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

541–550 of 851 posts

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

#541

Post by orisho »

tmp231 wrote: post #534
josephcsible wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no device or platform for which the Epic Store is the only way to get apps, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard as Apple's App Store.

I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.

He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.

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

#542

Post by josephcsible »

tmp231 wrote: post #534
josephcsible wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no device or platform for which the Epic Store is the only way to get apps, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard as Apple's App Store.

I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.

> It’s their store.

But once you buy a phone from them, it's your phone, not theirs. You shouldn't have to use their store exclusively on your phone, but since you do, it should be subject to way stricter rules regarding anticompetitiveness and unfairness than non-exclusive stores that other platforms have.

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

#543

Post by paulmd »

michaelmrose wrote: post #532
paulmd wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Its the users phone let them decide. Apple can strongly encourage users to stick to first party stores and require developers to agree to terms and conditions to access the sdk. Warn users who side load in as scary terms as you please. Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.

> Its the users phone let them decide. ... Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.

If you don't opt-in to privacy shredding then you will be locked out of being able to use facebook, whatsapp, and other "network effect" things that you more or less don't have a choice about without cutting out communication with large parts of your social network, so this is not really a "free choice" at all.

Right now those companies don't have the leverage to lock out Apple users. This immediately gives them that leverage and they will use it, just like they already have tried (and gotten their hands slapped for).

App store review is the only thing standing between you and Facebook demanding full permissions for everything, and allowing third-party app stores or sideloading is a mortal blow to app store review.

I understand that you don't personally care but the Apple customer base does, a large number of them specifically choose that because Apple is using their leverage in favor of the customer here. You can get the experience you desire on the dominant smartphone platform (with 85% of the global smartphone marketshare), just leave us the freedom to choose this experience as well. You're arguing that we should be explicitly denied this because it's not convenient for Facebook.

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

#544

Post by tmp231 »

nsajko wrote: post #175
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…

Is your argument that Apple shouldn't themselves bear the responsibility of choosing an unsustainable/immoral/illegal business model?

No ones forcing you to buy an iPhone; if this is really bothering you, go to Android or petition Microsoft or Amazon to start up their phone efforts again.

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

#545

Post by mschild »

kriops wrote: post #533
lukeramsden wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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.

So they are making billions -while- creating an effective incentive against spam on their platform? That must the most obvious case of profits well deserved in the history of modern LTDs, good for Apple and their shareholders!

Apple's App Store has plenty of scummy apps. A yearly 100 fee isn't going to stop that from happening.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-sp...

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

#546

Post by reader_mode »

Someone wrote: post #528
deergomoo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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” ?

Yep, if someone is able to maintain above market level profits for so long it's usually a sign of monopolistic pricing. That's not necessarily bad, but in Apples case it's just double dipping on their monopolistic position and is clearly a drain on the market with no benefit. They have the same incentives to invest in R&D and support the ecosystem on the insane HW margins alone, I'd be willing to bet their dev budget doesn't change at all if this change in rate was made.

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

#547

Post by tmp231 »

orisho wrote: post #541
tmp231 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.

He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.

Everyone should be held to the same standard of respecting private property. You know what you are getting into when going onto apples store; if you don’t like it then encourage all your clients to use Android.

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

#548

Post by paulmd »

josephcsible wrote: post #540
paulmd wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want? Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying t…

I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.

Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted. You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with applications required to undergo app review.

Again, you already have the choice for your user-freedom oriented experience on the dominant market platform with 85% global smartphone marketshare. Stop arguing to deny us the choice for this user experience.

But for you it's not enough to merely choose the experience you desire, you have to force it on me too.

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

#549

Post by josephcsible »

tmp231 wrote: post #538
ivalm wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without Microsoft, the windows eco system wouldnt exist. Should MS get a cut of all windows applications?

If they want? I’m not sure why you think you have a right to dictate private policy on a private platform.

If you buy a Camry and then become an Uber driver, should you have to give Toyota a cut of your earnings?

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

#550

Post by jhgb »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #327
dmitriid wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm tied to Apple and unable to leave. Even if for the simple reason that I find other OSes and devices that run them shit in comparison.

Has it occured to you that maybe those other OSes and devices are shit precisely because they give unfettered access to developers/scammers/adtech on their platform?

No, they're shit because manufacturers cheap out on the hardware and furthermore install crapware themselves.
Post reply on HN