Jay Peters, The Verge, under the headline “Epic Says Fortnite Is Coming Back to iOS in the US”:

Following a court order that blocks Apple from taking a commission on purchases made outside the App Store, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney says on X that the company plans to bring Fortnite back to iOS in the US “next week.”

The app hasn’t been available on iOS in the US since August 2020, when Apple kicked it off the App Store for implementing Epic’s own in-app payment system in violation of Apple’s rules. Since then, Apple and Epic have been embroiled in an ongoing legal battle, including a ruling more in Apple’s favor in 2021 and today’s ruling that is a major victory for Epic.

I could be wrong, but my read is that while the ruling was clearly a significant and reputationally-damaging loss for Apple, that doesn’t make it a “win” for Epic at all. Just because the case is Epic v. Apple doesn’t mean Epic benefits by Apple’s excoriation. Apple won the original case. It was like a sidenote on that original case that Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction that Apple was required to allow developers to just freely link to alternative payment offerings on the web, outside the app. Basically, that if the App Store is not anticompetitive, apps at least must be able to inform users about competing options for purchases/signups.

Here’s a spitball analogy. Back in the cable TV days, there were many local channels that were available over the air, for free. (That’s still true but no one watches TV like this anymore.) Imagine if a monopolist or near-monopolist cable company declared that it would not permit any show on any channel to even mention the fact that the channel was also available free-of-charge over the air. That’s what Apple has been doing with apps in the App Store. If cable was so good, so much better than free over-the-air broadcast TV, it should have been able to thrive even if people were aware of their free over-the-air options. If the App Store is so good, so much better than free over-the-web purchases and signups, it should be able to thrive even if people are aware of their free over-the-web options. Basically, that was Gonzales Rogers’s injunction to Apple. And Apple’s response was basically, “Nah, we’re still not going to allow that, but we’ll pretend to comply by asserting that anyone who starts watching TV channels over-the-air after learning about that via something they saw on cable TV still has to pay us the effective same rates they’ve been paying to watch those channels via our cable service.”. Except instead Apple was asserting that they should collect 27% commissions on over-the-web purchases if the user learned about the option through the native app from the App Store.

None of this, as far as I can see, has anything to do with Epic Games or Fortnite at all, other than that it was Epic who initiated the case. Give them credit for that. But I don’t see how this ruling gets Fortnite back in the App Store. I think Sweeney is just blustering — he wants Fortnite back in the App Store and thinks by just asserting it, he can force Apple’s hand at a moment when they’re wrong-footed by a scathing federal court judgment against them.

Maybe Sweeney knows something I don’t, but I doubt it. I think this is just bluster, PR gamesmanship, and ought to be reported that way, at least for now. If there’s a single sentence in Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling that suggests Apple needs to reinstate Epic Games to the App Store, I missed it.

Enhance your love of literature by viewing it through a philosophic lens.

What if the stories you love could offer even more meaning, more inspiration, more fuel for living? They can. This course will show you how to deepen your love of literature by approaching it philosophically.

Literature uniquely dramatizes the values that shape human life. Through the integrated elements of plot, character, style, and theme, it explores the deepest questions about what it means to live, to struggle, to triumph.

By examining literature philosophically, you’ll gain a richer understanding of stories and characters as well as the ideas and choices that cause people to act as they do. This approach not only enhances your appreciation of great stories, it also teaches you to think more clearly and live more deliberately.

Guided by Angel Walker-Werth and co-instructors Carrie-Ann Biondi, Tim White, Luc Travers, and Timothy Sandefur, this course will explore key scenes and themes from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead and We the Living, Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, and a selection of powerful poems and short stories. (The poems, short stories, and excerpts will be provided prior to the relevant session.)

If you love literature—and want to love it even more—this course is for you.

https://youtu.be/Ff78OyGNA40




Podcast audio:







This sample class by Gena Gorlin is based on the full-length ARU course of the same name. The full course explores the major schools of thought, methods of inquiry, and empirical findings taught in a typical introduction to psychology course. But it explores how to understand and evaluate these theories, methods, and findings from an Objectivist perspective. Students learn how Objectivism can help us consume and get personal value from existing work in psychology, even when it is deeply flawed philosophically. The sample class will feature a selection of topics drawn from the full ARU course.



Recorded live on June 16 in Anaheim, CA as part of OCON 2024.








Download video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ff78OyGNA40



Download audio: https://media.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/content.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/Gena-Gorlin_An-Introduction-to-Psychology_OCON24.mp3

Unfortunately, all he proved to most readers was that Hell is reading Jean Paul Sartre books.

A century earlier his countryman Frederic Bastiat discovered, argued and helped to prove something very different; that other people are the very opposite of hell. Said Bastiat in his own magnum opus Economic Harmonies:

“All men’s impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern.”

This is the big lesson that economics can give to philosophers: that the world is not made up of the “fundamental antagonisms” between people that some philosophers find everywhere; antagonisms alleged to be ...

