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

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

#391

Post by treesprite82 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #378

treesprite82 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I mostly mentioned that to make the point about Xbox 12% cut. But you also mentioned Steam, so it doesn't look like you're solely talking about closed platforms.

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

If that's your point then I'd agree. Though it matters less for game consoles, and by "penalize" I'd mostly just want them to stop the active suppression of alternate app stores. It looked more like you were defending the practice as non-exploitative.

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

#392

Post by throwaway3699 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #339

slver wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.?

I think this is a really great point. PWAs are not a threat to native apps - they are a great in-between that adapts to different use cases.

Installation, push notifications, etc... are all optional and can be mixed and matched based on what users actually want.

An example would be individual forums are a great use case for PWAs.

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

#393

Post by wincy » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #322

ryandrake wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define a "general computing device" in a way that includes PCs and phones, but not game consoles?

That's easy. Can you run spreadsheet programs, image editors, IDES, etc by default on consoles? Just approved software, no jailbreaks, hacks, etc.

I can’t run Xcode on my iPhone either even though that’s what I need to develop apps for my iPhone. Even more strangely I can’t run Xcode on the iPad Pro despite it literally running the same chip that runs Xcode on a cheaper device (the Mac Mini).

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

#394

Post by thayne » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

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".

If you make an app as a hobby $99/year is quite a lot to distribute something you probably won't make much if any money off of.

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

#395

Post by jodrellblank » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

tolbish wrote: post #347

lanstin wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Gestures around at almost everything.

Cleaning products, anaesthesia, electrical goods, microwaves, internal combustion engines, skyscrapers, hydrogenated vegetable oil and other such ingredients, fire retardant in furniture, blockchains, cryptography, smoke detectors, x-rays, coronary bypass surgery, bridges, hydraulics, reservoirs, water treatment plants, refridgerators. Would you say the people who understand them in some meaningful way is >50% of the people who use/benefit from them them?

If people see others doing something, we assume it must be okay to do. If we see others selling something, we assume it must be okay to buy and use. We default to yes (pretty trusting), unless it's proven otherwise strongly enough to be banned.

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

#396

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

sciprojguy wrote: post #268

slver wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Google's strategy is simple: 1. The web should be able to control everything (i.e. PWA features not normally found in a browser). 2. Google should control the web (they can index it, track, monetize it, but it has to be on the web). 3. Profit. Do you think Apple users are super excited at the prospect of most apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences, instead of using the iOS frameworks? N…

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"…

The web push notification restriction is exactly what makes people create quick and dirty websites in a native wrapper.

Let websites be websites. If you cripple them without a good technical reason then they become exactly the sort of app you're complaining about.

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

#397

Post by GeneralTspoon » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

thekyle wrote: post #332

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.

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.

It's not a "good deal" in any case....

The minimum purchase price on iOS is $0.99, so at worst you'd be paying basically the same rate (~30%).

But most payment processors offer separate pricing for micro-transactions (e.g. Paypal is 5% + $0.05 IIRC). Which works out at around 10% for a $0.99 transaction.

And actually - Adyen offer much better pricing than the "Stripe rate" of $0.30 + 2.9% in the first place.

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

#398

Post by vmladenov » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

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…

What does Termius offer that Panic’s Prompt doesn’t? One-time fee and Panic make some of the best software I’ve used on Apple devices.

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

#399

Post by permo-w » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:41 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.

First of all, I don't want to have to download a different store every time a big app decides that they're too big for the App Store, a la that EA piece Origin, the Epic Store, the Curse Launcher - or whatever it's called this month - and the Ubisoft Store, all competing with Steam. I just want 1 and no more. That's the best user experience.

Second, I shouldn't have to remind you how well competing regulators worked for the financial sector

Basically, I think something needs doing, but this ain't it. Maybe Apple need their cut cut. They make enough damn money. You could take their cut down to 5% and they'd still be raking it in by the truckload

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

#400

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

hboon wrote: post #74

wayneftw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple protecting her from that is the only solution? I don't think so... With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores. That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive…

I know you mean well. But it’s ironic that with the first iPhones, Apple was combating the tight gripe of carriers, especially in the US on consumer control.

Apple's corporate charter is pretty simple: keep the girl with the hammer from getting too close to the screen.

Yes, they won important victories against the cellular carriers -- victories that we all continue to benefit from -- but let's not kid ourselves regarding why they fought those battles in the first place. They didn't just set out to defeat the incumbent gatekeepers, they set out to become them.