- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
https://twitter.com/9to5mac/status/933358571240247296
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 17:58
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2024 04:41
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
made the phone that most people predictably would buy (with great margins for you) not the clear-cut best phone offered
which is how most every other company does it, a premium tier for the bigger spenders, but apple has often gone their own route where they have a semi-premium product with a lot of volume which they can without reservation claim is the best possible product, and not offer anything really lesser
probably a mistake to do the 8 and X at the same time. should have just done the X and left the 7 to anyone who didn't want a $1000 phone this year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 19:46
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
I picked up a Google home hub yesterday and it's really cool. now I'm dumping my apple music subscription for YouTube music. good job timb.
one thing Google has hosed up is Nest. even their own assistant is limited in the actions it can take. I need to use a IFTTT to let me turn my Nest camera on or off. and so far I haven't found a way to get it to change my home/away status without the native app.
Zero One fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 24, 2018
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2018 21:28
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
who was just complaining about this?
quote:
Redesigned volume control
The redesigned volume control appears in the upper‑left corner, so it doesn’t interfere with your content.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2019 21:42
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1349357756352892929?s=21
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2021 16:06
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
https://twitter.com/9to5mac/status/1354804984836026371?s=21
lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2021 19:16
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
quote:
As flagged by the Verge, Gonzalez Rogers also resolved another baffling dispute in the case: Whether or not the Fortnite character Peely the banana, who is technically naked because his bare peel is his skin, would have to wear clothes while appearing in court. The issue arose when an Apple attorney cross-examining an Epic executive quipped that Apple had opted to show Peely wearing a tuxedo in his “Agent Peely” cosmetics, as it was more appropriate for federal court. (No one wears tuxedos to court but My Cousin Vinny, but hey.) An attorney for Epic, responding to the joke, later asked the executive if there is “there anything inappropriate about Peely without clothes,” to which he responded, “It’s just a banana man.”
Gonzalez Rogers wrote in an aside in the ruling that the court agreed that “as Peely is ‘just a banana man,’ additional attire was not necessary but informative.” So that’s settled.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2021 18:52
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
the full judgment is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement
I'm still going through it but it sounds like the judge felt that Epic failed to provide evidence for many of its claims. in one example Epic said that Apple doesn't enforce it's own policies saying they allow prohibited porn apps. the judge looked at those apps Epic provided and didn't believe they were porn or otherwise breaking the rules.
another claim is that by Apple protecting user privacy by forcing apps to get permission to harvest data they are hurting Epic's profits. the judge basically said "you make a poo poo ton of money off fortnite already and people don't want you stealing their data to sell them more poo poo" and "if people wanted to give you their data you are allowed to ask for it per Apple's rules".
as for Epic still needing to pay Apple my reading is that the judge believes Epic acted in very bad faith by making the changes to IAP in Fortnite and violated many parts of the developer contract. it wasn't just offering another store. it was that they backdoored the change and lied to Apple about what the update did.
edit: the judge also mentioned that Epic pays 30% or higher commission to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. and they specificly gave them all a heads up before changing the ios and android apps that they wouldn't do the same on the other platforms.
the judge also found Epic's argument that their game store would be a new app store for ios unconvincing and mostly just to try to fool the court. they only added apps after the lawsuit and some they said they had didn't exist at all.
Zero One fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Sep 10, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2021 19:59
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
well that would be the case if the contract was not illegal. if it is illegal which the ruling suggests, why would epic be bound by it?
yeah thats the part i dont get. if the judge is ruling the terms of the contract were not allowable how was the contract valid in the first place? if epic collected the payments through its 3rd party system, which the judge has ruled apple must allow, why would epic owe any royalties for payments made thru that system?
From the decision:
quote:Doctrine of Illegality
“[T]he general rule [is] that the courts will deny relief to either party who has entered into
an illegal contract or bargain which is against public policy.” Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp., 63 Cal.
2d 199, 216 (1965). “Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is
lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and
valid as to the rest.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1599. Thus, if the alleged “illegality is collateral to the
main purpose of the contract, and the illegal provision can be extirpated from the contract by
means of severance or restriction, then such severance and restriction are appropriate.”
Marathon Entm’t, Inc. v. Blasi, 42 Cal. 4th 974, 996 (2008) (quotation marks omitted). “The
burden ordinarily rests upon the party asserting the invalidity of the contract to show how and
why it is unlawful.” Rock River Commc’ns, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 745 F.3d 343,
350 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Epic Games alleges that Apple’s counterclaims are barred because “the contracts on
which Apple’s counterclaims are based” are “illegal and unenforceable” on the basis that they
violate the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and the UCL.649
As discussed above, the Court has found and concluded that no provision of the DPLA at
issue in this action is unlawful under the Sherman Act or the Cartwright Act and only one
unrelated provision under the UCL.
