It also presupposes that unregulated capitalism is the best kind of market. But "unregulated market" only means unregulated in ways that benefit people.

BI and UBI are better ways to ensure that the people that governments actually represent are supported when they need it. They are more direct and have quicker market benefits.

What really gets me is that UBI would be great for everyone, even the rich and the big business. It allows more consumers to buy more, ensures only productive, motivated and properly rewarded workers are in the workforce, lets artists create fine art rather than doing meaningless busy work so that they can eat, and even lowers the cost and inefficiencies of social safety nets.

Conservatives can't see how anything can be anything other than a zero sum game. They are always trying to maximise their wealth, they assume that everyone else is too, but really, most of us are just trying to find enough to eat, have a home and stay alive.

They are scared of losing what they have because they want to take what anyone else has. They hide that by saying it's unearned or whatever, but they mostly haven't earned what they have. They have at best grown what they were given. They don't know what it's actually like to have nothing.

The difficulty comes from the obligation to protect a trademark - if you have trademark rights to a term and don't take reasonable steps to protect it, you're at risk of losing your rights.

The poorly made houses from 100 years ago just aren't there anymore.

The junk clothing from 50 years ago was thrown out.

Not helped by seeing the review of Der Kreativitäts-Code as being "Here’s a book I plan on reading".

Disappointed by this list

They tried to not support old stuff, they tried to make the hardware not work if sold, and they have messed up the app several times.

I want to love them, but it's hard to when you investment could just stop working at any moment.

Markets are for maximising profits. Housing should not be a market.

But Apple really should have handled this better. Being made to look like the bad guys against Epic seems impossible, but they’ve done it.

I guess private toll operators can’t prevent repeat drunk drivers using their roads, even if they do the same “trust us, just because” nonsense Sweeney has written.

Second, it’s obvious that no one had actually read the article. Epic admitted that they have deliberately broken the App Store rules. That’s enough to have anyone sanctioned in any system.

Apple are certainly not unimpeachable here, but this blind hatred of Apple is out of control.

At least get the facts close to right before spewing your uninformed BS.

The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

The iPod wasn’t as good on paper as the Rio or Rune. Cost a LOT more too.

The original iPhone wasn’t great, but it was good enough to capture the imagination. It certainly wasn’t cheap.

The Series 0 Watch was also pretty ordinary, especially when compared to other smart watches. Expensive too.

Same with Siri, the HomePod and Apple TV, but these haven’t quite hit the mark. Probably not failures (except maybe Siri), but not in the best of Apple category.

All of these early products were for the bleeding edge. They provide the feedback and insight into how the product is going to be used.

Apple’s special ability is to find the essence of what a good product needs to have, quickly. Sometimes they don’t nail it first time, but they excel at finding out and then iterating until it does.

I definitely don’t love all of the detail of either option.

However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

However, the entitlement that is pervasive here that whatever Apple does is bad and it’s ok to expect them to give their work and infrastructure away for free is just crazy.

If we’re arguing about the value that developers get for what they pay, or if Apple is stifling innovation, or even if Apple is being maliciously compliant, then that’s a different conversation. I’m much more sympathetic to that.

But this is about people demanding Apple give their IP away from free so that they can make money from that expensive to make and operate infrastructure is ridiculous

This applies only to iOS Apps. iPad OS and Watch OS isn’t (yet) covered by this Core Technology Fee.

I strongly suggest actually reading the linked page. Most of what you’re saying is clearly and obviously wrong, had you read the page.

I’d argue that a number way less than 1 million installs would signify enough success to start charging for