Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
Google is also listening though. They are slowly introducing similar restrictions after seeing what absurdity Apple gets away with as "compliance" of needing to also allow anyone to offer software for iOS. Our mistake is thinking it's fine that apple believers get vendor lock-in because there is still Google and Android lets you run whatever code you want. Yeah, until it doesn't
Why do you want huge companies to be allowed so much control?
What is it about letting them restrict what people can do in order to squeeze even more money out of them and other companies that appeals to you so much?
Where do you think this should stop?
Should my wifi router be allowed to only work with some brands of phone or laptop?
Should my mobile service provider be allowed to ask for a percentage of any payment I use over their connection?
Should my car by allowed to refuse to park if the owner of the car park doesn't share ticket revenue with its manufacturer?
If not, why not?
Personally, I choose to believe that just like some things cannot legally be agreed to contractually (even if they're in the contract and you sign it), some business models should also be unacceptable to society. That includes any situation where by owning a platform, media property, or content/service delivery technology or provider, a company wants to force itself as a middleman between any two parties.
Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.
Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.
I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit.
I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.
It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.
It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.
> because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
> Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets
I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.
Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.
They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.
Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."
That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.
>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less.
That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.
> It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.
iPhone sales pay for the entirety of Apple's R&D. 10 times over.
That's just not how that works, how much consumers will pay is a binding constraint. Apple isn't subsiding their phone with developer fees and distributing their below marginal cost. Apple is almost certainly charging well above its marginal costs and is already charging the revenue maximising price, it's not willingly leaving money on the table.
Not entirely how you've made formed this connection but respectively it sounds like you've confused several things here.
They are obviously not charging the maximum price because they’ve raised the price significantly when the iPhone X came out and suffered no harm. Apple sets prices based on a 30% raw profit margin and ignores the market except as it constrains their raw material and manufacturing costs. They use that 30% to pay there other costs, such as iOS development and R&D and investing in manufacturing partners.
The iPhone X, like all models, is a different model than all the others; the maximum price for one model is not going to be the maximum price for another.
> Apple sets prices based on a 30% raw profit margin and ignores the market except as it constrains their raw material and manufacturing costs.
Literally impossible ahead of time, as some of their costs are fixed rather than marginal. If you spend, as they did last year, ~$34.5bn on R&D, and you make a thing that costs $1000 to make and then you price it at $1300, but the market looks at what it is and what it costs and says "nah" so only 1 million people buy it that year, then what you're actually making isn't a 30% profit, it is a loss >110x your revenue.
We don't know exactly how much R&D was spent on the AVP, nor the exact sales, but the market reaction to the price is something you should have in mind. No matter what its unit economics were, Apple probably made a loss overall.
Apple didn't give itself better dialogs. It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites so the ATT prompt would never apply to their apps. It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising. Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.
The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech.
>Apple only gives third-party app publishers access to the IDFA if they have obtained user consent through a dedicated consent prompt that is largely predefined by Apple – the so-called ATT prompt. If the user refuses to give consent in this prompt, the app publisher does not gain access to the IDFA.
According to the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation, there are no other technical options available to app publishers that are equally suitable for exchanging data across companies.
In contrast, Apple’s own personalised advertising is subject to different conditions. Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt. Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes, the company uses a different consent prompt – the so-called PA prompt (“Personalized Ads prompt”). The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers.
Ok, let's break down your claims one by one and compare to the text of the FAQ...
> Apple didn't give itself better dialogs.
On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt
differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."
> It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites
The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",
> It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising.
Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"
> Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.
Nothing in the FAQ supports this claim, and as discussed in other comments here it is simply false.
> The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech.
>On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."
The PA prompt is a voluntary (required in the EU?) prompt Apple shows requesting opt-in for personalzied ads. It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever.
If Apple wanted, it could mirror Facebook's behavior (in the rest of the world) by not showing any PA prompt. This would greatly increase the number of people who are exposed to personalized ads from Apple's first-party ad network.
>The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",
It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.
>Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"
My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.
>Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.
That is my informed opinion based on following this story since the very beginning.
> It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.
Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps (just that it is not using the apple specific identifier for advertisers to do so) nor say that not doing so is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.
