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

181–190 of 375 posts

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

#181

Post by grishka »

shagie wrote: post #173
grishka wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It also makes it harder to subscribe. You can accidentally tap the fingerprint scanner on the home button, and there were apps that made use of that, but you can't accidentally enter your credit card and then accidentally confirm the transaction with a 2fa code. The payment form alone is a huge deterrent IMO, even if it says "you won't be charged, free trial, cancel anytime".

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

#182

Post by skynet-9000 »

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 Apple has to do is change the APIs from version to version and poorly document the changes. Would Apple do such a thing? Of course not. Apple is too noble and good for that -- exactly like how they work with WebRTC right now.

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

#183

Post by elefanten »

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.

This is a ridiculous caricature of reality.

If anything, empirically we've seen that Apple runs a much tighter ship wrt scams and malware than Android and 3rd party friendly platforms. Especially from the perspective of non-tech mass consumer, who are incredibly well served by Apple's model.

Legislating / ruling Apple's closed model to be illegal is the true harm to consumer choice and freedom.

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

#185

Post by mordymoop »

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…

Indeed. The customer is, of course, the people buying the phones and buying the software, and not the developers. The judge seems a little vague on this fact. One has to either accept that the customers buy Apple because they prefer it this way, or else assert that the customers are too dumb to know what’s good for them. That may be literally true but isn’t really a classically good argument you would use to pin somebody down on anticompetitive behavior.

Also, as a parent, I consider it a useful feature that Apple makes it very hard for kids to buy things on the phone through any method other than the one that I am aware of.

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

#186

Post by elefanten »

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…

100% true. Legislating away the option to run a closed, manicured, walled-garden model is the true harm to consumer choice and freedom.

I want my parents and non-techie friends and family to have the easy, stress-free, locked-down model that they enjoy and that works for them.

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

#187

Post by Dah00n »

rsj_hn wrote: post #126
kevingadd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 statu…

In the US perhaps but not so in the EU.

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

#188

Post by kbenson »

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?

> What are some top experiences available to Android which aren't available to iOS customers?

The Humble Bundle app allows you to install Android games you bought through humble bundles onto your Android phone. This allows you to buy bundles of games from developers at your own desired purchase price and give an amount of that purchase you choose to some charities of your choice.

It is, quite literally, used as another store and has the ability to install applications.

Many of the games I've gotten through that are also available on iOS, but you're unable to get iOS versions from this because there's no way to install that app nor a way for it to install other applications if you did, currently.

At least some of those developers would be happy to offer iOS versions as a bundle, or even give you access to choose iOS or Android in the same bundle, but there's no way to legitimately deliver these games to those customers.

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

#189

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

I would like to see "feature phones" return, not to replace, as a privacy-friendly alternative to, "smartphones", but this time with Lua instead of Java.

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

#190

Post by cle »

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.

To use the same argument as "don't use iOS"...simply don't use the alternate app store.

I can't yet convince myself that "don't use iOS" is a valid argument while "don't use a different app store" is not.

Post reply on HN