Epic direct payment on mobile - <AUTHOR> https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent <comment><USER3> This puts Apple in a very tough spot. Last week, Tim Cook was questioned in an antitrust hearing re: Apple's anticompetitive practices (along with Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai). The spotlight is already pointing right at them, so any move they make here is going to be noticed by lawmakers.

If they remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple will probably be seen as the bad guy. After all, Epic is not taking anything off the top here; they make the same amount of money whether consumers choose to purchase through the App Store or through Epic's direct payment system.

If they keep Fortnite on the App Store, they're going to need to make a rule change to allow alternative payment methods within apps. One of Apple's main defenses during antitrust hearings was that App Review applies rules fairly and consistently. If they don't change the rules, that argument falls dead in the water.

Epic leadership knows that this is going to cause a firestorm. I'm happy that a large company with market power decided this was the right time to do this. I doubt Apple and Epic worked together on this; there's no way that this doesn't completely embarrass Apple and its App Store policies.

It will be exciting to see how this plays out, but my bet is that this is going to lead to a huge win for Apple developers.

<comment><USER4> I'm scared of that though. Although on one end I would like to buy my kindle books straight from the app and play xcloud games, I'm thinking of the dodgier companies.

Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long.

I want Apple to be forced to come up with a fairer solution (eg: same api, but different payment provider) rather than being strong-armed into getting rid of the current protection from dodgy apps abusing dark ux pattern.

<comment><USER5> All Apple has to do to fix this is allow sideloading. They don't need to change the App Store's rules—they can make them more stringent, actually—and you can set up your child's phone to block non-App-Store installations. Heck, Epic would probably cave and accept the cost to keep Fortnite in the App Store; they tried to go around Google Play, and it seemingly didn't work out.

<comment><USER6> The main reason I use an iPhone is that it doesn't allow side loading out side of development applications and has a curated closed store.

I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on including knowing that little to no one can side load a malicious application onto the device.

I'm also very well aware of the fact that while Apple scalps developers it's also the reason why my devices get security updates for 6 years while Google can't provide updates after 2.

<comment><USER7> Sorry but I'm not sure you understand how sideloading works on Android. You have to enable it explicitly for any app you want to sideload from (eg. your browser for a downloaded app, or an alternative app store like F-Droid). Afterwards, every app installation still needs to be manually approved and thus cannot be done hidden in the background. Seems pretty safe to me while still allowing more freedom to power users.

<comment><USER8> ...and then a ton of apps decide "screw the app store, I'm going solo!" and people start enabling sideloading so they can try those apps, then sideloading becomes normalized and malware starts to spread without Apple having the ability to prevent it. Users who have issues with apps start hitting up Apple's support lines, and they start getting pissed off when Apple says "Sorry we can't help you, go talk to the developer. Not that we know who they are, and maybe you actually don't either, but either way you're on your own."

Plus, developers lose access to a lot of Apple's functionality, like the fact that XCode can upload LLVM bytecode so that Apple can re-optimize through new or updated LLVM backends to deliver optimized versions for new platforms, etc.

Suddenly, all the goodness that's "baked in" to the iPhone experience is gone, and the whole system starts looking like an inconsistent mess compared to the way it was before.

I wonder if some kind of hybrid approach would work; for example, a workflow like this:

1\. Developers develop locally as usual 2\. Developers upload to Apple via XCode as usual 3\. Apple does its standard automated checks (private APIs, etc) 4\. The developer can file for that app to be held "off the store"; this is rejected by Apple for some reasons (like private API usage, malware, etc.) but generally approved. Apps which do this likely lose access to some system APIs (e.g. iCloud storage, IAP) but it's a tradeoff. 5\. The developer can now get an App Store link which they can give to users to find their app on the store. This is the only way to find the app; it doesn't appear in lists, search, "top paid", features, or anything of the sort. 6\. Users get an app that isn't (overtly) malicious and won't definitely break in future OS updates, developers get the infrastructure benefits and automatic updates, Apple can wash their hands of any downstream issues because they know for certain that the user arrived via the developer and can make that clear to the user ("if you have problems, go talk to them. If they're misbehaving, come talk to us.")

This would make the value proposition for most developers pretty clear, but for huge entities like Epic or Microsoft, they can just bypass the system because people can come to them directly.

<comment><USER9> Is what you're describing common on Android though? Among the Android users I know, nobody seems to ever have installed an app outside of Google Play, and in my case there are only a handful of apps that I have installed outside of Google Play or F-Droid, and they are alpha quality FOSS apps that were only distributed from GitHub.

It's not clear to me that what you're describing is actually a problem that happens.

<comment><USER10> This isn't a problem on Android, at least from what I can see. IMO at the small scale the benefits of the play store (payment processing, discoverability, bandwidth, hosting) outweigh anything you could gain by offering your apk for direct download somewhere else.

Plus, even if you try to deploy malware you still need to get through the regular permission dialogs and other bits of Android security. I have no idea how easy/hard this is but I would be surprised if iOS performs substantially worse here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My guess is that this is a gambit to force Apple's hand during a time when there is the most intense antitrust pressure over the App Store since it's launch. If Apple cracks down then it's just more fuel for the antitrust fire, and potentially evidence in court. If they allow it then it's precedent that others can use to employ the same tactic. Either way it seems to me Epic is taking a calculated risk to induce change.

<comment><USER5> Also, the legal standard in the US is laser-focused on whether consumer prices have gone up as a result of a company's practices.

What better demonstration could Epic possibly create of how the App Store leads to price increases?

<comment><USER12> Except that Epic is using the cheaper prices on consoles, where the platform owner is taking a 30% cut. Clearly Epic's pricing isn't actually driven by the app store costs on mobile platforms.

<comment><USER13> Epic doesn't pay Sony and MS 30% for console purchases, as both companies negotiate arrangements with big studios that lowers the rate.

<comment><USER5> Still, it does create a bit of a contradiction. We don't know what Sony and Microsoft charge, but we can reasonably assume it isn't zero, and it's also probably more than whatever Epic pays for their internal payment processing.

Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even _lower_ if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned.

The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence.

More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.

<comment><USER14> AFAIK Sweeney isn't against stores taking a cut he just sees the 30% as egregious.

V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.

<comment><USER5> > V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did > cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game > itself.

Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense.

I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti- competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My money is on Apple cracking down hard on this. It looks clearly as if Epic remotely activated this direct payment option, thereby bypassing Apple's App Review.

Apple will not take kindly to this. Best case scenario for Epic (and Fortnite players): they invite Sweeney in for some hard negotiations. Worst case: Fortnite ends up getting removed from iOS for this.

<comment><USER16> Pull it is exactly what I would do. Apple gets a cut of the paid apps, but $0 from free apps who show ads. Take away getting a cut from the paid apps then free apps suddenly cost the developers money—no more free apps.

Imagine going to Walmart and telling them what you want them to give you all the revenue. Walmart will tell you exactly what they want to pay you, or you can leave.

Maybe 30% is too much, but 0% is a terrible idea.

In the old days before the web I had to pay up to 70% for distribution for my apps. If I was lucky I might get my cut 3-6 months later, plus I had to pay for the packaging and shipping to the warehouse and take it back if they didn't sell enough. 30% seems like a bargain.

<comment><USER17> My god, Apple requiring a price for apps would be best thing that's happened to the mobile environment in AGES.

I'm a mobile game dev and I would sacrifice a child to go back to the days when people would pay 0.99 for a game.

<comment><USER18> Surely all free games currently would just be $0.01?

<comment><USER19> On Apple, the minimum price for anything is $0.99.

You can't set arbitrary prices - only price bands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Does a new payment method on mobile mean purchases there are less safe?

