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

241–250 of 851 posts

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

#241

Post by gondo »

deergomoo wrote: post #56

> Cook used more privacy and safety claims to defend that system, saying it would be both insecure and inconvenient to let apps process payments separately This one is always funny to me, because sellers of physical goods are of course totally exempt from IAP rules, because it would be untenable otherwise. I can type my card number directly into the Amazon app and buy a paperback without any intervention from Apple.…

Maybe it's time to start selling paperclips with an ebook (or any other digital goods) as a gift.

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

#242

Post by gondo »

DangitBobby wrote: post #179
simondotau wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re saying that 60% of 70% is less than 30%?

Doesn't seem quite right. Users Will Pay: $100 Dev Profit per $100: $60 Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99 Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42

Dev pays $99 each year for apple subscription. So until you make certain numbers, you are loosing money.

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

#243

Post by Torwald »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #76
newsclues wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn’t take a cut of transactions I make in my iPhones browser.

This is why Apple holds back important APIs from their browser, years after they are available in other browsers: fast 3D graphics, offline storage and compute, push notifications, to name a few.

Apple also holds this sort of features back on their browser on the open desktop platform (macOS). Judging from that I'd say there must be another reason.

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

#244

Post by spideymans »

mywittyname wrote: post #216
smnrchrds wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation f…

> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.…

I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument.

"General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense.

>Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).

This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC).

An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system.

>There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.

And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.

Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.

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

#245

Post by gjsman-1000 »

mthoms wrote: post #233
smnrchrds wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation f…

One holds your saved games. The other connects you to local emergency services, the global economy, your financial assets, your government, your family, your education, and increasingly - your health care provider. To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable . Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.

From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it.

From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.

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

#246

Post by gondo »

cblconfederate wrote: post #156

> If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP Well you could charge developers per download. I find these arguments very audacious and entitled. Saying that developers are not entitled to profits, only apple is, with a straight face, is... remarkable

With some limited amount of downloads for free bundled in apple developer subscription.

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

#247

Post by nr2x »

d3nj4l wrote: post #211
nr2x wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is partially why Apple makes it very hard to move to Android. No iMessage, Calendars, Contacts, iTunes Purchases, etc.

You can very easily link your iCal with Google Calendar, and likewise sync your contacts with your Google account. I know because I've done both.

You can't access iCloud calendars on an Android phone, they even block it over the browser.

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

#248

Post by aaronax »

jmull wrote: post #116
fartcannon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the same trash Google does with Android and it's effectively as anti-competitive. They shouldn't be permitted to limit competition at all. In any way.

How do you think malware should be controlled? An App Store has the ability to load executable code that might do anything onto your device. I don’t think an OS can just opt to do nothing about this. Some basic guard rails, designed to dissuade the technically unsavvy seems like the least that could be done. Additionally, I think there would need to be a malware management system, similar to ones on other more open p…

Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.

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

#249

Post by gjsman-1000 »

oblio wrote: post #168
smnrchrds wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation f…

Are consoles sold as general computing devices?

This is irrelevant - the law makes zero distinction between "general purpose" and "specific" computing devices. They're all computers.

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

#250

Post by zrail »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #180
ben_w wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you’re complaining about a hypothetical future where they charge less than Visa and MasterCard? https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...

What about funding your robinhood account from your bank and not a card, so neither you nor robinhood pay transaction fees?

Bank rails still cost money on a per transaction basis.
Post reply on HN