Timmy caught straight-up lying. Shocking, I know.
|OT| Epic vs Apple/Google - Battle of the Tims
- Thread starter warp_
- Start date
Basically, these are two events.
As for the first event:
- customers would have the choice between Apple Pay and Epic Pay in the Fortnite app,
- the escrow would be 30% of what goes through Epic Pay,
- Apple refused.
As for the second event:
- customers would be forced to go through Apple Pay in the Fortnite app,
- the escrow would be 30% of what goes through Apple Pay,
- Epic refused.
Last edited:
Facebook Wades Into ‘Fortnite’ Maker’s Dispute With Apple
The social-media giant said it would provide supporting documents to Epic Games and also reiterated its opposition to Apple’s plan to restrict access to iPhone users’ personal data.
www.wsj.com
Facebook will help Epic in the discovery phase of the trial by providing supporting materials. Glad to see two spunky underdogs team up.
Tim and Zuck off on a wild adventure to rescue indie game devs from the evil clutches of The30%Cut at Castle Cookensteinhttps://archive.is/pSM1s (backup in case the WSJ link is paywalled)Facebook Wades Into ‘Fortnite’ Maker’s Dispute With Apple
The social-media giant said it would provide supporting documents to Epic Games and also reiterated its opposition to Apple’s plan to restrict access to iPhone users’ personal data.
Facebook will help Epic in the discovery phase of the trial by providing supporting materials. Glad to see two spunky underdogs team up.
Tim has found a new best friend.
I hate to go off topic, but yeah Facebook is livid about the new iOS privacy settings and has started a media blitz against Apple under the guise of helping small businesses. Honestly it couldn't have happened to a better company. I can only hope the incoming administration takes an antitrust hammer towards Facebook (and the other tech giants as well).
This is a shitshow during which nobody wins and both parties are being exposed by each other. Schadenfreude doesn't even begin to describe how gleeful I feel about it.
All 3 parties now with Facebook entering the ring.
And yeah, it's hilarious.
It's the legal corporate equivalent of this gif:
except there's no good, bad and ugly, but instead it's all just bad, worse and Facebook and the cat is the stand-in for the judge.
To be honest, I don't see the bad in Apple being open about how ones data is used by one app.
Which is why they are the least bad of the three in my book. If they were ready to open up their hardware in general, from phones to tablets to laptops, and didn't actively make all their stuff work properly only inside their own ecosystem, despite that being far more profitable, then I could see them being "good". Otherwise they are just a normal, self-serving corporation, albeit one that is highly innovative and productive.
Absolutely, it's a good thing. But then again, they lock their OS completely and act like a bridge troll when it comes to money anything.
There's no good guy, and I think that even trying to assess which is least bad is an exercise in untangling complexity that I'm not going to risk my sanity for
.
I'm not sure, really. Consider that Jobs and Apple have stifled innovation and pioneered a business model and software model that is single-handedly responsible for all the walled gardens that popped up since, let alone the money they have deprived countless studios of while running the open software model that could have been into the ground?
I don't think you can discount the stranglehold Apple has and has enabled others to have over that entire side of the software industry. It's far less visible than the stuff FB has done, but I'm sure as hell not eager to try to weigh one impact against the other
.Epic though... Yeah, I struggle to see them as having done as much evil.
Hopefully all of the parties involved will dig up as much dirt on each other as possible.
Last edited:
The reason I want to go back to Apple is because of their walled garden, it is the only way I can be completely sure my data is treated privately and securely.
Like sure Apple is setting in place transparency that hurts those who wants to hide things, and Apple does that just so they can benefit from it. Maybe they are making a search engine, an ad machine to go against all the big hitters, so maybe they are just being the "good guys" to attack future competition. But they are doing it in a customer friendly way. A customer who chose the Apple garden.
Like sure Apple is setting in place transparency that hurts those who wants to hide things, and Apple does that just so they can benefit from it. Maybe they are making a search engine, an ad machine to go against all the big hitters, so maybe they are just being the "good guys" to attack future competition. But they are doing it in a customer friendly way. A customer who chose the Apple garden.
I think you are conflating walled gardens with a strict model of software permissions and disclosure of data usage. I acknowledge that the later has to be either shared out of the company's goodwill or forced to do so by the platform holder, but then again I don't know that WG's are a necessary evil there.
Regarding the former, SElinux comes to mind as an open-source, free alternative that is implemented at the OS model, keeps the user - or at least owner of the hardware - in charge while treating each application and daemon, every folder and file individually. There's no such nonsense as on windows where it's often either be treated as root with full open doors to the OS and kernel or be a guest.
I wouldn't expect any big surprises outside of financials, and we already know they tax dodge like the late stage capitalist corporations they areHopefully all of the parties involved will dig up as much dirt for each other as possible.
Swenhir It does sound good what you brought as an example, but I'm wondering what the difference between a walled garden and being forced to do something by the platform holder. Aren't they the same thing? Sure a fee is often associated walled gardens but that's not what I at least think of as a walled garden, its more about the checking and forcing that rules are followed set by the platform holder.
That's actually a great question. In one case the platform holder gets to decide what the ground rules on your hardware are, in the other you do, and are free to shoot yourself in the foot. I think in that case it's more of a question of having sane defaults, which SEl usually has.
In my perception, it's a problem of software distributors like facebook abusing permissions without transparency, which things like SEl enforce. I don't know that it's the best model, especially from a user-facing standpoint at which Apple excels, but to me that capability is not hinging on having a walled garden in place.
What they do with the data, however, that is something that I don't know can be forced to be disclosed other than by a legal framework, which is cruelly lacking today. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of being happy with corporations like Apple stepping in where the law is failing
.
It seems Epic can't stop bribing people to get what they want. What a disgusting company
yeah not even the S7+, disgusting!It seems Epic can't stop bribing people to get what they want. What a disgusting company
Remember how Miller said that he was excited to announce P4G for PC and then weeks later tweeted why PC gaming sucks.
He is a shill, no surprise there.
He is a shill, no surprise there.
This is now simply hilarious. I don't usually say this but this is just teenage edge-lordism. I struggle to believe this is his actual account.
Lobbyists are not exactly engaged in the most lawful good of occupations. See : oil industry, and pretty much the entire dystopia that are politics worldwide.
More of the same for Tim, who wants preferential treatment.
More of the same for Tim, who wants preferential treatment.
Please tell me the picture is implying their lobbyist is the kid?