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

781–790 of 851 posts

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

#781

Post by mthoms »

ericmay wrote: post #662
mthoms wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a perfectly valid argument IMHO. The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly. Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple? I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you . If anything, would…

> The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly. Yea I’m kind of the opposite. I don’t really see the difference. An Xbox has many of the same apps, a web browser, etc. > I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you? The App Store on iOS and…

You've articulated your argument very well with the "collective bargaining" metaphor. I like it.

I still strongly disagree that consoles and smart phones should be treated the same way by society just because the underlying hardware is more or less the same. I think we should start with a human-centric view. As in: if consoles disappeared tomorrow how much would the world change? Now what if smartphones did? How would that change the world?

If smartphones disappeared then the world would be entirely different. We are dependant on them for everything from personal and collective security, business and personal communication, to banking, to commerce, and access to knowledge.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm in my 40's and remember a time before smart phones existed, and before game consoles were commonplace. There is no comparison. None. Equating the two because the underlying electronics are the same entirely misses the forest for the trees. Though it's not entirely surprising that HN users would think this way - we tend to think of the underlying tech first and foremost.

Let me use a metaphor - Facebook and Google should be treated differently than a niche message board even though the underlying technology is the same. Right? They are both servers running compiled or interpreted code. They both connect to databases. They both allow users to communicate and share content.

The main difference is the impact they have on society.

Smartphones have become indispensable infrastructure for much of the world. Consoles are a luxury item.

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

#782

Post by stale2002 »

tmp231 wrote: post #766
josephcsible wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand your first sentence, but by your second one it sounds like your answer is basically "yes". That seems like a rather extreme position to take. Are you also opposed to the First Sale Doctrine?

I’m saying if someone tells you that the software sold with his device is locked to to only work with company X, then you are free to buy it or not. You should also be free to put other software on it yourself, like a new OS. You should not take the extreme position of leveraging law to force the seller to write his software the way you like.

So then you do not support the first sale doctrine?

If someone buys something, even like a physical good, you do not believe that the person who bought it, actually owns its, and the seller can put whatever restrictions that they want on the thing that was purchased?

For example, if someone sells a book, you think it would be OK for the book writer to prevent someone from reselling it, or reading the book in a way that the writer does not like.

And even more so, it seems like you do not believe in any form of anti trust laws at all. And you think that all anti trust laws are just illegitimate?

This is an odd position to take, because most people support the first sale doctrine, and also support some form of anti-trust law.

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

#783

Post by liamwestray »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #713
newsbinator wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it accounts for a huge portion of the mobile market. This is exactly what antitrust is for. When you have large swaths of a market controlled by so few, you don’t actually get proper free market dynamics. Antitrust cases like this put limits on few large players that abuse their positions and generally promote and incentivize further development in the market. If Apple was forced to allow 3rd party stores or…

The only problem here is that you have to show Apple changes practices to become anti-competitive once achieving large marketshare/control.

It's OK to have a monopoly, it's not ok to abuse it under U.S. law.

Apple has actually loosened restrictions over time as the platform gained marketshare/size. And when Apple created the App Store they more than doubled how much developers took home from gross revenue (70-80% of revenue went to distributors/retail prior to the App Store).

The only anti-competitive area I'm concerned about is Spotify/streaming services. I think Apple is being overzealous here.

Everything else appears to be a game/software distribution norm.

Epic pays 30% on Android, Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation markets.

Steam needs 15% and GOG needs 22% of gross revenue from games to break even operationally.

Stripe charges about 3% of gross revenue for transaction services.

The 30% doesn't seem that high when you consider those factors:

15% just to keep the lights on (Steam break-even royalty rate). 3% for transactions at minimum (e.g. Stripe fee) Ongoing R&D costs of maintaining iOS/iPhones (more technically and cost intensive than Xbox and Playstation combined).

The kit for iOS development is remarkably cheap too, $99/yr developer account (mostly a gatekeeping path to keep malware out), and $700 for an M1 Mac Mini (If you don't want to just use a VM from AWS for I think they can do better for small-time app developers (the 15% fee has helped), but I still feel like these people should STFU and look up how expensive Gaming Console, Embedded SoC, and IoT dev kits are in comparison (And god, don't look at the agreements we sign on embedded hardware dev kits). I wish I only had to spend $99 a year, and be able to use $100 used cell phones to test my software on.

