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

721–730 of 851 posts

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

#721

Post by egocentric »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #305
topkai22 wrote: post #280

My problem has always been that Apple is both the gatekeeper and a competitor in its app store. I'd have a lot more trust in Apple as a consumer if they didn't offer up first party products such as Apple TV and Apple Arcade. It makes the shutdown of game streaming services seem particularly disingenuous. The payments issue is more complex, but I can't get a metaphor to origins of monopoly law out of my head: If payme…

My iOS game which was in arcade category for years before Apple launched Apple Arcade was changed to an irrelevant category(Casual) as soon as Apple launched its Arcade platform. Just information over email, No permission was asked.

I’d love to know more about this, mind sharing some more details over DM? Thanks! https://twitter.com/keleftheriou

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

#722

Post by raffraffraff »

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…

How does it work for trading apps like Coinbase, Robinhood, Degiro, Binance etc?

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

#723

Post by wodenokoto »

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…

I think Apple really considers this a store. If we compare to Walmart, I’d say 2 out of 3 are obviously the way it works.

When selling in Walmart, they won’t let you advertise that you can buy the same product cheaper elsewhere.

They also want their distribution deal with you a secret. You don’t go post your terms of engagement with Walmart on your corporate blog if you expect to keep selling stuff in Walmart.

The pricing is where things start to change and I think I agree with you that it’s a step too far.

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

#724

Post by bsaul »

paulmd wrote: post #605
bsaul wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple would definitely need to make guidelines for stores. They would obviously be different than for apps, and deal with more meta aspects of the regulation (such as, fair examination of app submission, possibility for rejected apps to appeal, obligation for app owner to be identified, etc). Much like a government can create quality standards and then outsource parts of its missions to private sector.

Why wouldn't Epic Games then come crying that those rules are unfair and burdensome too?

because apple app store would follow those same rules.

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

#725

Post by michaelmrose »

paulmd wrote: post #543
michaelmrose wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "fre…

It's entirely possible to simply delete Facebook if you don't like the copious amounts of data they are certainly collecting on you.

We don't need to sacrifice general purpose computing and user freedom on any platform so you can protect your false impression that your privacy is protected while actually giving it away cheap.

I believe Zuckerberg said it wwll years back when he called people who trusted him suckers.

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

#726

Post by estaseuropano »

crazygringo wrote: post #173
Hamuko wrote: post #2

Tim Cook's line of argument seemed a bit weird to me. On one hand he's saying that he doesn't know if Apple's customers would be able to distinguish between Apple's good and holy curated store and Epic's filthy shitheap of porn and blackjack, but he's also saying that Apple's customers definitely want Apple's App Store as-is. > Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there…

There's nothing weird about it. If there were no food regulations, I don't know if I'd be able to pick restaurants and grocery store brands that were safe to eat. But I definitely know I want safe food to eat. Most people want safe food but they want the government to figure out what that means. Same thing here -- most people just want a safe app store. They don't want the work of having to figure out which app store…

But what you want is regulation to ensure safety, not that your only way to visit any restaurant is to use a shuttle bus that only stops at restaurants that paid protection money to the shuttle bus company.

Apple can impose standards, limit access, etc without obliging all developers to only go through their store. E.g. already now Apple has no way to guarantee what the company providing an app does with the user data.

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

#727

Post by oblio »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #249
oblio wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are consoles sold as general computing devices?

This is irrelevant - the law makes zero distinction between "general purpose" and "specific" computing devices. They're all computers.

> Yet the anti-Nintendo sentiment in the country didn’t ultimately do much to help either of the two Ataris’ legal cases; the courts proved willing to buck that rising tide. In a landmark ruling against Tengen in March of 1991, Judge Fern Smith stated that Nintendo had the right to “exclude others” from the NES if they so chose, thus providing the legal soil on which many more walled gardens would be tilled in the years to come.

https://www.filfre.net/2016/04/generation-nintendo/

This was back in March 1991, mind you. The US courts decided that for some categories of things which compute, the manufacturer gets to control 100% of what runs on them. That makes them quite specific in my eyes.

I don't know the exact legal term, but that's what a walled garden amounts to. Yeah, you take a general computing architecture, and you lock it down by law. It doesn't need to be non-Turing complete or what have you to be "specific".

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

#728

Post by mjthompson »

conk wrote: post #680
mjthompson wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's use of its own market power on its store to regulate conduct on other markets is deeply concerning. Another example is Apple ID. If I use Google or Facebook SSO in my app, I have to offer Apple SSO alongside it. That is okay. However Apple will refuse the app into the App Store if I don't also offer Apple ID login on desktop and Android platforms. Apple should keep its nose in its own business.

If a user chooses to sign up using Apple’s SSO, how are they supposed to also use your desktop or other apps if those don’t also support Apple SSO?

That is not a matter of concern of Apple. This is just one of several examples of Apple forcing behaviour changes outside its own walled garden.

Whether or not it makes business sense to restrict the use of Apple ID elsewhere is a matter properly left to the app developer and not Apple.

I should have added - this is based on my own interpretation of the App Store guidelines. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out, since I don't want to be spreading misinformation.

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

#729

Post by permo-w »

bsaul wrote: post #584
permo-w wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I don't want to have to download a different store every time a big app decides that they're too big for the App Store, a la that EA piece Origin, the Epic Store, the Curse Launcher - or whatever it's called this month - and the Ubisoft Store, all competing with Steam. I just want 1 and no more. That's the best user experience. Second, I shouldn't have to remind you how well competing regulators worked…

Funny reading this. it’s as if people installing games from steam on their laptop, and mac apps from the apple app store, then install adobe softwares from adobe installers are living an insufferable life. They’re not. There are very easy ways to recognize a trustworthy store. We’re doing that every single day for things we actually ingest .

it’s not insufferable, it’s just not the ideal user experience

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

#730

Post by ksec »

sircastor wrote: post #649
ajkjk wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And iOS and Apple are not the whole of society.

I dont think it is over-dramatic. It is little exaggerated to make the point, but not over-dramatic for sure. The Smartphone impact to our society will be if not already unprecedented. We will ( unfortunately ) "live" on our Smartphone.

For those who have been looking forward to Smartphone since ( Apple ) Newton era, which is now coming close to 30 years, this has been long time coming. But now we are actually here, it is kind of scary the direction we are heading.

Post reply on HN