New York is a great city if you can afford it, which (checks notes) you can’t.

I am pretty sure that he is going to hell, eventually.

Not if they have iPhones, they don’t. Or are you suggesting that people can just switch between Android and iOs at the drop of a hat?

Remember the movie The Social Network? That movie made Zuck look damn good compared to what he really is.

“Apple is hinging its success on the fact that people want a more secure environment going forward...” Maybe let people decide that on their own, eh?

Wow, they sure are going to great lengths to make that (Including In-App Purchases) thing seem like no big deal when it’s actually the crux of the entire dispute.

I think that this is Epic’s strategy: they will lose the battle (lawsuit), but win the war (by turning the tide against Apple by bringing more big-league developers over to their side in this dispute). It’s a gamble, and there is a good chance that it won’t work, but it sure is interesting.

But we are, and always have been, talking specifically about IAP. I have nothing against Apple profiting off the system that they have created, but it is arbitrary the way it is applied to IAP. Credit cards take 3% of the transactions that they process, and they are doing more for vendors than Apple is doing for…

Just to clarify: you do understand that we are talking specifically about in-app purchases and not the apps themselves, right? That’s why I made my gasoline comparison. We are talking about something expendable that is used through the vehicle, not something that modifies the vehicle itself. Your analogy is more akin…

Yes, Apple has the infrastructure, hardware and technology to facilitate the availability of Epic games. The problem is this: is Apple the only entity that has all of those things? Your answer seems to be yes, but who decided that? Apple decided that. Is it really providing a service if they get to demand that…

In this case, Apple is not really providing a service. In this case, I would say that Epic is the one offering a service. Apple is specifying how that service is offered while also demanding a cut. As I said in the beginning, they can probably get away with whatever is in the contract, but a monopoly (protection…

When I said “fixed fee based on the number of update downloads,” I meant “fixed fee per download,” which would not favor massive developers at all. Also, we are talking specifically about update downloads.

There is a bit of a difference between “dysfunctional family” and “her mom is basically Goebbels.”

Such insight into his character! Truly, only a sister could know a guy so well. I had barely noticed any of the character flaws she points out.

Or, maybe Apple can charge a reasonable, fixed fee based on the number of update downloads? Perhaps they could just take a more reasonable chunk of the app devs’ revenues instead of playing Tony Soprano?

Remember the good-old days when Microsoft were the evil ones and Apple was the scrappy up-and-comer?

When you buy a smartphone, you are spending hundreds of dollars on a device while signing up for a (two-year, usually) service plan. One can think carefully and make a decision when purchasing a phone, but one cannot easily switch to another phone after making that purchase. Switching from iOS to Android (or…

I single out Apple because they did it first and because they are the most egregious about it.

The argument is not moot because people are not choosing between buying a smartphone or a Playstation/Xbox/Switch. These are two completely different categories of products. A Switch may be portable, but nobody is going to buy a Switch instead of a smartphone.

I think that the main question really boils down to: “Why would anyone buy an Apple product at all?”