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

381–390 of 851 posts

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

#381

Post by dehrmann »

vishnugupta wrote: post #349
MR4D wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most credit card processors charge around 3%, so it's rarely an issue. The number I usually throw out that Apple could charge and no one would be mad over is 5%. It's more than a credit card processor, but not that much, and it would likely help conversion rates enough that app developers would be happy.

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

#382

Post by mcny »

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.

How is this different from credit cards that have "rewards"? If you think of the independent software vendors as the corner store where you buy groceries and Apple as Visa or some payment processor...

Actually now that I think about it the difference is the walled garden. I think pretty much the only compromise I can accept is something like Apple and Google must be required to add something like F-Droid that is run at arms length from Apple and Google and accepts third party software repositories.

This way users can download and use any software they like from any repository anywhere. The benefit for Apple and Google is we won't shut them down and really they have inertia behind them so many if not most people will stick to the default stores, and Google can forbid OEMs from adding applications or repositories. A user must do so deliberately and manually.

The benefit for users is applications installed from F-Droid will be able to auto update.

The benefit for independent software vendors is they can publish their stuff outside of app store and play store and not have to adhere to any policy by the app store or play store and not have to pay any money to the default stores.

Anything less and we are basically at status quo.

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

#383

Post by throwaway3699 »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #372
fsloth wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I don't mind paying for software I use, but 120/yr for a phone ssh app is too much.

This is because it's much easier to earn money on the long-tail dedicated fans than the masses. Especially when those masses are likely to hate advertising based models with a passion.

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

#384

Post by fauigerzigerk »

slver wrote: post #319
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this restriction benefits anyone but Apple. What this restriction does is replace an annoyance that doesn't benefit Apple with one that does. Instead of websites asking to send notifications, they are now nagging us to install useless apps that ask to send notifications and clutter our screens. An honest curator would never even allow these apps into their app store. This is purely a business decision…

So you're annoyed by a few dozen apps you've installed sending notifications that "clutter your screen", and the solution is to allow the thousands of sites you visit do the same. Okay.

No, you don't understand. What annoys me is that Apple has created an additional incentive for companies to clutter my screen with useless apps that wouldn't have any reason to be apps if it wasn't for push notifications.

These "apps" should never be allowed in the app store. They should be websites that get to ask me exactly once whether I want to receive their notifications. Instead they keep pushing and nagging me to install their apps and Apple's policies are encouraging this behaviour.

In some cases, the notifications are useful, but there is no other reason for them to be apps installed on my device.

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

#385

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #366
remolacha wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

[deleted]

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

#386

Post by golemotron »

ericlewis wrote: post #226
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.

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.

> Rent would go up and there would be basically 0 actually free apps anymore.

I don't think there's nothing getting in the way of Apple charging a very high rent for Amazon's app and a very low one for a random vegan recipe app.

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

#387

Post by mdoms »

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…

No they don't "have to". Every other platform gets by just fine without this rule. Windows Store, Play Store, Samsung Store, Steam, Origin, Epic Game Store, even Apple's own MacOS store.

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

#388

Post by mdoms »

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…

> As a general rule, app stores simply don't allow third-party payment in apps that don't go through the store, for this exact reason. It's not just Apple with this policy.

This is not a "general rule". I can't think of any examples other than Apple's app store.

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

#389

Post by wincy »

thayne wrote: post #356
lukeramsden wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.

Not to mention that you have to purchase expensive apple hardware to develop for iOS.

I saw the new Mac Mini on sale at Costco for $600 yesterday, I don’t see how Apple hardware can be called “expensive” anymore.
Post reply on HN