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

771–780 of 851 posts

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

#771

Post by bredren »

ineedasername wrote: post #664
bredren wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you account for Amazon's investment in making the Kindle Fire OS updated and valuable? Haven't they paid their own expense to deliver a comparable application? My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line. Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in th…

Amazon has produced 11 generations of Fire devices, but they all serve a very specific purpose: a portal to purchasing things from Amazon. That means their innovation has come in the form of having the absolute lowest cost devices for their level of build and hardware quality. They've innovated in that direction, investing quite heavily. You seem to want them to innovate in terms of features: That's fine as an opinio…

It is fine to say Amazon has innovated.

Some further ideas:

- Amazon has not seriously invested in Kindle or its ecosystem. Amazon does not because it does not face competition.

- Amazon does not allow apps or a HW sdk for eBook readers, which might make the products much more useful. (such as offering a wireless page turning device)

- Apple should charge for eBook purchases through the kindle app, because iOS does provide value that Amazon realizes.

- Amazon makes major financial investment in their own Android ecosystem. Amazon charges 70% itself for "in-app products" to cover all of their innovation in that area.

- While my original comment's parent focused on the security of the App Store as a value, it is only a contribution to the innovation Apple also has made into that ecosystem.

I disagree that the negative reviews can be equated. It would take analysis, but it appears to me that device incompatibility which is a platform problem is the main source of negative reviews on Android.

Whereas on the iOS side, the negative reviews are related to product features that affect both Android (Google and Amazon marketplaces and iOS.

If this is true, then it suggests that iOS users of the Kindle app are getting even more value out of the iOS platform than Android users. This would be greater underlying reason Apple should be compensated for the sale of eBooks from Amazon.

Sort of separately, but worth mentioning: our local library uses Overdrive to distribute and handle eBook loans and their licensing. Overdrive has a native app and it integrates with Amazon. The Overdrive app is free, and so is the use of Amazon to perform this loaning process.

So eBooks can be readily had in the App store for free.

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

#772

Post by matz1 »

josephcsible wrote: post #761
matz1 wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, If I'm the buyer I don't want it but if I'm Toyota and if I can get a way with it while making more money then its no brainer.

I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking whether you think the law should let Toyota get away with it.

Whatever the law I would like to be would depends on whether I'm Toyota or I'm the customer.

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

#773

Post by prepend »

jonfw wrote: post #754
prepend wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. And in this case, I think the law does follow. As more people think side-loading is as important as protected classes, the laws will change.

These civil rights classes are fairly new and less than a hundred years old, reflecting changes in the way people think and believe.

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

#774

Post by pwinnski »

newsbinator wrote: post #632
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…

It’s still unclear to me why Apple should have any limits in what rules they set for their store. Don’t publishers have the option to skip Apple’s store and sell in other ones? I mean this isn’t price gouging generators during a winter storm. This is video games and apps. What stops publishers from simply shrugging, walking away, and letting Apple users miss out?

One of the things that came up in the trial was that Apple's share of Fortnite was more than $100 million in a single year. Which means that Epic's earnings from Fortnite on iOS for that year were more than $334 million.

That explains why Epic doesn't want to walk away.

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

#775

Post by prepend »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #758
prepend wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_EFFuzBF17r…

I don’t mind this method. In the US, typically the advertised price is base and then extras are added on afterwards.

In my order of preference I like: - your way -Apple’s way (although seems to be the way other app stores do it too) -current US way

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

#776

Post by anthonypasq »

narrator wrote: post #631
yesenadam wrote: post #619

"in 2020, Apple’s app store commission revenue was close to $15bn, which was larger than total global revenue from the entire digital music industry... Around 90% of this revenue comes from games, and almost all of that comes from in-app purchases." https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads...

Has someone written a treatise on in-app game purchases? It's a huge aspect of human behavior that I cannot understand intuitively and I guess I ought to. I have no desire to do it. I'll pay under $10 for an old Grand Theft Auto game that I can play start to finish, but the in-app stuff I don't get. It's like some sort of exploit for human psychologically that is phenomenally lucrative that somehow I got a patch for.

I mean what exactly is hard to understand? You presumably went to arcades as a kid?

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

#777

Post by [deleted] »

calsy wrote: post #743
lotsofpulp wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you ignoring the whole purpose of this case? Apple has created an anti-competitive environment that allows them to dictate terms by controlling app distribution on its devices. If there were alternative ways to distribute apps on an iOS device, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[deleted]

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

#778

Post by lotsofpulp »

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…

> Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.

That is exactly what businesses do, and workers bargaining for wages is also “business”. If you do not like the terms of a deal, you walk away. Like Costco walking away from American Express, for example.

Another example is healthcare in the US. Payers (governments and managed care organizations), hospitals groups, doctor groups, and nurse unions have to band together to negotiate with each other.

Another example is when cable/satellite TV operators drop channels from their service if they do not like the terms being offered by the content owner.

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

#779

Post by lotsofpulp »

calsy wrote: post #743
lotsofpulp wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you ignoring the whole purpose of this case? Apple has created an anti-competitive environment that allows them to dictate terms by controlling app distribution on its devices. If there were alternative ways to distribute apps on an iOS device, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I’m not opining on the merits of the case, just on who needs who more.

For the record, I think transparency (in general) is always good, and so any terms and conditions that restrict price transparency are inherently bad for society.

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

#780

Post by sciprojguy »

moksly wrote: post #751
sciprojguy wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You might not have seen this: https://developer.apple.com/swift-playgrounds/

It's pretty nice to be able to build entire Swift playgrounds on your iPad, then share them with your Mac/MacBook. The IDE is simple and very straightforward, and it's useful for prototyping things on your iPad or iPad Pro.

Post reply on HN