s279's comments

The data might be from an old breach, but the data are also unlikely to change very often, so is more than likely current for a large proportion of those who have been exposed (phone number, date of birth, full name, etc).

You weren’t kidding that they weren’t kidding, I almost vomited.

Some less harsh criticism:

- zigzag circle looks like a visual field migraine before the spinning, cut both replace the logo with something slightly more unique.

- moving text is distracting.

- objects moving left to right and right to left (if you’re dead set on having moving things pick one direction).

- what’s the difference between this and redbubble/zazzle etc?

Their news reporting isn't that bad, but what is bad is the mixing of a large number of editorial pieces that do still wave a neoliberalist flag. I encourage having a look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2... for a decent appraisal of various sources.

I understand, but disagree. They didn’t need to violate the contract for creation of a lawsuit. Hell, they could have terminated their agreement and try to contract with apple without accepting the default agreement.

They had standing the whole time, albeit with a limitation to arbitration at first instance for certain claims, which may have been bypassed on certain grounds anyway.

The temporary restraining order (injunction) application claims they want to be able to post Fortnite on the App Store without scrutiny from Apple and lastly that they regain access to a working developer account for unreal engine.

I recommend watching the virtual legality series on this topic which might interest you on the ins and outs of the legal dispute. The latest episode covering Microsoft is here: https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I

Edit: spelling.

That’s Apple’s prerogative after banning a developer who has violated their contract with them. Otherwise you could have shady developers just create numerous of legal entities to effectively brute force their way on to the store, and Apple would be unable to respond.

This case is less about monopolisation and more about inequality between two parties when settling a contract. Nothing stops Epic from making an Epic phone and doing the same.

Agreed!

Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms.

Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases.

Last I checked Epic, Steam, Origin, uPlay, Google, Amazon, SetApp, most retailers, etc... do the same practice to varying degrees. Shrewd business practice != injustice/anticompetitive practices, just because a company has a large market share or is personally abhorrent to you.

Would a company making an assertion that it wasn't being snooped on before they were actually snooped be guilty of fraud after the fact has changed? Given they can't say they are not being snooped on...