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

231–240 of 375 posts

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

#231

Post by Daishiman »

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.

Sorry, but I don't believe that should be Apple's prerogative.

You say that users don't care, but users _don't know either_.

And whenever people lobby for right to repair laws and for consumers to _own_ hardware, guess who's always standing on the other saying that it ain't so.

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

#232

Post by teruakohatu »

rococode wrote: post #9

Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.

The article made it sound like Cook (and Apple legal) were not expecting a grilling from the judge. She asked him questions for longer than any other witness.

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

#233

Post by cpleppert »

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.

But iPhones and Android devices do have functionality that users can’t obtain anywhere else. What alternative smartphone ecosystem could the average user choose as a substitute? To say nothing of the fact a smartphone is essentially required in and of itself.

Once a user has chosen a smartphone ecosystem large switching costs come into play.

If a significant amount of your customers choose your phone because it is stylish that could just as well demonstrate there is no price competition to speak of.

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

#234

Post by splitstud »

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.

Apple also has a choice. Begin conforming to our legal framework regarding monopolistic practices or pay a heavy price.

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

#235

Post by kergonath »

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.

If you’re working in a company, I suggest you go and tell them that it’s fine and malware is not a problem and that the users need to learn from their mistakes. They should be quite relieved to learn that.

Same for the companies who lose regularly millions of dollars to ransomware.

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

#236

Post by protoman3000 »

teruakohatu wrote: post #228
protoman3000 wrote: post #220

Apple could sell Bootloader unlocked iPhones and iPads at a higher premium and then tell Epic there’s your freedom. There’s literally no need to interface with iOS other than Epic wanting to tap into the iOS userbase and platform and to not pay for it.

I would pay the premium but I don't know how that would alleviate the anti-trust issues. Epic would just argue that is essentially a tax on users who want to use their app store.

Why is that a tax? How would a bootlocked iPhone not be Apple giving you a discount on their product if you buy into their ecosystems?

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

#237

Post by egocentric »

elefanten wrote: post #186
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…

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.

Your parents and non-techie friends and family won’t have to use alternative stores, no one will be forcing them to.

And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.

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

#238

Post by Daishiman »

elefanten wrote: post #183
bsder wrote: post #155

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.

When you only have two choices of operating system for phones, there is not choice. It's a duopoly; there's nothing competitive or pro-consumer in having to lump the entirety of your mobile OS feature sets in two camps and damn anything else that doesn't remotely resemble that.

Sorry but Toyota doesn't have its business model harmed by being able to go to my mechanic to tune a car. If Apple wants to put three layers of dialogues to open up customization, so be it.

I have no sympathy for a trillion-dollar company and their "choice".

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

#239

Post by threeseed »

teruakohatu wrote: post #227
threeseed wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the evidence that allowing sideloaded apps will result in an explosion of desktop class apps ? Hasn’t been the case with Android. And I would say the touch centric form factor is far more an issue.

I disagree. There are many classes of applications on the Play Store and F-droid not on the App Store, including multiple browsing engines and emulators. I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.

Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate. Emulators, VMs etc have existed for years.

Again it’s far more the form factor that is a restriction than whether it’s downloadable from the store or not.

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

#240

Post by nodamage »

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.

At this point I am convinced HN commenters have a blind spot when it comes to how easily non-technical users get infected with malware. The latest statistics[1] show iOS has significantly fewer malware infections compared to Android and Windows devices:

iOS: 1.72% Android: 26.64% Windows: 38.92% IoT: 32.72%

[1] https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...

Post reply on HN