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

331–340 of 851 posts

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

#331

Post by matwood »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #269
spideymans wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-pu…

Exactly. I keep seeing people saying "but iPhones are general purpose and consoles aren't so what Apple's doing is illegal!" and I'm like, where did you get that idea from? Where did you learn that meant anything? But I see it all the time all over the place. The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code fro…

I agree. I'm sure Sony, Nintendo, and the MS Xbox division are paying close attention to all these App Store discussions. In some ways, the success of the Apple/Google app stores may lead to the general undoing of all app stores, consoles included.

As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.

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

#332

Post by thekyle »

MR4D wrote: post #325
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think most credit card processors charge something like 30 cents + 2.9%. On large purchases that's about 3%, but on smaller transactions (like those usually used in mobile apps) that 30 cents dominates and could end up being about 30%. So from that perspective Apple's 30% cut could be a good deal in some cases.

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

#333

Post by dijit »

bendmorris wrote: post #298
spiderice wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Steam is a better example as Epic is operating at a loss position to disrupt the incumbent.

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

#334

Post by natch »

secondcoming wrote: post #174
crazygringo wrote: post #165

Earlier 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…

Couldn't Apple recoup any losses by charging app publishers 'rent' to be listed on the app store?

No.

Think it through: free apps would not be able to afford the rent, so they would need a discount.

Then in the limit all apps would become free, so as to get the discount.

But some apps would be making a killing with external payment methods, while other apps would be making nothing.

Meantime Apple would also be making nothing.

I would think Apple has thought about this.

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

#335

Post by freediver »

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?

It is not, because Apple is not the only supplier of the said commodity (apps). And apps are not only not a basic human right, but you can easilly get them elsewhere - Google, Microsoft.. or just from the web.

What Apple is, is a private corporation with certain standards and rules for their products (which is one of the things that makes them desireable in the first place IMO). You have to obey these rules to get the benefit of their distribution platform. Millions of people end enterprises do because they believe those benefits outweight the cost and risk, us included.

Imagine I want to sell my goods at a local farmer's market. I have to get their approval, obey their rules and pay their fees. It is up to me to wage in pros and cons. We accept that as perfectly normal. If it was the only farmer's market in the country then it would become problematic.

What should happen is that this regulates through market forces. If indeed enough people are in protest of those rules so much that they start voting with their wallets elsewhere, thus hurting Apple's bottomline in a meaningful way, then the market just created pressures for Apple to change those rules.

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

#336

Post by zamadatix »

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.…

The latest Xbox and PlayStation are literally just AMD PCs that support connecting a keyboard and mouse if you have one (and the Xbox running a locked down version of Windows ripe with APIs explicitly made to have general purpose apps run without rewrite from standard Windows even!) - the only thing not making them a general purpose computing device is the restrictions on what you can run. That the restrictions don't let you run general purpose computing isn't reasoning on why the restrictions are okay to be there in the first place.

Now one could argue the intent is they not be general purpose devices, but so could the intent of anyone not wanting competing stores. I'm not sure the intent of how manufacturers want users to use it factors in as such.

One argument that comes up often related to this set is consoles are sold at a loss (and iPhones are not) on the assumption profitability (not increased profits) will be made through purchases on the platform. This is more of an bona fide difference between phones and consoles but has it's own debate as well (which I'm not going to get into here as this is already veering pretty far off the article topic).

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

#337

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dublidu wrote: post #309
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.

That would solve a lot of “well at worse it’s a duopoly so you still have a choice!”. But I’ve given up on purchasable politicians to enforce antitrust on big tech a long time ago. So I don’t know how it will happen. I’d sooner expect congressional term limits which might help.

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

#338

Post by deergomoo »

MR4D wrote: post #325
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The 12% that Epic and now Microsoft charge seems about right IMO

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

#339

Post by mannerheim »

slver wrote: post #282
sciprojguy wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long-time iOS developer here who does not want cross-platform dreck to become the standard. UIKit and SwiftUI are deep frameworks that let you build really great user experiences (if you're willing to put in the work to learn them), and Apple spends a ton of time and money making sure they can work together and build an iOS app that looks and feels like an iOS app, not someone's crappy "web site in a native wrapper"…

I'm honestly glad to see one dev who cares about their craft and not just "I wanna spit some HTML and boom, it's on all phones". HN is mostly frequented by developers, and it's so frustrating to see how many of them are outright lazy and don't think about UX but rather about how to get quickest from point A to point B. Rest assured most phone users are with you all the way. But again, we wouldn't know it reading deve…

Do most phone users really want to install apps for Reddit, Imgur, etc.?

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

#340

Post by celsoazevedo »

kec wrote: post #314
celsoazevedo wrote: post #55

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…

It’s not really weird at all. When a dialog pops up while a user is trying to do something like install an app 90% of users will blindly click “ok” in order to get on with it.

Neither the user or a website/app can install an apk file on Android by just clicking "OK".
Post reply on HN