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

301–310 of 851 posts

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

#301

Post by simonh »

abecedarius wrote: post #258
simonh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets say Apple allowed side-loading. They would have no way to examine side-loaded apps to see what they do. iOS would have to provide access to various basic services like networking and connectivity, but not e.g. your address book without checking with the user. All well and good. So I could write an app that interrogates the cellular network and other sources to implement location tracking (cruder than GPS but goo…

Your argument presumes apps get capabilities by default. OSes have been invented where apps get nothing implicitly (the object-capability model); it's a design problem to install mass-market apps with usable security in that paradigm, and it might be a difficult one. But there's been a little work on it and it's worth pursuing.

Sure, but when you grant capabilities you can't be sure what is being done with them. That's why you need static analysis, behavioural analysis and the whole test regime of App Store review to catch these sorts of activities. That's why Apple has an app store review process, otherwise they could bake all the restrictions into the OS itself. With permissioning for side loaded apps you can't know or enforce activities with the granted services. Yet people like framecowbird will still blame Apple for not producing a "good OS" that protects them anyway.

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

#302

Post by lanstin »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #264
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…

Android already has the majority of the market. Apple is, perhaps deliberately, pricing themselves out of the emerging markets in Africa and Asia. It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.

Except a lower chance of trouble if you down load an app without some security assessment of it.

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

#303

Post by tshaddox »

fastaguy88 wrote: post #194
akudha wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty hard to know who the minority is in this case. Based on other HN opinions about Apple products, there seems to be a consensus that Apple customers are mostly not tech savvy. If they were, they wouldn’t buy Apple stuff.

Why is it hard to know? Apple has at most like a 20% market share globally, and around 50% in the United States. The overwhelming majority of smartphone owners have a non-Apple smartphone.

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

#304

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

smnrchrds wrote: post #128
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…

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…

>how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc?

They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation.

I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly.

Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now:

> Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-tot...

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

#305

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

topkai22 wrote: post #280

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 payme…

My iOS game which was in arcade category for years before Apple launched Apple Arcade was changed to an irrelevant category(Casual) as soon as Apple launched its Arcade platform. Just information over email, No permission was asked.

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

#306

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

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…

> No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a cut of anything.

No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a 30% cut of anything.

Most developers would pay Apple a 3% cut in order to use Apple's built in-payment mechanism, and not force their users to leave the app and type their credit card information into a browser.

30% is exploitive, and not at all proportional to the value provided. People pay it because they have to, not because it's fair.

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

#307

Post by idle_zealot »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #256
wgjordan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Analogy to drug safety makes no sense - FDA regulates drug safety and 'fake' generic drugs are very much allowed, so customers may choose generic drugs without needing to distinguish safe/unsafe themselves.

Counter to your point, pretend Apple is the FDA and the drugs are apps. Now pretend the government wants to get rid of Apple/FDA.

Right. And to add to the scenario: in this world the FDA is a for-profit corporation that owns the only drug store and uses its regulatory power to prevent any others from existing.

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

#308

Post by tshaddox »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #55
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

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…

Why is that weird? Facebook has to put warnings in the browser console to prevent people from pasting malicious code that some viral post said would give them super powers on Facebook. Obviously these warnings aren’t for people who understand developer tools and internet security. They’re there because malicious people trick other people into running malicious code.

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

#309

Post by dublidu »

eplanit wrote: post #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?

People are too fixated on the definition of monopoly. We should just focus on anti-competitive practices.

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

#310

Post by tshaddox »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #295
sircastor wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually I definitely do want to A) make it more difficult for spam callers to exist and B) make it more difficult for people to be fooled by them.
Post reply on HN