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

641–650 of 851 posts

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

#641

Post by hamandcheese »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #312
akg_67 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware. Phone is used by too broad of user g…

What I fear is that as a reaction to Apple's recent moves on privacy (tracking transparency, requiring user consent prior to tracking, etc), Facebook is going to spin up its own App Store without such rules where user data is a free for all. This wouldn't be a threat in itself, but having control of heavy hitters like the Facebook app, Instagram, and WhatsApp among others, they could drive traffic levels that no thir…

Aren’t Apples policies enforced via app sandboxing though? Why would that be any different for third party apps?

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

#642

Post by cmorgan31 »

Karunamon wrote: post #622
azinman2 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well.. you could still limit certain APIs to official "app store" signatures, and in fact I guarantee that Apple will take this tactic and it will take further legal wrangling to deal with the overstepping they will no doubt do. And on a more base level, Apple has overplayed their hand for far too long for me to be very sympathetic to their arguments. The app store is still loaded with scams, they still deny things f…

Do you believe any large store front acts in good faith? You are inviting less privacy into the room at the expense of money for other people. It’s a bit crazy that we think Apple would somehow be able to limit cross app tracking after being forced to allow side loading and independent app stores. Hey let’s make this one bad actor allow in the rest! It’s not fair that they get to make the rules for the rest of us, we also want to act in bad faith!

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

#643

Post by [deleted] »

ineedasername wrote: post #592
bredren wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the surface, ebooks as a category of content make sense to allow direct sale as you described. However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of Apple’s case. Among kindle enthusiasts, Amazon had notoriously neglected the Kindle product hardware and software platform. From neglecting Goodreads to stagnation, to not including USB-C on its very expensive Oasis product, the whole brand is a picture of “we…

If you're making a usability case between an Apple product, you have to use the comparable Amazon product: Kindle Fire. Amazon's eink readers are a completely different product class than anything from Apple. And on a Kindle fire the experience isn't dramatically different than any other android based system, and the kindle reader apps between Apple and Fires are nearly identical. Comparing an eink interface to iOS i…

[deleted]

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

#644

Post by cmorgan31 »

stale2002 wrote: post #627
crazygringo wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what everyone wants to avoid. Imagine if there were 10 inspection groups, but sometimes they get bought by corrupt investors who let standards slide while pocketing the extra profit, and consumers constantly have to stay on top of which food inspection groups are the current OK ones and which aren't, and restaurants can't afford to get inspected by all 10 so they only do 2 but then people who only tr…

> Which is exactly what everyone wants to avoid. Then don't use those other apps stores. I think that people who care about all this stuff, can very easily just continue to use the Apple app store.

Okay, don’t use iOS. It’s very easy to just not engage with Apple entirely. Why do you even care? Money? Illusion of choice? The status quo should remain and you should find a different product to use with less restrictive rules.

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

#645

Post by plandis »

dublidu wrote: post #309
eplanit wrote: post #300

Hmmm.. Apple makes the phones that run only Apple's OS. Apple's OS runs apps that others create, but only Apple controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Apple, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Apple. If this isn't a monopoly, then what the hell are antitrust laws for?

People are too fixated on the definition of monopoly. We should just focus on anti-competitive practices.

What is Apple doing that’s anti-competitive? How have consumers been harmed?

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

#646

Post by pretendgeneer »

mbesto wrote: post #620
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.…

> And yet it’s apparently insecure for me to buy a Kindle book with the exact same mechanism in the exact same app? Get the fuck out of here. Gonna play the devil's advocate here. If I pay for a physical good, I have an expectation of continued use of that physical good absent of the use the technology medium I used to pay for it. If I buy a physical book and Amazon shut down, I can still read the book. If I pay for…

Why does a book reader app need yearly updates? I bought my ereader years ago still opens epubs fine without updates. If the epub worked when I bought it why does it need to keep updating? Why does an ebook only work on the certified™ app?

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

#647

Post by stale2002 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #594
wayneftw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple protecting her from that is the only solution? I don't think so... With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores. That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive…

I just want a commodity pocket computer. I don't need to be able to install linux on it or Uncle Jack's latest new app idea. I just want to see my calendar, answer emails, and take calls, I dgaf about "oh I can put git on my phone and download the latest rustc and compile my web backend and test it on my phone!"

Ok, thats fine. But you don't need to force everyone else to make the same decisions.

If other people want to have unlocked iPhones, due to Apple's behavior being illegally anti-competitive, then thats OK.

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

#648

Post by cmorgan31 »

lucasyvas wrote: post #572
bnj wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really interesting to observe the way that we can all read that exchange with different interpretations. I don’t see the conflict you’re pointing to at all— to me, it makes sense that Cook can say users don’t want to navigate multiple stores if they had done, for example, focus groups. Meanwhile the experiment that he didn’t want to run is whether users could distinguish between good quality app stores and bad q…

I think you have a good point, but is there any proof they have focus tested it? My second question would be, are focus groups equipped to make a decision for potentially billions of users (given the sheer volume, and that focus groups are cherry-picked)?

Focus groups? Who is unaware of what they are buying at this point? We have had no choice but one store and if we demanded two stores we would be on Android. Why in the hell do you think they’d go out to do market research on a key marketing plan they already devised? Privacy is their next marketing angle and third party app stores don’t go hand in hand with that desire.

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

#649

Post by sircastor »

ajkjk wrote: post #625
erikpukinskis wrote: post #613

The only aspect of the Apple App Store that strikes me as truly anticompetitive is their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees, or even to tell the user what they are. I can accept that Apple can demand a 30% fee for billing customers on their devices. And I can accept that they would prohibit installation/sales of software any other way. But I should be allowed to mark up the price by 30% and then…

Dystopian is the word for it. It's fucking insane that you can't talk about why it's priced that way. Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of t…

No. This is not dystopian. That is over-dramatic. We’re not talking about the loss of meaningful society. And iOS and Apple are not the whole of society. This is capitalism, plain and simple. Market position creates behavior, the market attempts to route around.

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

#650

Post by wayneftw »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #264
wayneftw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo. People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised. iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects. Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single…

Android already has the majority of the market. Apple is, perhaps deliberately, pricing themselves out of the emerging markets in Africa and Asia. It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.

> Android already has the majority of the market.

Not in the US market where iPhones have the great majority and where this trial is taking place.

There are also definitely iOS exclusives.

Post reply on HN