Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Apple Tax is DEAD!
Recorded: May 1, 2025 Duration: 1:18:08Space Recording
Short Summary
The recent ruling in the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit marks a pivotal moment for the digital marketplace, potentially lowering costs for consumers and opening new revenue streams for developers. This decision could reshape partnerships and funding opportunities in the crypto and digital goods sectors.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Hey everyone.
Hey.
By the way, if there's like a little bit of background noise, I had to like start this
now while I'm in the middle of work.
So you're going to hear like a bunch of machines probably in the background, unless of course
Apple's like genius, ironically enough, we're kind of shitting on Apple here, but Apple's genius technology and like, you know,
you know, keeping noise out of the microphone. I'm actually at the factory right now.
So yeah, this will be an interesting one to cover, but primarily LawyerCat's gonna be speaking because he's the lawyer, not me.
And he's gonna kind of like deep dive the
Epic Games vs vs Apple lawsuit.
Very interesting one. Primarily started because of like Apple's insane demand.
I think what is like 30% of anything you make via Apple.
Like for instance here on X, 30% of every subscription payment that I receive from all of you,
like you know you guys, some of you subscribe to me, 30% of that shit is actually going to Apple. Whereas like that's why, you know, when I first got my subscription,
I encouraged people to subscribe via the browser interface because that's, that way it goes through Stripe.
And if it goes through Stripe, I actually make more because they take less of a cut.
But Apple takes a gigantic fucking cut. So I'm actually not receiving a dollar i'm receiving less than a
dollar way less than a dollar every single time so there are quite a few of you have subscribed um
quite a large chunk of that has been taken by apple so i'm kind of looking forward to this
it's a really good thing especially for me and you know especially for anyone who's like you know
paid in it's also the case with google as well yes they also take 30 yes so it's it's actually
ridiculous where um it's actually ridiculous to the point where if you for example subscribe to
a creator on youtube uh from your iphone they take apple takes 30 cut from that and then google
takes a 45 cut cut from YouTube subscription.
So you end up with less than half.
Damn, that's scary.
Yeah, I would say that this ruling is very good for U.S. consumers.
I mean, if you spend money on digital services, on apps, on mobile,
then this ruling is probably going to benefit you.
By the way, before we start deep diving this,
everybody make sure to quote Post The Space
with join the conversation,
as that is like the mimetic thing to do.
And it also gets more people to listen to this,
because I think this is really,
is gonna be a really good one today.
It's also recorded, so if you have missed it live, then you'll be able to see it again.
So this is a relatively special one.
This is also why we're going to keep the panel quite limited today,
because I don't want any unwanted slip-ups that ruin the experience on playback.
Beyond, of course, the little slip-ups that are happening in my background environment.
Oh, yeah.
We actually can't hear them, believe it or not.
Well, you can't hear them or you can't hear them?
No, we can't.
We can't.
Good.
Nice.
So everything is nice and good.
Alright, awesome.
So everything is buzzing off the background.
It's pretty good.
I'm deep inside of the machine.
The voice isolation on the iPhone is pretty good.
Oh yes, it really is.
It really is.
You know, it's great because I think maybe now Apple can focus on improving their, in more of like, you know, improving their technology
as opposed to like taking the money that they get
from like doing nothing and putting it to stock buybacks.
So there's a little bit of pressure on them.
It's always a good thing.
Anyways, I think I'll hand it back over to Laura Kat
and see what we do with the ruling.
That's really a lot of what the court focused on.
The court talks a lot about anti-competitive revenue streams
versus competitive revenue streams
and how Apple can put its focus
onto the more competitive ways of generating revenue. Obviously, Apple products are preferable
in a lot of ways. There are a lot of great things about them. People want to spend money on Apple
products. They don't need to take a walled garden environment and then lean things so heavily in the direction that consumers
basically have to buy through their store or through their software. And ultimately,
they get a huge cut out of that. So this is not the first time Apple has been to court over this.
Epic actually won a previous court ruling, and there the court ruled that Apple had to allow external links in
certain circumstances to outside purchases so the consumers could buy directly by digital services,
digital goods and services directly. What Apple ended up doing, though, was trying to find as
many ways as possible to work around the court order.
They were holding meetings and strategizing and figuring out, OK, so what policies can we adopt?
What things can we do to try to recoup as much of that potentially lost revenue as possible?
And so what they did was they developed steering policies that guided whether and how an app could direct
customers to an external link so that they could purchase directly. And then on top of that,
they created a commission's policy so that when a consumer did use the external links and make a
purchase, that company would still owe a cut of the sale back to Apple. And they were able to
recoup, you know, a lot of what they would have lost on the Apple tax through their commission
policy combined with their steering policy. And so the court looked at these policies and looked
at how essentially what Apple was doing was trying to work around the initial court order.
doing was trying to work around the initial court order. They were trying to essentially defeat it
by figuring out a way to force these apps to pay that revenue back regardless of whether consumers
were willing to go out of their way to purchase directly. And so this is a really good move,
you know, for all of those apps that rely on digital goods and services. So, you know,
especially if it's not a company that's a major player, for example, Amazon is one that gets
called out in litigation. You know, those companies have kind of sweetheart deals with Apple already
where they're not paying the same amount of tax that other companies are paying necessarily.
But especially those small creators, I mean,
you know, digital gaming is something that's going to benefit a lot. We were talking about
how Spotify is potentially going to gain additional revenue out of this. X is another company that
could get a lot of revenue out of this because they no longer have to allow, um, you know, Apple to,
to process the payments from, uh, Apple devices. They can actually directly link consumers now
to an external place to purchase digital goods and services, including their X subscriptions.
Um, so that's really exciting. Uh, also important to note that even Amazon doesn't like paying
these. So if you try to buy like a Kindle book on an iPhone, it won't let you.
It will direct you to the website sneakily to basically go on the website and buy it.
Right.
It's like it's not available on the iOS app.
It's only available on the website.
So if you want to buy like an audio book or if you want to buy
like a kindle book like a digital book it doesn't let you on the apple app store even for like big
companies amazon was trying their own with their own app store but i don't think it worked that
much like they need support from the developer community it's it's a bit it's a bit tricky yep it has the app store as the only default thing on their amazon kindle products but
you just install google play on it anyway after you get it so you can actually have access to all
the apps because none of the developers want to go through the registration process of the Amazon store. It's an extra step that you have to do every time you push out an
update and that's extra man hours and stuff they don't want to do. It's the downfall of a non-unified
system. Yeah and I think what that does is it starts to raise questions about like forced side loading and where we could see these sort of like, you know, competition sort of boosting rulings coming out of either US courts.
I know the EU has done as taken some action with regard to forced side loading for Apple.
So it's possible that we could see even further steps taken to kind of level the playing field
from my understanding a lot of the ruling has to do with how developers handle links in the apple
environment on ios because apple was doing something kind of sneaky, specifically with
it's why if you opened up an in-app link, it would open up in Safari instead of whatever your default
browser was, was because Apple was tracking the purchase to keep track of the any sales that
happened so that they could get back that revenue. Is that what happened after the first ruling?
