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

121–130 of 375 posts

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

#121

Post by slver »

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?

Look I don't know about Taco Bell, does it come installed in your car, like you push a button and a taco comes out from your dashboard? Because that's the only case this terrible example makes sense.

If you get a job through a phone interview, do you owe Apple 30% of your salary? No.

Using your phone's services doesn't cause Apple to get a cut of anything that happens while you do so. Selling apps THROUGH ITS OWN STORE does.

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

#122

Post by grishka »

voisin wrote: post #93
baron816 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the subscription scams in the iOS app store are an acceptable level of malware. Got it.

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

#123

Post by skohan »

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 new iPads literally have the same SOC as what are some of, if not the best consumer laptops on the planet currently. But what can you do with them? Not a heck of a lot, thanks to the walled garden that is iPad OS. If you ask me, that's a crying shame.

I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95% of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of opportunities for people who actually want to create with their devices.

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

Angostura wrote: post #90
rictic wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by Animats »

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…

why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store?

Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.

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

#126

Post by rsj_hn »

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 going to the Supreme Court and will not be settled by a single judge, particularly a California district judge. There is just no incentive for either participant to decide "Oh, if Yvonne Rogers says so, then sure we're changing business models".

The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.

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

#127

Post by skohan »

threatofrain wrote: post #120
benrbray wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well I can imagine if 3rd party stores were allowed, I could have a Steam client on an iPad for example, and share my library of games without paying for it a second time for iOS.

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

#128

Post by anoncake »

manicdee wrote: post #87
bitcurious wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because they don't like competition, for example.

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

#129

Post by skohan »

fooey wrote: post #86
fartcannon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.

Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest

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

#130

Post by grishka »

causality0 wrote: post #2

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

I really hope devices, services, and infrastructure get separated and also that it would become illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after it's been sold. Burning a public key into OTP ROM as trusted and not providing its private counterpart counts too.

You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go.

Protocols, not platforms.

Post reply on HN