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

751–760 of 851 posts

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

#751

Post by moksly »

sciprojguy wrote: post #370
moksly wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the solution is to force majority of the population to use Apple store, to protect minority of the population who aren't tech savvy? You could always get an android. I realise that this can come off as silly, but what, id not the walled garden differentiate the two systems? If you tear those walls down, you’re basically using a really expensive android device with all the tracking and malware that includes. I do…

Why, exactly, are they evil? It's not as if people who buy Apple (like me, and I develop for iPhone/iPad too) don't know what they're getting. I like the walled garden Apple has because: * It makes my life as a developer much easier. I only have one App Store to aim at, and with a few hiccups here and there from inexperienced or overzealous reviewers the guidelines are pretty clear. If I had to design for half a doze…

Because they are limiting. I’m personally in the iOS boat, and it’s great until you try programming on your iPad instead of your non-closed MacBook.

Phones, consoles, tablets are closed because the companies that build them didn’t have competition from open platforms. Computers are still open because they still have competition, if they didn’t they’d likely all be chrome books.

I know it’s sort of hypocritical, but the walled-garden is only nice until it’s curators considers your needs to be weeds.

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

#752

Post by gbrown »

bawolff wrote: post #624
gbrown wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which is monopolistic rent-seeking, the like of which would have been shut down (and was) in the 90’s

Would it? Its not like iphone's are the only game in town.

Macs were around when Microsoft was shut down over browser bundling. Perhaps duopoly or monopsony would be more precise terms.

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

#753

Post by doikor »

slver wrote: post #115
candiddevmike wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PWAs and web based push notifications only benefit Google?

Yes. Google's strategy is simple: 1. The web should be able to control everything (i.e. PWA features not normally found in a browser). 2. Google should control the web (they can index it, track, monetize it, but it has to be on the web). 3. Profit. Do you think Apple users are super excited at the prospect of most apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences, instead of using the iOS frameworks? N…

> apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences

There is no reason why non-native apps should be a shitty experience that drains the battery. That is just a tooling/feature issue.

> Have you noticed on the desktop that EVERY SITE asks you for push notifications? This is super annoying and bless your soul if you ever clicked "YES" on any of those. They'll spam you until you die, or eventually ask your nephew to reset your permissions.

The spam for installing the native app is 10x worse when using a mobile browser.

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

#754

Post by jonfw »

prepend wrote: post #749
sumedh wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the US there are protected classes, race being one, that are illegal for discrimination. Side-loading, right to repair are not similarly protected. Although maybe they will be passed one day. So if Apple had illegal discriminations, I think that would greatly decrease their support on this issue. Definitely from me.

The law should follow what we think is right, not the other way around.

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

#755

Post by cmorgan31 »

pnt12 wrote: post #734
cmorgan31 wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing so far has convinced me this will improve things for consumers. It will let minority of users who game or are technically savvy do more with their device at the expense of the current ecosystem. It is quite literally an outspoken minority riding the coat tails of a massive corporate law suit about one company wanting to make more money. Everything else is speculation and horseshit bundled as what’s best for the consumer.

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

#756

Post by cmorgan31 »

pkd wrote: post #652
cmorgan31 wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think it's fine for Apple to demand more as long as the end users know that they are paying more everywhere because of it.

Yes this would be a fine outcome. I’d buy less items which pushed the fee on me or buy it elsewhere if the convenience was not worth the surcharge.

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

#757

Post by criddell »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #284
criddell wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might buy into that theory if they didn't have Apple Pay in the browser.

You mean the feature that lets them take a cut of every transaction that goes through it?

Yes, the feature that massively reduces friction for paying for things on the web for which Apple collects about 1/200th the fee that they do when you buy in their store.

If you are a web app developer who wants users to pay you, Apple Pay is awesome in that it takes away a lot of friction.

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

#758

Post by KptMarchewa »

prepend wrote: post #747
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 actually like this as consumers don’t care about price breakdowns. One of the biggest annoyances with consumer prices in the US is the separate price for taxes. Many countries require net prices advertised and it’s so much simpler, both for ease of mind and for lower prices. Having $10 advertised and then 10% taxes layers on, and convenience fees, and service fees, etc sucks. I’d rather have $12 advertised and not…

It's not about having to pay it separately, but having it as a separate item on receipt.

Here, all prices are advertised after tax, but the receipt lists tax percent for each item, and amount.

A B C next to items denote tax percent, then below you have value of items with tax group "Sprzed. opod. PTU A", tax amount "Kwota A 23%", and sum of all taxes "Podatek PTU".

https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_EFFuzBF17reBWZvxpe...

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

#759

Post by mbesto »

amatecha wrote: post #711
pretendgeneer wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right? Reading this discussion and posting this comment from an iBook G4 from 2005. It actually works great (other than many websites being inaccessible due to SSL compatibility issues). That said I'm only using it for the heck of it while the battery is charging… ;) Still, yes, I wish there wasn't such a constant expectation from tech companies to constantly update to the latest & greatest (complete with persistentl…

> Reading this discussion and posting this comment from an iBook G4 from 2005.

Which version of MacOS are you using? Is it officially supported by Apple? Do you receive security updates?

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

#760

Post by toss1 »

calsy wrote: post #698
toss1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly that - go on strike. And the position is just like employees - one leaves, and mgt says "so what"? Many leave and mgt is screwed. Maybe developers could even create a fund to help themselves survive a 'strike', and/or to help fund alternatives such as versions on Android. Enough leave en masse, and Apple will have no choice but to listen. Until then, Apple divides & conquers.

So developers on mass will decide to effectively kill their mobile apps and revenue streams on principle alone and hope by setting up a fund that people can donate money to ‘help fight for developers’ it will subsidise their lost income. This fund will support entire businesses who’s primary interface to its customers are it’s mobile apps. Destroy your business to ‘stick it to Apple’. You seem to also be bizarrely co…

Yes. I am making an analogy; of course apps are produced by businesses. And, no, it wouldn't be a literal strike, but there are many parallels.

The first parallel is that if one developer quits Apple, Apple won't even notice, but if enough do take the same action en masse, they have real power.

The second parallel is that if the the developers (not individual workers) want to seize this power, could form a consortium (analogous, but not equal to, a union). This consortium would pay into a collective fund via dues (not random donations). Yes, this costs part of the business' income, just as union dues cost part of workers' wages.

When they collectively decide to wield their power and attempt to force changes upon Apple, they could then use the savings to bridge the chasm of no income while negotiations proceed. They could also use the fund to support alternative platform development so the consortium members would be better able to sustain any 'strike' by having alternate platform revenue streams.

Apple is very much in the position of an exploitative employer. Apple and the employer both own key elements of the means of production, but are pretty much nowhere without the developers or the workers. Until developers band together to take some kind of collective action like this, Apple will continue to exploit them and extract every last possible fee. You might say "Apple will go too far and no one will develop for them", but at the point where they start losing developers, they just reduce the fees by a marginal amount.

It really is a no-win game for developers until they work together. (And when they do, it'll also be a bit the reverse if they go too far.).

EDIT: The alternative route is for most of them to suffer and hope one developer can spend the funds to take Apple to court and force changes that way, which is what is now happening, but that may also apply only country-by-country.

Post reply on HN