Yeah, so that was their strategy to try to recoup the Apple tax.
It was the combination of the steering,
which determined whether and how those links could even show up in an app.
And then once they were used, yeah,
they were doing the tracking to see what sales occurred
so that they could try to collect the commission.
And it was coming out in litigation.
They were estimating like they were they were even accounting for the fact that, you know, some consumers will be more sophisticated.
I mean, maybe they'll, you know, take the link over to another browser, complete the transaction there.
But we think we can still recoup, you know, like 25% instead of 30%. So it's still worth doing.
And they were gaming out sort of how they could, you know, technically comply with the court's
initial ruling, but supplement that with additional ways to recoup the lost revenue. So they were
trying to defeat it ultimately. And the net effect for these companies and for consumers
is that nothing pretty much changes
because prices have to more or less stay the same
if the company is going to be paying the Apple tax one way or the other.
And how is this different from Google?
Like, aren't they having the same Google tags in the Android ecosystem with 30%, right?
So I think one difference is that you don't have the walled garden ecosystem with Android. Android
supports sideloading. So when you don't have that, there is inherently a more competitive environment
a more competitive environment because there are just other app stores that people can use.
because there are just other app stores that people can use.
Okay, so now that sideloading is there in all the EU countries,
so they can technically do sideloading with the third-party app stores on Apple devices,
but it's just for non-EU countries where you are only stuck with the Apple app store?
For now, yes, although that's
not necessarily going to stay the same. You know, something that Apple was trying to raise in
litigation is that, well, there's nothing that directly says that our policies on steering or
collecting a commission on these purchases is a violation of antitrust laws. But the court relied on more basic authority to limit those
inherently anti-competitive activities, things that we might not have a specific rule that says
it, but because of the overall effect on the market, it's clear that it's affecting competition
and making it hard for certain companies to succeed.
We could see similar rulings when it comes to sideloading if courts take a similar view.
What do you think the overall value of that precedence is going to be on any of those cases? Like, is this going to be
seen as like a landmark ruling on that, or is there going to be more interpretation down the
line? So it's important to note, this is a district court ruling. This is not a circuit court ruling
or a Supreme Court ruling that would set a legal precedent in terms of, you know, something that other courts are obligated to follow.
But what it does is it serves as an example. It'll be cited if there's other litigation.
And it'll also be kind of persuasive. I mean, people don't want to repeat the circumstances
of prior cases, because they assume that it'll work out more or less the same way. So it can
affect behavior down the line.
Right now, I mean, Apple is kind of uniquely situated because they are sort of the combination of the marketplace and the phone maker.
And they make a lot of the software that the phone uses.
So they have a lot of control over their ecosystem.
It's that walled garden atmosphere that I was referring to
earlier. So, you know, in terms of affecting other companies, they would have to still be in a
similarly situated position to Apple, which is unlikely. But it could have effects down the line.
I mean, if there are still problems, for example, in the App Store, if Apple tries to weasel around this again.
You know, I would hate to think that they would try to do it twice. However, there is a lot of
money at stake and they could try to do something in order to recoup those revenues, whether it's
just raising maybe their regular App Store tax rate, because that tax is staying around, right? So any purchases that
you make in app or any purchases that you're making through the app store are going to be
subject to the Apple tax to the exact same extent that they were before. The difference now is that
it's not mandatory. You can externally link, you can have consumers complete their purchases
on a separate platform, not using, you know, the Apple, not using the Apple Pay or what have you.
And if you're doing that, then you're not going to be subject to the Apple tax.
However, you never know.
They might try to find another way to bring it around, whether it's through.
Yeah, they could be raising the overall rates in their store, or they could do something else to try to track the amount of commerce that people are getting from the users of their apps and try to charge them proportionately to that in some way.
So they might try to rework that same concept to just squeeze a little more blood out if they can.
to just squeeze a little more blood out if they can.
One thing I'm really curious about is how this is going to adjust the pricing of various things in app.
Because I've seen a couple of similar rulings happen as a result of the gambling laws in the EU.
It changed the payment systems for all of that.
And when that happened,
it actually changed the economy
of the in-game
systems, like how they
were tuned. I'm very interested to see how
that's going to affect things down the line.
Also,
Fortnite's coming back to the iOS store
I think next week for the first
time in four years after their whole
legal concerns. So that's interesting
timing right there.
Probably their usage is going to go up a little bit
because their convenience has also increased.
So that should be really cool.
I might just for the fucking meme of it
play Fortnite at least once
or twice, maybe like on a stream.
If anyone of you would like to see that,
just leave it down there in the comments below and let me know whether you know whether you'd like to see
me play fortnite again and i might troll some people on there and see how far i get with that
maybe like one or two games just so i kind of hash it out just in celebration of this because i feel
like maybe this is a little bit in order i'll challenge myself you know a little bit it would
be funny but yeah anyways we can relive the conner eats pants interview you know it would be funny what if i messaged him again and we're like hey man let's play i'll just
like get my new setup and we're like hey man let's let's have another conversation except
this time my frame rate isn't ass maybe this time i can actually see the enemy before it kills me
you know anyways let's get back to topic. I think Vera was raising
an interesting point though, about what the ripple effect could be there. Because while I was saying
maybe Apple could raise their rates, the opposite effect could be true, right? Because of the
competitive effect, because Apple is looking at the reality of consumers being able to just
leave, go to a different platform and pay less money for the same digital good or service,
they could lower their rates.
We could see the death of the Apple tax entirely.
I think that's probably unlikely.
Apple's still going to want to cut
if they can get it.
However, they might do something
if they see that they're losing revenue.
Ultimately, they could lower their rates
to try to match, get closer
and be more competitive
that would be i'm not i'm not that confident it's going to happen because um with apple
with google for example there's nothing restricting you from going and doing the same thing
uh on the website or uh you know putting your app somewhere else but most people just like
the convenience and they trust Google.
And in this case,
people generally trust Apple
even more than Google.
So they might not like to go on another website
and put in their credit card information.
So I think for most people,
the companies are to have higher revenue.
They're going to have to suck it up.
Well, with the ruling, they're going to have to suck it up. Well, with the ruling,
they're going to have the ability to directly
link outside of it for a
more seamless experience.
It allows the
entire introduction of external
and dynamic links, which is
something that didn't exist before and restricted
the ability to incorporate
things like PayPal.
I agree with that
because they're eliminating those steering policies
that guide how you display those links
and how they're integrated into the app.
I think that there will be a lot more flexibility
and we'll see more innovative ways
that are a lot more fluid, less friction.
I'm currently getting...
I'm having
to go through the thing to prove that I'm
an actual person on X right now.
So please ignore if my
mic picks up some noise.
I physically cannot mute myself.
Yeah, we really need
to train an AI that can complete those
for us.
You know, I like it.
