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

201–210 of 375 posts

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

#201

Post by m463 »

enos_feedler wrote: post #192
skohan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don’t think Apple has a team of people trying to figure out what you can do with them? iPadOS isn’t designed to cripple the HW, its designed to extract the most from it. Its missing some traditional use cases

in a few seconds I can think of many many ways an ipad is crippled.

- look at your data directly and back it up

- backup and restore the entire device including apps

- use ethernet through the lightning port instead of wifi

- use general usb devices through the lightning port

- wifi scanner (apple disallowed it in ios early-on)

- tcpdump network traffic

- change the wifi-off shortcut to actually turn it off (matching settings)

- firewall

I'm sure people can think of other examples...

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

#202

Post by Nahman123 »

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…

>and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery

Source?

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

#203

Post by [deleted] »

StavrosK wrote: post #174
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…

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#204

Post by justaguy88 »

StavrosK wrote: post #174
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…

> 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.

I'm interested to see Steam on the iphone rather than anything Epic might do

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

#205

Post by kelnos »

zepto wrote: post #196
kbenson wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Android doesn’t allow first class alternative stores, and is also not the market leader. It’s obviously not an example for this, otherwise Epic would have just made an Android store and moved on.

> Android doesn’t allow first class alternative stores

The only thing that Android doesn't allow is for the third-party stores to auto-update apps installed through those stores.

I'm not going to say that's not a big deal, because it's definitely annoying, but I have F-Droid on my phone and get plenty of value out of it, despite having to go through a confirmation dialog to update the apps I've installed through it.

> ... and is also not the market leader

Which is entirely irrelevant. (And if you consider the world market, not just the US, Android definitely is the market leader.)

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

#206

Post by Nahman123 »

tshaddox wrote: post #160
stale2002 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Your argument only works if people are forced to use iPhones or if you can show that reasonable people expect to have functionality on their iPhones that doesn’t exist. But on the contrary, I suspect a lot of people choose iPhones specifically because of the perceived curation of the App Store and lack of malware, spyware, etc.

Keyword being "perceived."

The argument of "don't like it, use android" is bad faith but lets go with it since many people suggest it.

Ok now I'm on android and google/samsung is spying on everything. The android crowd will say "dont like it, leave"

Ok so what do I use?

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

#207

Post by kelnos »

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.

> Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.

The judge in question was clearly not at all impressed with this argument when Cook raised it, and neither am I.

This amounts to telling people to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time they have an issue with something.

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

#208

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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.

That sounds awesome IMO. If Apple opened the iPhone up I would buy one.

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

#210

Post by alwon »

I imagine that regardless what the ruling is that it will be appealed. I have however noticed that a lot of the comments I have seen about this case seem to be spreading FUD. After the news about what happened with net neutrality I wonder if many of the comments are a result of astroturfing to manipulate public opinion. When I keep seeing comments about how this would affect consoles which to me seems incredibly unlikely, as my understanding of antitrust is that it is usually about leveraging a position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another. It seems clear to me that consoles are focused on the digital entertainment market with a specialization in the gaming submarket. This is far different from the market that many of Apples devices like the iPhone are in; The iPhone competes in the mobile market, However as a platform it is not focused on any particular market, much like a windows PC it is general purpose. Because of this and the way the app store is setup, Apple gains an advantage in almost any market that can earn money through mobile apps and ecosystems. Further by restricting some APIs to their exclusive use they can Further give themselves an advantage like the recent case of tracking tags and tile only being to use features through apples app. This last example is something that Microsoft had to stop when they went through antitrust investigations. My own opinion is that what Apple and Google now do make what Microsoft was investegated for look like child's play. The idea that the app store faces competition from the play store is like saying your ISP faces competition because you can sell your house and move to get a different ISP. While the cost of switching is of course less the idea is the same the consumer must go spend a significant amount of money, face inconvenience, and use valuable time to see competition on a hidden cost.
Post reply on HN