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

521–530 of 851 posts

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

#521

Post by ericmay »

mthoms wrote: post #358
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it. F…

Strong disagree. We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market. Consider that different classes of vehicles are regulated differently, even though they all rely on the same underlying technology. The law should serve the people, not some rigid doctrine.

> We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market.

I agree completely, which is why hopefully Apple prevails. Their ecosystem is the best for Apple customers and the free market.

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

#522

Post by paulmd »

deergomoo wrote: post #375
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…

> when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same Didn’t Sony lose a class-action for doing that?

No, they settled.

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

#523

Post by cglong »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #453
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…

What you are ignoring (and in a pretty condescending way if I may say so) is that the best allocation of limited resources in the interest of users is not always to create scores of native client apps and device integrations. It's not all laziness.

I still mourn the loss of Windows Phone (aka one of three mobile OS choices) because of the "app gap". Small developers wouldn't invest the time or money into porting their app to the small marketshare. Even worse though, large companies would let their apps flounder, if they had one at all; the Bank of America app was simply disabled rather than being updated.

If the PWA concept had caught on, users on all platforms would have an equally good UX, increasing user choice.

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

#524

Post by azinman2 »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #455
azinman2 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple could still limit the APIs that are available to developers.

But if there’s no Apple App Store, you not only can’t prevent private APIs from being used (or abused), but you certainly can’t prevent cross—app tracking and a whole host of other issues.

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

#525

Post by joshuaissac »

secondcoming wrote: post #174
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…

Couldn't Apple recoup any losses by charging app publishers 'rent' to be listed on the app store?

They already charge this: 99 USD annually.

https://developer.apple.com/programs/how-it-works/

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

#526

Post by josephcsible »

paulmd wrote: post #520
josephcsible wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 happen…

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

Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things?

> they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.

I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.

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

#527

Post by tangy_fluid »

> Giving users control creates risk, and Cook argued that people choose iOS specifically so they won’t have to make risky decisions with sensitive data. “We’re trying to give the customer an integrated solution of hardware, software, and services,” he said. “I just don’t think you replicate that in a third party.”

A million times this.

I own an Apple phone because I want a device that works like an appliance. I don't have to program my toaster. I don't have to worry about security risks in my washing machine. I want the same consistency and dependability in the device I communicate with. Android doesn't deliver this.

If I want to tinker with something I'll get on a Linux computer.

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

#528

Post by Someone »

deergomoo wrote: post #338
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.

The 12% that Epic and now Microsoft charge seems about right IMO

Based on what arguments?

If Apple’s cut were 12% and Epic and Microsoft now charged 6%, would you claim “The 12% that Apple charges seems about right IMO”?

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

#529

Post by atq2119 »

notafraudster wrote: post #456
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.

It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers. We can scope out who those are likely to be: free applications which provide some useful educational service would lose; currently they provide no revenue (beyond the token developer fee). Banking, rewards, credit, etc. applications (applications which interface consumers with their pre-existing accounts for CRUD-style management purposes) w…

> It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers.

What equilibrium?

Equilibrium implies multiple forces balancing each other out. This doesn't seem to be the case here, because Apple are effectively dictating terms.

A better term would be "status quo".

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

#530

Post by tmp231 »

lukeramsden wrote: post #265
hnlmorg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS pricing is extremely thorough and not at all comparable with Apple's App Store: - AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission - AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app I'm not a fan of Apple's App Sto…

> - 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.

Who cares how much they make? If you’re unhappy, go to Google or petition Microsoft or Amazon to get back in the game. I’d also like a provider that allows other app stores and has high quality like Apple — one of those companies should do it. But it’s ridiculous to force apple to do it when you could go elsewhere.
Post reply on HN