>No. Thousands of apps on the App Store approved by Apple accept direct payments, including commonly used apps like Amazon, Grubhub, Nike SNKRS, Best Buy, DoorDash, Fandango, McDonalds, Uber, Lyft, and StubHub. We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps. [0]

All of these services provide something physical. You can't buy Kindle Books, for example, on Amazon's app on iOS. This a bit disingenuous.

>We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps.

Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?

[0] [https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop- faq](https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop-faq)

<comment><USER21> > Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC > to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?

If you follow Tim Sweeney and Epic's history surrounding "app store cuts", you'd know that they've always stood on the side of developers. The EGS stands among the lowest app store cuts of any marketplace, at 12%, and Tim has become visibly angry during public appearances concerning Apple, Google, etc and their 30% cut.

Additionally, we're talking about a platform that disallows any alternative installation and distribution mechanisms. The PC ecosystem is vibrant, unlike the forced one-app-store on iOS and the defacto-one-app-store on Android. If a developer wants to control their cut on Windows, they can sell via their own site, or itch.io (which allows developers to select what percentage itch.io receives), or Steam and their 30% cut, or wherever they'd like.

<comment><USER22> "Is what's good for the (Apple) goose good for the (Epic Games Store) gander?"

"No, but we'll screw you for less than Steam."

12% may be less than 30%, but it's still the same business practice that they're decrying when it's applied to them. That's hypocrisy.

<comment><USER21> What business practice is that? Providing hosting, distribution, payment processing, and marketing to an audience of millions of customers, then asking for some amount of revenue in return?

The core issues at play with Apple have always been: (1) there's no competition, and (2) 30% is too high. The EGS makes strides in fixing both of these issues: Game developers are not forced to release on EGS, as there are a dozen competitors on Windows, and the revenue share is now 12%. Epic does sign exclusivity deals with third-parties, which often have multi-million dollar values to them (they paid ~$10M to Remedy for one-year exclusive rights to Control); again, while we can argue about the negative impact this has on consumers, its very positive for developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Epic is declaring war on app store fees and other monopolistic app store practices. Tim Sweeney (no relation) has been a very vocal opponent of the app store practices of Apple and Google. He views them as monopolistic and anti- competitive.

[https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128961139770219724...](https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1289611397702197248)

[https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128922755043103129...](https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1289227550431031296)

[https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128852123070273945...](https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1288521230702739457)

My inside sources tell me that this move is intended to start a legal battle with Apple and Google.

I really love Epic.

</comment><comment><USER24> Maybe the Apple cut is too high, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take some cut. They are providing the distribution platform to get your app to millions of users, it's not free for them to provide that service. They have their own server, bandwidth and employee costs too.

<comment><USER25> They forbid you from using any other distribution mechanism on their device, though. The only reason Apple has to pay for App Store overhead for every single app is because Apple mandated it that way.

<comment><USER26> It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. Don't like Apples App Store buy an Android. Don't like Apple's App Store build an app for Android, Web, Console, or PC. No one is forced to make games for Apple. If I build a store and sell goods out of it, I set the terms, no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits. Just because the platform is successful doesn't mean you HAVE to have access to it at all or especially on the terms you want. I don't like that I can't just submit a game to the switch store or that they get a cut, no one is claiming it's a monopoly. There is literally no difference other then Apple has been very successful at it.

<comment><USER27> You seem young and naive....

For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games.

Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased.

It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all...

So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.

<comment><USER26> You seem condescending and annoying....

I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.

<comment><USER28> The way you describe it here actually makes them sound pretty similar. Isn't Windows Microsoft's platform?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ballsy, I love it. Hopefully it can be used as evidence in any antitrust actions against Apple, in the US or abroad. It's clear that Apple's behavior negatively impacts consumer pricing.

</comment><comment><USER30> I love how they are "passing the savings down to us" from a non existing digital item that they set the price of.

Ugh.

Anyway, this should be absolutely fascinating to watch how the antitrust cases against the app stores go!

<comment><USER31> > a non existing digital item

That's a weird thing to read in a place populated by software people.

<comment><USER32> I'm sure you don't have to look too far to find someone who believes all software should be free (and open source).

<comment><USER33> Sure, but that doesn't mean this is how all software should be…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Tim Cook vs Tim Sweeney, this is a serious round, with possible big implications for many developers and companies.

In the end, both Epic and Apple are big corporations that should not be blindly trusted, but my money is on Sweeney, I have greater faith in the uber- nerd vs the perfect production manager.

<comment><USER35> >I have greater faith in the uber-nerd vs the perfect production manager.

I have greater faith in the company with over $200 billion cash on hand, that can throw a ton of money at a long drawn out court battle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Finally someone stands up to the monopolists!

<comment><USER37> Right, another monopolist trying to fill their garden. Epic is literally buying the companies behind long established games, removing game support for alternative OSes, and eventually only allowing access from "the epic store".

No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.

<comment><USER38> To be fair to Epic, they are/were offering developers a better deal than Steam. And they've done far more for gaming over the past decade than Valve, which hasn't been able to successfully innovate in the last two.

<comment><USER39> However, they're not offering ME a better deal.

Let's see:

\- games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take

\- they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)

\- their store still doesn't have a shopping cart (i may not be current on this)... reeks of incompetence? Can you trust them with your credit card info?

\- they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.

\- btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?

\- Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.

Do you really think that if the Epic Store somehow manages to "win", it will be better for us _customers_ in any way?

It's sad that the only entity fighting Apple's monopoly is... another would be monopolist.

<comment><USER40> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.

Windows only is fine. From a purely pragmatic point of view, other platforms are such a small fraction of the gaming market, it really doesn't make sense to support them. Companies have tried supporting OSX and Linux for years (decades?) now, but there just aren't enough players to justify it (much less than 5%).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Epic paying developers for exclusivity. There is fundamentally nothing different about that than Valve selling their own first-party game exclusively on their own store (Half-life, Portal, DOTA, etc).

If you don't know about Epic's contributions to gaming, then you're just out of touch. Fortnite is a huge deal, but there's also stuff like Gears of War, and of course Unreal Engine 4 itself.

I absolutely do think if Epic wins, it will be better both for consumers and game developers like myself. I don't think you understand the mindset of Tim Sweeney if you think he is super monopolist.

<comment><USER39> > Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other > storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.

Hmm why isn't Epic the games developer suing Valve for that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Epic is conveying that the 30% cut on App Store was raising the prices. But Xbox and PlayStation has the same cut, yet Epic has lower pricing on these platforms.

<comment><USER42> Are you sure Epic hasn't negotiated some sort of deal with Xbox and playstation to lower the cut to a more reasonable rate given their volume of transactions.

<comment><USER41> That I'm not sure. Do you have any sources?

<comment><USER42> To clarify, I work in the gaming industry and I've heard rumors of large publishers negotiating better terms when they get to a certain magical number of transactions/gross rev. I'm not sure I've read any reporting on it. The sources I heard this from would have been in a position to know but, I can't really point to any hard data. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true. I've heard it can be as low as 10-15% but again I don't have any evidence on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> How are they justifying this? A linked blog post goes into more detail: [https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing- epi...](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing-epic-direct- payment-on-mobile;) but it seems like they are extending the payment processing tools which they built for web to mobile. There are loopholes but not clear which one they're claiming to use (if any).

<comment><USER44> Fixed URL: [https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing- epi...](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing-epic-direct- payment-on-mobile)

The ; at the end of yours breaks it

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> It looks like Apple has already pulled fortnite from the app store

<comment><USER46> Source?

