didn't happen.
Granted, if we see the Pentium Snail make a return, I'll die laughing.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
So there's been long-simmering resentment about the fact that apps sold on the iOS App Store can't do any sort of IAP for subscriptions, in-game currency, etc. from within the apps themselves and instead have to do it through Apple's storefront so that Apple can take their 30% cut. Various apps have been temporarily or permanently taken down from the App Store when they try to bypass this policy.
Epic Games went ahead and tried to do so with Fortnite, introducing a way to buy "V-Bucks" inside the game itself. Apple predictably pulled the game from the store. But then Epic did something interesting - they promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, and released a video which parodies the old Apple 1984 commercial. The timing of this very much gives away that they knew damn well they'd be delisted when they did what they did.
For you zoomers too young to remember the original ad, here it is as it aired during the Super Bowl for the 1983 football season. 1984 was the year the original Macintosh was released, and "Big Brother" was at that time supposed to represent IBM, well on its way to standardizing via monopoly what had been before a diverse galaxy of personal computer platforms (Apple, Commodore, Tandy, TI, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn, Amstrad, MSX…).
The legal document is here. I haven't read through it yet and haven't yet figured out on exactly what grounds Epic thinks they can win this in court. I'm sure there are plenty of other companies with apps that would cheer if the court slapped an injunction on Apple from delisting apps that sidestep their 30% haircut. But I'm not sure why courts would decide Apple can't set their own rules for their platform - the "monopoly" card might be hard to play when you can get an Android phone or tablet for $60 from Walgreen's.
This might make for a Lolcow & Lolcow thread, but I'll leave it for the smarter lawfags to make that.
Epic Games went ahead and tried to do so with Fortnite, introducing a way to buy "V-Bucks" inside the game itself. Apple predictably pulled the game from the store. But then Epic did something interesting - they promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, and released a video which parodies the old Apple 1984 commercial. The timing of this very much gives away that they knew damn well they'd be delisted when they did what they did.
For you zoomers too young to remember the original ad, here it is as it aired during the Super Bowl for the 1983 football season. 1984 was the year the original Macintosh was released, and "Big Brother" was at that time supposed to represent IBM, well on its way to standardizing via monopoly what had been before a diverse galaxy of personal computer platforms (Apple, Commodore, Tandy, TI, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn, Amstrad, MSX…).
The legal document is here. I haven't read through it yet and haven't yet figured out on exactly what grounds Epic thinks they can win this in court. I'm sure there are plenty of other companies with apps that would cheer if the court slapped an injunction on Apple from delisting apps that sidestep their 30% haircut. But I'm not sure why courts would decide Apple can't set their own rules for their platform - the "monopoly" card might be hard to play when you can get an Android phone or tablet for $60 from Walgreen's.
This might make for a Lolcow & Lolcow thread, but I'll leave it for the smarter lawfags to make that.
Sammy
Exhibits no Islamic behavior once given McNuggets
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
Not directly related to Apple but related to this situation, the V-Bucks thing was available on the Google Play store version, and Google also has pulled Fortnite from their storefront. Epic has in turn also sued Google. The situation is slightly different for the Android platform, since you can sideload the game by downloading it direct off of Epic's website, and the game is also still available in a few of the other application marketplaces you can find on certain Android devices, like Samsung's app store, where as with Apple since you use their appstore or you jailbreak (which is its own headache), its flat gone unless you've already downloaded it.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
That's interesting. As weak as I think their case against Apple is, I can only imagine it'd be far weaker against Google for the reasons you mentioned.
Epic has enough money to step on their own dick and still survive, but I can't help but think they're stepping on their own dick regardless. I guess they figure the increase in profits will be worth it in the long run if they can pull off this little Hail Mary pass.
Epic has enough money to step on their own dick and still survive, but I can't help but think they're stepping on their own dick regardless. I guess they figure the increase in profits will be worth it in the long run if they can pull off this little Hail Mary pass.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
I generally loathe Apple, but I'm genuinely happy they did this, someone has to put Epic in their place and no better then the largest tech firm
the google play store also banned fortnite for the same reason, though due to the nature of Android it doesn't make it so that it's impossible to play it
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
I don't care too much for 2014 to modern Apple. Probably why I use their vintage products.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
I don't think Epic ever intended to defeat Apple and Google. And I agree with them, 30% for doing nothing is too much, it should be lower. What's fair for InApp transactions?
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
Then what's the point? Just to raise public awareness of the issue? That's all well and good but I don't think the type of people to play Fortnite, and buy Monopoly money for it no less, on their goddamn phone no less, really give that much of a shit.
No, I think they're in it to win it. And I'm open to any sound arguments that they will. But my lolbertarian take on it, until I see such arguments, is that it's Apple's platform and they can do what they want with it.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
honestly I'm guessing Epic did this for two reasons, to drum up publicity since Fortnite is starting to wane, and to get Apple and Google to do this instead of wasting time in court
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
I'd agree that 30% is too much, but in return for selling your app through their store, Apple handles payment, including regional pricing and refunds, provides storage and advertising (albeit a small amount), and a fairly simple way of distributing updates. Granted, Google probably offers those as well, and there's probably other things I haven't thought of that also apply.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
This Anglo dweeb gives a decent presentation about the ARM transition. It's a good watch if you want an accessible explanation on the differences between processor architecture and what the near future of consumer computer hardware is likely to look like. I think he gets it wrong, though, that the future will necessarily mean a single Apple OS and single app binaries - even if Apple continues to close the API gap between macOS and iOS, there are still experiences which are far better to have on a touch screen versus a keyboard and vice-versa. Give the rest of his channel a look if you like single-board computers (Raspberry Pi and the like) since he does a lot of videos on those.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
So Apple now has a market value of $2 trillion. The first company to do so. I think that's bullshit. Can't prove it, but just seems sketchy. Just something Apple made up to jerk off their ego. Especially since they were worth $1 trillion not even 2 years ago. Double growth of this size seems impossible.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
It cant be made up. Market capitalization is the product of two publicly-available numbers; the number of outstanding shares, which is published by the company periodically as per financial regulation laws I won't pretend to understand but I highly doubt Apple would knowingly falsify, and the price per share. Multiply the two together, and you get a market cap of roughly $2 trillion.
You can see both bits of info here: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/key-statistics - scroll down to "Shares Outstanding" and it says 4.28B. And the price is at the top, $462.83. 4,280,000,000 x $462.83 = $1,980,912,400,000.00 - they went down a bit since the news was reported, but what's $19 billion between friends?
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014