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

271–280 of 851 posts

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

#271

Post by yyyk »

crazygringo wrote: post #165
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…

Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether. Remember when eBay charged a commission on the sale price but not shipping? Suddenly $50 items became $1 with $49 shipping -- so eBay had to charge the commission on the shipping too even though it didn't seem "fair". Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge t…

>Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge to unlock features within using their own payment mechanism.

This is trivial to deal with. Apple already has rules on apps, they could go from banning fremium apps, to disallowing apps without a substantial free version to enforcing a reporting API on payments.

What they can't do is use their position in one market to force marketshare in another market (payment processors). That's classic anticompetitive behaviour.

(Aside, freemium apps have a low reputation, and that's why other stores without that rule aren't overrun with such apps)

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

#272

Post by moksly »

akudha wrote: post #144
jrsj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because my grandma is clueless and I give her an iPhone so she doesn’t install malware like she managed to on her Android phone

So the solution is to force majority of the population to use Apple store, to protect minority of the population who aren't tech savvy? If Apple allowed other stores, before a user can install an app from non-Apple store, iOS can show a message saying the app is not from Apple's holy store and that it is users responsibility to make sure the app is trustworthy? This won't be pretty, but at least it is a compromise. T…

> So the solution is to force majority of the population to use Apple store, to protect minority of the population who aren't tech savvy?

You could always get an android.

I realise that this can come off as silly, but what, id not the walled garden differentiate the two systems? If you tear those walls down, you’re basically using a really expensive android device with all the tracking and malware that includes.

I do think the courts should force Apple to open up. Closed systems are evil, even though they are very nice to use. I just hope they do it in such a way that it’s optional and has no effect on the rest of us.

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

#273

Post by amelius »

framecowbird wrote: post #157

I just don't buy this argument that Apple maintaining control over iOS is necessary for privacy. I think it's a false dichotomy. If you build a good OS, with good strong APIs, you can achieve both privacy and a more open ecosystem.

Also, Apple is conflating AppStore with ContentFilter. They are separate things which can be installed separately depending on the user's wishes.

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

#274

Post by coldtea »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #167
coldtea wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is FUD. Where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud? Here, for one: https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security... . And in the general open web, for another, where online fraud is a multi-billion business...

Not a single sentence in that article is relevant to this topic.

The topic is opening up the app store, allowing developers to implement their own payments, and someone asked: "where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud?"

Well, Android is open to sideloading and less "walled" and ends up with 50 times more malware than IOS. That's what "that article" is about.

If someone connects the dots, they'll see that (a) opening up iOS similarly will lead to similar levels of malware, (b) letting developers have their own payment systems in such an environment would just lead to tons of that malware getting people's credit card details, charging for BS, and so on.

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

#275

Post by gjsman-1000 »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #133
0xEFF wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything. How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode? “Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.

IMO it's not that blurry. The real point is if Apple wants (or should have the right) to collect taxes on their infrastructure and act like a Government - think about VAT - or they are only selling consumer devices instead. If I buy a tractor from John Deere and make money out of the products I can grow using that tractor I don't have to pay a fee to John Deere, even thought without the JD my fields would probably be…

However, what makes it even blurrier is that, in the US, being a monopoly (despite what you may have heard) is actually NOT illegal. What is illegal is the monopoly using its monopoly power to perpetuate its monopoly power.

However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.

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

#276

Post by lifty »

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…

It seems that Tim Cook considers the devices and the ecosystem that they create a *aaS. So they shouldn’t be considered general purpose devices on which you can run anything. Think of them as cloud devices with local/edge cacheing for improved experience, very similarly to what Google offers.

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

#277

Post by coldtea »

ubercow13 wrote: post #257
coldtea wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. To avoid the crappification of mobile, where everything it's a bunch of slow, memory and battery draining Electron apps, doing whatever they want, each with custom UI...

How is that not what exists? Aren't many apps based on web technologies, and/or have custom UIs? There's little standardisation even among 'real' native apps.

>How is that not what exists? Aren't many apps based on web technologies, and/or have custom UIs?

Yes, but

(a) some, as opposed to all which is the dream of the pro web-app camp.

(b) forbidding custom JS and web engines helps keep this low

(c) even the crappy mobile-webview apps at least have to be wrapped in an app container, be installable and uninstallable the same way, be notarized, use the same payment system with central control, and be tied to the same policies (e.g. regarding privacy, notifications, use of apis) as native mobile apps

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

#278

Post by lanstin »

nr2x wrote: post #193
Hamuko wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though one of them is preloaded on the device and the other one has to be separately added?

Depends a) on who is doing the adding and b) if they know what they are adding.

Therefor the average user will not be able to keep themselves safe. QED. Om the other hand, I do want root on my devices. It can see both sides and it is not clear to me what the solution is. I have already left Android because I don’t have time or interest to security assess all the evil apps that look real similar to the free flow games I like or the solitaire games. But thirty percent is steep. And arguably Epic can curate games as well or better than Apple. Debian for phones would be good but so far the open source things are pricy and underpowered. And the it is true the Apple store has a lot of bad apps already and fake reviews. Lot of evil people clustering around so many chances to become rich without delighting customers.

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

#279

Post by pjmlp »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #158
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…

I can buy a game from a store as well. Or a friend. And sell my games as well. I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. It's a game-centric system. Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.

It is the other way around, consoles are like this since they were introduced.

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

#280

Post by topkai22 »

My problem has always been that Apple is both the gatekeeper and a competitor in its app store. I'd have a lot more trust in Apple as a consumer if they didn't offer up first party products such as Apple TV and Apple Arcade. It makes the shutdown of game streaming services seem particularly disingenuous.

The payments issue is more complex, but I can't get a metaphor to origins of monopoly law out of my head: If payments processing is like shipping around little bags of money, its like we have a railroad that controls half the market forcing exclusive transport contracts on manufacturers. It certainly FEELS wrong.

I think, ideally, Apple should be barred from offering first party services without providing a mechanism for third parties to receive the same treatment via a certification process. That means that other game stores could get access to that apple arcade button in the app store and that other payment processors could be used, so long as they met Apple's declared standards for privacy and security.

Post reply on HN