I like the way that these capture tests work,
because they're effectively IQ tests.
They're so good.
I don't think that anybody with an IQ that's lower than at least 90
can complete those things,
which is also kind of funny,
because if you're going on X
and you start complaining about the fact that you can't solve these things, that means that your IQ is probably 90 or less.
Which means that you are infinitely closer to retard than any one of us.
Congratulations, by the way, since we have a finder on the app for that now.
Sorry, I just thought that would be funny.
By the way, funny little statistic for anybody.
To function in everyday life, today you need
an IQ of at least 100.
Isn't that interesting?
So can you imagine what happens when there's a whole bunch of people who don't know how
to work the system?
That's because they are lacking the intelligence to do that.
Isn't that fascinating?
So the system actively discriminates against anybody who's not intelligent enough to like figure out how it works, and also simultaneously the
majority of all people are not actually the most intelligent ones, which means that the
very system that is ran by them is fucking them the hardest and then fucking us over
because they then want change, but then they vote for the weirdest things because they
don't understand how the world works and then fucks us all over again. Kind of funny how
that works anyways. Sorry, a little bit off topic, my bad. I'm just, like, ripping out these pipes
of this fucking machine.
Excuse me.
crypto trader versus 100 IQ
points. Who are you backing?
Wait, what?
One crypto trader versus
100 IQ points. Who are you
backing? That depends on the trades of... That depends on how good the trader versus 100 IQ points. Who are you backing?
That depends on the trades of... That depends on how good the trader is, my man.
Like, if that guy's a retard,
but he's making money every single time
without rugging people,
then I don't know, man.
I think maybe the IQ test needs to get out the window.
So, thinking about it.
I mean, maybe there's something to that madness,
but if he actually works, then I'm backing it.
Have you seen the meme where the guy's throwing away the book
that's called The Intelligent Investor?
Maybe to make a ton of money,
you have to be a special type of retard.
Yes, yes.
That's actually the funny thing,
because I texted this in our group.
Remember when I said,
I feel like sometimes the people who've made a lot of money
sometimes do the most retarded of all things.
They're like, do you have to be a type of retarded in order to make money and i think that answer is yes
especially via investments like if you build things then it's like you have to be socially
retarded but also smart at the same time because you need to get the vc money but you have to like
think exactly the same way that the people who are the VCs
who have the money think, so that you can trick
them into giving you the money.
So it's like
maybe you have to be just like
they are, and if you think about it, many of them
are probably heavily impacted by LinkedIn
brain rot, which means you're going to have to mirror the LinkedIn
brain rot, which means if you do that enough, it
eventually becomes you.
Well, it makes a lot of sense if you think about Trad5 because they make the most money
when they're taking it from mid curves. So if you think like a mid curver, you're going to be
playing into, you know, you're going to be looking at the same kind of information that mid curve
people are looking at, making the same kind of investments, and Wall Street's probably going to be taking your money.
But if you're operating at a higher or lower enough frequency,
you're not necessarily tuning into the same wavelength,
so you're going to be making your choices on a different basis,
and a lot of times running counter to the popular narrative
counter to the popular narrative is actually what's going to end up doing well for you.
is actually what's going to end up doing well for you.
Basically what LaurieCat here is saying is,
he's taking the crypto trader and you are blending this with the
so you're telling me there's a chance meme.
Okay?
That's what he's doing.
And in this case, that specific mindset, which is otherwise extremely retarded, is absolutely gigabrain.
It doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. It's not supposed to. That's why it's called trading, not investing.
There's a difference, you see?
Anyways, what else do we have?
It's funny, that exact meme played a pretty significant role in the GameStop saga.
Wait, seriously?
Yeah, it did.
It was a part of the Roaring Kitty tweets.
It was one of his favorite memes.
Oh my god.
Understandable.
Understandable.
Oh yeah, there was like a GameStop edit that I put off like a long time ago.
That felt was like really, really cool.
Because I kind of embraced what the whole, you know, GME thing is.
But anyways, I think back to the main topic.
What else do we have in conjunction with the ruling?
Anything else?
I was wondering, what does it mean for the developers?
So I think it opens up opportunities for developers because all of their projections, all of their business models get to open up a lot.
They don't have to pay the Apple tax, so that's going to allow them to bring in more revenue, which is going to increase options.
Like more businesses will be viable because this, you know, sort of different business model is now going to be viable.
And for larger companies like Activision,
I can speak from experience on that one,
they'll be able to directly link into the Battle.net payment system.
So for them, they'll be able to dramatically increase their resource
just by using pre-existing code.
Not resources, income.
And I would expect to see a lot of companies, especially the bigger ones like Epic and Activision, Blizzard,
incorporating those direct payment systems, which is just going to massively increase their overall revenue.
Especially because the development time required is so small, because they already have the pre-existing systems from their PC system.
It's just a port of code.
That's going to be nice for somebody like me. I've spent a lot of money on Activision stuff.
I kinda hate myself for it a little bit, not gonna lie. But I mean, dude, if you've played
as many hours of Diablo 5 and Call of Duty as I have, there is a bit of a masochistic
strain in your DNA that does get satisfied very heavily by Activision's microtransaction
options.
Wait, you got secret access to Diablo 5 and you didn't tell us? does get satisfied very heavily by activision's microtransaction options
wait you got secret access to diablo 5 and you didn't tell us
fuck diablo 4 my bad i just fucking hate the labeling my bad excuse me
i'm dealing with a to make things worse i'm dealing with like a thing that uses
alcohol as a solvent so that's like all over that's that's in the air everywhere
so um i'm like really walking an edge here it's so nice
love it
you know the meme where it's like it's it's it's nice how much this sucks that's what this is now
because i'm like covered in like this weird multicolored substance.
I look like one of those gay aliens.
It's amazing.
Speaking of gay aliens, have you guys seen that new game that came out from Bungie called Marathon?
They put out a sick fucking trailer.
It was amazing.
I'll have to take it.
Yeah, man.
It was really cool.
I'm probably not going to play the game because the mechanics are too complex.
And I don't want to...
Imagine this. I come off of work and I go back to work.
Why?
If I want to do work, then I'm going to do work and then take extra money.
Say, for instance, I want to grind a game for 15 hours because I need an item.
So I do the math in my head and I say 15 hours it takes me to grind a game.
So now imagine this. What if I took 10 hours and I said I'm going to do 10 hours overtime at whatever company I work at and then I take the money from the 10 hours of overtime and then I
pay somebody in game with RMT so I can get the item that I want that I would have otherwise
spent 10 hours or so grinding wages for to have like you know five hours of fun so then I have
the fucking item have my five hours of fun, go to bed,
feel amazing about myself, have a higher level of certainty on the quality of goods
that I get because my overtime is going to be insane, by the way, because, you know,
10 hours, right? You did 10 hours. That's fucking insane.
It's like an additional work day.
Woo! You're doing a night trip right now because you don't have a life.
Now, it's really good, right? So think about it.
I think of it that way. You know what?