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

#784

Post by mthoms »

majewsky wrote: post #637
mthoms wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "what about cigarettes?" argument would be relevant if one of the market participants in this scenario was literally killing people (or otherwise harming society in some way). An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances. An honest reader would consider the context. You're not arguing in good faith. Try again?

> An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances. FWIW, based on my experience, whenever I see Americans arguing pro-free-market, I am going to assume that they genuinely argue in absolutes. ("FWIW" because I can see from your profile that you're Canadian.)

Generally fair I guess, but extending the argument from electronics all the way to something as universally reviled as cigarettes? That's quite a leap! I mean, why stop there? Why not flame throwers and ballistic missiles? :-)

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to participate less and less in online discussion. HN's rules require people to interpret comments charitably but it's still full of stuff like this. It's exhausting.

I just don't have the energy for it anymore and honestly that makes me quite sad.

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

#785

Post by amatecha »

mbesto wrote: post #759
amatecha wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This iBook is running OS X 10.4.11 … No, it definitely is not supported and hasn't received updates in years. I wouldn't try to use it as a daily driver for general usage unless I installed a new OS like FreeBSD or OpenBSD on it.

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

#786

Post by tmp231 »

stale2002 wrote: post #782
tmp231 wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying if someone tells you that the software sold with his device is locked to to only work with company X, then you are free to buy it or not. You should also be free to put other software on it yourself, like a new OS. You should not take the extreme position of leveraging law to force the seller to write his software the way you like.

So then you do not support the first sale doctrine? If someone buys something, even like a physical good, you do not believe that the person who bought it, actually owns its, and the seller can put whatever restrictions that they want on the thing that was purchased? For example, if someone sells a book, you think it would be OK for the book writer to prevent someone from reselling it, or reading the book in a way th…

Of course you own it and should be able to put whatever OS you want on it. But you are confusing that with forcing apple to write their software in a way that suits you.

Antitrust laws _can_ be good, but like I said elsewhere, we are a country swimming neck deep in regulation and seem to like our particular hammer. It has a cooling effect on innovation, and China in some ways has a freer economy than we do.

I think it odd that many people rush to strongarm companies through law when there is a perfectly good alternative in Android. Even Microsoft and Amazon have been in the phone business and could get back in, offering you a phone with multiple app stores. Epic could even do it. There doesn’t seem to be enough people who care. You apparently do, and actually I agree with you that Apple should allow alternative app stores. But voluntarily because the people demand it or are leaving for Android, not because the hammer came down on them.

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

#787

Post by mbesto »

amatecha wrote: post #785
mbesto wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This iBook is running OS X 10.4.11 … No, it definitely is not supported and hasn't received updates in years. I wouldn't try to use it as a daily driver for general usage unless I installed a new OS like FreeBSD or OpenBSD on it.

And so you're a great target for a malicious actor since you no longer receive security updates. I guess you just proved my point.

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

#788

Post by Closi »

majewsky wrote: post #573
Closi wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $0.05 per gb transfer, it would be half a penny per 100mb app download. Someone has to pay for that - at the moment Apple subsidises the free apps, presumably because they think they are good for the ecosystem. Although lets be honest here, free apps could easily continue to be subsidised by Apple in any future model. We are talking about far less than a dollar per iPhone in terms of hosting/bandwidth costs for al…

> $0.05 per gb transfer That's including AWS's insane profit margin, though. I have my cloud deployments with Hetzner, where extra traffic costs € 1.19 per TiB, so that 100 MiB app download would not be half cent, it would be 1/100th of a cent. (And that's before we consider that Hetzner gives 20 TiB per month free traffic with every VM.)

Very true!

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

#789

Post by mcphage »

fartcannon wrote: post #714
mcphage wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us. I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.

And they can continue to think that after they're forced to permit other app stores. It changes nothing, except their bottom line.

Probably, yeah.

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

#790

Post by ashneo76 »

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 okay devil's advocate? What is the reasoning behind that?
Post reply on HN