Despegar

6 ms·

1.
by Despegar 29d ago
It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.
2.
by Despegar 29d ago
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money? The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
3.
by Despegar 29d ago
>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from h
4.
by Despegar 29d ago
>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests. It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests. It would actually cost consumers
5.
by Despegar 1mo ago
That's okay. Everyone can determine who has the better argument for themselves.
6.
by Despegar 1mo ago
>Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating w
7.
by Despegar 1mo ago
>On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers." The PA prompt is a voluntary (required in the EU?) prompt Apple shows requesting opt-
8.
by Despegar 1mo ago
>Apple only gives third-party app publishers access to the IDFA if they have obtained user consent through a dedicated consent prompt that is largely predefined by Apple – the so-called ATT prompt. If the user refuses to give consent in
9.
by Despegar 1mo ago
What Apple and Facebook do in their apps in the rest of the world.
10.
by Despegar 1mo ago
I don't live in the EU. My comment is based on what they do in the rest of the world.
11.
by Despegar 1mo ago
Apple didn't give itself better dialogs. It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites so the ATT prompt would never apply to their apps. It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personal
12.
by Despegar 1y ago
The story mentions that Sergey Brin was "tbd" on his support for Israel. Sergey Brin has recently made it clear which side he's on [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/08&#
13.
by Despegar 2y ago
Yeah I don't care
14.
by Despegar 2y ago
Tesla would be fucked without tariffs.
15.
U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts(washingtonpost.com)
762 points by Despegar 2y ago|1034 comments
16.
by Despegar 2y ago
So despite the very weak propaganda about the Houthis, it turns out it was all about the Gaza genocide. This could have stopped at any point by the Biden administration, instead it came down to Trump and his real estate guy telling Israel h
17.
Houthis Say US and UK Ships Can Safely Take Red Sea Passage(bloomberg.com)
4 points by Despegar 2y ago|4 comments
18.
by Despegar 2y ago
No one should. It should get an IPO. Chrome will make a lot of money from Google, Bing, ChatGPT, etc by selling default search.
19.
by Despegar 2y ago
It's fine for App Store developers to complain about their costs of doing business like any other business. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals like bank payments is.
20.
by Despegar 2y ago
What's the best two-factor app right now?
21.
by Despegar 2y ago
The Houthis didn't find out why Americans don't have healthcare.
22.
by Despegar 2y ago
Well the they might be just a college student, but they could have a relationship with the actual target in some way. And if it's part of a complex operation they could be trying some indirect approaches.
23.
Epic says Apple will reinstate developer account(9to5mac.com)
521 points by Despegar 3y ago|601 comments
24.
by Despegar 3y ago
This will be another issue determined by EU courts, but Apple is not justifying it as a show of force. They're justifying it based on Epic's prior breach of contract and statements they've made. I think based on the record, c
25.
by Despegar 3y ago
Right, the major difference being that Epic is not an employee of Apple and thus cannot benefit from employment law. The terms of their relationship is governed by contract law, and now the DMA.
26.
by Despegar 3y ago
I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.
27.
by Despegar 3y ago
Epic perhaps thought Apple might show them grace after the lawsuit in the US. A kind of repeat of the Apple-Samsung litigation where everyone has a "it's just business" attitude and keeps doing business together while simulta
28.
by Despegar 3y ago
Companies comply with those regulations because, on balance, the incentives still make it logical to. That doesn't mean an unbalanced regulation that misunderstands the target's incentives would result in the outcome the regulator
29.
by Despegar 3y ago
Malicious compliance and "spirit of the law" aren't real things when it comes to the legal system. You either comply with the law or you don't. And courts will ultimately decide if Apple's interpretation of the DMA
30.
by Despegar 3y ago
They were basically negotiating in public. I think the EC probably realized that the DMA as currently written is flawed and producing outcomes they don't want, and this episode basically highlighted it to them. They probably told Apple

More ›