Do Apple, really have a right to determine which software the owner of the iPhone can run? Remember it's not apples phone, they sold it to the customer.

"Over 45% of the murders in this country are committed by 7% of the population"

That statement makes no sense, unless 7% of the population have comitted murder. Is it that bad in us?

It's a Fucking advertisement, so obviously he sells anal sex.

That is a story about a guy who don't make 100.000 a year after expenses driving for uber. Are you sure you linked to the correct story?

1: Wrong and Wrong. Nobody knowns exactly what the rules are, and when apple do/don't enforce them. It's a jungle where your app just might be rejected for no known reason. And also wrong because the entire point of the update was that epic explicit avoided using "Apple as a Payment Processor". That is the the entire point of the case. That Epic don't want to use apple as a payment processor.

Why? I code all my websites in Java, which then get compiled to Javascript. Only way to stay sane.

What????

Apple don't have to change anything in their software to allow third party marked places or side-loading of software. They already support both of these features, it is just that they don't allow developers to use them for distribution to end users.

All Apple have to do, is remove that single if statement preventing developers from distributing their own software to users in any kind of usefull amount.

How do a Customer with only an iPhone and no other hardware run Fortnight?

No. An alternative for Apple is just to allow side-loading of other marked platforms. Nobody is asking Apple to distribute epyc software.

The car analogy of what Apple is doing, is that the dealer you bought the car from can control where you must bye your fuel. (And also prevent you from going to specific places, even if you pay their 30%. There is software, such as a web custom browser you can newer get distribute on an iPhone no matter how much money you are willing to pay Apple).

Epic already have a "vast distribution platforms for you to send hundreds of megabytes of data to hundreds of millions of users." They don't need to overpay for apples. And yes it can perfectly update data.

And they do store all the digital asset for download for all the other platforms. It is just that apple will not let them do that.

And all credit card payments gateways I know throws in "automatically re-charge renewals." as part of the 1.5% credit card fee. (I don't know where that 3% fee come from. Nobody of any size pays that much).

And apple don't run the search engine, uses use to find apps. google.com runs that.

So apple is basicly charging 28.5% of the price for the privilege of forcing you to use their infrastructure to download software. Not a good deal. Bandwidth is not that expensive.
 

No apple keep the $0.30, and refund 0.7$ to the user.

That is what "Apple doesn't refund the 30% cut they took from the developer" mean. But I must admit I am not sure that this is true. But that is the claim.

But they are not "levering the username Apple has built up, combined with the super easy path to collecting payment they provide."

In fact they are doing the opposite. They are trying to avoid using the apple payment system. But they are not allowed to do that.

And as a developer, all I can say is that using Apples payment solution(Which is required) is extra work when you have a multi platform application, because you can use one payment system for all non apple, and then you have to use an other payment solution for iOS. Extra work which is only needed because apple don't allow other payment solutions then their own. Extra work for nothing

What are you talking about?

Ssl certs are free, and setting up auto renew takes less then 60 seconds with the let's encrypt bot.

Yes they do. My 5 year old nVidia graphics card still works fine with the newest Linux kernel and the nVidia driver.

But that "one revision older" makes all the difference for Thread ripper, because with the 3000 series which Linus got, they fixed the memory, so that all cores got unified memory unlike the 2000 series which as you said had some interesting ways to access memory.