<comment><USER47> [https://mobile.twitter.com/markgurman/status/129398406972263...](https://mobile.twitter.com/markgurman/status/1293984069722636288)

Their app store link doesn't work [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fortnite/id1261357853](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fortnite/id1261357853)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Yeah I wonder they did a backroom deal with Apple and Google. These backroom deals that Apple/Google are doing is so anti competitive for small app developers and they keep on stressing that they are helping millions of developers. If this is not unfair I don't know what is.

<comment><USER17> Even if they did this is now an argument that the app store review process is not "fairly applied" which will be noticed in the current environment.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Curious how this will play out because they explicitly bypass both Google and Apple

<comment><USER49> From the announcement, V-Bucks are 20% cheaper (... when purchased from epicstore I guess...).

So, you use your browser, login to epicstore with your account, purchase v-bucks at 20% discount and you use those v-bucks in all Epic Games regardless the platform.

<comment><USER50> It's not an issue that [insert digital good here] is cheaper on the seller's website than in the Apple App Store. What Apple prohibits you from is telling your client that the [insert digital good here] is available for purchase somewhere else or that there's a special kind of a markup on the App Store option.

<comment><USER51> I don't think that's entirely true. Apps can use SMS or open the OS browser to accept payments and not be in direct violation of the guidelines.

<comment><USER50> > _Apps can use SMS or open the OS browser to accept payments and not be in > direct violation of the guidelines._

Which apps are allowed to open the browser for payments? I don't think even Netflix isn't allowed to do it. They just say "You can't make an account in the app" (paraphrasing) on the sign in page.

<comment><USER51> I'm under the impression anything done outside the app doesn't really fall under App Review territory. Embedding a UIWebView is considered in-app, and an embedded SFSafariViewController has slightly different rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Fortnite has been removed from the App Store as a result.

Things are about to get interesting.

</comment><comment><USER53> Meanwhile, other apps get banned for having donation buttons.

</comment><comment><USER54> If you squint, this is kind of like the deal that Apple made with Amazon so that you can use your card-on-file with Amazon to rent videos via Prime Video: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/apple-agreement-with- amazon-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/apple-agreement-with-amazon-lets- you-rent-movies-through-prime-video.html)

</comment><comment><USER55> > PERMANENT DISCOUNTS

That's a bold promise if Apple shuts the practice down. Will need to go back on the promised permanency or take the loss.

<comment><USER56> It's their own virtual currency they're selling, which can only be used in a store they control. I wouldn't be surprised if they raise the prices of items sometime in the future.

Also, if a significant amount of purchase volume comes from iOS users, this could save them money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Tencent will pay to fight this in court forever. Sad to be hoping for epic/tencent to succeed but apples policies are worse.

</comment><comment><USER58> Epic: Apple employs anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices, and we're fighting against that!

Also Epic: We'll be locking as many games as we can afford behind Epic Store exclusive contracts since our store isn't good enough to compete with Steam on functionality or price.

<comment><USER59> Epic isn't forcing developers to put their game on the Epic store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> EDIT: interesting, I just found this tweet ([https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293903865557979136](https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293903865557979136)) that mentions other companies like McDonalds and Starbucks are also exempt

Indeed this is huge, well it will be huge if the app is still in the store by tomorrow ... I wonder what apple will do? I wonder if apple greenlighted this? If they didn't get this greenlighted, I wonder how they bypassed the Apples app review process (in app updates instead of a store update?)?

I can't wait to see how all of this unfolds, years ago I was part of a team that built a music app that got refused in the app store because we had included payments via a credit card processor, bypassing the 30% apple tax and today I'm in the process of building another app which is impacted by this … I also imagine companies like spotify are following this very closely

<comment><USER61> There's a difference between offering physical goods (like McDonalds and Starbucks) vs. digital goods. Both Google and Apple don't allow circumventing their payment mechanism for anything digital (e-books, music, etc.), while showing some lenience for physical ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Per the App Store Review guidelines: [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#una...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#unacceptable) If payment is taken IN the app, not using Apple Pay, and not to an approved non-profit, it's in direct violation and should be removed.

I've had to update multiple apps that took donations, in order to pay for development work, and Apple absolutely won't let that fly anymore. On Apple's behalf, this unacceptable, illegal, and infuriating. I might consider joining a class-action lawsuit like this one: [https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple- dev/201...](https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple- dev/2019-06-04-complaint-apple-developers.pdf)

<comment><USER62> Unless you're Amazon, in which case you're absolutely allowed to sell digital goods (e.g. movies, TV shows) without using In-App Purchases. The rules are unfairly applied.

<comment><USER63> Are you sure about that? I just checked and I was not able to buy digital goods using the amazon app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This looks great for the future, balsy for sure, but like Hey did. Change is on the way!

</comment><comment><USER65> If fortnite had an alternative payment method that wasn't exposed in the iOS app (e.g. only on the web, but you would buy credits that you could use in the app) then I don't see how Apple would have a leg to stand on.

</comment><comment><USER66> Epic already had a lawsuit ready for this:

[https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293994211621167105](https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293994211621167105)

</comment><comment><USER67> The Apple/antitrust angle has been covered, but this Direct payment bypass also affects Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Google. Won't they take issue with it as well?

<comment><USER68> Apparently the cuts that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo take are already acceptable to Epic. The announcement says that those users are getting the discount automatically without taking any action.

 _Starting today, any V-Bucks or real-money offers you purchase on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, PC, and Mac are now discounted by up to 20%. You don't need to do anything!_

<comment><USER21> Additionally, there's two lines in the article:

> If Apple or Google lower their fees on payments in the future, Epic will > pass along the savings to you.

and

> Do you play Fortnite on Android, but don't purchase through Google Play? No > problem! You'll find that V-Bucks and real-money offers are now discounted > by up to 20% through the Epic Games app at epicgames.com and the Samsung > Galaxy Store.

Both of which strongly hint to the idea that its specifically the rates the Play/App Store charge at issue here, and they likely received discounted rates on competing storefronts by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Curious what Epic would do if game developers started offering an option in their games to just not pay the 5% Unreal Engine tax and passed the savings onto consumers.

<comment><USER70> 1\. Big gulf between 5% and 30% 2\. Epic doesn't own your customers 3\. You don't have to use Unreal Engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> And Fortnite just got removed from the App Store.

<comment><USER72> [https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple- fortnite-i...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios- app-store-violations-epic-payments)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> If I'm a small developer, how can I process payments directly without having to pay the fee to another provider?

</comment><comment><USER74> Isn't the cut 70% for inapp purchases? I'm all for this, but there seems to be a 10% gap?

<comment><USER75> Right, the implication to me is that Epic believes a 10% fee is reasonable since they say on their website they'll lower prices if Apple lowers its fees.

So if Apple reduced fees to 10%, the price to pay with Apple would be the same as it is through Epic direct pay. In other words, Epic doesn't expect a 0% fee.

<comment><USER76> This lines up well with their model for the Epic Games Store on PC - <USER2> keeps 12% and for games based on Unreal Engine they waive royalties when the copy is sold through their store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I wonder if the only reason for having "both" payment systems in place, is some kind of unwritten rule (or secret handshake between Epic Games and their Apple account manager of some sorts) that will allow them to keep Fortnite on the app-store!

</comment><comment><USER78> Reminder: Tencent owns 40% of Epic.

[https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent- has-...](https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-invested- in/)

Their dumping power can be almost limitless.

</comment><comment><USER79> Is it against Apple terms to be offering multiple payment methods?

</comment><comment><USER80> Couldnt the title be "Epic Direct Payment" on Mobile?

</comment><comment><USER70> Shots fired. Optimal time to strike right after the hearings.

