This makes no sense as an explanation. They changed the architecture not to infringe on the patents. So the patents are not stopping them from opening up now.
Apple and Google and any app store provider have the ideal goal of zero friction for real, valuable apps and infinite friction for bad, scam apps. They can never hit that ideal, but when you're getting rage from both ends it's likely that you are in a place on the continuum that is far below ideal—you make it a huge pain for real, valuable apps and too easy for bad, scam apps. This appears to be where the Apple store is, at least, and it's an unfortunate place to be. They may be doing their best, but it sounds like their best has some pretty significant room to improve.
Epic didn't publicly criticize Apple or testify against them in court to get into this situation, they willfully and deliberately broke the legal developer agreement that they signed to get press coverage (they could have filed suit on the anti-steering rules regardless).
Not only did they do this, they then filed suit to say that Apple shouldn't have been allowed to suspend their account—and lost (though arguably won the broader war since anti-steering is currently dead).
There are a ton of things Apple is doing wrong around developer stuff and anti-steering rules and all of it, but I dunno, I feel pretty good about them saying to a specific developer, “actually, you've shown yourself to be willing to ignore the legal agreements you sign, so we're not going to be doing business with you any longer“. Epic's stunt should cost them, if they then want to talk about how they've martyred themselves for developers everywhere. Good work, but a martyr who comes back to life isn't really a martyr, right?
While I don’t claim to know the finer points of the law, I believe the judge was pretty crystal clear that Apple was 100% within their powers to kill the developer account that Epic used to do this.
You can reflect TS types out of it. There are 3rd party libraries to generate JSON Schemas from Zod objects, which is helpful if you have non-TS clients you want to support
Ajv has supported that for at least a couple of years afaik, and consumes JSON Schema natively which is good for consuming other APIs, not just feeding external clients—its base data format is interoperable, basically.
That’s mostly why I’m curious about the lack of mention :)
That seems to show that you have to bring your own types for JSON Schema still, as evidenced by their example both explicitly defining the interface and then passing that it as an argument.
I wasn’t aware however of JSON Type Definitions, which hadn’t been invented last time I released software with Ajv, but it does appear to be able to reflect those as well as validate from them, so thank you for showing me that.
Ah, I think I misunderstood you. Yes, this does mean that you need something else to define the typescript to json schema conversion—either by using another tool or by starting from json schema and getting to the typescript types you want.
Feels like it’s worth that trade off to have a consistent experience consuming other APIs as well, but I could be wrong; I think so far I’ve only used it when I need to consume APIs rather than produce them.
I'm not 100% sure, they most likely scraped the author emails of all NPM packages that (transitively) depend on ajv. Here's the GitHub issue from back then: https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv/issues/1202
Just to make it explicitly clear, I only received one email - reading my earlier comment back, it made it seem like there maybe was more. It could have definitely been worse!
Thesis is a cryptocurrency venture studio whose mission is to empower the individual—we seek, fund, and build products using cryptocurrency and decentralized technology that further this mission. Current and past Thesis projects include Fold (2014), tBTC (2020), Taho (2021), Etcher (2023), Embody (2023), and Thesis Defense (2024). Investors in the company include Andreessen Horowitz, Polychain Capital, and Draper Associates, among others. We are a remote-first company, led by founders who have been operating in the cryptocurrency and web3 space for a decade (actually for a decade ;)).
Our current focus is on building Acre, a Bitcoin-in Bitcoin-out BTC staking platform, and Mezo, an Economic Layer for Bitcoin. Across the board, we are focused on building a new home for Bitcoin holders to cultivate Bitcoin and grow wealth together. Our projects are built with an emphasis on creating something useful with a clear value proposition rather than a perfect technical machine that provides unclear value.
We’re a fun, down-to-earth, fast-paced and highly collaborative team looking to expand our engineering (Go, Solidity, and TypeScript) and product capabilities (amongst other disciplines) and this is where you come in. Join a team that strives for excellence and help us build technology that enables the integrity and empowerment of the individual.