While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple’s 30% rate of commission
appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate.
Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever. Nor did plaintiff
show either that the provision of the DPLA which required developers not to “provide, unlock or
enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App
Store,” was illegal or unenforceable or that it was forced to violate the agreement to bring this lawssuit.
Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that Apple’s counterclaims are not barred
on the basis that they arise out of an illegal and unenforceable contract.
quote:Even though the Court has found the anti-steering provisions to be unfair under the UCL,
the result was a measured alternative to plaintiff’s overreach. These provisions can be severed
while maintaining the provisions that require honesty to control the parties’ relations and the
coding of apps. Epic Games never adequately explained its rush to the courthouse or the actual
need for clandestine tactics. The marketing campaign appears to have resulted in indirect
benefits but it does not provide a legal defense
quote:The Court finds and concludes that Epic Games has not shown that the DPLA is
unconscionable. A contractual term is not unconscionable unless it is found to be both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Here, the absence of substantive
unconscionability is dispositive. A contractual term is not substantively unconscionable unless it
so “one-sided so as to ‘shock the conscience,’” Wherry, 192 Cal. App. 4th at 1248. Based on the
record before it, the Court cannot conclude that the DPLA meets that standard. Plaintiff’s
response that the unconscionability stems from the violations of antitrust and unfair competition
laws fails.655 Because the Court has found only one unrelated provision to violate the UCL, the
Court cannot conclude that the remaining provisions are substantively unconscionable.
Epic Games points to no other evidence or authority based upon which the Court could
find that the provisions at issue “shock the conscience.” These are billion and trillion dollar
companies with a business dispute. Epic Games itself uses adhesion contracts. Plaintiff points to
no authority in which a court has held that contractual provisions similar to the ones at issue,
despite their longevity and relative ubiquity, are unenforceable on the ground that they are
unconscionable. The Court finds and concludes, therefore, that Apple’s counterclaims are not
barred on the basis that they arise out of contractual terms that are unconscionable.
quote:Under California law656, “the elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1)
the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3)
defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” Oasis W. Realty, LLC v.
Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821 (2011). To prove causation, a plaintiff must show “the breach
was a substantial factor in causing the damages.” US Ecology, Inc. v. California, 129 Cal. App.
4th 887, 909 (2005).
Apple asserts a counterclaim against Epic Games for breach of contract arising out
Project Liberty. In particular, Epic Games’ actions violated the DPLA provisions (1) requiring
developers not to “hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality”
in their apps657 and not to “provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through
distribution mechanisms other than the App Store,”658; and (2) requiring Epic Games to pay
Apple “a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each end-user”
through the App Store.659
As noted, plaintiff has admitted that it breached the DPLA as Apple alleges and has
conceded that, if the Court finds that the breached provisions of the DPLA are enforceable
against Epic Games, then Apple would be entitled to relief as a result of the breach.660
Because Apple’s breach of contract claim is also premised on violations of DPLA
provisions independent of the anti-steering provisions, the Court finds and concludes, in light of
plaintiff’s admissions and concessions, that Epic Games has breached these provisions of the
DPLA and that Apple is entitled to relief for these violation.
In short: Only one part of the contract was in violation of a California law and that does not invalidate the rest of the contract. Epic acted too recklessly and violated the contract in a rush to get big publicity and file a lawsuit. The court was not amused and awarded Apple damages under the remaining legal parts of the contract that Epic violated.
Zero One fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Sep 10, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2021 21:09
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1440711772483186690?s=21
lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2021 00:36
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
just lol if you don't read METAR as your only weather source.
KMCO 241253Z 36004KT 10SM FEW075 BKN090 25/19 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP152 T02500189
KMCO 241141Z 2412/2518 01005KT P6SM FEW030 BKN060 FM241400 03007KT P6SM SCT040 SCT060 FM242000 06011KT P6SM BKN060 FM250100 05006KT P6SM FEW030 SCT070 FM251400 04006KT P6SM SCT035 SCT060
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 14:03
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2024 04:41
|
|
- Zero One
- Dec 30, 2004
-
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
|
everyone complaining about wind speed and no-one complaining that the watch rain complication in wos8 shows the next time it's forecast to rain and not the current chance of rain
mine was saying "rain in 9 days" this morning but I just looked again and it's switched to 0% chance
v. odd
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 17:45
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 17:58
