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

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

#511

Post by websites420 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #317

websites420 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it. This is not true. The judge's job is to follow pertinent line of inquiries to the case and get responses from the plaintiff and defense. Not pursuing a line of questioning might indicate that the questions were already resolved in briefs, and are therefore not needed in open court. Open court is a very, very small part of these trials, so…

What I posted weren't questions though. They are statements from the judge that don't sound like "devil's advocate" type set ups.

It applies to anything said by the judge in open court. It is intended to elicit a response from the parties. Judges don’t make comments on their thoughts out loud for the benefit of participants.

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

#512

Post by huhtenberg » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

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…

> to avoid charging in the App Store altogether.

Not if the AppStore is to offer competitive processing fees.

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

#513

Post by cglong » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

Torwald wrote: post #243

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Apple holds back important APIs from their browser, years after they are available in other browsers: fast 3D graphics, offline storage and compute, push notifications, to name a few.

Apple also holds this sort of features back on their browser on the open desktop platform (macOS). Judging from that I'd say there must be another reason.

Safari for macOS has push notifications, arguably the most important component of PWAs.

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

#514

Post by nr2x » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

kitsunesoba wrote: post #288

nr2x wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't access iCloud calendars on an Android phone, they even block it over the browser.

It's a bit convoluted, but you can get the CalDAV URLs for your calendars which then work just fine with any CalDAV client (including those on Android). When googling "iCloud caldav" detailed instructions are the first result.

Key point here is "very hard to move to Android". Seeing as this is not at all easy (and I have gotten to work via this method at some point), it presents a barrier to changing platforms. Likewise ,not allowing access to calendar on a mobile browser is pretty blatant.

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

#515

Post by moenzuel » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #141

hmate9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would match rather sign up for a subscription through the iOS ecosystem, where I can easily and realisably cancel that subscription through Apple themselves as opposed to entering my credit card info and figuring out how to cancel for each and every application differently.

Personally I would prefer to sign up to a subscription via PayPal, where I can easily manage the subscription though a web site instead opening the "Music" app (!?!) and navigating through that nightmare

I am confused, are you saying that the only way to manage your subscriptions in iOS is via the music app and not the App Store?

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

#516

Post by BeefWellington » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #411

5560675260 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all of this is available via web browser.

Ah, nice, can I do any of that offline?

Given you can't run most games on current-gen consoles offline I'm not sure that's the point you think it is.

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

#517

Post by mdoms » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #308

celsoazevedo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that a clueless person was able to download and install a malware apk when by default Android forces you to go to your settings and allow apps to install other apps (the behaviour has changed over the years, but you always need to do something). Not to mention that Google Play Protect scans your apps and warns you if it finds something sketchy. In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I d…

Why is that weird? Facebook has to put warnings in the browser console to prevent people from pasting malicious code that some viral post said would give them super powers on Facebook. Obviously these warnings aren’t for people who understand developer tools and internet security. They’re there because malicious people trick other people into running malicious code.

It's not weird because it didn't happen.

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

#518

Post by paulmd » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #417

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…

It is literally just Apple because you can install apps outside the company store on other platforms. The inability to install outside the store is what makes disallowing outside payment an issue. The combination means that you can't sell to a customer without going through apple because they have used their control of the hardware to take the decision of whom to do business with from you in order to stand there with…

allowing sideloading instantly shreds user privacy because any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything. Facebook for example has already gotten their hand slapped for doing exactly this using their developer credentials, and if it suddenly becomes viable to do this for the full user-base then it will happen immediately and without any recourse by users.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

that is the true red-line from a user perspective. go on and have your spat about whether 30% is fair or not, but the app-review process is the keystone on which the permissions system rests, allowing sideloading is tantamount to allowing all major apps full-permissions overnight and essentially making the permissions system meaningless.

the only viable solution I can see that allows third-party app stores would be to require that Apple still review all apps on third-party app stores to enforce the requirements surrounding permissioning (i.e. having a valid reason to request the permissions you're requesting) and they would still need to charge for that.

"third party app stores without any review, but Apple still gets a cut" would be the worst of all possible outcomes.

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

#519

Post by Closi » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:30 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #421

Closi wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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.

S3 is actually quite pricey. Not as much on the monthly storage (tho it can be depending on size), but network egress is really where they get you. On the scale of the App Store where the app might be 100mb but it gets downloaded potentially millions of times it gets expensive fast. Now imagine your app is free. Yet you have to pay for all these downloads. There wouldn’t be any free apps anymore.

At $0.05 per gb transfer, it would be half a penny per 100mb app download. Someone has to pay for that - at the moment Apple subsidises the free apps, presumably because they think they are good for the ecosystem.

Although lets be honest here, free apps could easily continue to be subsidised by Apple in any future model. We are talking about far less than a dollar per iPhone in terms of hosting/bandwidth costs for all the apps, so this really is something that Apple could easily just swallow.

Let's not forget that the availability, quality and abundance of apps, made by developers, is a key driver of success of the iPhone, and Apple makes plenty money from hardware sales. I won't lose sleep over the thought that they might have to pay for some hosting.

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

#520

Post by paulmd » Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #318

smnrchrds wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it's different. I think game console makers are also being unfair and should open up their consoles.

Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices.

It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.

That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.