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

111–120 of 375 posts

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

#111

Post by ginko »

fooey wrote: post #91
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.

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.

They should be forced to open up as well. The whole software platform business model needs to die.

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

#112

Post by rektide »

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 result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission.

Should Apple still be allowed to prevent Chrome from running it's own rendering, javascript, & other web platform engines? How much editorial & technical control are we going to let Apple keep, if we do allow alternate distribution mechanisms?

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

#113

Post by slver »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #51
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?

Are iOS devices Apple's private property?

iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license.

If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.

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

#114

Post by trboyden »

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.

That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.

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

#115

Post by slver »

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…

> 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.

Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of".

> The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.

This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone.

Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one.

You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?

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

#116

Post by m463 »

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 is also possible to trick grandpa into buying another iphone because that's the only way of preserving his text messages from the grandkids when his iphone filled up.

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

#117

Post by sigzero »

trboyden wrote: post #114
mason55 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.

They never accepted that. They had no choice really. They do have a choice here. Use Apple or don't and go with Android.

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

#118

Post by grishka »

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.

Computers and Android devices don't employ predatory code signing and can run anything without the manufacturer having a say, yet somehow the hell didn't break loose. Also, if you don't let people make mistakes or see someone else make them, they won't learn. In effect, one might say that this scheme makes people dumber.

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

#119

Post by matheusmoreira »

slver wrote: post #113
matheusmoreira wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are iOS devices Apple's private property?

iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license. If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.

> If you wanna install your own OS

Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?

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

#120

Post by threatofrain »

benrbray wrote: post #105
manicdee wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do users care about this choice? What are some top experiences available to Android which aren't available to iOS customers? In fact, isn't it often the other way around? iOS gets things and Android doesn't?

Or are users seeing awful prices for the app store?

Where are Customers complaining the most?

Post reply on HN