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

561–570 of 851 posts

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

#561

Post by lotsofpulp »

calsy wrote: post #73
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each developer needs apple more than Apple needs each developer. Developers need to ally with each other, then they can force Apple’s hands. What’s funny is that developers are practically in the best job to do that. Their jobs allow them tons of time to communicate with each other, they’re highly educated and able to communicate, and they have the know how to operate the mechanisms allowing them to communicate (foru…

Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?

Yes, and if that does not work, then the situation is that not only does each developer need Apple more than Apple needs each developer, but that developers in general need Apple more than Apple needs developers.

Which would contradict the claim that developers are having to pay outsize fees compared to their relevance to Apple’s business.

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

#562

Post by StavrosK »

simonh wrote: post #171
framecowbird wrote: post #157

I just don't buy this argument that Apple maintaining control over iOS is necessary for privacy. I think it's a false dichotomy. If you build a good OS, with good strong APIs, you can achieve both privacy and a more open ecosystem.

Lets say Apple allowed side-loading. They would have no way to examine side-loaded apps to see what they do. iOS would have to provide access to various basic services like networking and connectivity, but not e.g. your address book without checking with the user. All well and good. So I could write an app that interrogates the cellular network and other sources to implement location tracking (cruder than GPS but goo…

Android allows sideloading today and none of the things you claim are possible. If you want to interrogate the cellular network for tower locations, you need location permission. Same for WiFi and BT.

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

#563

Post by Xevi »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #487
wincy wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw the new Mac Mini on sale at Costco for $600 yesterday, I don’t see how Apple hardware can be called “expensive” anymore.

$600 is a lot for a small dev who already has a computer. What if they’re a windows gamer and they’re happy with their old desktop? $600 is a lot to many people if it’s not strictly necessary.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, you're right. Besides, the cheapest Mac Mini M1 is $1000 in my country. Not everyone can afford that.

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

#564

Post by paulmd »

josephcsible wrote: post #560
paulmd wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument? 50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model. > And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores? Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, per…

50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.

Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it.

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

The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do so again if given broader permissions.

You are directly arguing for the removal of the mechanism that was used to slap their hand.

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

#565

Post by mcphage »

fartcannon wrote: post #96
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making Tim Cook sound stupid and/or evil, but he does have a point. > If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy? > It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make. > Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs? > They've never had to do it before.

Pretending to be ignorant of what is obvious to hold onto your power/money is pretty close to evil. If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.

> If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.

I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.

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

#566

Post by josephcsible »

paulmd wrote: post #564
josephcsible wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.

Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-... The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do…

Did Facebook do the same thing with their Android app? If not, what's the difference between how Android is now and how I'm saying I want iOS to be?

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

#567

Post by paulmd »

josephcsible wrote: post #566
paulmd wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-... The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do…

Did Facebook do the same thing with their Android app? If not, what's the difference between how Android is now and how I'm saying I want iOS to be?

It's not my job to construct your argument for you, if you think there's a viable point to make there then say what you mean for yourself.

As I've previously shown, Play Store is rife with apps requesting far too many permissions, I've no idea what Facebook specifically asks for.

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

#568

Post by wizzwizz4 »

gondo wrote: post #241
deergomoo wrote: post #56

> Cook used more privacy and safety claims to defend that system, saying it would be both insecure and inconvenient to let apps process payments separately This one is always funny to me, because sellers of physical goods are of course totally exempt from IAP rules, because it would be untenable otherwise. I can type my card number directly into the Amazon app and buy a paperback without any intervention from Apple.…

Maybe it's time to start selling paperclips with an ebook (or any other digital goods) as a gift.

I can imagine the listings now.

> Paperclips for rent, will ship to any location within 2 metres of my house, must be returned within five seconds. Complementary electronic copy of my latest book.

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

#569

Post by josephcsible »

paulmd wrote: post #567
josephcsible wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Facebook do the same thing with their Android app? If not, what's the difference between how Android is now and how I'm saying I want iOS to be?

It's not my job to construct your argument for you, if you think there's a viable point to make there then say what you mean for yourself. As I've previously shown, Play Store is rife with apps requesting far too many permissions, I've no idea what Facebook specifically asks for.

I'm saying that what Facebook did has nothing to do with whether the device manufacturer has an app distribution monopoly.

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

#570

Post by paulmd »

josephcsible wrote: post #569
paulmd wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my job to construct your argument for you, if you think there's a viable point to make there then say what you mean for yourself. As I've previously shown, Play Store is rife with apps requesting far too many permissions, I've no idea what Facebook specifically asks for.

I'm saying that what Facebook did has nothing to do with whether the device manufacturer has an app distribution monopoly.

So you're saying that if we just allow them to request full permissions upfront then there's no need to go around the backdoor?

... not sure how that's supposed to be reassuring for user privacy concerns.

Again, on Android, you've got even things like flashlight apps asking for far too many permissions, let alone Facebook.

Post reply on HN