</comment><comment><USER81> Apple ain't gonna like this!</comment>


MyLG – Network Diagnostic Tool - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mehrdadrad/mylg <comment><USER2> hping from remote node would be hilarious, but it looks like it silently fails :(

<comment><USER3> Can you explain me more details?</comment></comment>


Yahoo Launches New Screen App  - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/yahoo-launches-yahoo-screen-on-mobile/

<comment><USER2> Dear Techcrunch, Please enlarge the thumbnail when the user clicks on it. Also, I like the news you deliver. Thanks. John</comment>


Using C# dynamic keyword to create Dynamic Repositories - <AUTHOR> http://www.mindscapehq.com/blog/index.php/2011/04/26/dynamic-repositories-in-lightspeed/

<comment><USER2> This is evil, and unnecessary. If you don't want to expose an IQueryable for whatever reason, and you don't want to write separate methods for each query, use static reflection. But please, don't abuse dynamic like this.

<comment><USER3> It may be unnecessary, but I don't think it's an abuse. As I understand it, frameworks like Rails use idioms like this quite extensively, and enabling code written in static languages to receive dynamic member calls is pretty much the point of having DynamicObject in the .NET framework.

That said, it's probably more relevant if you need to call the repository from DLR languages. And in that case you might as well choose to write the repository class in the DLR language, which will presumably have native support for dynamic method resolution.</comment></comment>


The end of the housing supply debate (maybe) - <AUTHOR> http://cityobservatory.org/the-end-of-the-housing-supply-debate-maybe/ <comment><USER4> That there was ever a debate at all is still astounding. Economics has fuzzy areas, but basic principles of supply and demand are very well-established. It's clearly nonsensical to imagine that we can simultaneously lower prices, limit supply, and allow for demand growth. The longevity of this bizarre idea demonstrates how strongly political ideas of how the world _ought_ to work blind us to how the world _does_ work. We'd do well to take the wool from our eyes in other contentious disputes.

<comment><USER5> It is perplexing to me why the burden of proof was ever placed on "increasing supply decreases prices" when the mechanism by which rent control + limiting construction is supposed to benefit anyone besides those already occupying those units is totally unclear.

I don't even think it's "ought" vs "does" \- it's more NIMBY interests being more ingrained into local politics allowing them to somehow gaslight everyone into thinking the laws of supply and demand don't apply to housing.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, it's not about economics or politics at all.

People who live in an area want policies that will benefit them at the expense of newcomers, full stop.

And when you concentrate value and therefore power in those existing landowners to an extreme degree, you get a political feedback loop strong enough to overpower something as trivial as reality. After all, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

<comment><USER7> Here in the Denver area, we have a lot of people moving here for good jobs, strong economy, etc. The locals bitch and moan endlessly.

A lady the other night at a dinner party was, in the same conversation, complaining about the "high-density" (townhouses, but she acted as if they were high-rises) housing being built in the area, and moved on to whining about how her daughter was priced out of a home in the area.

I stopped myself.

<comment><USER8> I can absolutely believe that would happen. Also interesting to watch the debate around conditional removal of the parking requirements for new builds. You see people that complain about lack of affordable housing, but also demand a parking lot/structure for every new building - these things are in conflict.

I do understand the bitching & moaning. I remember, and miss, the days when there wasn't a standing jam on I-25 every single Saturday, you could show up at a trailhead later than 8 AM and actually find parking, or rent a nice apartment in Wash Park for $600. But then I'm an immigrant too, so I don't have much moral authority to tell the more-recent immigrants to GTFO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > . . it has become an article of faith that building market-rate housing > raises rents, rather than lowers them. The logic of Econ 101 — that an > increase in supply lowers price — is alien to many progressives, both in the > Bay Area and around the country.

Pretty much. I'm progressive on a lot of issues but many public-interest minded people are immune to economic realities. The example about subsidized versus market-rate housing is a great one. Subsidized housing reducing displacement twice as effectively as a market-rate house sounds great. But put another way: permitting two market-rate houses that bring in tax additional tax revenue is as effective as building a subsidized unit, which costs the government a bunch of money.

The "trickle down" effect is also real.

> Building more market rate housing isn't so much about "trickle down" as it > is building enough new housing to keep higher income households from moving > down-market and bidding up the price of older housing that would otherwise > be affordable to moderate and lower income households.

In Chicago, which has never had rent controls, there are tons of high-end highrises going up. But the high-end units there were built in the 1970's and 1980's have been retargeted now as more value offerings.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Affordable, market-rate housing is just old housing that used to be luxury.

It's not that much different from cars. In the US, working class people can largely afford cars, they just buy used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I live in a very interesting area, across the street from me is a different city with housing costs roughly 10x the costs of mine. I am daily confronted with the absurdity of pricing of housing.

In addition as I've watched rents around me rise, and anticipated my own rent rising, I wonder at the expectation that we should continually get less for more. My house isn't getting any newer after all.

If my employer decided to cut my pay by 10 or 20% every year there's no way I would stay, and yet I must admit that I have tolerated this behavior from my landlords.

Unlike commodities or consumables, for which unrestrained markets influenced by collective expectations of supply and demand are not routinely shocking, the expectation that my house, in which I already live, and for which I have been paying consistently for years, suddenly being much more expensive ... well that feels like a hole in the social contract. A problem to be remedied by legislation if the governing societal expectations do not naturally lead to a different equilibrium.

What if the expectation was that if you let someone live in your home you are granting them significant rights, significant stability, and are assuming significant risk of losing money? This set of expectations is well known elsewhere, but not so much where I live.

So while I am willing to be convinced that a humane and equitable improvement to a cities housing situation can be achieved by building more housing, I would hate for legislative restrictions to be ignored as complimentary and beneficial efforts.

<comment><USER12> > _my house ... for which I have been paying consistently for years_

If you are _paying_ for it, not past-tense, then it's not technically _your house_.

The apparently uneven market for real estate is shocking to buyers because of the variability of supply constraints, caused by geography but also in great measure by zoning regulation. The hackneyed refrain of "location, location, location" as the chief determinant of the value of a property illustrates this point.

> _I must admit that I have tolerated this behavior from my landlords._

You have tolerated it precisely because you actually know that the value of property is not fixed. As demand increases while supply does not, the value/price goes up. Clearly you like the location, so you've not moved away. You are part of the demand that is moving prices upward. Your _willingness_ to pay more is precisely what sets the price, along with supply.

> _A problem to be remedied by legislation if the governing societal > expectations do not naturally lead to a different equilibrium._

As the article points out, legislation focused on remedying the problem would relax constraints on supply caused by zoning, regulatory hurdles, etc. But so often the people complaining about the cost of housing are the same people voting to keep supply constrained.

<comment><USER13> There does come a tipping point that most land lords don't like to talk about. When interest rates go so low that the cost of owning your own home is cheaper than renting. This is including all the cost of maintenance, water rates, garbage collection, insurance, taxes, and also property tax's that come with it.

Do be careful when you decide to enter the market as choosing the wrong time can wipe out about 3-4 years savings within 2-3 months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, it sounds like:

1) Building any kind of more housing is beneficial

2) Building subsidized housing is more beneficial than market-rate housing

This leaves me with two questions:

1) Does subsidized have double the effect because you can build twice as many?

2) Zoning laws seem to prevent cheap housing from being cost-effective for developers to build. If you made it possible to build cheap housing (in LA, maybe by reducing parking requirements), would developers be building cheap housing on their own, without prompting / subsidies?

<comment><USER15> In order:

1) Yes.

2) More beneficial in limiting _displacement_ only. No considerations of cost.

Answer 1) Subsidized housing provides more benefit because it provides immediate housing stock at lower prices, replacing any stock lost to luxury construction. It is definitely _not_ cheaper or easier to build more - <USER2> same areas that _need_ subsidized housing are the ones where housing in general is more expensive to build.

