Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

theverge.com

291–300 of 851 posts

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

#291
post #2

Tim Cook's line of argument seemed a bit weird to me. On one hand he's saying that he doesn't know if Apple's customers would be able to distinguish between Apple's good and holy curated store and Epic's filthy shitheap of porn and blackjack, but he's also saying that Apple's customers definitely want Apple's App Store as-is. > Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there…

I'm a customer (and I have no apps on the AppStore), and I constantly feel that the customer perspective is the best reason to want multiple AppStores: the Apple AppStore sucks.

1. Search is worthless. It's basically only useful for exact string matches on app names. And even then, you get the competitor app's ad that takes up 80% of the screen. They took every bad aspect of Google's search (the confusing take-up too much space ads), with none of the good parts (you know, the actual searching smarts).

2. The review section sucks. Instead of providing a streamlined system to get help from the developer, they just give you a place to rant. Reading the reviews isn't exactly ergonomic on a phone screen either, so it's just a waste bin to throw complaints at. Imagine if Apple actually lived up to their lip service of app quality and integrated a support mechanism that would reward apps that promptly replied (they would be marked with the "helpful developer" badge and get more prominent search placement for example).

3. Discovery is non-existent. At some point in the last 5 years I kind of just stopped "window shopping" the AppStore. I used to think that the Top Charts were a lazy way to encourage trying new things out -- but wow, it was way better than what we have now. The first thing the AppStore shoves in my face is these absurdly long profiles on developers or whatever as if the AppStore is a magazine I want to read. I don't. I don't care about some editorial article about the makers of some game. And it takes up the entirety of the start screen instead of trying to customize a variety of app suggestions just for me. This is such a missed opportunity. I would spend so much more money on the AppStore if it helped me at all to see new things. The experience instead requires you to be proactive to find things. Hence why it's really just a glorified database that's only really useful if you already know exactly what you want ahead of time.

4. It isn't safe at all. There are so many scams on the store. Subscription scams, etc. Apple does this weird thing where they simultaneously pretend they don't exist, and uses them as proof that their arcane review system is needed. If the store had no scams, they'd say "see, our filters work!". If it does have scams, they say "see, this is why the filters are so necessary, imagine how much worse it would be without them!". Anyways, as a customer, being "on the AppStore" no longer means anything to me from a quality or security perspective.

5. The UI feels generally like it was designed by a government bureaucracy or something. The tabs are: "Today", "Games", "Apps", "Arcade", "Search". The only tab that makes sense on first glance is Search (but then you find out how much the Search sucks). Why is there an "Apps" section in the "AppStore"? Aren't they all apps? It's like how there's Apple TV+ in the TV app of Apple TV. And what the hell is the difference between Games and Arcade? 40% of the UI is dedicated to games, but split into two opaque categories, with "Apps" in-between them. And "Today" is of course this stupid magazine interface I've already complained about. It seems like it's an infinite scroll interface of random bullshit, but eventually you do reach the end of "Today," where you find how to redeem a gift card and read the Terms & Conditions. All very "Today" items.

Anyways, the AppStore Tim describes only makes sense in the abstract. I wish they would just open the stupid store on someone's phone in the trial and just try to use it. They've managed to perfectly capture the combination of boredom and cheapness of the free samples section of a grocery store, complete with the employee not knowing what aisle you can actually find the product at if you end up actually liking it and wanting to buy it.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which was a failure, because other than Valve and a couple of gamers, no one cares.

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

#293

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.

Not necessarily. Apple would likely be unable to extract the rents it currently does, but if a dev has the choice of paying a 5% fee using an rarely-used payment system, or paying a 15% fee using a payment system that most users already have set up and that has very little friction, the latter is likely more profitable.

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

#294
post #183

"While Rogers’ questions don’t necessarily indicate how she’ll rule" Really? Here's some quotes from her: “The gaming industry seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of money to the IP you’re giving them and everyone else” “You don’t have competition in those in-app purchases, though,” “It doesn’t seem to me that you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address…

>but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it.

This is not true. The judge's job is to follow pertinent line of inquiries to the case and get responses from the plaintiff and defense. Not pursuing a line of questioning might indicate that the questions were already resolved in briefs, and are therefore not needed in open court. Open court is a very, very small part of these trials, so trying to get a read on what a judge thinks based on questions in open court is spurious at best.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that a clueless person was able to download and install a malware apk when by default Android forces you to go to your settings and allow apps to install other apps (the behaviour has changed over the years, but you always need to do something). Not to mention that Google Play Protect scans your apps and warns you if it finds something sketchy. In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I d…

Never underestimate a malware makers ability to instruct a user to do something. Out for that matter a users ability to get themselves into trouble.

True, but we probably don't want to remove the ability to receive calls just because users might receive a scam call or the browser just because it can be used to trick someone to give their information. It's the same with apps, especially when Apple bans more than just apps with malware.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

Definitely that and not to avoid the potential for circumventing their lock-in. If Apple were that obsessed with performance, their LLVM backends wouldn't be closed source.

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

#297
post #119
post #8

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. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware. Phone is used by too broad of user g…

I don't get this argument. How can an alternative app Store affect the quality of the Apple app Store ? The alternate app Store is not gonna come installed by default. No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one. Apple is gonna make sure of that. Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users.

If a major app moves to a different App Store, people will install the second (and third, and fourth, etc.) No one will say “oh, well, I want Instagram because all my friends have it but I’m not going to install Facebook’s store to get it because I want to keep my phone secure.”

The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.

Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.

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

#298
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bull. Apple deserves a "rent", and not a "cut". They are providing infrastructure and services, and they deserve a minimum rent for these, which they already take. But Apple should not take cut on every purchases made through the app. It makes no sense. AWS does not take a "cut" on every Netflix subscription bought. They just charge for the storage and traffic. This is how App Store should function.

I find it telling that you use AWS as an example because they are different than the apple model, while ignoring all the companies using the exact same model as apple, including how Epic charges developers to host content on the Epic store.

Epic is a great example. Their own store lists alternative stores on the Epic store, like itch.io. But they don't take a cut of games bought from those stores. Once you launch itch, you're in itch.

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

#299
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one " You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation? > " Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the…

As I said in the next sentence, apple is going to make sure that no app Store looks like theirs. It's pretty easy to do it too. Make sure app stores are only available to install from the Apple app Store. That way apple can look for any possible imitations. The dissuading stuff was not needed. I was just frustrated with the line that some users are not tech savvy so all users must be equally restricted. It just seems…

It is tricky. Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand. But a world where you walk into a cafe and 80% of the devices around you are malevolent is worse than one where only 5% are malevolent. I would like root on all my devices and also I would like to be able to run apps that want more permissions than I want them to have and they just get fake data when they call get location or whatever. But I don’t want to have to security assess all the apps I might like. To be sure mostly my apps are like the browser, the like doe reader, and find my iPhone. But I do have a weakness for solitaire and free flow and similar games. It seems very hard to get the open source versions of these and the other ones seem to display questionable ethics and to be ad revenue driven (where as I would happily pay a bit for new levels etc).

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

#300
Hmmm.. Apple makes the phones that run only Apple's OS. Apple's OS runs apps that others create, but only Apple controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Apple, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Apple.

If this isn't a monopoly, then what the hell are antitrust laws for?

Post reply on HN