zepto

>> I am stating an opinion.

>So an opinion with absolutely no stated reason or justification. Thats my point. It is entirely unjustified, with no stated reason for it.

So you you knew it was an opinion and lied when you called it a false statement.

>> I don’t think the EU laws are similar.

>> So then you are not aware of the EU laws being considered and written right now, that would force Apple and Google to allow competing app stores, and allow people to bypass the Apple fee.

You are delusional if you think you know what I am or am not aware of.

> That is the missing piece of information, that you do not have,

As I say, you are delusional if you think you know whether I have that information or not.

> that makes your statement false.

No, it just makes it your opinion that the bills are similar, and my opinion that they are not.

This bizarre obsession is clearly just to distract from responding to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

It seems like you want to force Apple to adopt a roadmap you have laid out for them.

I’m not ‘claiming’ it won’t pass judicial review. I am stating an opinion. Do you understand that?

I don’t think the EU laws are similar. That is another opinion.

Neither of these statements are false. You may disagree with my opinions but it’s delusional to confuse opinion with fact.

You are lying when you say I’m making false statements. to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.

Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

>> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.

> So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".

No I didn’t say it’s illegal. Where did I say that?

I said I expect that it won’t pass judicial review. That is what I expect.

> Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.

You haven’t pointed out a single false statement. It seems like you’re just descending into outright lies now.

If you can quote a false statement I made rather that making one up, then I’ll reconsider that opinion.

It seems like you are are just lying to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.

Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

From Wikipedia:

—-

In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.[4]

The name "In-Q-Tel" is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond.[5]

I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time. Remember the proposal hasn’t come before either house yet. Imagining the law is an instantaneous process seems misguided.

So you’ve now wasted comment after comment merely ‘making fun of’ that opinion without adding any substance. I assume that’s because you aren’t really sure of your position.

Perhaps this is just bluster to distract us from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

Do you expect us to believe that you thought you’d be able to install Linux when you bought your iPhone?

The points you were responding to are just rebuttals of your own claims of legal knowledge.

> This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Saying my argument is something I didn’t write is just a dishonest and lazy move. What I wrote isn’t code for anything. You seem to be unable to handle my points as they were written.

You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

> Paper bills also have a distinct history.

No they don’t. Nobody records the serial numbers of each bill they receive and pass and who they got it from and gave it to, in a publicly accessible ledger.

> People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.

Don’t be silly. The bill only passed committee last week. Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course.

> These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere,

No they aren’t.

> that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.

That remains to be seen.

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

> Ya know, I'm not going to attack you like you seem so set on doing to me. But for reference, I'm a lead SWE working on mobile devices.

Then I assume you understand the difference between text and an executable and they they pose very different security risks.

If so, then we have to assume you are simply arguing in bad faith by pretending they are analogous.

> I'll say it again, but louder for those in the back. The security is built in to the platform, not app review.

This statement is completely false. Security is in both. You surely know that.

> If the security was only through the appstore you would see hundreds of viruses in the store a day, controlled by a server side flag.

No, because they could still be removed after detection.

In any case, this is a dishonest argument. Nobody is claiming that it’s only in the App Store. The claim is that the App Store is a way to catch issues that the platform security alone cannot.

Again, you clearly are aware of this.

It is true. It’s not hard to check it. If you want to proceed with this line of discussion, you should do some googling rather than persisting with false claims.

If you wanted Linux or Android, why did you buy an iPhone?

> So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean their practices have been declared as such in some general way. If you want to discuss the specifics of that case, by all means do so, otherwise it’s just dishonest to pretend they are relevant.

As for what passed the committee - it’s possible that may indeed allow people to bypass the 15% fee (please don’t lie about it being 30% - that is only for a small number of developers).

It will also have all kinds of damaging impacts that make life harder for smaller developers, so it’s not a win for anyone except some larger scammy operators.

In any case, a committee vote is a long way from legislation. It’s unlikely to pass judicial review even if it passes both houses of Congress, which is also unlikely.