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

441–450 of 851 posts

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

#441

Post by rorykoehler »

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…

What happens if I buy it on Google Play on my android device and then use it on my iPhone? This is a preposterous idea.

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

#442

Post by commoner »

mcny wrote: post #382
pkulak wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the US, rewards are usually 1-2% on most credit cards, and up to 5% for certain purchase categories on a few credit cards. These rewards are funded by interest income, annual fees, penalty fees, and interchange fees. Interchange fees are typically between 1.3% and 3.5%: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...

The Durbin amendment allows merchants to offer lower prices to customers who choose a payment option that incurs lower fees (such as cash or debit card) at the point of sale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment

Compare this to Apple, which takes a 30% cut. Developers must raise their prices by 42.9% to compensate for that 30% cut. Apple does not allow developers to offer alternative payment options for most categories of in-app purchases.

For a long time, the standard rate for payment processing for small businesses has been 2.9% + $0.30 for credit cards. Larger businesses with higher transaction volumes are able to negotiate lower rates. If Apple allows developers to offer payment processing options that take smaller cuts, and allows developers to offer lower prices when customers choose those options, I'm certain that most developers and customers would prefer the third-party payment processors.

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

#443

Post by colordrops »

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'd be less happy with developers being able to use their own payment processors and be on the app store for free. There's a chilling anti-free-speech type of thing going on there.

How would this have an effect on free speech?

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

#444

Post by jedberg »

crazygringo wrote: post #173
Hamuko wrote: post #2

Tim Cook's line of argument seemed a bit weird to me. On one hand he's saying that he doesn't know if Apple's customers would be able to distinguish between Apple's good and holy curated store and Epic's filthy shitheap of porn and blackjack, but he's also saying that Apple's customers definitely want Apple's App Store as-is. > Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there…

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…

The difference is that the government is in theory accountable to the people through elections and don't have a profit motive. They have no reason to fail a restaurant on their health inspection because they own a competing restaurant.

Apple has broken incentives here. Otherwise they would approve third party apps that compete with their own.

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

#445

Post by frosted-flakes »

slver wrote: post #434
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But they'll nag you forever to install their app if you use the website. Like Reddit's constant stream of dark pattern pop-ups and ads for their app.

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

#446

Post by fsloth »

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…

Buy an Android phone? A Raspberry PI? A Linux box? I don't get it, if a person can't afford to be on a prestige platform like Apple, then that's not a problem, choose another platform.

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

#447

Post by m463 »

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 just like to remember - the cut gets passed onto the customers.

There are times this is appropriate - there are times this is not.

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

#448

Post by fauigerzigerk »

slver wrote: post #434
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want some sites to send me notifications just like I want some apps to send me notifications. I don't want websites to turn themselves into otherwise useless apps just to be able to send me notifications.

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

#449

Post by commoner »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #436
pkulak wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's actually 42.9% more. 1 / (1 - 0.3) = about 1.429.

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

#450

Post by gjsman-1000 »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #407
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a non American this is very interesting knowledge. I have a question: in USA could Tesla force Tesla Powerwall owners to only buy electricity from Tesla approved suppliers and when they sell their product through Tesla store, Tesla gets a 30% cut?

In theory, if they sold you the product with that restriction out of the box and didn't change it later to do this, so you bought the product knowing with basic research that it would be restricted in this way, yes they could.
Post reply on HN