So that's probably why I'm not going to be playing marathon because it's just too
much shit in there that I'd have to deal with.
But otherwise, I would say from the visuals
that I've been able to see, it's a pretty
cool looking game.
It's got an interesting premise behind it
and best of luck to him
to be honest. Looks pretty good.
What's up, guys?
How good was it?
Hey, NJ.
Good, good.
Any thoughts on the Apple tax?
Lawyer.
So, if I'm reading right, so Epic doesn't get charged 30%, right?
Is that what the Apple tax is?
what the Apple tax is?
Kind of.
Kind of.
So the court ruled not just for Epic,
but for every developer that's providing digital goods and services
that Apple has to allow links to external purchasing platforms
in whatever manner the dev wants to use
and that they can't collect a commission on sales
that take place on those external platforms.
So the Apple tax is now optional for Epic and many other devs.
I think it's good for the Apple ecosystem.
I think it destroys the Android ecosystem.
Apple makes a lot of money on the devices and other services.
Android, I mean, they make very,
they technically make money on some of the services,
but like Google Play was a big part of it.
So this doesn't affect Google.
It is an Apple specific ruling and my
understanding is that a big part of it is because of the walled garden that they
have whoa hold on okay you got to explain the world garden aspect to me
because if this doesn't affect Google which requires you or like if you're you can install uh what other app stores but i
think you get charged even so right no no you can sideload any app you want on android you don't
have that's right yeah yeah sorry you're you're absolutely right what am i talking about yeah
with apple you're you're in the walled garden right so you have to use the apple app store
that's the difference that's right there's no other app stores here yes i mean yeah it's it's
good i think it's good i mean if apple wasn't making money on the devices it'd be bad but
this is good random question question. Where did this term
walled garden come from?
I'm so used to hearing
closed ecosystem.
Something beautiful
hidden from the world?
Yeah, I think I read it first
in some piece of tech journalism
about Apple.
But I couldn't tell you where
it originated.
It was a shitcoin white paper. Don't worry
about it. Don't ask questions.
I just have to say that.
I like it.
It's much more poetic than
a closed ecosystem.
Shitcoin white papers are fucking retarded.
The concept is retarded, but they
use the most nicest of words.
It's like a CIA report, but if it meant nothing.
Like most CIA reports.
Yeah, it's like they have a magic PR pixie just sprinkle on some razzmatazz to make it sound believable.
It's really fascinating reading.
The stone people are alive.
It just has a flavor.
Right, so it looks like the term originally came from telecom.
The term originally came from telecom.
The term was first applied to closed mobile network services like Japan's NTT,
which offered curated content within a controlled environment, limiting external access.
And then it got into AOL.
It was proprietary service, was restricted restricted portal and now to content and brother
and the broader internet popularized the term it was described as a walled garden
to highlight it curated by limiting nature
so aol and telecom very interesting a, what a throwback. Indeed, indeed.
I think we could start turning it over to the comments.
Anybody have any questions?
Leave them down there, we'll have them vetted and such.
Don't spam the place as sometimes people do.
If you're a subscriber, you get an additional chance that is a lot higher than anybody else's
chance for a comment to be read and answered to be granted to whatever question you've asked.
So, yeah, fire away.
You got anything to ask?
Now is the time.
I think, Lauriecat, how long do we want to keep this going?
Until it gets stale?
Like, what are we working with?
Yeah, I'm thinking until it gets stale,
we've already covered the major points of the ruling,
so let's see what questions are in the comments.
Just kind of
scrolling through now.
Bly's, or if anyone else sees any in the
comments, if you'll
shut them.
They're asking, when will the changes
go into effect? I guess they're talking about the
Apple Store tax and stuff like that.
That's a good question.
I mean, Epic announced that it's bringing
back Fortnite next week.
The court ordered that it go into effect immediately, but it is going to take some
time for the policy changes to be implemented. And as we saw in the last round, I mean,
Apple kind of took its time and had meetings and deliberated over how they wanted to implement the court's ruling the last time. And, um, you know, that's where we saw, uh, a little bit of, uh, fuckery for lack of a better
term. And so we'll, we'll just have to see exactly how long it takes, but, um, probably not as long
as it took the first time around. I think it took them, um, the better part of a year the first time around so we'll see
on top of that on the developer side you're going to see a lot of developers that are going to be
hesitant to invest the time to create the code for that separate system so that's going to be
another barrier especially that's going to that's going to depend on Apple's appeal as well.
There's going to be a lot of companies that are going to kind of sit on the fence until that dust settles, I think.
Absolutely.
Linda Arnon asked the question, how does this benefit the American consumers?
Well, I mean, for one, you're going to have the ability to pay less for the same, you know, subscriptions or other digital goods and services that you're buying now.
So once it goes into effect, that would be great.
Vera did raise a great point that this could potentially be appealed.
Typically, judges get a lot of discretion afforded to them, especially in the enforcement
of their own injunctions. But it's possible that we could see this go up and be reversed on appeal.
So does this mean that the X subscriptions will go down in price if you subscribe through
the iphone um well first everyone should probably just subscribe to rex.com on the website separate
off the phone and then but yeah well i don't think the cost is going down i think like the
price adjustment is like you're paying a dollar but there's like stuff taken off from that dollar
including of course taxes as well so like default, I'm always going to be receiving
less than a dollar if that's the subscription
thing that we're going after, because of taxes alone.
But Apple was taking
a decent chunk, so again,
yeah, I'm just
going to be getting more. The subscription is not going to get
cheaper, I'm just getting more
out of it, because there's nobody else
taking a cut of something
for doing nothing right what i
would say is that for any services that are cheaper if you buy them direct um consumers
are going to have a lot easier access uh to paying that direct price
yeah and like certain companies could make like a choice where they say, hey, we've had to like, you know, correct for this amount of like tax on everything that we've been able to bring in via transaction.
And then say, hey, what if we took whatever the tax was, cut that in half and like add that half as a discount to like everything else going forward if you like, you know, pay with us locally.
So you keep the same price if you want to pay through Apple,
but if you want to pay locally, then you just do that thing.
So if Apple in the future would like to do something,
then this would probably help out.
I'm pretty sure you could do something like that.
It would be a little bit more...
I don't know.
It would be kind of complex,
but I'm pretty sure you could pull it off.
It'd be good investment for the future anyways, but that's just imaginary.
They're asking about the Apple stock.
Do you think it's going to have negative effects on the Apple stock?
A little bit.
That's a good question.
It'll definitely reduce their earnings projection,
so I would say that would ultimately have a negative effect.
I haven't looked at what their App Store earnings are,
but I thought it was relatively marginal by Apple standards.
No, revenue-wise, it's very small, but it's very profitable.
So it makes up a large section of the performance. Yeah, I mean, it's very small, but it's very profitable. So it makes up a large section of their profit.
Yeah, I mean, it's software.
The Surface, I mean.
Yeah.
It makes up a very large section of their profit.
So the Apple stock performance is...