Answer 2) Absolutely yes, zoning laws increase the cost of construction, leading to more expensive housing units. Explicit recommendations in favor of more affordable housing include:

A) Removing parking requirements

B) Allowing more density (more floors, smaller required sq. ft per unit - yes, this is a thing, and fewer yards, set-backs, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is something I've been trying to understand for a long time. In New York City because of the rent controls it seems like the market rate has diverged alarmingly from the subsidized rents. From my perspective it seems like this propagates the "Tale of Two Cities" and makes it a much wider leap to go from rent-control or subsidized housing to market-rate. In my naive opinion it seems like in a system without all of the controls in place there may be a more even spectrum of price points and make jumping to the next level of housing easier.

There are other forces at play here too such as foreign buyers speculating on the Manhattan Condo market, look no further then the foreclosure at One57 penthouse to show how it has gotten. I think building more housing at all levels is the best way to solve the affordability crisis, but naturally the higher-end of the market would be built out first due to developers wanting to cater to the highest bidder. The cities current approach of providing tax- incentives to developers to allot a certain portion of housing to affordable housing is seemingly a good strategy to tackle the problem of affordable housing as well as integration.

<comment><USER16> Does anyone know anyone from Starsky robotics? I think it would be interesting to deploy the remote technology used in it's trucks to construction vehicles. Imagine being able to have continuous delivery at construction sites. For example, excavation is a relatively quiet activity that seems like it just requires a back hoe and a dumpster to haul away waste. If we can be able to control these remotely, would we be able to increase the efficiency of construction sites?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This doesn't seem to address high end housing vs (unsubsidized) low end housing. Is a hundred new units with marble countertops as good, holistically, as a hundred with laminate?

I think a lot of the opposition revolves around frustration with developers building luxury when the intent of the given policy was low or mid market units, combined with a belief that units targeted at the needy market segment would be the best solution.

<comment><USER18> There are reasons for developers to prefer to build high-end housing over low- end housing.

1\. City parking requirements drive up the cost of construction to the point that only luxury units would be profitable.

2\. Land acquisition costs (referenced in the article) are high due to zoning laws, so developers prefer to build high-end housing to recoup those costs.

3\. Labor costs the same no matter what you're building (beyond some extra for a marble installer or whatever). Labor cost is a function of cost-of-living in the area, which itself is proportional to housing costs. Since the cost of construction is high, a builder is going to build the highest-value product possible at that cost.

So really all the problems boil down to city regulations, zoning, and unaffordable housing creating more unaffordable housing.

"Trickle-down" is a dirty word in many circles but I think it does apply to a certain extent for housing. Today's luxury apartment is tomorrow's mid-market apartment. If I could get a better apartment than what I have for slightly more rent, I'd probably upgrade, but the difference is stupid high (nearly double). In turn, my current apartment would probably be rented by a middle- income earner if it was located somewhere other than Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER17> It's pretty obvious why luxury development is preferred; anybody, in any market, would prefer to make luxury units.

Yet no other market seems to operate by supplying only luxury units and depending on trickle down. Why are there Corollas, instead of just more Lexuses?

<comment><USER19> SF already has plenty of "non luxury" housing that has been gobbled up for luxury prices, often displacing people who could normally afford such housing. The theory is that building more luxury housing will take pressure off the non-luxury stock.

I agree with that theory, but building more affordable and below-market housing (instead, or simultaneously) will likely have a faster, more positive effect.

<comment><USER18> But it's impossible to make affordable and below-market housing profitable unless the underlying issues, land acquisition costs and zoning, are addressed. That means the government will have to subsidize these units and they still won't be enough to meet demand. So only the lucky few who win the housing lottery will benefit. Everyone else (most lower-income people, middle- income renters overpaying for low-end housing) still loses out.

I'd prefer that we solved the problem for most people rather than just a lucky few. If people couldn't afford food because not enough farmland was available for reasons like "preserving the character of the area" (imagine that you can't truck food in from lower-cost locations in this scenario) you bet we'd find a way to start growing more food stat. No one would say "Well we'll just subsidize food for some people so fewer people will starve. But it's no use letting farmers farm because they'll just grow Kobe beef and avocados instead of wheat and corn".

<comment><USER19> > But it's impossible to make affordable and below-market housing profitable > unless the underlying issues, land acquisition costs and zoning, are > addressed.

Totally agree. Developers don't want to build affordable housing because they in some cases actually stand to lose money when doing so. SF's byzantine planning process makes it that way, and that's not going to change without some heavy reform there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you build new luxury housing presumably people now living in less desirable housing will upgrade, making their housing available at lower prices, etc.

<comment><USER21> This claim keeps popping up. I've yet to see it include a citation. Maybe today will be different.

<comment><USER20> It's in this very article.

What other outcome could happen?

<comment><USER22> That new luxury housing makes a city more attractive and induces demand from outside. Adding new roads can make driving more attractive and worsen congestion.

Not saying that's what happens, but a simple supply/demand analysis (ceteris paribus) may not suffice.

<comment><USER15> No one has seen fit to build much luxury housing in Cleveland, OH lately, but what exists already (at rock-bottom prices) doesn't seem to be attracting much population from outside...

Induced demand is definitely a thing for roads, but that demand is from fixed supply of people. In the roads case, it is counter-intuitive specifically _because_ it causes the same number of people to drive more, on average.

That dynamic simply doesn't hold for luxury goods in general or luxury housing in particular. There are effectively no replicable instances of more luxury good = more buyers unless price falls or supply was previously constrained.

<comment><USER22> I'd posit it's hard to know what the dynamic would be. Consider certain luxury goods ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good)) where increasing the price increases the demand. (Conveniently, economists have a model and also a name for things that don't follow the model. The universe can be divided into bananas and non-bananas.)

Cleveland isn't a prestigious world-class city attractive to the wealthy, but if new luxury condos in a tier-1 city come online, it may induce demand from wealthy/speculators who would not otherwise have considered that city, or were picking between alternatives. (Investment, signaling/status-seeking, etc.)

Treated as an investment vehicle, increasing supply (e.g., having an IPO where no shares existed before) can unlock latent demand (people divert income into that investment and drive up the price). Perhaps housing needs to be modeled as a mix of investment, local demand for shelter, status symbol, tax haven, political baton (keeping existing homeowners above water), etc.

Again, not sure how housing actually behaves but it seems complex enough to defy my econ 101 understanding.

<comment><USER15> I'm assuming you're suggestion that housing is a Veblen good is in jest - <USER3> can build a shining, gilded tower in the middle of Wyoming and I'm not going to attract America's wealthiest citizens to Cheyenne...

It seems like you're conflating cause and effect here - If Cleveland isn't good enough, then it must be the tier-1 city that is the cause of the demand. Not the housing itself. Further, unless the new luxury units are sitting empty (a problem Vancouver, BC dealt with for awhile), then the market for rents functions regardless of whether speculation is occurring. I invite you to find an example of vacancies increasing in the same place that housing/rents climb - it won't exist in any of the real estate hot-beds in America.

The main thrust of this article and the research surrounding it by folks like City Observatory, Sightline Institute, etc. is that we now _do_ know the dynamic of housing prices in booming economies. I don't feel like you've provided any evidence that contradicts the conclusions presented in the research, so I'm having trouble pinpointing your skepticism. Let me know if I've missed your point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Folks - please add immigration.

Why on earth people don't grasp that when population is increasing mostly due to newcomers it affects housing ... this bothers me - because it's politicized, nobody can talk about it it seems.

Immigration is just a reality, it's part of the equation - it has real effects on housing costs and wages, one can't ignore it because sometimes the answers might not jive with one's politics.

So, immigration (or rather, population change, which can include births etc.) - is an important driving factor.