Between the property owner and the worker.
Between capital and labour.
Between the common people and the bourgeoisie.
Between agriculture and industry.
Between the farmer and the city-dweller.
Between the native-born and the foreigner.
Between the producer and the consumer.
Between civilization and the social order.

And, to sum it all up in a single phrase:

Between personal liberty and a harmonious social order.

What economics can teach philosophers (and what Bastiat can still teach economists) is that other human beings need neither be a burden nor a threat, neither a hell nor a horror but a blessing.

This is the greatest lesson economics can teach: that in a society making peaceful cooperation possible we each gain from the existence of others.

What a great story to tell!

TO START TO TELL THIS long story, a story that all of economics really serves to show, let’s begin with a short story—an excerpt, from a short story by a great short story writer: O. Henry. As his characters sit down in their wilds to break their fast with something “composed of fried bacon and a yellowish edifice that proved up something between pound cake and flexible sandstone,” they begin to reflect on The Perfect Breakfast:

Such a breakfast, they sigh, might only be possible in New York. "It's a great town for epicures,” they say. As is virtually every city.  We take for granted now that in virtually every cafe in every city in the country we can sit down to the perfect breakfast. We reach over to Brazil or Kenya for our coffee and down to Christchurch for our mushrooms and rolls; to Pokeno, or Vermont, for our bacon and head further down to the Waikato to dig a slice of butter out of a Te Rapa urn and then turn over a beehive near a manuka patch in Nelson for our honey.

This is the Miracle of Breakfast: that we can eat like the gods for the cost only of a few dollars thanks to the freedom to trade, the division of labour and the 'invisible hand' of the market. And we take this for granted.  We take it so much for granted that, rather than celebrate sharing the meal that gods eat on Olympia, we complain if our eggs are too cold.

And we don’t need long arms to enjoy it: we need the arms and minds of other people who are free to produce, free to trade, free to enjoy the fruits of their own labour by trading those fruits with others.

This is the lesson integrated by all of economics:  that when you remove force and fraud people are a blessing rather than a curse. Thanks be to the freedom to trade, the division of labour and the 'invisible hand' of the market that makes it possible.

This is the great lesson of Economic Harmonies hinted at by Adam Smith, made explicit by our friend Frederic Bastiat, and developed in specific areas by the likes of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Bastiat first noticed it in a visit to Paris. Paris gets fed, he observed, yet no-one celebrates the miracle:

A light we term self-interest. It is this, says Bastiat, that is at the root of all the Harmonies.

Think about it. On our own we can produce barely anything in a single day.  If we were to permanently endure self-sufficiency or life in the wilds not only would the meal of ambrosia perpetually elude us, our lives would be one long round of much labour for very little reward.  (That's the point of Robinson Crusoe if you remember.) We need others to keep us supplied as we now take for granted—with food, with drink, with iPods, iPads and the very roofs over our head—but how to enlist those others in our aid? Simple: we rely on trading with those others. On voluntary cooperation. In short, we offer them their own profit in return for ours. 

We appeal, in short, to their own self-interest, a point made by Adam Smith in the part of his famous book where he invokes his most famous metaphor:

And so we do. By pursuing our own self-interest, through our production, our trade, our enterprise, we ensure “Paris gets fed.”

But there is no central planner here. That is the second part of this miracle: the “resourceful and secret power that governs the amazing regularity of such complicated movements” is not the result of government planning but the opposite: it is a naturally developed “spontaneous order” regulated by this “inner light” of self-interest and the power of free exchange.  That power, that light,  “is so illuminating, so constant, and so penetrating, when it is left free of every hindrance” it produces the order we take so much for granted.

This, Bastiat’s great lesson of spontaneous order, was taken up by Friedrich Hayek, observing society relies on the spontaneous order arising out of our voluntary cooperation.

This great miracle can only happen when each of us is free to follow our own road, to make use of our unique knowledge and circumstances to pursue our self-interests,  so promoting that of the society more effectually than when we really intend to promote it.

SO WHAT EXPLAINS THIS Miracle of Breakfast then? Bastiat’s own conclusion is summed up in three points:

• Free exchange
• Self-interest
• Spontaneous order

Or in one idea:

“That the legitimate interests of mankind are essentially harmonious.”

This, then, is the great lesson integrated by economics, if we are willing to hear it:

• That human interests do not require acts of sacrifice…
• That bettering the condition of one person does not necessitate the worsening of someone else’s…
• That one person’s wealth does not necessitate another person’s poverty….
• That the creation of wealth requires only that everyone mind their own business and get the hell on with it. ...
• That the interests of all members of society are harmonious if and insofar as private property rights are respected; or, in modern parlance, that the unhampered market can operate independent of government intervention.

Mind you, it takes all of economics to prove the point. And most philosophers are unable to read, or integrate, that much. 

But so too are so many of today’s economists.

* * * * 

* Reposted from 2012, based on a post from 2005. The title comes from a lecture by the late John Ridpath.