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

131–140 of 375 posts

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

#131

Post by ArkanExplorer »

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.

Google charges 15% Steam charges 20-30% depending on how big you are, and probably has a sweatheart deal with EA.

Xbox and Playstation offer subsidised hardware and arguably have a 0% rate given that so many titles are published in-house.

Nintendo offers an effective 25% rate as 5% of spend is rebated to customers' wallets.

Microsoft charges 12%

Epic charges 12%

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

#132

Post by stale2002 »

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…

> Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.

But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.

If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.

That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.

Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?

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

#133

Post by stale2002 »

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

> The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices

But there are other solutions. The other solution is that people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that they own.

And you don't have to download other app stores, if you don't want to!

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

#134

Post by skohan »

treis wrote: post #59
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.

It's just so obviously anti-competitve and harmful to consumers. If that doesn't get slapped down it's somewhat hard to imagine what possibly would.

anti-trust is in a very sad state in the US, and fixing could solve a lot of problem

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

#135

Post by anoncake »

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?

There is none. Game consoles should also be forced open.

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

#136

Post by insert_coin »

skohan wrote: post #123
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 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…

And you can not buy iPads.

I know it is completely anathema to suggest something like this on HN these days as the socialist wave completely took it over and the mere suggestion that people have the freedom to not buy something if they don't think it fits within their world view instead of trying to force everyone using the state and the courts to cater specifically to them is now considered a sin, but...

You said it yourself, you have a laptop with the exact same chip that lets you do all the things you want, and then you have the iPad that doesn't...why don't you buy the laptop instead? Surely if enough people feel the way you do Apple would get the message.

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

#137

Post by cosmie »

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…

Apple's guidelines already cover their bases to prevent such a loophole.

The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing mechanisms.

They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to allow users to consume content they've previously purchased, and explicitly list which categories of content they consider allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them. They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if you also abide by the first clause of making it available as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to alternatives for purchase).

So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time pulling off.

And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out exactly what you described in the first bullet under the Unacceptable clause[4]

[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...

[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...

[3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies would be able to get passed app review.

[4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una...

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

#138

Post by grishka »

fxtentacle wrote: post #8

I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to Chinese manufacturers through their partners. If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google. I, at least,…

It's not a problem they're trying to solve. You can't just tell people "go buy a less restrictive phone". You want to make your app available for whatever hardware they already have. You want to provide your app, your users want to install your app on their phones that are capable of running it, but Apple forcibly inserts itself between you two, wants a say and acts as if you two couldn't have found each other without its "help".

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

#139

Post by stale2002 »

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?

Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?

What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut, for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok with that?

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

#140

Post by nucleardog »

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.

> The point is opening it up so users have a choice.

Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.

Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to are still full of iPhones.

Post reply on HN