Which includes migration between states/regions obviously.

<comment><USER24> just build more housing.

<comment><USER25> Not everyone wants to live in a super over-populated / densely populated area...

In general, more saturation of humans == more problems.

People make fun of NIMBY, but at the end of the day who better to manage the neighborhood than the people who are already invested in it..?

<comment><USER15> You wish to extend control of property beyond the borders of what they own outright?

<comment><USER26> But that happens all the time. Neighborhood zoning restrictions, restrictive covenants, homeowner association rules, and so on. So Danihan's position is, _de facto_ , what the situation already is in many instances.

So: You wish to _not allow_ any control of property by anyone other than the property owner? Are you sure you really want that?

<comment><USER15> You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me think that you've probably found yourself in the majority most of your life. It's worth considering what these systems mean for folks who fall outside of the majority on any of these issues.

<comment><USER26> OK, but I don't have to be part of the minority to understand why I don't want my neighbor to be able to tear his house down and replace it with a 7-11, or an oil refinery, or a landfill. Do any of _those_ things throw up red flags for you?

I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don't regard opposing a 7-11 on my neighbor's property as "tyranny of the majority" \- or at least I regard letting my neighbor freely choose to do those things as "tyranny of the minority", which I regard as worse.

Now, obviously you can take this to extremes, and you can get upper-middle- class white-bread cisnormative-with-2.3-kids neighbors who insist that you have to have exactly 2.3 kids or you can't live in the neighborhood. Also, your garage has to be painted the right shade of blue. That's definitely tyranny of the majority, and I agree that it can be oppressive.

And I guess opposing a 7-11 next door, or an oil refinery, or a landfill is exactly NIMBY-ism. But I moved into a neighborhood where part of the restrictive covenants said that I _couldn 't_ open a convenience store on my lot - because it was going to conflict with the one that they were planning for a block or two away, on the corner of the subdivision. That was known in advance to everyone who bought into (or built in) the subdivision, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with an oil refinery next door, either, _if I know it 's coming when I buy the property_. (I would probably not buy, but if I did, I would know what I was signing up for.)

And I didn't have a problem with the neighbor two doors down starting a hair salon in her house, even though I _didn 't_ know that was coming when I bought into the neighborhood. There was a mechanism where anyone who had a problem with it had a chance to be heard, though. (I don't know if they could have blocked it, or if someone else got to judge the seriousness of the objection.)

TL;DR: I'm not opposed to people being able to do things. I'm opposed to people being able to do things that significantly harm the value of their neighbor's property in ways that the neighbors didn't know was coming at the time they bought the property.

<comment><USER15> I realize I was being somewhat inflammatory with my talk of "being in the majority" and "missing flags" \- thanks for being willing to engage anyway. :-) I also like your characterization of "upper-middle-class white-bread cisnormative-with-2.3-kids neighbors" \- this is who we're usually speaking of when we talk about the "NIMBYs".

You're right that there _is_ a difference between starting up an oil refinery and building an apartment complex. The problem with many of these organizations you mentioned is that they weaponize their power (intended for use against oil refineries) _against_ people, lifestyles, and forms of housing they don't like. In Seattle (as elsewhere) it is justified in order to, for example, preserve the availability of free public street parking in front of and near their home. This perceived "right" to public, shared property has extended to mobilizing against dense housing like "apodments" for fear it would "take up street parking" in my town. In my opinion, if you want parking, you should build it on your own plot and not expect the city to limit development to provide it for you free of charge.

You seem to have a pretty reasonable expectation of entitlement - no 7-11, but fine with small in-home business - and I wish there were more like you out there. In practice, these "NIMBYs" move to an area circa 1970 and expect it to _never change again_. This is untenable in downtown SF, Seattle, or any other major metropolitan area, as I think you realize. The natural evolution of these HOAs, neighborhood associations, and like seems inevitably to be towards oppression - anyone more Laissez-faire wouldn't bother joining one in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The idea that a government - at any level - is going to fund enough subsidized housing to make even a tiny dent in the housing problem is completely laughable. Anyone proposing such nonsense isn't serious about the problem in the least.

That's what bugs me so much about so-called progressives who oppose more housing. There is no half-plausible scenario where SF or CA comes up with the hundred billion it would take to solve the bay area's housing shortage.

</comment><comment><USER28> A major part of the problem is that it costs too much to build. Too many construction entities living on cheap funny money and a supply shortage after the real estate crash that has still not rebounded. Why does it cost $200,000 to add a second story to a house, for example.

</comment><comment><USER24> I said it before here, but the situation in oregon is fucked up more than normal. The state constitution limits the rate at which property taxes can be raised to 4% a year, provided no new construction occurs. Increasing housing supply is actually penalized here.

<comment><USER29> I think that's the point.

Didn't the governor of Oregon tell people from other parts of the country not to move to Oregon in the 70s? Everyone wants their own private paradise without having to share.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As long as we don't have developers that are willing to build only luxury, bought by speculators and remaining vacant. Please answer this.

</comment><comment><USER31> Interesting article. However:

"Rent increases, which were measured in the double digits eighteen months ago, have gone negative."

I call those kind of increases: decreases.

<comment><USER32> That kind of wording leads me to believe that he is referring to the rate. I.e. Rent increases are still occurring but at a decreasing rate. Maybe?

<comment><USER33> Possible, but I think it's more likely poor wording than linguistic calculus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> We don't build housing, builders do. We simply decide what is permitted to happen. We could eliminate restrictions on construction and that would help but the rate of housing growth would still be limited by money available to pay for new housing, which is a lower bound to affordability. It's actually a worse problem than it sounds for, if we're decreasing building restrictions then we're slowing price growth and decreasing the attractiveness of housing to investors. To accelerate affordability, we probably also need to subsidize or at least incentivize then.

That gets to be fairly expensive so where's the money going to come from? My proposal is a national growth tax, whose money is redistributed from areas which don't grow to those which do. That money will be used to pay for infrastructure improvements needed to house those people as well.</comment>


United States Copyright Office: Ripping is Illegal - <AUTHOR> http://publicknowledge.org/blog/united-states-copyright-office-ripping-illega <comment><USER2> From a Reddit commenter:

The issue here is DVDs & BRs not CDs. 1201 exemptions are DMCA exemptions to the anti-circumvention section. CDs don't have copy protection so this bit of the DMCA never applied. DVDs still have CSS and BRs have something else, that's why you can't just copy the files off, and why legally you're not supposed to phase shift or rip them even though you technically can.

Phase/time shifting is explicitly OK, as long as that's all you're doing, thanks to the betamax case. Breaking encryption, however busted and useless and stupid as CSS is, is still not OK. Some people were trying to get a 1201 exemption for DVD ripping, copyright office didn't go for it.

<comment><USER3> Hi - I work at Public Knowledge and coordinated our exemption request. While our exemption request was specifically about DVDs, the Copyright Office's rejection was much broader. Essentially, the Copyright Office found no evidence that space shifting as a practice was fair use. That means that, as far as the Copyright Office is concerned, space shifters are infringing on copyright. That would include anyone who copied a work from one medium to another - regardless of whether or not it was protected by DRM.

<comment><USER4> But time shifting is fair use and as considered has always required space shifting so space shifting itself is compatible with fair use. I think the question is always about the eventual playback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's > been on their Website for some time now, that it's _perfectly lawful_ to > take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto > your iPod."

Why are we letting record companies tell us what's lawful? (and by extension, what's not)

<comment><USER6> The point of this quote is to illustrate that _even the RIAA_ thinks this is bogus.

<comment><USER5> I understand that in this particular case, the RIAA sided with consumers.

