[stale2002]

> the 15% fee

Huh. It's almost like pressuring apple with legal action forced them to lower their fees. That's pretty nice. Sounds like we need to more of that.

> pretend they are relevant.

It is relevant because it supports my general point that every loss for apple, is one less thing that they can do, and that there are a bunch of ways that they are being attacked, on many fronts.

Apple has to win on everything, or it is a loss, compared to nothing happening.

> It’s unlikely to pass judicial review

People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.

These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere, that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.

> that make life harder for smaller developers

Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

[zepto]

> People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.

Don’t be silly. The bill only passed committee last week. Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course.

> These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere,

No they aren’t.

> that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.

That remains to be seen.

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course

Which means that you have absolutely no justification for the law being illegal. You just don't like it, and are reaching for whatever things that you can, without any justification.

> That remains to be seen.

This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Because if you had good arguments you would have said them.

So I have no idea why you are making these strong claims that it is very unlikely that it will pass constitutional review, when your only justification is "that remains to be seen".

> No they aren’t.

Yes they are. Go look up the EU tech laws that they are attempting to pass. They include a similar provision, that would force other app stores on the platform.

You are pretty misinformed if you didn't know that there was a big EU tech law, that they are attempting to write and pass right now.

[zepto]

The points you were responding to are just rebuttals of your own claims of legal knowledge.

> This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Saying my argument is something I didn’t write is just a dishonest and lazy move. What I wrote isn’t code for anything. You seem to be unable to handle my points as they were written.

You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> What I wrote isn’t code for anything.

Since you are not quick on the uptake to figure out what I was saying, I will spell it out explicitly.

When I said it was a "code", I didn't literally mean that you were speaking in code, like some sort of cryptographic secret language. Instead I was making fun of you, for asserting that the laws were illegal, without any actual justification.

You originally stated "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review". And you just asserted it. With no justification.

And then later, when I pressed you on it, your only justification, for why you think these laws are illegal is "That remains to be seen.". Which isn't an argument for why the laws might be illegal.

I was assuming that when you said "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review", that you might actually have a reason for why you think the law is illegal, other than "That remains to be seen.". But I guess I was wrong on thinking that you had a reason.

You had no actual reason or justification, for why these laws could be illegal, even though there are multiple laws, attempting to be passed in all sorts of countries, such as the EU, which you were wrong about.

You just said it was illegal, and said we'll have to wait to find out, lol. Thats not a reason, because you don't have any.

[zepto]

I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time. Remember the proposal hasn’t come before either house yet. Imagining the law is an instantaneous process seems misguided.

So you’ve now wasted comment after comment merely ‘making fun of’ that opinion without adding any substance. I assume that’s because you aren’t really sure of your position.

Perhaps this is just bluster to distract us from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.

So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".

And before you say it, when I said that Quote, I am not literally saying that you said those words, instead I am saying how you didn't give a reason, and just asserted that it was illegal, with no justification.

> So you’ve now wasted comment

When you make a completely unsubstantiated comment, with no justification, it is important to keep it on point, so that you don't just shrug your shoulders and ignore it. Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.

You similarly disagreed with me, that there were other countries trying to pass similar laws, by just saying "no they aren't", when actually they are, and you can easily google these EU laws that people are writing.

When you keep on making completely false statements like that, it is important to point out, so that you are aware of how little you know about this topic.