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

341–350 of 851 posts

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

#341

Post by ivalm »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #220
truth_ wrote: 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.

Bull. Without apple the iOS ecosystem wouldn't exist.

Without Microsoft, the windows eco system wouldnt exist. Should MS get a cut of all windows applications?

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

#342

Post by rebelos »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #275
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status.

This couldn't be further from the truth. They have carved out many exceptions to the 30% commission over the years - often as part of sweetheart deals to attract larger entities that have negotiating leverage, such as Netflix and Amazon.

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

#343

Post by Aeronwen »

tw04 wrote: post #289
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…

So how do you feel about consoles? Because if they don’t get a cut they don’t survive. I can’t see how you can set a legal precedent against Apple that doesn’t apply to Sony/MS/Nintendo as well.

Microsoft already made the claim that smartphones are general purpose computing devices, while a game console is single use one that justifies their walled garden.

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

#344

Post by _nalply »

abecedarius wrote: post #232
Hamuko wrote: 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…

> Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is." I'm a customer and I don't.

You comment on Hacker News. Therefore you are not an “uniform” customer.

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

#345

Post by plandis »

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?

Apple doesn’t even have 30% of the smart phone market globally how can they have a monopoly on apps? Developers can just stop developing for Apple based systems if they chose.

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

#346

Post by celsoazevedo »

tshaddox wrote: post #310
celsoazevedo wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem with an App Store-like approach to that problem is that Apple would control who could call you and not give you the option to receive calls from someone they don't like.

I'm not against security or privacy. My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store and what they allow (they ban more than just malware) when I want to install something.

I use Android for this reason. As soon macOS becomes like iOS, I'm out too.

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

#347

Post by tolbish »

lanstin wrote: post #299
rdedev wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand.

[citation needed]

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

#348

Post by jcranmer »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #275
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of the illegal things under US monopoly law is tying--using your monopoly power in one market to enter another market by bundling the two products together and undercutting the competition.

Apple's push into payment processing here smacks very heavily of illegal tying to me, especially given how broadly Apple interprets competitor payment processing methods. In effect, the specific sin that got Fortnite kicked off was charging a lower price for using a company-specific gift card instead of using Apple's payment method. I don't see how that's not abusive tying.

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

#349

Post by vishnugupta »

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.

For some even 3% could be too high let alone 30%. For instance, Kindle iOS app doesn’t let you purchase books. It’s a read-only version, so to speak.

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

#350

Post by s3r3nity »

fartcannon wrote: post #96
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making Tim Cook sound stupid and/or evil, but he does have a point. > If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy? > It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make. > Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs? > They've never had to do it before.

Pretending to be ignorant of what is obvious to hold onto your power/money is pretty close to evil. If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.

>If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.

They already did - they choose iOS over Android / other possibilities.

Post reply on HN