What I'm pointing out is that this sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Now we (and the courts) are used to hearing what the record companies think is and is not lawful, when that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

<comment><USER7> Not really. They're saying that this position is so extreme that not even the RIAA agrees with it. That's a far cry from saying they're always right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "New York City Police Department: Riding a bike outside of a bike lane is illegal."

Just because some unelected government bureaucracy believes something doesn't make it a law. Who has gone to jail for ripping a Blu-Ray to their iPad? Nobody. Therefore, we don't really know if it's illegal or not. The copyright office has an _opinion_ and have decided not to specifically make the act legal (which is the only authority they have). Fair use, copyright law, "the right of the people to be secure in their ... effects against unreasonable searches..." are all part of the legality equation here, and until this is tested in court, we won't know what is or is not legal.

As far as I can see, the cat is already out of the bag and people don't care what the law is. They _can_ space shift, and will. End of story. (Incidentally, it seems that it's perfectly legal to space-shift pirated media. So maybe just get that instead?)

(It's kind of like how pot is illegal federally, but many states allow people to grow, buy, and sell it. Yup, it's illegal. Too bad nobody cares.)

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow. It's finally clear. Content creators are against phase-shifting because it threatens their distribution mechanisms. Consumers want phase-shifting because it makes consuming media an order of magnitude better.

The ideal solution would be for content creators to offer a DRM-free copy of their wares, and for consumers to not abuse this open-ness. But, it seems that consumers _will_ abuse it: given a choice between a $30 BluRay of "The Avengers" and torrenting it for $0, lots choose the later (not the least of which is to avoid the pain of ripping the movie later).

I wonder, though, how bad the abuse would be if the service was really easy to use, and priced correctly? Why would I bother with bittorent if I had a really nice service that let me stream/download movies for a few bucks apiece?

Additionally, I personally wouldn't mind one bit if a subset of the data was encrypted with my public key, making it hard (but not impossible, of course) to share it. Combined with a some creative steganography to identify the targeted user, you have about a secure, enforceable system as is humanly possible.

There is a privacy concern here, of course - the seller can individually identify people who've bought their movie. But that's going to be a problem whenever information is bought and sold. Note that this privacy protection is relatively easy to get around even today, as law-enforcement can request credit card records and itemized purchase information from the retailer. The difference is that now you would require a _target_ and to make _effort_ to get at this data, whereas in this new system, it's right there. If this worries you, either don't purchase data or purchase it in person with cash.

<comment><USER10> Do you have specific criticisms of the iTunes store, PS3 store, Xbox store, etc.? People keep talking about legal downloads like they're a theoretical concept...

<comment><USER11> Have you ever lived somewhere other than the United States? They are in fact a theoretical concept in many places.

Services like netflix, spotify and pandora are also just as rare and they usually have extremely reduced libraries outside the States.

<comment><USER10> Given that this is a thread about US copyright law, I thought we were talking about the US market. I guess it's turned into generic copyright griping thread #4,702.

<comment><USER12> With the global nature of the Internet and the universal human desire to participate in culture, it's difficult to discuss US copyright law without considering the international effects thereof.

There will always be more "copyright griping thread[s]" until the arbitrary and artificial barriers to universal cultural participation and consumption are torn down, until a Fringe fan in Mombasa can watch _and participate in discussion about_ the latest episode at the same time as someone in Memphis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've noticed a cycle here. Media companies donate tons to campaigns. They act out during electoral season because they know that people they write checks to will not dare talk back to them, and if possible will pressure regulators to back them to keep the money flowing. I saw a spike in this stuff in 2008 and in 2004 - articles, pushes for lawsuits, regulatory announcements that were otherwise baffling. Don't remember 2000 well, or rather it's overshadowed by other memories of that election. Anyway, I may be wrong of course but my point is I'm not surprised at seeing an announcement like this during election season. I think the balance of evidence is that regulators in this country work with significant political interference, regardless of claims to the contrary - if nothing else they're sensitive to the winds in Washington. Just a thought.

<comment> daniel-cussen I'm not sure the amount they donate matters as much as the good press they donate. This is extremely valuable.

Consider the case of the bribes paid by the Peruvian government to media versus that paid to judges and politicians. While the latter two got tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, a TV channel owners got $5 million. That acts as a proxy for their power.

What is the parallel? They act out during election season because they are in the middle of handing their most valuable asset out--their coverage. That is the true lobbying asset. Based on what you said I suppose they want to get what they want before the election happens and the horse is let out of the barn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So would it be illegal if my team of emus, pecking 0s and 1s at keyboards, collaboratively created a file that, when packed into segments of size 8 and converted from ASCII to binary, is bit-for-bit equal to a decrypted a DVD?

I hope not! It probably is illegal considering: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_numbers>.

Man, the law just isn't rigorous enough for me.

<comment><USER15> IANAL, but if you happened, purely by chance, to create a file that was bit- for-bit equal to a decrypted DVD, that would be fine (since it's practically impossible to do, anyway).

It's the intent that matters anyway. What the government has now is a stick they can hit people with (they had the stick already, now they have permission). Like speeding, if you rip your copy of E.T. you bought at Walmart and put it on the family's iPad so the kids be quiet, or by god you're going back to Winnipeg, nobody is going to be knocking on your door. However, if you start a site called www.dvdtomp4.com and offer a mail-in DVD-to-MP4 service, you could expect to receive an interesting visit at some point in the future.

<comment><USER14> I agree with everything you wrote, but I'm going to continue with the ridiculousness for the sake of discussion.

> It's the intent that matters anyway.

What if I intend to sell the product of my emu-packing operation? Surely, we did our own work!

<comment><USER10> Then when advertising _your own work_ you would surely make no references to the names of any Hollywood movies that are not your work, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fortunately, shiny discs are all but obsolete, so this decision is quickly becoming irrelevant, not that there was ever any real risk for individuals ripping their own discs, just as there's no risk for an individual circumventing DRM on digital content they bought. Distributing tools to do so is the tricky part, so that's really the only exemption that would have an impact on the status quo.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is still so extremely worrying. How insane is it that we have a law that prevents us purchasing a physical object, and doing certain things with that that don't impact directly on others? Imagine if your tobacco company prohibited you rolling cigarettes and giving them to others? Or your water company legally stopped you being able to drink the water coming out of your taps so you have to buy bottled water?

It's fucking ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you somehow connect a DVD player to an iPad, then read it from there, would it be legal?

Then if the iPad had such a large memory that you could fit the whole DVD inside it, would it be legal?

Then if you never had to turn off your iPad, the results would be exactly the same as what is currently illegal.

<comment><USER19> No, and no.

<comment><USER18> So you are saying it is illegal to transform a device that cannot play DVD into a device that can play DVD?

Again, you can have some buffering, but not too long as it would be circumvention.

<comment><USER20> No, it is illegal to convert/circumvent DRM protected files to any other medium.

<comment><USER21> He's not really suggesting conversion per say, just playing the DVD content straight from the DVD media like any other DVD player does. That does assume some kind of conversion in itself but should fall under fair use. It would be _impossible_ to watch a DVD at all otherwise.

It gets into the realm of the legality of using Linux to watch a DVD, which is generally considered illegal, but looking around the net there seems that there may be some legal precedence that says otherwise.

If Apple somehow left their DVD player decryption code in iOS on the aforementioned iPad, for which they presumably do have a license to use, then there should be no legal qualms at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> By that same logic, is converting files from m4a to mp3 illegal?

<comment><USER23> No, M4A to MP3 should be fine in most cases, because those formats are usually used for musical recordings. Space shifting of musical recordings by consumers for non-commercial purposes is allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, so there is no need to turn to fair use to justify it.

<comment><USER22> So m4a to mp3 is fine, but avi to mpeg4 is illegal?

