Lying through his greedy teeth
Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
321–330 of 851 posts
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are consoles sold as general computing devices?
Can you define a "general computing device" in a way that includes PCs and phones, but not game consoles?
That's easy. Can you run spreadsheet programs, image editors, IDES, etc by default on consoles? Just approved software, no jailbreaks, hacks, etc.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for how long would Safari on iOS keep up with new features or not get its performance nuked if for example games started to move into browser apps in major numbers on iOS. Apple itself said in the trial that games pretty much subsidize all other apps in terms of the money Apple makes out of the App Store. iOS Safari already lags behind in features. Apple would just make it even worse if it started to cost them si…
> Apple itself said in the trial that games pretty much subsidize all other apps in terms of the money Apple makes out of the App Store. How does that work? It's not like Apple spent money to develop the games or the apps. And they are diverting money from the profitable games to the unprofitable apps. So how, exactly, are the games subsidizing the apps?
I assume it's that for most apps, the hosting/payment processing/... costs outweight the revenues they make from their cut, but not for games.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a developer's net profit margin, after dev and marketing costs, is less than 60%, then Apple makes more money on the app than the developer. 30% is outrageous.
You’re saying that 60% of 70% is less than 30%?
Sales price: $100
Apple's cut: $30
Costs (including dev and mktg): $40 (60% net profit)
Profit: $30
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Visa charges you 3% but doesn’t have an online store that I can find your app on, and don’t run security checks against your app to check for malicious apps, etc.
So I think we can agree that a realistic number for Apple is definitely above 3% for the service they provide.
We can argue about 30%, and that’s a good discussion, but 3% is no way comparable.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#326Earlier 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." Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.
The reality of what ends up happening is you end up with an app store per publisher, and needing to manage your payment details with each one individually, and deal with each stores handling of your data. I don't want to install the NYT store to download the nyt cooking app so they can take a bigger cut on their subscription. The reason this hasn't happened on Android is because you get a scary warning when you insta…
Except android has multiple app stores and most people just end up using the main one.
There is no good reason to restrict user choice
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Are you tied to Apple and unable to leave? I don't buy Apple devices, and so am not affected by their restrictions.
Yes, I'm tied to Apple and unable to leave. Even if for the simple reason that I find other OSes and devices that run them shit in comparison.
Has it occured to you that maybe those other OSes and devices are shit precisely because they give unfettered access to developers/scammers/adtech on their platform?
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#328Earlier 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…
What’s your argument here, that the GP is lying or that their grandmother wanted the malware or something else? I find it very easy to believe that some malware vendor managed to trick someone into enabling things in settings. I would also believe that malware was just sitting in the play store[1] and available to install the normal way. [1] same goes for the App Store.
His grandmother already has an iPhone, so it's unlikely that she was using Android 10 or 11 (which made it fairly easy to install an apk file). Until Android 9 you had to go through some menus and allow sideloading, something that "clueless" people usually don't do. It's more likely that the "malware" came from an app installed via the Play Store.
Three or so years ago I was asked by someone to see if there was a virus on their phone. The "virus" was in fact a religious app, installed via the official store, which was opening a popup with ads every few hours.
Now, I could be wrong and it's possible that his grandma actually sideloaded an apk. If she did, I still think that you should be able to install an app that isn't allowed by Apple on their store, after all they block more than just malware: apps with free licenses, some VPN apps in some countries, torrent apps without any illegal content in it, etc.
If Apple wants to continue on this path, hopefully they'll go a step further and also remove the web browser and the ability to receive calls. Scam calls are a problem after all and we don't want people to send all their savings to "Microsoft" or "Amazon".
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hypothetical progression: Epic sets up alternative App Store which becomes the only source of Fortnite 2.0, which is popular enough to drive installs of new alt store. Some other newly-popular viral app comes along (probably a social app that causes its users to exert pressure on their social group to join) and gambles on going with the Epic store only, piggybacking on Fortnite’s beachhead. Repeat. This process norma…
Already like this scene in PC gaming, launchers everywhere.
For the apps I am using now, there will be probably:
Netflix Store, Amazon Store, Google Store, Epic Store, EA Store ... and list goes on
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I’m going to repeat the same thing I always repeat in these threads because it feels like people are out of touch with closed platforms.
To “play” on Xbox or PlayStation, they take a 30% cut.
Steam also takes a 30% cut.
It’s pretty standard, certainly not “exploitative” (at least not on apples part, if not others), though obviously as a game developer I’d prefer it be much less.