It's up, like 0.61%, but after hours hours it's down by 1.65% so that's not that much but it's still a sizable
chunk it's a great thing for like if somebody wanted to fearmonger to put that into a headline
because the percentages are usually very small but the impact in terms of money are quite large
that's why people can say things like trillions have been wiped out from the stock market,
though technically speaking, those trillions haven't necessarily been lost anywhere,
it's just that the price of the overall company has gone down.
The company hasn't really lost money.
It's just the speculative value has decreased.
Because the speculative value is literally fake.
It's not entirely fake.
It's kind of like sociology and economy mixed together in a weird hodgepodge of...
I don't know. Finance is weird.
Yeah, so it's gay. Just kidding.
That's what makes it interesting to me.
That's what makes it interesting to me.
Like, me too.
That's like the only thing I pay attention to it for.
It's just like, huh, society feels this way,
and then the numbers did this.
And now society feels this way,
and the numbers did this.
Amazing.
Adrian's laughing because it sounds like
I said it was interesting.
Yeah. This whole thing, what I've put down is being stretched infinitely, Adrian's laughing because it sounds like I said it was interesting.
This whole thing, what I've put down is being stretched infinitely,
and it's working perfectly.
I love it so much.
And you just keep stretching it.
Absolutely.
Stretch Armstrong.
Yes. In 2022, Apple earned an income in profit, roughly $100 billion.
$23 billion of that, I believe, no, sorry, $27 billion of that was the App Store.
So this could impact that by, I don't know what, maybe 10% to 15%.
So out of the entire, probably like, what, 4% or 5% out of the entire thing.
So yeah, the stock will be hit, but minor, not huge.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's an interesting question.
Does this affect Apple Film or music sales, or is it just off apps?
I think it's just off apps, isn't it?
I believe it is just through their apps,
and maybe through Apple Pay as well.
Not so sure about that one.
Apple Pay doesn't really take that big of a commission.
So what happens if Prime Video wants to sell movies through its app
um it's my understanding i think that they already do um but if they do then they would
be able to link consumers to an external place to purchase it um you know, maybe directly to the Amazon app or the Prime app.
And then consumers would be able to purchase at that price and view the content.
Yep, it should work via licensing. Instead of currently, the only option that they had available
was either to have it go directly through apple pay or have an external
link where the payment would be tracked unless the user went to a completely different page
and to a completely different browser outside of safari and then basically now they'll just be able
to have it click and open up the link to purchase via PayPal or whatever system they want to implement
on the dynamic page that appears
that will open up in the chosen browser of the user
instead of specifically Safari.
Interesting.
So I just looked at a machine.
I have a machine that spins now.
It takes an object and grips it real tight like a lathe,
and it spins it right round baby right round.
A centrifuge?
Something like that.
But not really.
A superfuge.
It's doing lathe things, but it's not taking away material, it's adding material.
Huh.
That sounds neat.
It sounds neat, and it's hell to work with.
Well, the giant spinning device is hell to work with?
I don't see.
You know,
I think something Andre said earlier was interesting,
which is his estimate of the total impact
being like a couple billion dollars.
I think that's likely accurate. And the big point there is that the Apple tax isn't really going
away so much as for savvy consumers and savvy developers, there are going to be ways to reduce
costs and make commerce a little bit easier. Yeah. And it's like the big guys, right?
So Epic prime, whoever else out of the big guys, they'll funnel the stuff off there.
But 80% of the revenue is still from the smaller independent developers.
I'm guessing this is not, I would definitely go encourage everyone to look into it,
but that's what I would guess.
So that's where my estimates came from.
I think even smaller mobile gaming outfits stand to benefit from this quite a bit.
Because they have to pay in, and they don't get those sweetheart deals.
I think the litigation said Amazon was paying about 18% of the 30%.
It was paying on paper for the Apple tax.
So when you look at sort of the opportunities that are going to open up
for those developers that are selling like a purely digital service,
like, you know, mobile gaming,
I think you could see a lot of smaller businesses that benefit from it as well.
you could see a lot of smaller businesses that benefit from it as well.
Possible, but as consumers, I think there'll be a certain sense of like,
I trust the app store more. Like for example, right, I have a Samsung phone. There's the
Samsung Galaxy phone and Play Store. I almost never open up a Samsung Galaxy store regardless. It's just, I don't know.
It's just go to Play Store.
So I still think that effect will mitigate a lot of the losses.
Yeah, I mentioned this before you came on.
I said that I think that most people are still going to trust Apple more
than the individual developers with their credit card information. I think with dynamic links, you might be able to
have a smooth enough UI slash UX
that people wouldn't feel unsafe, but I might be wrong about that.
The developers could correct me.
There's also probably, like I haven't looked into it, but I
assume there are companies out there that will provide this service to smaller developers as well.
I'd imagine Stripe has some form of integration for this as well as PayPal.
And it'll give smaller developers the ability to choose between going directly through Apple or using an outside service when it comes to in-app
payments and purchasing of any digital good really and it's gonna be like there's gonna be more
coverage in the smaller region than I you might expect because of the a lot of smaller companies need more revenue and getting around that is much more motivated for them for their actual survival instead of just making the bigger, like the stockholders happy.
You know, actually, an interesting impact that we haven't talked about is the privacy impact, right? So if people are going to be linking out consumers, you're going to be linking to an external site to this developer's own platform to purchase digital goods and services.
they're going to be potentially handing their data over to a new entity that they wouldn't have to otherwise if they were just purchasing directly through the App Store.
I'm curious what Suraj has to say about this.
Yeah, I think I made a comment about this when it comes to the EU third-party App Stores.
I was actually telling a lot of users not to use the third-party app stores
because the Apple App Store has had a really strong track record
when it comes to securing all these apps,
meaning they still have way lesser malwares compared to anyone else.
And I'm not sure if the third-party app store developers
have the same resources like Apple to mitigate certain threats that they have
never seen before. Since they have been managing so many apps for so long, they also have a variety
of databases of threat intel, meaning they have seen almost all kinds of threats already.
they have seen almost all kinds of threats already.
Right.
And it's a mixture of both automated and manual human intervention
for checking the code.
So, yeah, definitely I would trust Apple app stores
more than the third-party app stores.
And, yeah, you made a really good point when it comes to privacy.
Yeah, you made a really good point when it comes to privacy.
They're asking, what do you think Apple's chances are of appealing this decision are?
And which judges would they appeal to, if you know?
So you don't get to pick the judges that you're appealing to when you appeal to circuit court.
when you appeal to circuit court.
So they would be appealing,
let's just double check the court that this took place in.
So yeah, this would be to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which is typically a more,
you know, like it's hard to say exactly,
but I would say they tend to be a little bit more anti-monopolistic than other circuits.
So, you know, I don't know that there would necessarily be a good way of saying what the chances are on appeal.
Um, but, you know, as I said before, typically, you know, when a judge has already issued an injunction and that injunction has gone up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to hear the appeal.