> My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.
No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.
>Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps nor say that is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.
That is what Apple says about their ad network and what they've said in communications with regulators. And if they were actually doing third-party tracking, that would actually be an instance of Apple being a hypocrite. The regulator would have had them dead to rights if that were the case. The regulator doesn't actually say Apple was doing that.
The quoted section from page 1 indeed says that Apple does not use the IDFA nor uses cross-company combination of data:
>Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt.
>No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.
I wrote my comment and know what I was referring to and I clarified it in later comments. I'm sorry you misunderstood.
Your mistaken, words have meanings, I understood perfectly, I'm sorry you did not write the comment you meant to but intending to write something other than what you did does not mean you did so.
Instead lets have them made in a place that has threatened to take over ~4 sovereign nations in the past three weeks? Yeah I'll take the 1/2 price cars thanks.
Can you in any way separate in your mind the idea of the USA as a nation of 300,000,000 people, who need jobs and who all benefit from having safe and good quality cars, from the trolling actions of a few politicians?
With statements like yours, it feels like the left is rooting for the most catastrophic outcomes possible for that whole country, just to spite Trump. Even though we'd all lose and Trump wouldn't be affected either way.
Well there are another 7.6 billion people on this planet many of whom are already feeling the consequences of the "trolling actions of a few politicians".
I'm not American or a "leftist" for reference. I have no ill will towards the American people, neither the Chinese or any other. Governments on the other hand.... But regardless if I can buy a car for 1/2 the cost from one belligerent major power over another. Yeah - I'll take the half price car.
Pardon my assumption -- if you're not in America, America's tariffs on their imports don't impact availability of cheap Chinese cars (should you want to trust them).
You are assuming that all posters on HN are American? An Australian, for example, doesn't care if their car is made in china or not, they are taking the cheaper car! Many countries don't have local auto producers, and they are just going to take the best deal, and that's going to be Chinese.
> With statements like yours, it feels like the left is rooting for the most catastrophic outcomes possible for that whole country, just to spite Trump. Even though we'd all lose and Trump wouldn't be affected either way.
This only makes sense if the poster is American though right? Otherwise, they are just being pragmatic.
I assumed they were American only because they seemed to have an opinion on the import tax America charges on BYD cars. If they live anywhere else, America's import taxes don't impact them.
I don’t see that anywhere in the comment hierarchy, but that would make sense. However, I think there is a misunderstanding: parent was talking about not wanting to depend on cars made in the USA, they nowhere seem to imply that they are in the USA. If you aren’t in the USA, the USA’s agenda right now (take over a bunch of non-USA territory) is not more appealing than china’s (sell cheap EVs, maybe take Taiwan someday). Trump’s unpopularity abroad doesn’t help matters, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump threatens them and they respond by signing free trade deals with China.
I asked "would you want all cars to be made in China" (meaning all cars bought in America) because American-built cars built by people who are paid nontrivial wages would not be competitive in America with those built by very low cost Chinese labor if America lets Chinese cars in. None of this impacts anyone else though.
If you really think Trump is going to try to literally take territory though, you've really been trolled. He has said all kinds of ridiculous shit in his 'political career.' That's his one signature thing.
What's your alternative to dominance by China? Dominance by Elon Musk? American industry has been fucking the dog since the 1980's. This is what we deserve.
This attitude is why Trump won. A statement like that sounds like you've stopped trying to make anything better, or to articulate a competing plan and convince voters to support it.
So, in this way, the self-loathing defeatism is partly responsible for people like Trump gaining more power.
Is it the UAW who has forced the automakers to make primarily those high-profit trucks, and to only design terrible EVs?
In my opinion the reason why we're in the dark ages of EVs is that a majority of Americans have range anxiety so our EVs have to weigh a lot and cost a lot to have 250 mile batteries, whereas everywhere else you can buy a car with an 80 mile range for a price poor people can actually afford.
Note - the range anxiety is both because of our car-centric (sub)urban design encouraging lifestyles where you drive 100 miles a day, and because of how a large number of urban dwellers and even suburban non-rich have no garages to do home charging. (And it's objectively far worse to own an EV for anyone who can't charge it at home.) All of this causes people to refuse to buy cars with say, 75-100 miles of range unless they're hybrids.
