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

81–90 of 375 posts

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

#81

Post by esclerofilo »

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?

In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.

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

#82

Post by Angostura »

fartcannon wrote: post #56
m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers. Develop applications right on device! My dream.

You can, there are plenty of development environments on iOS. What you can't do is distribute those apps. They are stick on your phone.

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

#83

Post by asda_ »

rictic wrote: post #47
BitwiseFool wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, you can use the amazon website on the iphone and circumvent all the limitations for example. They want to use the platform apple provides to create apps (good user experiences). So, this analogy doesn't seem apt to me

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

#84

Post by mcphage »

kaiju0 wrote: post #5
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…

They would just stop making the phone.

I think if Tim Cook announced he was stopping iPhone production, he would find himself unemployed by the end of the day.

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

#85

Post by manicdee »

m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

Most phone users aren’t interested in developing software on their phone. They aren’t interested in developing a better systemd. They have no idea what malware actually is.

All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.

Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.

If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.

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

#86

Post by fooey »

fartcannon wrote: post #56
m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers. Develop applications right on device! My dream.

The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices

I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.

If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple

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

#87

Post by manicdee »

bitcurious wrote: post #79
ArkanExplorer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best outcome for everybody is that the maximum % commission of these stores is regulated, perhaps to a maximum of 10-15%. Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments etc. goes away.

If I want an alternate store, it’s not to safe ~$20/year in commission, it’s to gain access to functionality to which Apple restricts access.

Why does Apple restrict access to certain functionality?

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

#88

Post by mrkramer »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #73
m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

The best outcome for everybody is that the maximum % commission of these stores is regulated, perhaps to a maximum of 10-15%. Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments etc. goes away.

App is not necessity good, you can not impose price controls for apps like you can for food for example.

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

#89

Post by placatedmayhem »

nonameiguess wrote: post #74
jmole wrote: post #39

I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook. That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.

This weirded me the heck out when I switched from Android last year. I can't buy for my Kindle from the iOS Amazon app, but I can log into amazon.com, buy for the Kindle there, and then read in my Kindle app on iOS. It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy…

> Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.

I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental difference I'm missing?

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

#90

Post by Angostura »

rictic wrote: post #47
BitwiseFool wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Should Taco Bell be legally required to let MacDonalds set up stall rent-free in their stores?
Post reply on HN