If you want me to believe that "profit motive" is aligned with "public interest", why is everybody running to the regulators to clear this instead of spending money?
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that "profit motive" is aligned with "public interest" in the face of all the current evidence we have in other sectors that is quite to the contrary.
To start, it is not at all clear that super low cost, super low friction shipping from China is, in fact, in the general US public interest. But it is in the interest of WalMart. And it is in the interest of Amazon.
For example, from the standpoint of the public interest, consuming fewer Christmas goods (which are mostly disposable garbage and which is what the Asian shippers are all rushing to get transported) is probably preferable. A great deal of Asian garbage which is destined to be US garbage is currently clogging out the shipping of goods which have a steady demand and are far more necessary to the functioning of the economy.
You will note that "increased foreign shipping friction causing goods to be manufactured locally again" is not on the discussion table because it is not part of an agenda that people in the shipping industry wish to countenance.
I never suggested profit motive was good for public interest. Your argument in fact suggests that profit motive is never good for public interest without suggesting any good alternatives either. It’s easy to make an argument that everything should be produced locally… what happens when there are no trucks or truckers to ship it from one state to another ? Should each state be responsible to produce everything locally….should each county be then responsible to produce everything locally ….at what point does it stop ?
The point about “let’s just consume fewer goods” sounds pretty utopian to me. That’s not a plan it’s a hope and hope is not a plan.
Are you also feel safer that Apple decides what apps you are allowed to run? For example, in China, iOS users aren't allowed to run Signal or Protonmail apps.
Did it occur to you that if a user is not the final authority who decides which apps should run on the device, he is not really owning the device, but merely leasing it, under some strict terms?
It’s not really a concern tbh. Appstore hasn’t been draconian in that sense. It’s a fair argument that they can do that if they wish but there is no incentive to become that. Quite the opposite actually.
If I can make a purchase or get a subscription through Apple I always do because I know it will be infinitely easier to cancel and I won’t have to deal with any shady billing from sites that store your card info. I don’t understand why Apple can’t require their payment methods but also allow the option for external payment. Apple should position themselves like American Express: maybe a touch more expensive but worth it for the peace of mind and ease of getting assistance.
I think the solution is for Apple to require that all payments at least have the option of being made through the app store payment system, while allowing developers that want to take the time and effort to set up outside payments do that as well.
Consumers can continue to use app-store payments if they wish (and I bet the vast majority would), but developers and companies can no longer complain about Apple's monopoly over payment processing.
Security and peace-of-mind, as the other commenter requested. Convenience - already having a credit card linked and ready to go.
Also who is to say the developer would charge less? Let's say, for example, a company called ezpay charges $1 per transaction. If an IAP costs $10, they make $7 off the user who buys via Apple, and $9 off the user that buys via ezpay API in the app. They could lower the ezpay price to $8 and still only make $7, but why bother?
Virtually no one is concerned with the security of card payments on non apple processors. They have been typing their card numbers in to stripe/paypal/etc for years.
Only the tiniest % of HN idealists will pay 30% extra to have it go through Apple.
Who is to say the developer would charge less? Let's say, for example, a company called ezpay charges $1 per transaction. If an IAP costs $10, the dev makes $7 off the user who buys via Apple, and $9 off the user that buys via ezpay API in the app. They could lower the ezpay price to $8 and still only make $7, but why bother?
What if the alternatives were PayPal, Amazon Pay, Google Pay, Steam, etc. ? Would you not similarly trust those payment processors?
Also, it should be telling that if you are using an App which only offers: Sketchy Payment Processor, that the app itself is sketchy, so just go use another app.
Okay but charging fees on in-app purchases as a pretty high percentage of the purchase amount is ridiculous and basically just a moneymaking racket with no real justification, that they do just because they can and they already have a stable base of customers who are unlikely to switch to a competitor (Android is the only competitor).
Flat per-transaction fees to cover operating costs is more acceptable. But Apple might make less money in that scheme. On the other hand, more developers might be willing to write apps for iOS if they weren't getting gouged by such high Apple Store fees, so Apple might even come out ahead if they reformed their pricing and payments policy.
