4eleven7

Because YouTube "is 99.9999999%" piracy? Hmmmm.

Piracy on YouTube isn't 0%, obviously. But it isn't in the same league, or comparable to torrenting.

I'm not missing anything. iSH is very much an edge case. My entire point was that Quake would be allowed on the Apple Watch via the App Store.

EDIT: To clarify 'very much an edge case', I mean, you can see how a non-technical reviewer at Apple may view iSH as a program that executes remote code. While you or I may know better, and it is unfortunate that you had to go through that process in the first instance, you can see why it happened compared to a standard todo list, or a typical web-client based app.

Apple doesn't believe in enabling illegal piracy, which is 99.9999999% of the usage of torrents.

Twitter, web browsers, and YouTube are fine on the App Store.

And yet, you aren't rejected, and are in the store. While their interpretation of their guidelines can be ropey, as is anything handled by a human, my point still stands. Quake 1 would be allowed on the App Store.

Can you show an example? I’ve been an iOS developer for 10 years, and I’ve only ever seen/been rejected for things that fall foul of the guidelines, never arbitrarily.

Yes, they publish their guidelines which states as such… but how is Quake 1 too simple? Downvote all you want, but within the context of Quake 1 being approved on the Apple Watch, “too simple” isn’t relevant.

Untrue. As long as it meets the technical requirements (ie, not using private APIs, doesn't excessively drain battery etc), and the licensing issues aren't a problem (some OSS licenses are an issue, as well as using the Quake assets may be an issue), there is no reason why Apple wouldn't approve a game for the Apple Watch on the App Store.

True, and I agree, but an 'upper cap' wouldn't be used against just the companies that we don't think provide innovation (such as Amazon in this scenario). The caps would also be used against Tesla and Apple, two very big drivers of innovation, and probably many others. The world would be a worse place without Tesla, and without Apple. Arguably the world could be a better place without Amazon, but that is surely down to consumer voting with their wallet, the executive team, and shareholders encouraging Amazon, rather than the government not restricting Amazon. Amazon aren't buying EA, only because they can.

Once again, how can someone define an 'upper cap', is it market size? Is it revenue, or employee count? Market share? The unintended consequences of an upper limit doesn't seem to me something we should be encouraging.

I could be wrong, it just feels like we shouldn't be restricting everyone because of one bad actor.

Why will Amazon stifle innovation? All EA do is release the same games every year with slightly different content (FIFA, Battlefield, Madden, Sims, etc).

What am I missing?

Antitrust law does exactly this. If Amazon owning EA overly concentrates market power/forms a monopoly, it'll be rejected and the deal with fail.

Why would you want to put an upper cap on the size of companies? It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone.

If not, then we'll likely learn more at Tesla AI day #2, on September 30th.

People who go to a nude beach, opt in to a nude beach.

People who turn on Nudity check, opt in to a nude check.