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

371–380 of 851 posts

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

#371

Post by sidlls »

mthoms wrote: post #360
sidlls wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with cigarettes.

Please don't make unsubstantial comments on HN. You're not being as clever as you think you are. Edit: The context of my pro-free-market comment is app stores. Of course it's not absolute. You very well know this. Please don't argue in bad faith.

The comment was not unsubstantial, nor was it “clever” in the way you suggest was attempted. Cigarettes were quite a popular market driven product for literally decades. The point being, obviously, that “the market decides” isn’t necessarily a good way to determine or identify quality, or what consumers actually want or need.

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

#372

Post by atomicnumber3 »

fsloth wrote: post #311
ericlewis wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent would go up and there would be basically 0 actually free apps anymore. It’s already hard to pay 99$ a year for many people. Now you have to pay some larger number and your app may never make money. It’s always an achievement just to get your 99$ back anyway.

With the risk of sounding overly harsh - If 99$ per annum is a concrete financial risk maybe being a solo developer is not such a good lifepath financially. I imagine anyone capable of deploying an app store app has pretty good skills and is quite hireable. Of course individual situations can be different, but this is discussion about the "generic situation".

One thing I don't like about the iOS model is that 100/yr is a significant barrier to hosting "open source" type apps out of the goodness of your heart. Concrete example: best ssh app on android is ConnectBot which is gratis and free. Best ssh app on iOS is Termius which is crippled by default, nonfree, and requires a $10/mo *subscription* to unlock. I don't mind paying for software I use, but 120/yr for a phone ssh app is too much.

And this is the best app on the store, a less costly and freer competitor hasn't emerged.

And I can't even sideload my own apps.

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

#373

Post by tarsinge »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #306
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…

> 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…

What was the cut when software was published physically and sold in a store? 30% is not a lot for being in a store.

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

#374

Post by Closi »

hnlmorg wrote: post #224
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.

AWS pricing is extremely thorough and not at all comparable with Apple's App Store: - AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission - AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app I'm not a fan of Apple's App Sto…

> - AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads

Their point is that Apple could charge based on bandwidth used, and that this could be more fair for some developers.

> AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app

I would be pretty happy with Apple charging for app storage if it was at S3 rates - it would amount to almost nothing.

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

#375

Post by deergomoo »

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…

> when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same

Didn’t Sony lose a class-action for doing that?

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

#376

Post by theshrike79 »

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?

Compare it with this

> Microsoft makes gaming consoles that run only Xbox OS. Xbox OS runs apps that others create, but only Microsoft 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 Microsoft, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Microsoft.

Now do the same with Sony and Playstation, Nintendo and their consoles etc.

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

#377

Post by donkarma »

aaronax wrote: post #248
jmull wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think malware should be controlled? An App Store has the ability to load executable code that might do anything onto your device. I don’t think an OS can just opt to do nothing about this. Some basic guard rails, designed to dissuade the technically unsavvy seems like the least that could be done. Additionally, I think there would need to be a malware management system, similar to ones on other more open p…

Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.

tell that to an Iranian who wants to make a gay dating app please

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

#378

Post by dijit »

treesprite82 wrote: post #369
dijit wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I just mean that if we’re penalising one platform it seems fair to penalise the others.

Microsoft store on PC is not a closed platform like Xbox is, ergo it is not what I was claiming.

It’s cool that Epic is taking on Steam. But they’re doing so at a large loss right now, we’ll see how it goes.

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

#379

Post by mthoms »

sidlls wrote: post #371
mthoms wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't make unsubstantial comments on HN. You're not being as clever as you think you are. Edit: The context of my pro-free-market comment is app stores. Of course it's not absolute. You very well know this. Please don't argue in bad faith.

The comment was not unsubstantial, nor was it “clever” in the way you suggest was attempted. Cigarettes were quite a popular market driven product for literally decades. The point being, obviously, that “the market decides” isn’t necessarily a good way to determine or identify quality, or what consumers actually want or need.

The "what about cigarettes?" argument would be relevant if one of the market participants in this scenario was literally killing people (or otherwise harming society in some way).

An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances. An honest reader would consider the context. You're not arguing in good faith.

Try again?

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

#380

Post by golemotron »

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…

> Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether

If the decision goes against Apple, I'd be surprised if they didn't just 'charge rent' to be on the App Store, just like a retail mall charges stores. Apple would have to take on the additional work of negotiating with each App, which would likely be "take it or leave it" pricing for all except the big ones, but I can't imagine it being illegal.

That doesn't cut to the core claim of lack of competition, though, and that's why the choice of remedy here will be interesting.

Post reply on HN