And then one of the parties fails to implement the judge's ruling.
Um, and the judge is issuing an order essentially to correct the non-compliance with the previous order
that has already essentially been upheld by the Supreme Court,
it's going to be a harder push to say, like,
oh, no, the judge is wrong about what they meant the first time around.
They didn't know what they want.
We actually know better what the judge was intending to order us to do.
Like, that argument just isn't going to fly
because it's the same judge that issued that first order.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, makes sense.
Now they're saying, can Apple still ensure user safety
without monopolizing their payment system?
You know, that's a good question.
And I think it goes back partially to the privacy concerns that we were just discussing.
If users end up taking on risks by going to these external links. So, I mean, perhaps Apple is going to need to have
sort of safety policies surrounding
what these external links can go to.
I don't know if they're going to have requirements
for privacy policies at these sites
or anything along those lines,
but potentially consumer data, consumer devices,
or more could be at risk,
depending on how lax those controls are.
Excellent.
I mean, if we just think about the payment systems overall,
I mean, a lot of these payments are made using very few companies.
So if there is some kind of third party that's going to manage this,
it's more or less Stripe, right?
So if people are going to x.com
and subscribing to the subscription,
well, it's going to be Stripe, right?
So either they trust the Apple system or Stripe.
And both of them are using
the same kind of security protocols.
And if you are using a reliable credit card, you're generally fine. And if your credit numbers get compromised,
you can always revoke and get a new one. And there are so many ways to even obfuscate your
credit numbers these days. But Suraj, it's more than just the payment processor. It could, for
example, be an external link to the developer's website where they have a marketplace where you
can purchase, you know, digital goods in their shop. And so if you're going, you know, not just
through Stripe, but you're going to a whole separate platform where maybe Stripe is the payment processor,
but you're still giving your data over to this website. Potentially, I think that raises other concerns.
Yeah, that's definitely a problem.
Well, I mean, if it's mostly the general app, the mainstream apps that we have been using so far,
I think a lot of them are already using industry standards.
But yeah, I mean, the newcomers, the new app developers,
yeah, they probably don't know what they're doing.
So the user data is definitely at a much higher risk
compared to the other ones that we are using.
So, yeah, I guess there are pros and cons.
You are saving some money, but risking a lot more than that.
so laurica i got a question for you um the what is the what's the legal basis for a company coming
So, Laura, I got a question for you.
over onto another company's platform and dictating the terms how that company must operate
its business because the first company in, Epic, wants to do something different.
So, the legal basis, are you saying what's the legal basis for Epic, you know, trying to sue and make Apple run its business differently?
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
So, because it's like Epic came to Apple and says, hey, you know, Apple, please change your business rules because I don't like them.
Yeah. So the legal basis finds its root in United States antitrust law.
So we have laws that are supposed to prohibit monopolistic practices by large corporations.
There are a number of specific types of practices that are prohibited.
And I'm not an antitrust attorney, so I'm not exactly an expert in it.
I'm somewhat familiar.
So, for example, something that's regulated is like bundling. So an example of that is when a company sells one product, but you're forced to
buy another product alongside it. So like when Monsanto will sell its seeds that are genetically
modified to be Roundup resistant, but they're also selling Roundup along with that.
Like that could be an example of bundling that is suspect under U.S. anti-trade laws.
So when companies engage in these anti-competitive practices, they can potentially be sued by other competitors or by folks that are trying to utilize their services in order to make the marketplace more competitive.
So that was actually kind of one of Apple's objections in this lawsuit is like, you know,
telling people that they have to link externally in specific ways and then collecting a commission on sales that take place when they do that isn't actually specifically prohibited in U.S. antitrust laws.
So you can't require us to be more open and allow these external purchases to take place easily.
And the court said, no, that's not really the case. It's not
just that it can be something that's specifically prohibited, but what is generally prohibited
is anti-competitive behavior. And courts have the ability to regulate anti-competitive behavior
when it's affecting the marketplace negatively. And so when they looked at the impact that Apple's policies were having, not just on Epic, but on a lot of companies, and how unfair and how differential it was, especially when you looked at the actual commission rates that certain companies like Amazon were paying, it looked very unfair. And like it was all hedged to make Apple and other big tech companies
succeed at the expense of the little guy. And Epic isn't necessarily the little guy.
They're a very successful company. But when you're comparing them to these, you know, giants like
Apple and Google and, you know, these other large tech companies, they are kind of the little guy.
And this ruling is going to affect a lot more than just them,
like we were talking about.
It really can open the doors for a lot of people
who can't make it by with their margins
if they have to pay the 30% Apple tax.
So if part of the issue is the fact that Apple is charging different rates to
different companies, if they just simplified to a simple standard rate, wouldn't that not
mitigate a lot of this?
Because, um, I'm trying to, I don't remember the details about the cases around what's called internet providers right
where you can't have the internet provider charge companies or make exclusive deals with companies
for traffic however it's like what is a fair internet i forgot what the term is but regardless they still like you still have to
pay the backbone companies a lot of money for the traffic right you can't just use their service
without it so here's the same thing you're using you're using a platform that was built that you're
not paying for your the customers are paying for the device you can save the platform as well but
device, you can save the platform as well, but you it's that platform is
enabling your service.
So if they just simplified the fee and standardized it across everyone, like
what is it, and they're not the only platform out there there, you got
Android as well.
What is it that still makes it as why can a company say, Hey, I'm going to
use your platform, but I'm not going to
pay you for it. And yeah. So what the court was looking at there was what it called an
anti-competitive revenue stream. Um, so, uh, typically the law favors competitive revenue
streams and, and not anti-competitive revenue streams. So when a company is only able to derive
its revenue by forcing consumers to purchase in a specific way, that's likely to be deemed a
violation of antitrust laws. A difference between Apple and Google is that Google does allow sideloading.
And that makes a huge difference because it opens up in terms of competitive choice for consumers.
Like, yes, there are pros and cons to sideloading, but they have that choice.
And if they have that choice, that means that Google doesn't have an anti-competitive revenue stream just because it charges 30% through the Play Store.
It actually earns that 30% by being the more desirable marketplace over these other marketplaces
that you could sideload through. So if Apple were to open up similarly and allow for side loading on its devices, that would be one option that would
potentially change the ramifications of this decision, right? Because that changes the nature
of the competitiveness of the revenue stream. Yeah. And I guess in this case, Google would
have a better, actually a better case if they said that, uh we got the aos aosp the android open source
project that's free for everyone any company can go build their own aos be like um for example kindle
fire um or the tizen i do believe both of them actually tizen might be a linux space but anyways
and then we got the android project which is our Google proprietary, but you must use Google app, uh, app store.
So yeah, that, that would probably have a stronger basis of like, okay, well, if
you, if you like, we provided all this to everyone, but since Google app store,
I mean, Android is free.
You gotta pay us for the app store.
Um, because we to make money somehow.
Yeah.
But with the Apple case, it's different because they sell the devices for profit.
