Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by tshaddox » Fri, May 21, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

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.

You literally just used the word “endured” to describe the relationship between customers and Microsoft. That’s hardly a glowing endorsement or a strong argument that Apple should follow Microsoft’s lead!

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

#172

Post by slver » Fri, May 21, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #119

slver wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.

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

#173

Post by shagie » Fri, May 21, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

grishka wrote: post #122

voisin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You open up 'general', you go to 'subscriptions', and select that. Any subscription on the iPhone can be canceled right there. As this is done through Apple's payment processing, Apple/iPhone knows about every subscription and can cancel it easily.

However, if the subscription is processed through a third party, then you may have more difficulty with canceling it... but it wasn't bought through the app on the phone.

Additionally, by default, renewal receipts are sent for each subscription and are visible under the purchase history.

If Epic wins and you've got subscriptions set up using payment processors other than Apple, this will make it harder to manage these subscriptions.

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

#174

Post by StavrosK » Fri, May 21, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

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…

> All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple

"All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at best, naive.

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

#175

Post by nodamage » Fri, May 21, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

trboyden wrote: post #57

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 can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.

You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.

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

#176

Post by musicale » Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

> gaming, and in particular in-app purchases for mobile games on the iPhone, generate the majority of the App Store's revenue

Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop.

Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars.

Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games.

Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.

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

#177

Post by scrubs » Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

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…

Nah - it cannot be Apple, all Apple, or go home. Gez, if that's the way Apple wants it, it better make me a shareholder so I can get my proper cut.

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

#178

Post by Dah00n » Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

pindab0ter wrote: post #150

skohan wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there’s no Steam on Android either even though they do support third party app stores.

There are rumours of Valve looking into Steam on Android and iOS.

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

#179

Post by kbenson » Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

trimbo wrote: post #147

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.

> Every app with any popularity will then be considering their own app store. The WeChat Store. The Facebook Store. The Snap Store.

Why would you assume this would happen on iOS when it hasn't happened on Android, when the suggestion is to do what Android already allows, and yet we don't see this on Android?

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

#180

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

nucleardog wrote: post #140

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.

> 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.

[deleted]