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

731–740 of 851 posts

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

#731

Post by ksec »

wodenokoto wrote: post #723
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 pr…

This Walmart store analogy often over simplifies the problem that is not accurate in the grand scheme of things.

Everything about the Walmart as a "store" in the above are correct. Except iOS is also a "State", and this State only accept one "store". While in the Walmart example, which is a real world example, one could always expect you to open a Store next to Walmart selling exactly the same thing with a lower price.

The Store, The State ( Platform ) , Judiciary ( App Store Rules ) are all interlinked together. You cant compare one thing without mentioning the other. And that is not even including the payment processing.

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

#732

Post by peoplefromibiza »

notamy wrote: post #654
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my take on what Tim Cook should have answered > 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? That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that. > Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs That shouldn't be our concern, we as the supplier of the mark…

> That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that. Given the fast pace that technology moves at, and the comparatively-slow pace at which government / legislation works, this may not be the best move in terms of keeping progress going. Especially since governments are notoriously bad at understanding tech.

In my opinion tech companies are also historically bad at "understanding" boundaries and blame the government for it.

In this case in particular Apple is not doing the government's job because government is bad at understanding tech, it's not about progress, it's about control.

They are betting, IMO, on the fact that politics and laws have a lot of inertia and are slow at adapting to new fringe interpretations of the norms.

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

#733

Post by _0w8t »

_delirium wrote: post #702
mcphage wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees I believe that credit card processors include this policy as well. Otherwise, I’m sure a lot more places would offer a discount if you pay by cash.

That was historically the case, but allowing merchants to offer cash discounts is protected under U.S. federal law since 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment . Around me, only gas stations and liquor stores seem to commonly offer such discounts though. What's less settled is whether businesses can charge credit-card customers a CC surcharge to pass on the fees. Economic theory would consider this func…

The credit card companies still demand that it should be called cache discount and not credit card surcharge. Various marketing studies show that the term surcharge leaves bad impression supposedly due to priming effect.

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

#734

Post by pnt12 »

cmorgan31 wrote: post #635
nwallin wrote: post #629

I will not buy any device that does not give me control of the device. If I can't sideload apps, can't install a 3rd party store, do not have the ability to root my own device, I won't buy it. Apple has decided that's not allowed, fine, I won't buy their product. That's between Apple and their customers. But it is certifiably insane that Apple thinks they have the right to dictate to Epic what Epic charges for its ap…

So they don’t get to be on iOS. I’d leave ethics and morals out of this convo since neither side has anyone’s interest but their own. Sounds like you already found a solution to this court case - don’t buy Apple if you want to tinker with your hardware. I’m shocked that is news to anyone. I’m shocked so many of us want to dictate what the rest of us have as the status quo because it doesn’t align with your feelings a…

Anti-competition cases are about consumer protection,as it says in the article.

We'd be in a grim society if our values were "Don't like? Don't use it" without any capacity of deeper discussion.

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

#735

Post by ThatPlayer »

oblio wrote: post #727
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ye…

The difference is that Nintendo isn't a monopolist. When you are, you do not get as many rights to 'refuse to deal'. From the FTC itself "Under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

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

#736

Post by pnt12 »

okamiueru wrote: post #667
brisance wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good argument that it isn't a monopoly.

How is the parent comment at all relevant? Also, and feel free to think this is unrelated, why are so many having such a hard time understanding the basics of anti trust?

Smart programmers can be ignorant in other areas and also jump to the comments before reading articles.

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

#737

Post by wccrawford »

simonh wrote: post #153
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…

Cook didn't say anything about tracking purchases, or even getting a cut as such. He said they would need to find another way to invoice developers, which just means another revenue model, that's all.

He did, actually. I finally found the quote again.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/21/live-blog-apple-ceo-tim-cook-...

> “We would also have to come up with an alternate way of collecting our commission,” Cook says. “We would then have to figure out how to track what’s going on and invoice it and then chase the developers down. It seems like a process that doesn’t need to exist.”

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

#738

Post by Mikho »

Cook's narrative looks a lot like a dictator's political propaganda:

"Without us the world would turn into hell. Our centralized control, punishment, extortion, and dictatorship are the only way for all of us to survive. Otherwise the hell would let loose and y'all wouldn't want that. So, obey! Pay your share for our protection!"

This is absolute classic and through the whole human history this was the main narrative for dictators to defend their position. The same goes in Russia, China etc. — everywhere there is a dictator, there is this exact rhetoric. They try to scare and paint themselves as the only barrier that protects paradise from hell.

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

#739

Post by sumedh »

cmorgan31 wrote: post #635
nwallin wrote: post #629

I will not buy any device that does not give me control of the device. If I can't sideload apps, can't install a 3rd party store, do not have the ability to root my own device, I won't buy it. Apple has decided that's not allowed, fine, I won't buy their product. That's between Apple and their customers. But it is certifiably insane that Apple thinks they have the right to dictate to Epic what Epic charges for its ap…

So they don’t get to be on iOS. I’d leave ethics and morals out of this convo since neither side has anyone’s interest but their own. Sounds like you already found a solution to this court case - don’t buy Apple if you want to tinker with your hardware. I’m shocked that is news to anyone. I’m shocked so many of us want to dictate what the rest of us have as the status quo because it doesn’t align with your feelings a…

> I’m shocked so many of us want to dictate what the rest of us have as the status quo because it doesn’t align with your feelings and belief system.

Would you still support Apple if they said certain race of people cannot use Apple devices. They can always use non Apple devices.

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

#740

Post by [deleted] »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #646
mbesto wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN