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

101–110 of 851 posts

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

#101

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

slver wrote: post #83
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…

What you're saying is that you're OK with basically every single developer declaring their app as free, and then asking for your credit card, which will be processed in god knows what ways with most of them. So developers get in the shortterm to avoid the 30% cut. But what happens next? The payment process becomes much more cumbersome and much less safe for users. So they start avoiding any payments on iPhone. Apple…

This is FUD. Where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud? The online payment landscape outside the App Store is actually very safe for users.

Try to cancel an in-app subscription without Googling how to do it. Good luck.

Also, if you try using the store, you’ll see it’s not curated in any meaningful way. It’s full of garbage and fake reviews. Someone properly incentivized to improve it could do a much better job.

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

#102

Post by giobox »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #88
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making Tim Cook sound stupid and/or evil, but he does have a point. > If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy? > It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make. > Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs? > They've never had to do it before.

Equating alternative app stores to literal drug dealers. I don't think I even need to say anything to point out how bad of an argument it is.

I think that’s a little unfair - this example implies there are good _and_ bad actors in an unregulated app distribution system, which we already have some evidence for.

Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial.

There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!

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

#103

Post by dan-robertson »

Hamuko wrote: post #22
vbezhenar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores? Why would Apple want to do so? That would obviously reduce their earnings. > Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store.. I bet that is Microsoft's dream. They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. But they did something similar with Windows RT, so they definitely looking into it.

> They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. Microsoft became rather antitrust shy at some point. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I think it affected many of the decisions.

They became shy exactly when they lost a massive antitrust suit in the late 90’s.

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

#104

Post by Retric »

devit wrote: post #94
slver wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is that you're OK with basically every single developer declaring their app as free, and then asking for your credit card, which will be processed in god knows what ways with most of them. So developers get in the shortterm to avoid the 30% cut. But what happens next? The payment process becomes much more cumbersome and much less safe for users. So they start avoiding any payments on iPhone. Apple…

This will not happen as long as Apple's cut percentage is lower than the percentage of users that will give up or not download the app when asked for their credit card in-app. Obviously any reasonable Apple's cut will satisfy this requirement.

4 users or 4 million the review process needs to be done and done well otherwise it’s just as risky as installing random crap people download from the internet. So the issue is Apples ‘cut’ needs to cover all those apps with few buyers.

It’s a complex problem because applications like BonziBuddy mean you can’t actually trust users to detect issues. That’s not to say Apple ensures quality, just that minimum standards have actual value.

On the other hand it’s reasonable for large companies to disagree with subsidizing lone developers. As such a substantial fee to submit apps would likely be required.

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

#105

Post by duped »

maxsilver wrote: post #98
duped wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they believe that so much they believe they can skim off the top of certain areas of commerce on iOS. If they did it with bank transactions, Apple Pay, Venmo, Robinhood, etc then people would be up in arms.

> If they did it with bank transactions, Apple Pay, Venmo, Robinhood, etc then people would be up in arms. Would they? Don't they literally already do this too? Isn't Apple Card https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ them literally skimming off the top of every financial transaction, despite them doing nothing but provide a branded whitelabeled Goldman Sachs Mastercard? (admittedly, a very pretty fancy card) I don't think…

A credit card with standard transaction fees and interest is very different than taking 30% of every transaction on the platform while also having the power to forbid venders on the platform from increasing their prices to make up the difference.

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

#106

Post by shadowgovt »

calsy wrote: post #73
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (foru…

Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?

Release on Android only.

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

#107

Post by matwood »

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.

MS and Windows is simply not related to the Apple situation, unless MS decided to only allow Windows on its own hardware thus creating a closed ecosystem.

The closest analogy to Apple is the game console industry. Even then it's a different scale.

IMO, the App Store situation is an entirely new class of problem unlikely to be solved in this case. It doesn't easily fall under existing monopoly regulation, and does have some advantages for consumers along with disadvantages. Unfortunately, I think Apple is being short sighted here. By not addressing the most egregious issues (30% for example), they are setting themselves up to be regulated which will probably end up being worse for everyone. A sledgehammer will end being used where a scalpel was needed.

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

#108

Post by ilovwindows »

30% of a revenue is extortion. Why should an app developer pay that fee? It's like owning almost half of a business.

Apple is the most developer hostile company.It charges $100 every year to devs for developing apps to it's platform. And additionally charge another 30% of their business. The worst thing is apps cannot use third party payments, why? Some people argue it's for security. I disagree. It's greed.

Tim Cook said it does not charge companies for services apps serves to end users e.g Uber, e-commerce, etc. Are your serious? It's like postal service saying hey we need 30% of every IPhone we deliver. Or the workers at china demanding cuts on every financial transactions that happens through the iPhone.

Some even argue devs need apple more than Apple needs devs. Do you guys know why Windows phone failed? Cos they didn't have enough devs developing enough apps. Take aways all the apps from IPhone, and what is it? A Brick.

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

#109

Post by maxsilver »

duped wrote: post #105
maxsilver wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they did it with bank transactions, Apple Pay, Venmo, Robinhood, etc then people would be up in arms. Would they? Don't they literally already do this too? Isn't Apple Card https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ them literally skimming off the top of every financial transaction, despite them doing nothing but provide a branded whitelabeled Goldman Sachs Mastercard? (admittedly, a very pretty fancy card) I don't think…

A credit card with standard transaction fees and interest is very different than taking 30% of every transaction on the platform while also having the power to forbid venders on the platform from increasing their prices to make up the difference.

Absolutely agree, but it's not that much different than expecting a tax on every Venmo/PayPal/Robinhood transaction on the store (if I'm reading this correctly, this is a thing Cook just implied they might do in sworn testimony today)

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

#110

Post by MattRix »

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.

As the judge mentions during the trial, many large corporations such as banks have apps with millions of users, yet they don’t pay Apple a cent. Meanwhile Epic has to give Apple 30% of everything they make. Video games are subsidizing banks, it’s absurd.
Post reply on HN