Most of the pro-CCP ideologues I see these days have a horrifyingly naïve sense of equivalence between China and any given other country (or are just sockpuppets of the CCP but I doubt there are many of those on HN).
The same party that happily ran over peaceful protestors with tanks, and never even so much as apologized for it, is still in power almost 40 years later. They openly put their people in prison just for criticizing the Party.
People compare the CCP to Western countries' misdeeds against their citizens when there's not even a comparison. For instance, when the US illegally wiretapped on the AT&T and Verizon networks to slurp up all the call data they wanted, they didn't actually use that data to imprison citizens for their speech, even ones who said things like "Bush is a war criminal." China both does the privacy invasion itself, and quite openly uses anything they can uncover to persecute anyone they deem a threat to their power.
>>persecute anyone they deem a threat to their power
USA does this as well, its just critique of government by a single person is not a credible threat to the US government. Mind you, all these "freedom fighters" ended up being financed by the USAID, so literally were foreign agents.
Whistleblowers get the whole book thrown at them, Snowden and Assange got nearly killed by CIA, Iraq files whistleblowers get book thrown at them.
USA is just as bad empire as China, and probably even worse, because of the millions of murdered innocent people over the decades of forever wars.
You've cited a small number of people including radicals like Assange who believe basically all information should be public, no matter the possible damage. That doesn't establish a pattern like the many political prisoners China has and continues to imprison.
> millions of murdered innocent people [...] China has no such track record
No, China, since becoming Communist, has specialized more in murdering their own citizens.
Anyway, thanks for providing a great exhibit of exactly what I was talking about: either CCP propaganda, or hopelessly naïve Westerner bent on believing in these two nations' moral equivalency. This is the same level of honest discourse we'll see heavily promoted on TikTok when China invades Taiwan in a few months or years, saying "China and the US are the same, so who cares if they take over a democracy by force."
Japan hit its peak before surveillance capitalism became pervasive. They also categorically fail at developing complex software. The Chinese won't make that mistake.
You can see the effects of the free market in many industries which have been decimated by globalization.
We used to be able to get a manufacturing job which would provide for a family, but decided it was okay to allow big corps to use slave labor on the other side of the planet and just ship everything across the world (not great for carbon emissions). Just look at the rust belt.
It’s not a bad idea to say that we should have the free market stop at our border. Other countries don’t play by the same rules that we do and can even have entire industries propped up by a foreign government in order to take up market share.
We are the richest nation on the planet. The reason the rust belt exists is because we decided it was better to have the most billionaires than to invest and care for our people. It’s entirely possible to help raise other countries out of poverty, which globalism has, and take care of your people. We just didn’t.
I'm not sure what you mean by "care for our own people". I would say that providing an abundance of meaningful work that can feed a family is one of the best ways we can care for our own people. We have unions and high wages, and having good paying jobs for people who don't want to or can't afford to attend University means that people from all walks of life can have some prosperity.
Removing industry from an area brings nothing but misery to the people who live there. Are you suggesting that some sort of communism should have been implemented in the rust belt where we give these people free money or something?
The Chinese market is way larger than the US one, they have everything they need to lift themselves out of poverty by building things for themselves. The US became the richest country in the world by building everything here and reaping the rewards with greatly increased prosperity.
There is no reason to send all our good paying jobs to the other side of the world, and ship all goods across literally the entire planet, the process of which emits and insane amount of C02, just so that the owners of mega corporations can make a few extra dollars per unit.
The "rules based order" is just an American invention to give our government something to talk about besides international law, which the US has basically always ignored.
no, you cannot enforce rules based order on the whole world when it suits you (to force everyone use USD for reserves and global trade, allowing USA to borrow unlimited money for free and export inflation to entire world), but the moment it doesnt suit you - just abandon it.
why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally?
I agree with you, I'm trying to add color to the situation by pointing out that America has benefited from this invention stemming from the conditions of pax americana where the alternative is international law via the UN and ICC and other institutions that are perhaps more independent than the US would like.