This case does not fly against Google.
All Google has to say is build your own app store.
We don't care.
Case over.
Yeah.
Andre, just a quick thing.
Android is also based on Linux
the AOSP project is like
it's Linux kernel
but it's different
but they forked very long ago
so they're not really
the same project anymore don't worry about
it i just i don't remember i don't remember which one of the side offs if it's tizen if it's fire
os or it's something else that actually was like web os or something that was purely a linux fork
but not an uh aosb fork That's why I was separating it.
AOSP, like Arta said, yeah, it's, they separated
quite a while back, so it is different enough,
but it has a Linux kernel, you're right.
All right, anything else?
Any other? all right anything else any other bunch of stuff people asking me oh yeah the elon news right you got the tesla board of directors
basically saying elon doesn't spend enough time at the company and they're apparently searching
for a new ceo to succeed him technically that article
is kind of garbage because it makes a whole bunch of assumptions that are more speculative than
anything like if you look at the way that they're wording it including of course the timing of
certain assessments it's just i think it's a whole bunch of bullshit like if you were to really look
into it i could give like more of a detailed explanation as to why that is but i really am
not in the mood to do that at the moment. Sorry. But realistically, the whole thing is just written weirdly,
and it's based on a bunch of assertions. Again, this is the Wall Street Journal. It's not the
first time that they've gotten something wrong, that they've posted something that is extremely
bullshit. This is the Wall Street Journal. They're not bullshitty enough to get in on the
Adrian Dittman is Elon speculation, so they have to be so bullshitty that it makes stock markets capitulate. Now, if you want, if
this, this could be a funny opportunity for people to lose a lot of money because they're going to
sell and then it's going to go back up again, or it could be, it could be a very nice opportunity
to buy back in after the sentiment collapses a little bit, which is probably what's going to
happen for people who are just paper handed. So if you paper-handed. So if you want, this could be a good entry strategy.
I don't know.
But about the replacement itself as a concept, I don't think that's happening now, but it
may happen at some far-fetched point in the future, because Elon's not going to live forever.
There's going to need to be a successor at some point, or maybe he's just going to live forever. You know, there's going to need to be a successor at some point. Or maybe he's just
going to pull
what is that guy's name at TSMC? Morris Chang
is it?
Yeah, Morris Chang. Yeah, he's going to pull Morris
Chang. He's still there. He's still there
at like 92 or some shit like that
and he's like, we never
know. These things are unpredictable.
We can't make decent speculation
on that.
But there might be...
What's that guy from...
What's that guy who worked at Berkshire
halfway until he died?
Munger. Munger. Charlie Munger.
Munger. Charlie Munger literally
died next to his partner. It's fucking crazy.
Buffett outlived him.
Is it Munger or Munger? I think it's Munger.
Everybody says Munger.
Wow, I always read that as Munger.
Interesting. Okay.
I always like Munger because everybody says Munger, so I'm like, okay, cool.
I'm not going to look weird
at the party. I don't want to be one of those guys.
It's bad enough that I start talking about aliens
after like three-hour discussions, but like,
I'm not going to do that.
Still there. i think these apparently kind of summarize it i think the speculations are kind of frivolous
and they're just a bunch of fud for short sellers to kind of like try and profit off of but they
will be kind of disappointed as to how this might work out there's not been any word for milan
there's not been any word from tesla and I think for something like a replacement, this would need to be called for vote, wouldn't it?
Like, this would be called to a vote, I think at least, right?
Well, it's not only that.
Even in the article, they say, well, these talks happened over a month ago, so in March.
So this predates Elon saying at the earnings that he's stepping away from Doge
and coming back to be more hands-on at Tesla.
I mean, he has to step away from Doge anyways.
We're already at the fifth month of the year.
In like, what is it now?
Seven months, it's going to be over,
and then Doge is going to be dissolved.
So there is going to be a phase of comeback and return,
especially now that they've figured out a lot of the issues. There's going to be a time in which he returns back to like tesla a lot more
than he has previously and there's a bunch of other stuff that's coming there's i think in the
next two weeks a rocket launch you know starship so we'll see what happens at least that's what i've
been able to like scrape off of posts that have randomly seen while i was like soup deprived but
so take that with a grain of salt but still should, I don't think this is anything to worry about.
If anything, I think people should be more focused on what the potential future sentiment of the company is based on,
you know, states of manufacturing than anything else if you want to focus on something that's actually meritable.
I think the strange musings of journalists that are fringe-capable journalists of the Wall Street Journal
I think are not words that you should pay even the slightest amount of attention to.
Like, I just, I don't think it's worth anybody's time.
And the shorts are loving this, they're like trying to use this as a thing.
And I recently heard one of the people who were speculating quite heavily on me being Elon,
I heard this guy mouth off. I was
like, oh, I got to trust a journalist. I'm like, well, you fully spread for a good, what was it,
year since you found me some bullshit about my existence. Really, really selling it. Even getting
one of your members to try and dox me, which he fell, by the way, and got most of you suspended.
But damn, you know, so I wouldn't worry about that.
I wouldn't trust that. And I would just generally focus on other stuff. Look, you're either long on
Tesla or you're not long on Tesla, right? If you want to trade the stock, you trade the stock.
That's a totally different game. But if you want to trade the stock, you're not going to be concerned
by whatever the Wall Street Journal outputs. At that point, you just look at the Wall Street
Journal and go, hmm, hmm, okay, this is going to demolish a whole bunch of paper hands. Probably good to buy in, then wait for the
thing to go up a little bit and sell again. Whatever you do. If you want to do the trade
route, that's what you're doing. If you want to be long, you do long. If you want to do short,
you do short. Whatever you want to do, right? It's a free market. You can do whatever you want.
It's your money. But I wouldn't listen to Wall Street Journal, personally.
By the way, Adrian, super quick, this is kind of, I kept meaning to say this funny thing to you.
When they ran that article and it turns out that Adrian, you are in fact,
Adrian, it's like, it reminded me of a captain Jack Sparrow where it's like,
wait, so Jack was always telling the truth.
And Jack's like, I always do that.
And people don't believe me for some reason.
So yeah, I'm do that and people don't believe me for some reason. So,
same kind of feeling.
It's like,
yeah,
I'm Adrian Dittman.
Or like when the work people
can parse her to
get to like certain places
and he says,
this has got to be like,
this has got to be like
the worst conversation ever.
But you are having it.
It's like,
why are you listening to it
if you don't want to listen to it?
Do you really hate yourself that much?
Come on.
Let's have some fun. Let's post some memes.
Instead of hating on other people, we could try and do something more productive
and have a little fun.
I mean, the world is in a very interesting place.
Everything kind of looks weird financially.
We're in a world, an age of empires,
where everybody tries to do their reconciliation thing.
I think part of the reconciliation thing is to look at somebody else and go,
yes, let's build something together.
Because we're all in this shit together
to some extent.
Just not the communists.
I'm not going to work with you.
Fuck you guys.
