Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 851 posts

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#61

Post by lotsofpulp »

deergomoo wrote: post #58
adflux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging people to make use of their IP is fair IMO. Its similar to paying taxes, even if you don't use the services the taxes are for. The user benefits from Apple maintaining their OS, so has to pay. A citizen paying taxes benefits from all the services the country offers, so he pays taxes.

The problem with this view is it assumes developers need the iPhone more than the iPhone needs developers, which is absolutely not the case. It’s symbiotic certainly—for better or worse far more money is spent on iOS than Android—but without apps the iPhone would be basically useless. In my opinion, Apple needs to acknowledge that, rather than acting like developers owe them the shirt off their backs.

Each developer needs apple more than Apple needs each developer.

Developers need to ally with each other, then they can force Apple’s hands.

What’s funny is that developers are practically in the best job to do that. Their jobs allow them tons of time to communicate with each other, they’re highly educated and able to communicate, and they have the know how to operate the mechanisms allowing them to communicate (forums, email, chat groups).

So what is stopping developers? I can only assume they’re not yet being taken advantage of by Apple sufficiently to warrant the efforts of banding together.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#62

Post by cygx »

hpaavola wrote: post #52
maccard wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing epic aren't suing google at the same time for the exact reason we're discussing right here then isn't it?

Epic is free to sue who ever they whish. That means nothing. The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false. If apple would allow installing apps from unknown sources and just give ugly warnings then, thus letting 3rd party appstores on ios, it would have no effect on qpple appstore content.

> The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false.

With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.

With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.

That said, I'm actually not a fan of the walled garden approach, and won't be buying an iPhone in the forseeable future. It's just that I do understand the appeal.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#63

Post by wayneftw »

cygx wrote: post #45
hpaavola wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple." Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.

The counter-argument runs like this: Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy. Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's…

> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.

People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised.

iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects.

Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#64

Post by maccard »

hpaavola wrote: post #52
maccard wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing epic aren't suing google at the same time for the exact reason we're discussing right here then isn't it?

Epic is free to sue who ever they whish. That means nothing. The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false. If apple would allow installing apps from unknown sources and just give ugly warnings then, thus letting 3rd party appstores on ios, it would have no effect on qpple appstore content.

Do you think the existence of the epic store on wjncows has had an effect on the content of steam?

A really good example right now is riot. They distribute through their own launcher on PC rather than on steam. They have two sizeable games on mobile right now (wild rift and TFT). In a world where these are downloadable from the riot launcher on iOS rather than the app store, it seems likely riot (and other major publishers who do the same on PC) would follow suit? I don't see how having an app store without hearthstone, TFT, fortnite is the same quality as one with.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#65

Post by cygx »

wayneftw wrote: post #63
cygx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter-argument runs like this: Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy. Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's…

> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo. People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised. iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects. Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single…

> Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.

Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#66

Post by belltaco »

adflux wrote: post #31
wccrawford wrote: post #4

Other news on this has quotes from Tim Cook saying that they'd have to find a way to track purchases on IOS and bill developers so that Apple still gets their cut when using other payment processors. For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple…

Charging people to make use of their IP is fair IMO. Its similar to paying taxes, even if you don't use the services the taxes are for. The user benefits from Apple maintaining their OS, so has to pay. A citizen paying taxes benefits from all the services the country offers, so he pays taxes.

Imagine Microsoft doing this on Windows.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#67

Post by lmz »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #50
Hamuko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do actually get a cut if you pay with Apple Pay.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204274 >Are there additional fees to accept Apple Pay? >No. Apple doesn't charge any additional fees.

No additional fees is not incompatible with getting a cut. e.g. they could take some of the card issuer's portion.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#68

Post by pseudo0 »

cygx wrote: post #65
wayneftw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo. People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised. iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects. Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single…

> Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later. Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...

The customers who don't like the console system can game on a PC. It's not a perfect substitute, but it's pretty close. Is there any real equivalent that offers more user control for smartphones though? Stock Android is a bit less restrictive, but still pretty bad, and custom ROMs are extremely niche.

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#69

Post by fnord123 »

belltaco wrote: post #66
adflux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging people to make use of their IP is fair IMO. Its similar to paying taxes, even if you don't use the services the taxes are for. The user benefits from Apple maintaining their OS, so has to pay. A citizen paying taxes benefits from all the services the country offers, so he pays taxes.

Imagine Microsoft doing this on Windows.

They planned to (or started putting the frog in the port with some lukewarm water) and got heavy push back from their partners. This is what precipitated Valve to make the Steam Machine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18996377

Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

#70

Post by Nextgrid »

calsy wrote: post #60
akg_67 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked at Google play store, in comparison? Apple is still doing 100x better job. 100% cleanliness is utopia but I will take an App Store that weeds out lot of contaminated apps than every other app being contaminated in some sort of way.

Is someone taking the App Store from you? Does adding alternative options somehow corrupt the original App Store?

There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those and be able to work around Apple's rules and act against consumers' best interests.

However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in practice I don't see it making the situation any worse.

Post reply on HN