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

431–440 of 851 posts

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

#431

Post by mannerheim »

slver wrote: post #412
mannerheim wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do most phone users really want to install apps for Reddit, Imgur, etc.?

If you visit a site a lot, you want to install an icon for it. If you're willing to install an icon for it, you prefer the quality and speed of a native experience. That's just common sense. Funny enough I couldn't find a decent native app for HN, so I just placed a link to the site in my folder with social apps. That site is the worst thing in that folder.

I know a couple people who dislike Reddit's degraded web experience to drive users to their app. I haven't installed the app myself. Maybe it's a minority opinion. But supposedly Reddit has 1.6 billion unique visitors per month, and about 120 million app installs.

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

#432

Post by azinman2 »

kmonsen wrote: post #239
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…

It would more be like if food safety inspections were optional, but only restaurants that opt in would be allowed to show a sign they were inspected either physically or on their web page. It would be trivial to be able to check for this. Door dash would show a sign saying which restaurant is safe to avoid being sued after an incident. If you think restaurants and food safety is a good analogy it’s not a good argumen…

Except now there isn’t just 1 inspector, but many. And you have to figure out which you trust.

Now imagine there’s a very popular restaurant, but it uses an inspector you don’t know if you trust. But you want to eat the food because all your friends are already there… so you’ll go.

This is exactly what would happen— various companies once they reach a certain size will just want to have their own store because either it makes them more money or they have less restrictions. Just look at Facebook and the new 14.5 privacy features that are cutting into their ability to collect data. If you let FB the chance to pull out, they’d do it in a heartbeat knowing they could easily force everyone to install their App Store… which would have 0 privacy restrictions and far less oversight (just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how FB might run an App Store).

Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware, they’re the best incentivized to protect its user base.

Disclaimer: I work for Apple but all views my own.

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

#433

Post by thayne »

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 app developers iOS device sales would be a lot lower. it's a symbiotic relationship.

The problem is Apple has greater negotiating power, because they don't need any one developer and it is difficult for all the app developers to organize to negotiate together. But imagine if they did organize, and threatened to remove their apps from the app store unless Apple gave them more favorable terms.

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

#434

Post by slver »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #384
slver wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apps do also ask you exactly once if you want notifications.

And you don't have to install any apps. Use the sites if it's the same for you.

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

#435

Post by fsloth »

thayne wrote: post #394
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".

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.

There is no reason hobbies should be cheap.

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

#436

Post by frosted-flakes »

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.

Would you still choose Apple's payment processor of it meant paying 30% more than third-party payment processors that don't charge a fee?

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

#437

Post by lossolo »

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.

Apple had 72.3 billion revenue from App Store in 2020. I can assure you that I can provide you with online store that I can find your app on, and run security checks against your app to check for malicious apps, etc. for 2.1 billion $ per year (3%).

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

#438

Post by rebelos »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #362
rebelos wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Once again you're wrong and you should really stop commenting on business law. There are a wide range of legal precedents that have bearing here and these specific dealings could absolutely be ruled as anticompetitive in court.

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

#439

Post by ninjinxo »

verall wrote: post #353
dijit wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is a better example as Epic is operating at a loss position to disrupt the incumbent.

My friends and I play Apex through Steam, which I downloaded for free. When you click to purchase "Apex coins", it takes you straight to EA's website. Apple wants to enforce a cut on every purchase of in-game currency. Steam does not do this. And Valve allows you to sell steam keys on your own website also without paying the cut, so long as you don't undercut the steam store.

Steam does take a cut for microtransactions, very likely force price parity, and put the developers under NDAs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...

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

#440

Post by slver »

mannerheim wrote: post #431
slver wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you visit a site a lot, you want to install an icon for it. If you're willing to install an icon for it, you prefer the quality and speed of a native experience. That's just common sense. Funny enough I couldn't find a decent native app for HN, so I just placed a link to the site in my folder with social apps. That site is the worst thing in that folder.

I know a couple people who dislike Reddit's degraded web experience to drive users to their app. I haven't installed the app myself. Maybe it's a minority opinion. But supposedly Reddit has 1.6 billion unique visitors per month, and about 120 million app installs.

Judging by their non-degraded desktop site experience, thank god we have the app. Honestly, Reddit is one of those sites that make me think the world has collectively forgotten how to make a sane site. It takes seconds to load, and almost everything you go means looking at animated placeholders for a time, until something happens.

I have a workstation that deals with 3D rendering and huge Photoshop files, or compiling sizable projects with no problem, and my CPU is still pegged to 100% when I browse Reddit.

I shudder at the thought of those same people being in charge of my mobile experience. I don't feel like having to replace my phone battery every 3 months, thanks.

Post reply on HN