This means I am the means of production.
I own my own means of production.
If you want to have that, fuck off.
I can fully get behind that.
Fuck the communists.
I'll work with anybody.
I don't care what you are.
I don't care if you're from the Andromeda galaxy,
if you're a fucking triangle, a square,
or if you're black, white, yellow, whatever else,
whatever have you, racist stereotypes,
blah, blah, blah, transgender, gay, whatever.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I'll work with anyone.
I'm not working with a fucking communist.
If I do work with a fucking communist,
okay, maybe it will be an interesting trade agreement with China.
That's as far as I'm going to stretch it.
But one of these low-life fucking people on on the internet here want to spread an ideology that
they don't fucking understand that they have never done anything productive with they can
fuck right off and get a job because you don't have one and that's why you hate the system because
you're worthless to the system even that you're that bad at understanding how the world works
that you're too that you're too useless to be worth something to the fucking system which will
make use of even the people who are mentally challenged, which is fucking wild. So do something, make something matter
in this world, just even if it's a little bit. I'm proud of you.
I can fix the comments.
No, you can't. No, you can't. No, you can't. No, no, no, no, no, no.
Except if you get the communist Arthur from the university campus demonstration, you may want to stay away from that one, given your specific situation, but hey, if, no, no, no. Except if you get like the communist Artur from like the university campus demonstration,
you may want to stay away from that one given your like specific situation.
But hey, if you get, if you landed, you landed.
I don't judge.
Hold on, Suraj, Suraj, you got a perfect meme there.
It's like if you have a, some kind of photo there of like a cute girl and with a red flag,
a commie flag, you can put it in the text.
I can fix her.
I can fix a commie.
Just be careful before she tries to
fix you, because that's where the problem begins.
I'm not going to deal with whatever that result
is. I don't do chimeras, man.
If she's a commie, don't
call her mommy.
Oh my god!
That's some pretty
good advice.
That's fucking insane as well. That's wicked. Wow, that's good.
You shouldn't be calling woman mommy anyway.
Yeah, it's kind of weird, knock on line.
Yeah, that's weird.
It's weird enough when you're in intercourse and you know
your significant other is calling your daddy for no reason,
but like
the mommy thing, nah.
Nah, nah, that's stretching it a little bit.
That's stretching it a little bit.
I have borders.
Okay.
Oh, yes, I did that.
Mommy, mommy, feed me.
Imagine someone listening to this.
Imagine someone listening to this.
It's got Apple taxes dead.
And we're talking about
fucking communist art hoes.
mommy, feed me's and whatever the fuck
hey this is the risk we all face when you have a room full of people with add
add and autism whatever else we have that's not even defined on the fucking spectrum yet
we're like a totally new thing we're like we're neither cooked nor are we cooking but we are a
sinister third thing we are whatever you want to be. We're like probably aliens.
It's like one of those memes where, you know, we have like the black people meme where it says we was Kangs and shit.
I counter that and I say we was aliens and shit.
By the way, Vera, to your point, it's simple because, you know, ADD, it's easy as one, two.
Ooh, birdie. Oh my fucking god. You know, it's easy as one to who Brady? Oh
I can't think about this
The scene from basketball where the guys say kids these days have
Attention spans that can only be measured in nanoseconds
Meanwhile, the guy on the screen is just staring up at a bird like, huh? What?
That's so real.
I was gonna say
something about cookie dough and monsters,
but I'm not gonna go down that route.
I know what you're gonna say.
Yeah, we all know.
We have a lot of inside jokes that we kind of like keep around
for the speculative value in case we want to drop it at some point.
By the way, if you're tuning in a little bit late,
you're going to hear like absolute degeneracy
for the next couple of minutes until we rug the space.
If you want to know what we were discussing earlier
in relation to the Apple tax is dead,
you'll have to like listen back to the recording of this.
Sorry if this seems a little weird at first,
but yeah, no, this is kind of like how we end it again
We're like doing an analysis of something that dropped like what was it five hours ago or something like that?
We're trying to do something that's actually qualitative. So it's like if we don't do that properly, okay
We're gonna have a problem
but think about this if there's somebody who's like able to throw something together really fucking quick within a matter of hours
That's actually comprehensive and well structuredstructured, you know that we are not
normal. You know that we're going to be neuro-atypical
and there's going to be some weird shit that happens towards the end
of this. Just don't worry about it. Just let it
happen. Just feel this. Feel this moment.
What do you say? Shall we rug here?
Yeah, let's rug.
You got something I wanted to add, Largat?
Yeah. Oh, I just wanted to say I felt
like we had a really good comprehensive discussion.
Absolutely. I think this is YouTube-worthy.
If we take the point where we were about to take questions,
at that point we just cut it off and just keep the early parts of that.
That was really, really good. It was very nice. Enjoyed it.
Thank you all for coming today. This was amazing.
I just thought I would do a quick space, just because,
because it's a very interesting and important thing.
And I mean, hey, I got the fucking Tim Sweeney repost, so that was cool.
Right after that, I got a repost from somebody that...
I can't say it on the space.
That title was epic!
But...
That was a legendary screenshot.
I might post to, like,
I might post to, like, my subscribers.
So you guys make sure to subscribe, so you guys
can see the fucking epic screenshot.
So yeah,
if you subscribed, you may see it.
Yeah, for those of you who are tipping me
in Bitcoin, $100,
roughly about in Bitcoin, whatever the market is today at.
For those of you who have already done that, like, I would call you back and such, if you're subscribed and such, just to, roughly about in Bitcoin, whatever the market is today at. For those of you who have
already done that, I would call you back and such if you're subscribed and such, just to say thank
you effectively. For those of you who I still want to call back and you're kind of in the queue,
I'm going to get to that in a little bit because I've been relatively busy with work-related stuff,
but I think in the next couple days or so, that busyness may recede and I'd be able to get to
all of you guys. So if you're still waiting in the queue a little bit sorry for letting you wait but we're gonna we're gonna deal with that
um yeah so in the next coming days maybe even tomorrow i'll be you fuck i just swallowed a
mosquito shit disgusting fucking things i fucking hate these things there's so fucking many of them
too fuck fuck these things dude we gotta like genocide these fuckers i fucking hate them anyways
um yeah where was i at oh sorry don't do We still need the frogs. I love frogs a lot more
than I hate mosquitoes. Uh, yeah, that's about it. Thank you all for coming today. Uh, ignore the
last comments there that was, uh, taken out of context that could become a little bit problematic
or absolutely fucking hilarious because I'll have to explain that and that's gonna give me more clout,
so do whatever you want effectively. Um, yeah, see you guys again whenever I go live. Make sure
to turn notifications on and subscribe to me. It only
costs a dollar, so it's not that much, but it does go a long way.
And yeah, thank you all to
all the community that showed up and
continues to comment and such and whatever.
I see you always.
Thank you and good night.
Good night. Good night.
Great job, LawyerCat. Absolutely nailed it.
Nailed it. Very well done.