Thesis is a cryptocurrency venture studio whose mission is to empower the individual—we seek, fund, and build products using cryptocurrency and decentralized technology that further this mission. Current and past Thesis projects include Fold (2014), tBTC (2020), Taho (2021), Etcher (2023), Embody (2023), and Thesis Defense (2024). Investors in the company include Andreessen Horowitz, Polychain Capital, and Draper Associates, among others. We are a remote-first company, led by founders who have been operating in the cryptocurrency and web3 space for a decade (actually for a decade ;)).
Our current focus is on building Acre, a Bitcoin-in Bitcoin-out BTC staking platform, and Mezo, an Economic Layer for Bitcoin. Across the board, we are focused on building a new home for Bitcoin holders to cultivate Bitcoin and grow wealth together. Our projects are built with a focus on creating something useful and valuable rather than a perfect technical machine that provides unclear value.
We’re a fun, down-to-earth, fast-paced and highly collaborative team looking to expand our engineering and product capabilities, amongst other disciplines, and this is where you come in. Join a team that strives for excellence and help us build technology that enables the integrity and empowerment of the individual.
The only provider here who is stated to have said they will be complying is Google, right? So not only is singling out cloudflare incorrect, the title itself is incorrect. “French court orders Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco to poison DNS to stop piracy block circumvention” is the correct title for the article contents, possibly with an addendum of Google saying it will comply.
Just to make sure I understand—you're saying that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe that this program did not help people under the poverty line?
Or is it that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe this program was not meant to help people under the poverty line?
Which is to say, can you make your point more precisely?
The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.
> They just use that language to make it more popular.
I agree that sometimes issues are framed that way to get sympathy for a program’s beneficiaries, but I think it’s probably a bad tactic (from a marketing perspective) and an even worse move (from a policy design perspective) when programs are specifically designed to benefit the poor only.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t like to think of themselves as “moochers”, or as in need; they have a reflexive negative attitude toward “welfare recipients”. Better to just make the programs universal, and to advertise them as universal; when everybody benefits, so do the poor, but it’s no longer a wedge issue, it’s just something we’re proud of that our society does. People who go to public school are just normal people. Yes, public school happens to benefit the poor. The fact that rich people can also send their kids to public school is not a problem, though, and it would hurt public school to frame it as something for the poor.
Yeah I agree with this. I'd prefer a society of mostly "self-reliant" people, but those days have long passed. We live under a welfare state, and we pay so much in tax that we might as well get some free services out of it.
Unfortunately, the main recipients of government welfare in this country are the big government contractors. The rest goes to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. So there's no money left for anyone else. Furthermore, the money that does go out is all borrowed, which we have to pay back with interest. We are so screwed.
What evidence do you have that erroneous benefits are the only thing driving excess cost?
Do you feel that correcting the errors can be done with no cost whatsoever?
We can argue about where that break point is, but the break point absolutely exists. There is a level of verification / enforcement that will cost more than what you're getting back through reduction of erroneously distributed benefits.
Congrats to this thread for intelligently considerately tugging at the thread here.
I have such a hard time staying so level. It's so obvious to me what a a benefit internet connectivity is to this nation. Giving families access will set people on far better paths, will have economic returns for the nation. The costs here seem not bad. I'm definitely not worried about a couple arguably less deserving people getting access, especially given the relatively minor pay-out involved. It seems obviously not worth it to care so intensely about some borderline cases of oh you make $62k now (or whatever), sorry you are cut off now.
Ideally we would be figuring out how to make connectivity a public utility, as so many municipalities have done over the world, greatly reducing cost and increasing speed. But in America we keep having to pay businesses to do things at enormous costs, protect their absurd profit margins, because in part there's so much fear & angst around government & public ownership.
It's actully a 15 year old law (in it's current name, originally from 1958). From the article:
> Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')
This argumentation is probably being based on generic anti trust law ... and the DMA is a new specialization below it. Does not mean that you violated past law just because new law is also applicable to you.
