Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by fooey » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

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.

Basically every other comparable store charges the exact same 30% rate

Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo

The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any way.

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

#92

Post by adam_arthur » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be.

I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running.

Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer.

This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".

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

#93

Post by voisin » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

baron816 wrote: post #65

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…

It should just be like on Mac—you can go through the App Store, or you can download directly, but with a warning. I think that would be killer argument for Epic—Apple already allows you to download apps onto their devices that don’t go through their store and everything is fine.

This argument was made and their response yesterday was that there is an unacceptable level of malware on macs because they are not locked down the same way.

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

#94

Post by voisin » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

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.

I think it is about more than commission. Developers argue the rules can be applied capriciously and that many of the rules are paternalistic.

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

#95

Post by fooey » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #92

It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be. I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running. Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world wh…

Everything you buy has markup. Everything

Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards.

It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.

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

#96

Post by esclerofilo » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

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…

> Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC

That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.

Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the website, that would also break Apple's ToS.

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

#97

Post by wmf » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #70

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…

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible. You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.

Apple definitely needs to keep working on the sandbox both for defense in depth and so that sideloaded apps (if the court forces it) can be secure enough.

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

#98

Post by kiawe_fire » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #41

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 bei…

This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with.

This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot.

In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.

(That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).

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

#99

Post by Google234 » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #37

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?

Gaming is unimportant. General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.

General-purpose computing Is bigger than ever. Record PC and component sales and more open source software than ever.

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

#100

Post by Turing_Machine » Fri, May 21, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #70

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…

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible. You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.

It's possible to trick grandpa into sending money to Nigeria, too, but we don't use that as an excuse for forcing him to do business with a particular bank.