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

101–110 of 375 posts

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

#101

Post by ssivark »

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.

On the contrary, I would argue the exact converse. There are many reasons to want alternative app stores, and they might even be an effective market mechanism to avoid specifying some naive threshold like 15%.

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

#102

Post by adam_arthur »

fooey wrote: post #95
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.

Sure, that's true. I have no problem with businesses making money.

But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists.

Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers.

Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident.

The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?

Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.

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

#103

Post by ginko »

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.

That still doesn't let me install (real) Firefox.

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

#104

Post by toast0 »

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.

This need might be better handled by allowing delegation of approval to a trusted contact.

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

#105

Post by benrbray »

manicdee wrote: post #85
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: accessi…

The point is opening it up so users have a choice. Third party stores will emerge, and it is up to the consumer, not Apple, to decide whether the extra features are worth the new apps being a little rough around the edges like they are on Android. If it's as bad as you say, the new stores will not be successful anyway.

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

#106

Post by matheusmoreira »

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?

> don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles?

The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.

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

#107

Post by ssivark »

skizm wrote: post #72
causality0 wrote: post #2

I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if you own the entire ecosystem" dies.

I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it. Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? What makes app stores different than the xbox marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with the type…

Rather, the question is, how can Apple control access to a device they have sold to customers by forcing all app deployments through their App Store? They can run the App Store quite whimsically if they allow side loading apps and other app repositories.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

manicdee wrote: post #85
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: accessi…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by Someone »

adam_arthur wrote: post #30
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?

I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competitio…

Apple’s argument is that their land has value because of the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high.

Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers.

Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.

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

#110

Post by JackGreyhat »

nradov wrote: post #69
fxtentacle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication, Calendar So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.

Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.

I have an android phone without google play enabled or installed. Not even a replacement framework such as MicroG or whatever. Works fine. Check how f-doid apps are running, or what it requires. No google license, api, nothing.
Post reply on HN