<comment><USER24> No, copying a file from one device to another is illegal (space shifting) not changing the format (media shifting).

<comment><USER25> So if I rip a DVD to another DVD, but don't use CSS on the second, is that legal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So what about removing DRM from eBooks, etc.?

<comment><USER10> "The good news is that the disabled readers can still remove DRM which would inhibit their ability to use the content. The bad news is that there are no other exceptions which would allow you to remove the DRM." [http://www.the- digital-reader.com/2012/10/25/u-s-copyright-o...](http://www.the-digital- reader.com/2012/10/25/u-s-copyright-office-publishes-final-rules-with-dmca- exemptions/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If i can't make copies of my DVD's then that means whenever I scratch my DVD and it is unrecoverable, the entity that shipped me a DVD must ship me a new one.

These cats want to be the gatekeepers of all data everywhere, I guess we can't stop them, the only thing we can do is stick a thorn in their foot so they have to limp along doing so.

Makes me sick how a central authority thinks they get to make law on what my device can and can't do with data I own on it.

The future of what you are looking at: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right- to-read.html>

<comment><USER28> > "I own"

That's the crux of it isn't it. Who says that just because you paid for something that you "own" it with the associated rights. We are migrating from ownership to licensee-ship.

I used to be sick of all this "license" business, but then I realized that ownership is a dual-edge sword. Consider this, I don't buy dvds anymore. Instead, I'll wilfully pay $1.99 on either iTunes or Amazon. It all depends on how you look at it. One of my favorite movies is $14; that means that I would have to watch it eight times for ownership to be a rational decision. This is, of course, assuming that the total cost of ownership is $14.

Consider: \- Shipping ~ $2 \- Moving Expenses ~ ($5 per 100) \- Related Items ~ ($80 per 200) [bookshelf] \- Storage Opportunity Cost ~ What could I have instead of this thing

w.r.t to "Right to Read"; I believe that there will always be libraries and champions for education and "important things" to negate the bad side-effects of over-intrusive gate-keepers. The "trivial things" like music/movies will always have gate-keepers since those gate-keepers need to get a return of investment (which is their right).</comment></comment>


Show HN: A HTTP2 web server with auto SSL certificate, Zero-Configuration - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/txthinking/nico <comment><AUTHOR> # Nico

A HTTP2 web server for reverse proxy and single page application, automatically apply for ssl certificate, zero-configuration.

### Install via [nami]([https://github.com/txthinking/nami](https://github.com/txthinking/nami))

``` $ nami install github.com/txthinking/nico ```

### Reverse proxy

> Make sure your domains are already resolved to your server IP and open > 80/443 port

``` $ nico 'domain.com [http://127.0.0.1:2020'](http://127.0.0.1:2020') ```

### Static server, can be used for single page application

``` $ nico 'domain.com /path/to/web/root' ```

### All can be in one line command

``` $ nico 'domain1.com [http://127.0.0.1:2020'](http://127.0.0.1:2020') 'domain2.com /path/to/web/root' 'domain3.com [http://127.0.0.1:3030'](http://127.0.0.1:3030') ```

### Daemon

You may like [joker]([https://github.com/txthinking/joker](https://github.com/txthinking/joker))

## Why

Nico is a simple HTTP2 web server, but she is enough in mose cases. If you want to use rewrite, load balancing, you need to consider nginx or others.

## License

Licensed under The GPLv3 License</comment>


A radiologist applying evolutionary principles to cancer research - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/cancer-treatment-darwin-evolution/ <comment><USER2> Summary: Cancer cells are competing against each other as much as they are competing against healthy cells. If you use a high treatment dose you select for the drug-resistant cells and long term it can be worse. If you lower the dose of the drug you slow down the rate of evolution of the cancer, even if you don't kill as many cells. Overall it suggests it may be better to try to "coexist' with the cancer rather than try to kill every cell.

By the same logic you should not take the entire bottle of antibiotics after an infection, because you're more likely to select for resistant bacteria.

<comment><USER3> What's interesting is that nearly all current research shows that combinations of drugs is the most effective solution for eliminating cancers. So it would be nearly the opposite effect. If you let it grow slow you're potentially causing organ damage, letting it spread further which makes it harder to kill, and prolonging side effects of chemo which can be super severe for many people.

<comment><USER4> "makes it harder to kill" Unfortunately, this is still thinking in terms of the "cure" mindset as opposed to co-existing with cancer. Maybe you just can't kill cancer. Try not to think about "let it grow" vs "managing the growth". If aggressive treatment leads to hardier cells forming, which can then break off and lead to metastasis. There are other chronic conditions which we can live with such as diabetes and HIV that were previously thought of as early death sentences, it is not inconceivable we can get there with cancer.

<comment><USER3> So we might get there, but realistically the methodology is really flawed. Cancer is, for all cancers, a failure of our own immune system to recognize cells that have gained a genetic defect that doesn't cause proper cell apoptosis. This isn't a foreign invader, this is our own cells with a flaw. While it's cute to think about just living with it, if you're not completely preventing the growth in some cancers you're not really doing much.

We can cure most cancers nowadays through surgery, radiation, and chemo...if we catch them early enough and they don't spread. If you're talking about coexisting with cancer, you're already past the point of worrying about it spreading. It's already metastasized. Coexistence only makes sense if it's something you _could_ live with. If you want to see how well this works out ask Steve Jobs how co-existing with his cancer worked out, because this essentially amounts to letting the cancer spread further and more aggressively which will damage even more organs. The hardier cells will already exist, your body will just have to fight off more cancer cells.

The only, and I mean only, way to live long term with cancer is to allow the immune system to fight off the cancer and keep it at bay by removing the inhibitors that prevent recognition and reaction. I hope the day that cancer becomes chronic is today, but realistically I'm probably not going to live to see the day that it does. This article is just another drop in the bucket of false cures and pseudo-scientific nonsense that exist for cancer that aims to provide hope and to take advantage of already desperate people, who often don't have the financial means to cover the costs of chemo, infusion pumps, CT Scans, PET Scans, ports, rides, medications, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> link to paper discussing new classification scheme based around evolution of cancers

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc.2017.69.pdf](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc.2017.69.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> we are working in a similar space, the challenges of getting this to something that is beneficial to patients are immense. Getting the science working is one thing, regulation & reimbursement strategies for this are equally as intimidating. Complexity in tackling cancer is not just at a cellular level, it is also at a healthcare system and social level.</comment>


What's Twitter's Identity Now That It Is Apple's Identity Provider - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20110607/whats-twitters-identity-now-that-its-apples-identity-provider/?p=83876

<comment><USER2> Decent article, but the headline is exaggerated. Do you log into iCloud using Twitter? No?

</comment><comment><USER3> I hope not. Game Center, iMessages, App Store? I haven't heard anything about twitter coming in through the OS, just going out. AppleIDs are even more important now, listen how often Blsckberry users talk about their BBM pins/IDs.

</comment><comment><USER4> All apple need to do is somehow "crowd-source" tweets into their own db as part of their "anonymous diagnostic and user data" clause and then cut them out like they did to SkyHook.

<comment><USER5> Comparing the Skyhook incident to Twitter doesn't really make sense. People aren't going to stop using Twitter and switch over to Apple because they're got a clone. Look at Ping.</comment></comment>


Samsung unveils crazy-fast 960 Pro and 960 Evo M.2 NVMe SSDs - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/samsung-ssd-960-pro-evo-price-specs-release-date/ <comment><USER2> Hows the trim support? Specifically, NCQ trim?</comment>


How This Developer Built an iOS Game on a $20 Budget - <AUTHOR> http://inside.envato.com/how-this-developer-built-an-ios-game-on-a-budget/

<comment><USER2> And paid $99 to distribute it.</comment>