> china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right?
In general, the US would introduce retaliatory tariffs in that scenario; the game theory of the situation basically requires that.
Despite popular belief, the CCP is also not actually completely immune to public discontent (it often seems to be really quite scared of it), and would likely be willing to kick off a major trade war, as it would cause price increases.
Even if we consider "China is funding the companies to no end" argument... well, frankly, I wish US would do the same. It is pretty damn cool to see incredible technological progress in huge scale.
The various incentives, tax rebates and ZEV credits that Tesla (and other EV manufacturers) benefited and still benefit from are also government funding, so the US already do the same.
This _hasn't_ happened in Europe, which has lower tariff barriers on Chinese cars. BYD has about 15-20% of the EV market, as do VW, Stelantis, Tesla, Hyundai and BMW (unlike the US or China the European market doesn't have one clearly dominant player in EVs); no other Chinese manufacturer really moves the needle (though MG (SAIC) is regionally popular).
What is so special about EV cars?
its just an appliance to move from point A to point B, even the electric motor inside EV is from household appliances like washer/dryer.
the question should be: Should American consumers be allowed to drive green environmentally friendly cars for $10k or should they be forced to shell out $50k (+interest) to billionaire elon musk
Irrespective of what country, and your belief/disbelief in the threat level, you have to see that a highly internet-reliant device that would bring much of the country anywhere (thanks to car-centric infrastructure) would be a perfect target for a hostile nation, no? With one click you cripple the workforce. Again, speaking nothing of which country is or is not hostile.
how would that car get access to Internet, if wireless providers are controlled by the USA ?
Verizon, ATT, Tmobile and their APNs are controlled by the FCC, and any regulation can force vehicle traffic to be isolated if there is credible threat.
but, why would BYD or other nation sabotage its own future profits by bricking cars?? it doesn't make sense.
if I sell you gadget, I would never brick it, cause I am going to lose all future profits
> how would that car get access to Internet, if wireless providers are controlled by the USA ?
> Verizon, ATT, Tmobile and their APNs are controlled by the FCC, and any regulation can force vehicle traffic to be isolated if there is credible threat.
This response would *not* be soon enough. One response from a server, and the car could be bricked forever, explode/short circuit causing a fire, self-drive into the nearest government building, etc. A car is a huge weapon, especially when remotely controlled. This software could be pre-installed from the factory, with commands injected via side channels. I could imagine a hundred ways to do this.
> but, why would BYD or other nation sabotage its own future profits by bricking cars?? it doesn't make sense.
I'm precluding this situation with a background level of hostility between nations... they don't care about maximizing profit, but maximizing damage. It would be a government stepping in forcing this.
its pure paranoia.
first of all, I as a consumer, mature enough to understand risks and carry them myself, I dont need no government to babysit and censor what I am allowed to buy.
second, you assume China will resort to bricking civilian cars, when they have better options like actual weapons. Bricked car can easily be towed away, there is no way China can cause damage.
the best way for China is to keep manufacturing cars and selling them to USA for $$$ - this will ensure the relationships are beneficial to China (mutual trade is better than military conflict)
> its pure paranoia. first of all, I as a consumer, mature enough to understand risks and carry them myself, I dont need no government to babysit and censor what I am allowed to buy.
You have the tools to reverse-engineer every single chip in your car to ensure they aren't backdoored?
> second, you assume China will resort to bricking civilian cars, when they have better options like actual weapons.
Again, my argument has nothing to do with China, I'm simply saying cars would be a great thing to weaponize. Much easier than smuggling a weapon into the US, you just sell a car to a consumer and you have functionally a remote-controllable bomb.
> Bricked car can easily be towed away, there is no way China can cause damage.
Not if it's driven away and used in an attack first. did you read my reply? You still haven't actually responded to my point that internet-connected cars would be an excellent weapon by a hostile nation.
I dont, but there are plenty indie hackers who would be happy to buy cheap $10k car and reverse engineer it.
