Apple, App Store, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers discussed on Upgrade



I we had the one link right. That was the first thing to happen. And now it's the blanket you can't linked to external payments sources From from apps. That sounds like that may be going away. They may be allowed to require in that purchase by apple to also be available which which is interesting because like if you're amazon sign in with apple kind of thing right the the you can have them but you have to show all of them. But that's the case of your amazon. And you wanna put links to kindle books in there do you just add thirty percent to the at purchase and then let people choose. I don't i don't know what all the ramifications of this are and my guess is that it's going to be much more complicated than everybody saying now but we need to mention it because this news this is massive news. It is what what is now. We can laugh about apple's batting themselves on the back for winning the case thing but like this will change the app store forever. I in some way maybe to be determined but in some way. But also apple's not wrong in this sense which is judge yvonne gonzalez rogers specifically said that the market that epic is fighting about is the digital mobile gaming transaction market epic wanted to define the market as essentially iphone transactions. And that would have meant. That apple is a monopolist because apple has the monopoly on iphone transactions and the judge said. No that's not it. What this is is a digital gaming market and epic has maximized its revenue everywhere else. And so this is what's left to it so it's trying to maximize its revenue here. Which is clearly what was going on. But the judge basically said no. Apple's not a monopoly you know just being successful does not make monopoly. But it's still going to have a knock on effect on the app store and the app store rules and honestly this goes into those who said apple strategy of fighting everything and then allowing incremental change to happen only when they lose or settle or have a law passed against them. You look at this and you say well maybe this is. I mean this is what they're expecting is that they're gonna lose some little bits but like they're not gonna lose their thirty percent and they're not going to be called a monopolist but they have to change the rules a little bit in ways that will probably not be as liberal as people think they are when all is put out there You could argue that from apple's perspective. This is a desirable result that that all the other threats didn't happen. This might be a best was case scenario for them right. Yeah i mean well in fact you could argue that. Depending on how pragmatic the people are inside apple. They knew that there was there. Were going to be up against it with some of their app store rules. They were just hoping that it would only be those and it allows them to go out and say all right. You're right we've heard you and we're going to be more fair while they're internally saying really we only had to give you the one thing not these other four things. We dodged a bullet there right like it can be seen as a loss for apple because they are going to have to do this opening up of app store rules but it depends on like did apple really think they were not going to have to change. I think internally. They probably expected that they were. They may look at this and realize that this is actually a better than expected ruling for them. But either way it's going to be a big deal and the way the way apps work is going to change and the way the economy of the app store works is going to change at least in some cases and that should be interesting to watch. Because it's been pretty static for the last decade. It's about time in my opinion Yeah we're gonna oversee kibera on this. We'll talk about it and a couple of weeks once. We have a lot more details than we have now But this was definitely worth mentioning. Something else was mentioning saint jude dog. Slash relay Please go and donate can go through the whole thing today. You hear about that again on monday. But i did want to. Just extend an absolutely monumental message. Thank you to every single listener. Here who's donated. We have currently paused. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars raised in this year's campaign which has now put us over one million dollars in the last three years Choose as episode not. Monday's episode next week So i thank you so so much to everybody who's donated so far We still have a way to go. Continue to be getting your donations in for the kids to saint jude. A saint jude dot org slash relay and toget- podcastone on is coming up september seventeenth from twelve to eight. Pm eastern time twitched. Tv especially laugh. Then yeah absolutely very excited about that. And then i will be there for podcast a thon. Plus i've got game shows going on and on this jason snow are apparently. I am sure but i wish it could be there. I wish it could be there but so on my friend so do i. Maybe next time maybe next time it is time for the draft and we must start every job with the reading. The rules threatening the rules their business memo sort of rules this year. You'll get into so we aren't doing ten rounds. Twenty overall picks up temperature's each the draft will be split into three categories. We got four iphone rounds. Three watch rounds. Three other rounds. The winner of the previous draft guest pick fuss. She's jason for an item to count. It must either be clearly announced on stage or on a slight during the presentation and this must be verifiable from the keno video itself cannot be guesswork cannot be expectation it must be shown and clear. Yes this is. This is a slight adjustment because where we got into trouble. Last time was making assumptions about allowing picks to be made about things that couldn't be proven or disproven based on the contents of the keynote. Or in this case you know for keynote read video presentation and the rule here is. It's gotta be it's gotta be on the screen. It's see if it's small print if if it's a thing that flashes on briefly that's fine we can. We can go back in and adjudicate. that and litigate. Litigated that Because everybody loves that as much as we want. But if if it's a a thing that requires further research and pouring over pr and media websites and interviews and stuff like that. That's not in the spirit of this draft. Which has to be everything. That's on screen and everything that's mentioned so Ideally these will be as we go through a picks will decide this but the items that were choosing from should all be verifiable within the keno video. But if if there comes something that's not verifiable then it doesn't count because it has to be the proof must be in the video and i think in the future we're also going to try. I guess is probably most important for. Wc a to to try and create picks. That can't be proven. Yes they comes from all work in the beginning. That's on us. This is not sort of a after the fact we do this. It's sorta like the rule the meta rule about how we construct our lists that we're picking from because items a an item. I'll mention it now. It was later on in the rules. But it's adams are chosen from a predetermined list of choices which we have agreed among other things are not ridiculously obvious. And i'm just adding i'm amending are verifiable on screen and not ridiculously ob- obvious obviously idea here is.

Coming up next