Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 375 posts

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#41

Post by kevingadd »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #19

There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment method is very anti-consumer.

The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away.

IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update.

"The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut."

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#42

Post by dsr_ »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #12
slver wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.

Real world analogies are crucial to the process of reasoning about economic relationships.

It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide.

Not using them is implausible.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#43

Post by slver »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #24
slver wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about: if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business. If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.

Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".

I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact.

Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store?

It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this?

Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why?

And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation.

Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#44

Post by kevingadd »

makomk wrote: post #28
leoedin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - the service Apple are offering for recurring payments is that of a payment processor. In a competitive market that role takes 2-3% at most. And that percentage has been falling year on year as new entrants have entered the market. How does a company disrupt the Google/Apple phone duopoly? Even Microsoft spending hundreds of millions of dollars couldn't do it.

Even on PC, where there's plenty of store competition, the only way to get much lower than 30% seems to be to seriously cut corners - Epic's own store famously lacks standard features like a shopping card, and people have had problems with buying multiple games in succession seperately triggering anti-fraud measures that stop them from doing so, so they're not exactly doing great even at the payment processing part.…

While I agree that the EGS experience is bad, I don't think this is related to the cut. It's just an immature store backed by questionable software engineering and design. There are other stores with low % cuts that don't have these issues.

Itch is very cheap, for example, and developers love it. Apparently Itch is important enough that Apple and Epic kept bringing it up over and over in court.

I don't know their current %s, but Humble's game sales platform (that is, for non-bundle game sales) definitely charged way less than 30% in the past.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#45

Post by idle_zealot »

w7 wrote: post #18
echelon wrote: post #3

Good! It's about time that our industry's monopoly of the ages is put to bed. Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all ma…

I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts) What's the difference other than form factor?

It may be a matter of consumer perception. A game console is viewed as an appliance for playing games. A phone is a more personal device, and users expect to be able to run any app they want. Generally apps that most people are interested in running have no issue getting published on the App Store, so consumers don’t care about the technicalities of what Apple does and does not allow. This Epic case is a big deal because it is likely the first time many iPhone users are being faced with Apple preventing them from running software that they care about.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#46

Post by fartcannon »

fxtentacle wrote: post #8

I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to Chinese manufacturers through their partners. If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google. I, at least,…

Tim is on record as not being a fan of Linux, so I doubt it.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#47

Post by rictic »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #12
slver wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?

The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.

It's more like, if you buy a Ford car, does Taco Bell owe 30% to Ford when you use their drive through?

Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#48

Post by nradov »

rococode wrote: post #9

Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.

Novel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#50

Post by danbolt »

ncann wrote: post #40
w7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts) What's the difference other than form factor?

The line is very blurry. The only major difference between a console and a smartphone is that a console is intended from the get go to be a gaming device, whereas a smartphone is more of a generic computing device, but even then it's hard to draw a meaningful argument on why one should be treated differently from the other.

Perhaps something similar to the Xbox’s UWP mode might be nice. The owner can run their own computer program on it, but opts out of Xbox games and services.
Post reply on HN