Any backdoors would be easily detectable and preventable just by .... not connecting the car to the Internet, or folding connection to isolated VPN not accessible from the outside.
all vehicle traffic can be inspected and sinkholed with IoT firewall, if you really want it
Not when cellular or satellite chips are very well hidden... You might not even know about them, let alone have the ability or knowledge on how to stop it from connecting, force it through a VPN/firewall, etc. You already can't do that with desktop PC's thanks to things like Intel ME.
All those telecom companies have also been infiltrated by China RECENTLY, and they don't even know how long or how badly, AIUI.
Good point though. My current cars drive just fine without internet - I would hope future cars would continue to do so, even if GPS doesn't work, can't find a charging station, etc. Otherwise, I'll be stuck with gas cars until the day they take my license..
it's amazing to me when people on hn (supposed champions of meritocracy and innovation and free markets etc) are so scared of actual free trade. like what are you scared of? equilibration in wages? the only reason to be scared of that is because you're afraid of your purchasing power going down but that means of course your current purchasing power comes at the expense of someone else's. and if you don't buy that argument - "it's not a zero-sum game you communist!" - then you have nothing to be scared of (because your purchasing power will remain high) and you should support truly free trade.
> it is weaponized to destroy a nation-state’s industrial output surreptitiously
are we talking about the US or China or Canda or Mexico here? i can't keep track of who the "bad guys" are that are supposedly weaponizing and who the victims are.
On 12/17/24 they hit a 52 week high around $490 per share. Since then, in less than two months, they have lost one third of their value. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/
Musk has single-handedly alienated his core domestic buying demographic in favor of a group that, when polled, says they would not consider an EV at rates of around 70%.
EU markets in which TSLA was viable but contested are even worse.
This while Tesla's strongest international competitor is passing on units sold, executing better, and underpricing them.
As someone who has followed Tesla since the Model S, previously held Musk in some regard, and test drove a Model 3 I find this such an abject travesty of an outcome for what should have been a great US based global car maker and someone who had the potential to accomplish such good for the world with their incredible wealth and privilege.
To my understanding, the ridiculous stock price and valuation have absolutely nothing to do with the car business. It's basically the potential hopes and dreams of what the leadership can do with direct access to US government.
Yup. And don't buy the line that Elon made Tesla a success. They had the core tech and talent to build an EV (without all the other bullshit he added) before he came along. Given enough time they could have been something on their own too.
This is most definitely not true. Tesla was barely more than an electric powertrain and battery combo when Musk took over. The first production Roadsters even reused the chassis from Porsche 911s (IIRC).
Other US competitors aren't at parity with Tesla or BYD. Nikola went bust. Legacy automakers turned out mediocre EVs. Rivian is the only true competitor, but they are a luxury brand and don't have Tesla's crown jewel (the Supercharger network).
> Tesla was barely more than an electric powertrain and battery combo when Musk took over.
Musk also had zero experience or track record making cars when Musk took over, nor any hardware products of any kind, for that matter, or running a manufacturing org.
Occam's razor would indicate it's very improbably to credit success all to him.
It was a Lotus. I don't see how you can get that so badly wrong (they aren't even remotely similar) and claim to know the state of Tesla at that time very well.
So despite the very weak propaganda about the Houthis, it turns out it was all about the Gaza genocide. This could have stopped at any point by the Biden administration, instead it came down to Trump and his real estate guy telling Israel how high to jump (debunking another weak propaganda narrative). All for Zionist donors and votes, and he still lost.
Were the Houthis actually concerned with the legal or ethical status of Israel's operations though? They do have "Curse be upon the Jews" on their slogan...
Even if their cause was noble, rewarding piracy seems like a bad precedent to set.
It's fine for App Store developers to complain about their costs of doing business like any other business. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals like bank payments is.
Except this is a clear racket and not a regular cost of doing business. Imagine Microsoft tomorrow deciding to require 30% of even a fraction of things happing on windows. Imagine Apple trying to do this on the Mac. It's laughably anti-competitive and the only reason they're not doing it on the Mac is because it would expose the absurdity of the situation on iOS.
That, and Apple probably requires a shit load of third party utilities that do "naughty" things like read the file system or be "not sandboxed" in order to actually get any work done. They need the Mac to write APIs to charge people 30% on the App Store for the iPhone.