Nothing would stop you from limiting yourself to apps that only use Apple's ecosystem, but what is the reason to stop others from installing apps that are using other ecosystems on their iOS devices?
Why not just require whether or not it is going through apple to be prominently displayed, and you can only use the apple App Store then, and allow other people to use other payment processors if they trust them?
The co-working workspace has security implications.
Also I think the current setup is working to a large extent because everyone is remote and playing field is even. It will be somewhat complicated after half the team is on-site and other half is not.
i’ll just continue to work for a company with the ability and desire to deal with those security issues, and whatever other problems my preferred way of working causes, since it makes me a happier and more productive employee. plus, in my experience, when you work from home, you don’t have to deal with an asshole control freak boss, since almost all of those don’t allow work from home in the first place, given a choice. ipso facto, one of the benefits of working from home is the opportunity to work under “better” management.
What ? Seems like I am better of without a union if I am getting more pay?. Also where is the conversation around building a better product to add more value in this union debate?
You're getting more pay for a wild variety of reasons ( VC inflation, a lot of things that pay has to compensate for, etc.), nothing to do with unions.
In France, it's mandatory for companies with more than 50 employees to have workers council and that has to be consulted on serious decisions ( changing offices, firing people, layoffs, etc.) and has some limited negotiation power. They negotiate company-wide policies (accord) on behalf of the employees that have to be at least as good as the branch-wide policies ( convention collective) - e.g. all workers in media companies get 20 days extra vacation because that's what the branch collective bargaining agreement says.
Furthermore, oftentimes ( sometimes it's mandatory), there are profit sharing schemes, e.g
in my company 1% of the profits is shared among the employees, so your incentives are directly aligned with the company ( it comes to around a salary's worth of a bonus, so it's decent).
If they do, it's going to drive out tech employers from the UK just as employers in the UK primary and manufacturing sectors were driven out or bankrupted in the 1970s after their work forces unionized.
> Also your comment doesn't really point out specific flaws in their argument. All you do is tack insulting words onto it without any meaningful substance.
The disturbing part about these bans is they seem to be done unilaterally if not coordinated by private for profit tech companies.
Drifting from the original comment here but:
Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... what message does that send to the other world leaders?.
Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
> Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states...
Note that “ban” here is “from using their respective platforms”.
> what message does that send to the other world leaders?
That private parties operating in the US with the freedom provided by its Constitution may choose not to amplify their speech despite their position of authority?
> Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
Last I checked, the freedom of speech and the press meant you didn't need to be elected to a position of government authority to have the right to decide what messages you were willing to use your resources to amplify.
Or they don’t really care where a skilled worker comes from... we should be able to higher and attract best and brightest across the world. Current immigration system is not setup for that.
Yes, not saying Doom isn't awesome, just that it would be nice to have games where you just fight without worrying about any distractions.
e.g. instead of hunting for keys or cards or levers, or trying to spot secret entrances, they could replace that "artificial" complexity with improved monster AI: Learning enemy patterns and having the enemy learn ours in turn, using a destructible environment to dodge or assist attacks, and figuring out how to deceive their virtual senses (like throwing an object to distract them) and so on.
This is not about minimum wage. It’s about gig work. There is quite a few people who like to do this part time. I think the real crux of the issue is health benefits. If you are not working full time you don’t get health insurance and that drives most laws like these which seem misdirected.
I think that's where a lot of people really overlook this. I'd be curious to see the percentages of 'full time' drivers vs gig drivers. Plenty of drivers I know just work this a couple hours a day to help cover cost of a new car or for beer money. It's not intended to support full time work. Like a small protein bar isn't meant to be a meal replacement. I wonder if Uber/Lyft should have fought the amount of time or rides that somebody can complete per day as a means to keep it really classified as a gig whereas they've set themselves up by allowing people to attempt to be full time drivers.
These are all for profit companies. It’s a bit utopian to suggest anything else would be better without providing any specific alternatives.