Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by afavour » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

spion wrote: post #355

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.

By that logic, should Apple charge something like $1/user/month to allow companies to publish apps and run software on iPhones?

How is that the same logic? Amazon does not charge end users for allowing services they use to run on AWS.

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

#362

Post by gjsman-1000 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

rebelos wrote: post #342

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but in monopoly law, the rules haven't changed from the perspective that Apple hasn't raised prices. Apple can lower them all they want, but if they raise them when they got their monopoly status so as to take advantage of their market, that would be illegal.

However, that relies on the idea that Apple is even a monopoly to begin with, and that really depends on what you define "the market" as. Is the product an iPhone and the whole cohesive experience with it (IAP and App Store included) in which case it's a duopoly at best, or are these separate markets that it is possible to have a monopoly in?

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

#363

Post by simonh » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

abecedarius wrote: post #352

simonh wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The capability you give an app for X doesn't have to be the raw system X. It can interpose some policy or tracking-of-use, or let you revoke just the X, or fake the whole X to begin with, etc. This is one of the things distinguishing the object capability model from basic sandboxing. Another is that the set of kinds of X's is open-ended -- anyone can make up higher-level abstractions like an advertising server with a…

Do you really think that companies lobbying for side-loading of their apps, and getting legislation through to force it on Apple, would be satisfied with heavily locked down access to subsets of functionality? To more restricted access than App Store apps? Somehow I don't see that being acceptable to the side-loading lobby.

An App Store App can be granted low level network access etc because it can be vetted and censured if found in violation of policies. Side loaded app developers will demand the same access.

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

#364

Post by gjsman-1000 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #348

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

Tying is actually not illegal and is common business practice if you don't have a monopoly. Apple started doing this all the way back in 2009, before they had a monopoly even from Epic's perspective. Therefore, the argument is that they aren't tying monopolistically because they were tying before they were even close to monopoly status. In which case, they haven't changed the rules, and also in which case the current antitrust law doesn't really address.

If you are following Apple vs Epic, even Epic admits this and says they can't pinpoint when Apple became a supposed monopoly, and argues that the tying is illegal because Apple is so large, not that it was illegal to begin with (because Epic admits that it would not have been illegal when Apple started). This is also why many legal experts say Epic has an uphill battle, because antitrust really only addresses abuses in monopoly power, not so much on what got you to that monopoly power.

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

#365

Post by giantrobot » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

truth_ wrote: post #187

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…

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.

Netflix pays AWS (and their other services) based on their use. AWS "takes a cut" in that Netflix pays for their service.

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

#366

Post by crazygringo » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

remolacha wrote: post #240

crazygringo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing weird about it. If there were no food regulations, I don't know if I'd be able to pick restaurants and grocery store brands that were safe to eat. But I definitely know I want safe food to eat. Most people want safe food but they want the government to figure out what that means. Same thing here -- most people just want a safe app store. They don't want the work of having to figure out which app store…

If there were two, or ten, food safety inspection groups, we could figure out which ones had trustworthy ratings. No need for end consumers to inspect every restaurant (every app) individually. That's what Epic is asking for - to have its own app store on iOS.

Which is exactly what everyone wants to avoid.

Imagine if there were 10 inspection groups, but sometimes they get bought by corrupt investors who let standards slide while pocketing the extra profit, and consumers constantly have to stay on top of which food inspection groups are the current OK ones and which aren't, and restaurants can't afford to get inspected by all 10 so they only do 2 but then people who only trust another 2 won't go there at all even though the food's fine, meanwhile the most trustworthy group jacks up prices for restaurants like crazy because restaurants know they have no choice...

It would be a nightmare. There's a reason that literally no country does this, that food safety is virtually universally considered to be a basic function of modern government.

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

#367

Post by mthoms » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #225

mthoms wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple requires developers to offer sign-in with Apple if they use other sign-in systems (like FB). They could have the same requirement with payments. Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to . After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would res…

But then if you force every option to be priced the same, despite how much it costs the developer, then you're distorting everything again. For example, I can pay $0.99 to buy a game using Square or Apple, but Apple takes a 30% cut and will give me a full refund if I don't like the game. I chose Apple every time, but not because it's "better", it's just better for me and I'm not the one paying for it.

Being able to get a refund is quantifiably better. What do you mean?

Are you suggesting other vendors would be unable to compete with that for some reason?

As an aside: I don't think the same pricing among different vendors is necessarily a requirement. If one entity offers more security or other benefits, then their pricing should reflect that.

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

#368

Post by api » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

sciprojguy wrote: post #357

rdedev wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another comment mentioned this. The fragmentation issue that comes up with multiple app stores. I agree that it is an issue that can come up. Pretty sure epic is trying for something like this in android. But it dosent take away from my point that an alternative store does not affect the quality of apps in the main store. As for an alt store becoming normalized I feel that users will only install the necessary app fr…

"I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else." Have you ever had to wipe a relative's computer to get rid of the malware-infested browser toolbars they installed, not knowing any better? Or worse, pay a ransom in bitcoins to unlock the billing systems that help control a gasoline distribution pipeline? You may be somewhat overestimating the sophistication of users wh…

I’ve heard it put this way: if you give the user root on the device, you are giving the malware the user is tricked into installing root.

iOS is an OS for people who are non-technical or for applications where people don’t want to worry about that stuff. If you want full control run Linux. MacOS and Windows also offer a balance that is skewed a lot more toward user control because they’re for “pro” use cases.

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

#369

Post by treesprite82 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #330

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…

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.

Microsoft store on PC is a 12% cut. Documents revealed during this case show that the same is (or was) planned for Xbox store: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

For Steam there are many viable alternatives, which allows for user/developer choice and fair competition in the long run. Epic Store is about half as popular now (31.3m vs 62.6m daily active users), but it's growing fast. I don't think what Steam is offering is worth the 30% cut, and I imagine we'll either see them reduce that cut or get overtaken by Epic in another few years.

I don't like what the other stores are doing, but to me it's a smaller concern on game consoles/stores than on every application for general purpose computers and smartphones. I'd fight the fight on the latter first.

I also disagree with the implication that something is "certainly not exploitative" because of it being an industry standard - in fact I'd say that can be a contributing factor to it being exploitative in many cases (price fixing/oligopolies). To me it's exploitative if the only reason they're getting away with charging so much is because they're hindering competition in that particular area (e.g: can't change app store without buying a whole new phone).

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

#370

Post by sciprojguy » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

moksly wrote: post #272

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…

> 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? You could always get an android. I realise that this can come off as silly, but what, id not the walled garden differentiate the two systems? If you tear those walls down, you’re basically using a really expensive android device with all the tracking and malware that includes. I do…

Why, exactly, are they evil? It's not as if people who buy Apple (like me, and I develop for iPhone/iPad too) don't know what they're getting. I like the walled garden Apple has because:

* It makes my life as a developer much easier. I only have one App Store to aim at, and with a few hiccups here and there from inexperienced or overzealous reviewers the guidelines are pretty clear. If I had to design for half a dozen or more apps I'd have that many more versions of guidelines to worry about.

* I don't need to worry nearly as much about scam or knock-off apps siphoning off users, since Apple is proactive about that. Not perfect, but very proactive.

Those are just two off the top of my head. There are more, but I'm getting hungry.