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

161–170 of 375 posts

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

#161

Post by saagarjha »

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 user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version

This is already true with the App Store today.

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

#162

Post by insert_coin »

bsder wrote: post #155
trimbo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then we'll have to trust that all of these companies have the same level of competence to prevent malware that Apple does (narrator: "they won't"). This is a losing argument. We've already seen that the Apple store doesn't/can't prevent clones and fakes with information collecting inserts from overwhelming the originals. Another store might actually do this better.

They already can do it better on Android!

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

#163

Post by tshaddox »

grishka wrote: post #118
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.

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.

What do you mean? Hell does break lose. The malware situation on PCs might be better than it was 15 years ago, but it’s still ubiquitous. Removing malware from PCs is still an entire industry and career path.

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

#164

Post by saagarjha »

Angostura wrote: post #82
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.

You can, there are plenty of development environments on iOS. What you can't do is distribute those apps. They are stick on your phone.

They also don’t make standalone apps.

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

#165

Post by slver »

kbelder wrote: post #148
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?

When we have self-driving cars, can Ford, Tesla, etc., require businesses to pay them a stipend to allow our cars to drive to those stores? "No, you can't drive to Walmart; Walmart isn't in the destination store. You may drive to Target."

You’re making a category error. A car’s ecosystem is the road system. Roads don’t let you anywhere, there has to be a road there. Sometimes a paid one.

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

#166

Post by user3939382 »

I’ve watched these big tech cases wind their way through the courts since US v Microsoft. I’ve learned, if there is a lot of money at stake, individual judges and decisions matter little because it will get dragged out for years. These big companies even have workarounds to the negative consequences of final decisions.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

stale2002 wrote: post #157
slver wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You own a phone yes. But you don’t own iOS. So take your own phone and install your own OS on it if that’s what you want.

Ok, and people should be allowed to install whatever they want on their own hardware. We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app store. Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever they want on the hardware that they own. > So take your own phone and install your own OS Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by the existing law, t…

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by tshaddox »

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 is the point that people keep missing. The most common argument is “just let people install whatever software they want and if they install something bad that’s their fault.” But the point is that, if Apple does allow sideloading apps, customer satisfaction with iPhones will almost certainly go down. Can you argue that those new unsatisfied customers are to blame? Sure. But Apple probably actually cares about how satisfied their customers are with their products.

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

#169

Post by devit »

slver wrote: post #115
adam_arthur wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ch…

The issue is about app developers who don't get to choose the phone that users have.

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

#170

Post by slver »

stale2002 wrote: post #157
slver wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You own a phone yes. But you don’t own iOS. So take your own phone and install your own OS on it if that’s what you want.

Ok, and people should be allowed to install whatever they want on their own hardware. We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app store. Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever they want on the hardware that they own. > So take your own phone and install your own OS Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by the existing law, t…

You can do whatever you want with your phone already. As I said you don’t own iOS. Install your own OS.
Post reply on HN