Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds awesome IMO. If Apple opened the iPhone up I would buy one.
Exactly. So would I.
Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
301–310 of 375 posts
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you'd start screaming blood murder if your grocery store put a flat 30% markup on all items tomorrow.
That's exactly what they do. They buy products from suppliers and mark them up, sell the the products and take the margin.
Except the markup and margins are extremely low because the grocery business is competitive.
Unlike the app store space (within a given device)
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Those are not malware infection rates, they're OS "marketshare" of all infected devices.
I'll modify my wording but that doesn't change the overall point.
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Decades of experience helping protect my parents PCs tells me this isn’t true. As soon as the option is available, it will be exploited by bad actors. I guarantee that “app stores” will prey on my parents fears or confusion to get them to install that store as opposed to Apple’s, and I really don’t want that.
Do they fall for email/sms scams?
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
iPad Pro supports ethernet and general USB devices. And allowing apps to sniff network traffic defeats the entire security model of the device which many of us like. I want more privacy and security in my devices not less.
Sniffing network traffic would not defeat anything, provided you are prompted about the necessary permissions.
The problem with those permission prompts is that many users blindly accept them. If a “sniff all network traffic” permission were allowed, it would take all of one day before Facebook et al release an update with it and start siphoning millions of users network traffic.
Apple does not want this.
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#306What Ive noticed about this trial is that the judge has a lot to say. Is this normal? Reading this article it sounded like she doing Epics lawyers job for them. I get that this is a sort of David(Epic) vs Goliath(Apple) and the article may be editorializing, but why is the judge asking so many questions?
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it. Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? What makes app stores different than the xbox marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with the type…
why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
Specifically, because it harms consumers, it harms the industry (or industries in this case), and hurts innovation.
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#308What Ive noticed about this trial is that the judge has a lot to say. Is this normal? Reading this article it sounded like she doing Epics lawyers job for them. I get that this is a sort of David(Epic) vs Goliath(Apple) and the article may be editorializing, but why is the judge asking so many questions?
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#309It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be. I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running. Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world wh…
To me, the value Apple provides is a simple in-app flow to make a purchase. That's worth something. Getting kicked out of an app and having to type credit card info into a browser would suck.
But is it worth a 30% markup on each transaction? Well, disclose the fee to users, give them an alternative (shittier) option to pay, and find out.
I think an actual free market with forced transparency would settle on transaction fees an order of magnitude less (i.e. closer to 2% or 3%), similar to Visa and MasterCard.
Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
#310It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be. I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running. Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world wh…
Everything you buy has markup. Everything Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards. It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
> It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
So? That's because the price of the products in that industry isn't based on the costs. What does a digital copy of a game cost? Practically nothing!
People seem to be focusing too much on whether or not 30% is too high or unfair. I don't think that's important; Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want, but they should not be immune from the competitive forces that would normally keep those types of things in check in a free market.
You might argue that, because the lower fee won't reduce game prices, the players will see the same price and won't buy from another store instead of the app store (since they cost the same). So Apple wouldn't feel "competitive forces" either way.
However, the thing to keep in mind is that those customers aren't buying from Apple, they're buying from the developer. So developers will be incentivized to move customers to a more profitable store, and they have many ways to do that that benefit consumers. A discount is the most obvious, but even without that a developer could offer exclusive content, early access, a better shopping experience, community features, and pretty much anything that will *provide value to consumers* in exchange for switching stores.
Alternate app stores will increase game industry profits, create jobs, provide value to consumers, lead to innovation (the damn app store has been the same boring thing for decades; there's a lot of room to innovate). There are literally no downsides whatsoever, except that Apple shareholders and fanboys will be unhappy.