If you think the purpose of living your one single life in the universe is to become a CEO, you have a failure of imagination and should likely be debanked to protect society.
Calling it anti-competitive ignores the reality: Apple built and maintains the entire iOS ecosystem (hardware, software, security, developer tools, everything). The new EU-compliant model does allow sideloading and external payments, but with reasonable fees to help support that infrastructure. That’s not abuse; it’s Apple defending the integrity of its platform while still giving developers and users more choice. No one is forced to use iOS, but if you do, it’s fair that Apple sets the terms for its own system.
Apple gets payment when people buy their phones, are you suggesting that the cost of those things are not built into that cost? Especially considering how much they make on certain things such as storage increases?
Are you suggesting the cost of an iPhone is not able to cover the minimal updates made to the phone over the lifetime of it? How do the justify the cost of the Mac App Store fees? When they put zero effort in to it?
I did used to write software professionally and no, we traditionally charged per update but each update was significant and worthwhile. Any bugs or safety issues were of course fixed for free. We never moved to the subscription model which has in my view instigated these methods. I am not of the view each iOS update is significant. Now I occasionally have to write software for my current role but it isn't the main job and I release it for free as it is quite niche and I would prefer it is out there.
If the ongoing costs are a problem, they should charge a subscription to have continued access to the app store. Or a subscription fee for their operating system updates.
Disney boasts a diverse array of partnerships across various industries, and I believe that this specific collaboration won't adversely impact Disney's already formidable alliance with Apple. On the contrary, there's reason for enthusiasm regarding the possibility of Disney venturing into new territories where they haven't historically been prominent players. The prospect of Disney making substantial investments in these uncharted areas could lead to exciting developments and innovations, further strengthening their overall position in the market.
Oversimplified negativity towards Disney and Epic Games doesn't capture their diverse contributions. A more nuanced view and consideration of both positives and negatives is advisable.
I agree that you can't make this that simple, you never know what will happen. But I have been in the game business as a developer/ publisher / whatever for decades and worked for Disney. Disney more then any other company I know of (maybe except EA) has squandered its opportunities and acquisitions in the game space consistently. Disney Interactive has died and been recreated I think three times in my career. If I started to make a list of all the game companies or game adjacent (Maker Studio) I probably would miss a bunch. And none of them worked. Disney has a really strong culture that has not in the past fit well with the video game business.
Correct, I forgot that. They never launched them as a free accessory for guests to help with payments/room key/FastPass/admission/data collection though, like MyMagic+ at Disney World. They are mostly a wearable ticket now (and I presume they can be used as room keys/payments at Disneyland too, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been there).
Yes, that's generally correct. If you were to toss a solar mass of water into the sun, it would become fuel for the sun's fusion reactions. Fusion reactors work in a similar way, but on a much smaller scale. They use fuel, typically hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and helium, and use intense heat and pressure to fuse the atoms together, releasing a large amount of energy in the process.
