If I was a developer, I wouldn't give them a second chance at this point.
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
762 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59622 readers
2861 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When you make your business dependent on a single supplier, that's a massive risk. I don't quite understand why many Managers don't grasp that concept. There are two solutions: build your own infrastructure or use something that's either publicly available (like open source software) or easily replaceable (like a library with a common interface that many others also implement in a way that would also solve your usecase).
If you don't do that, one day in the future your supplier will increase the cost until it's just below the cost of switching. If the cost of switching is more than you can afford at that point, you are screwed.
Cloud computing anyone?
It's the trust thermocline again. When will companies learn to do more ground level research before pulling bullshit like this?
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes shrugs
I'd hope not. I hope the devs realize that its a gamble to put all your eggs in one basket
Unity could get them back if they fired their CEO, John Riticello
Nope, don’t care.
Yep. No matter the CEO. The fact the even can do it means they'll probably try.
We don't know if they can do it. They walked their plan back before it could be tested in court. There's a very good chance that what they were doing (particularly their changing the terms of an agreement without any action from the other parties) was illegal.
If the software would not be propietary, game studios could patch versions they already have so Unity won't be tamptes to mess with it.
Imagine if Microsoft did the same thing with Windows? Allowing software companies to just suddenly change the rules like that could be a terrible precedent. They would probably get hit with antitrust for like the 50th time since they opened their doors.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Once they cheat on you, you can’t trust them again.
I think it's time to revisit the question of why these corporations exist as "people" under the law, when they clearly operate without humanity. The perversion of justice that granted them this right was taken directly from the 14th Amendment in 1886. That amendment was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. What a coincidence that slavery ended, but was immediately replaced with a new structure called corporations.
It's a practical policy. You want corporations to be able to enter into contracts, pay taxes, have legal responsibilities, etc.
Corporations already existed before the 14th amendment. So many valid critiques of capitalism but I don't understand the fixation with this one.
If they weren't "persons" then contracts would simply change their wordings but would still be functionally the same. It's like changing the color of a sports team jersey.
You should be more concerned with the workers owning the means of production. That can happen with or without corporate personhood. And that will be what actually brings us an equitable society.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Am not sure why anyone would stay with them at this point. Even if they have a huge project which is massively popular, they have every reason to move away from them since they wanted to apply those changes retroactively. Imagine if they came up with half a million in fees years after your project has stopped selling and you have invested money into new project or elsewhere. Sure, it might be illegal to do so, but good luck fighting them in court.
New projects I wouldn't even think twice. They backpedaled on this occasion but their goal is clear and there was no guarantee they won't try this kind of thing again which leads me to thinking it's only a matter of time when they will try more sneakily to squeeze changes in.
Trust is a very strong but brittle thing. Once broken it tends to shatter like glass. I'm sure this situation would feel like a sword of Damocles to anyone who has significant investment in the unity platform, and who would want to voluntarily walk into such a position now?