Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing • Hacker News Board

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

#791

Post by amatecha » Mon, May 24, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #787

amatecha wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh.. yeah, malicious actors will definitely have easy pickings with the outdated iBook I connected to a firewalled internet-only wifi AP for an hour or so, and haven't powered on in close to a year. Perfect opportunity for the elite hackers that were just chomping at the bit for me to connect an outdated device to the internet, that doesn't have access to my LAN or anything else of mine.

You understand anyone, anywhere is great target for a malicious actor, right? Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any zero-day vulnerabilities, of course.

What point do you think I apparently helped prove? Are you referring to software entropy? The Wikipedia article you adjacently linked suggests that software bugs will only increase with every change, unless specifically mitigated - "as a system is modified, its disorder, or entropy, tends to increase".

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

#792

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 24, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #748

retsibsi wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what do you want to ensure: that grandma only installs malware on her phone via mistakes she is individually responsible for , or that she doesn't install malware on her phone? Maybe for the abstract 'grandma' you would take the first option. But for someone you personally care about, you're not going to choose the option that predictably ends with her being harmed, even if it will be her own fault when it happen…

You may notice we don’t cover all power outlets because kids (or grandma) may stick their fingers in them either. I trust them not to do that. Then again, if iOS has a setting that ‘enables’ the unsafe app store I’m confident grandma won’t reach it since it’s hidden behind the actual passcode, not a fingerprint.

[deleted]

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

#793

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 24, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

bredren wrote: post #771

ineedasername wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

[deleted]

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

#794

Post by celsoazevedo » Mon, May 24, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

jsjohnst wrote: post #670

celsoazevedo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with an App Store-like approach to that problem is that Apple would control who could call you and not give you the option to receive calls from someone they don't like. I'm not against security or privacy. My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store and what they allow (they ban more than just malware) when I want to install something. I use Android for this reason. As soon macOS becomes like…

> My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store The ability to bypass the App Store for yourself exists and has for a long time. The process might not be to your liking, but let’s stop pretending that you have no choice if you want to use iOS but not go through the App Store.

When I say "bypass the App Store", I mean installing an app like you can do on Android, Windows, macOS or Linux.

Jailbreak isn't supported by Apple and it's not something most people can or would do.

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

#795

Post by ineedasername » Tue, May 25, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

bredren wrote: post #771

ineedasername wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

It's not like Amazon is crushing competitors trying to build inexpensive reasonable quality tablets. What would a competitor even look like? The average buyer is looking for a tablet that let's them consume content purchased through Amazon, a bit of web browsing, and buying things off the Amazon store. Amazon doesn't care about investing in the kindle ecosystem because because if another competitor came along that met those same consumer needs, they wouldn't care. They aren't selling tablets as a profit center. They're selling them as an interface to their ecosystem, which is why consumers want them. If someone else came along and did the same thing they'd be thrilled that tablets that accomplish their goals might get more market penetration.

Anything that isn't aligned with making it a streamlined portal to buying more stuff is needless fluff, especially anything that allows interoperability with content not purchased through Amazon.

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

#796

Post by bredren » Tue, May 25, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #795

bredren wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

It's not like Amazon is crushing competitors trying to build inexpensive reasonable quality tablets. What would a competitor even look like? The average buyer is looking for a tablet that let's them consume content purchased through Amazon, a bit of web browsing, and buying things off the Amazon store. Amazon doesn't care about investing in the kindle ecosystem because because if another competitor came along that me…

I think kindle has ended up in this place but it isn’t where it was hoped to go.

I remember when the Amazon App Store was first announced and there was no talk of the devices being these value oriented Amazon content consuming portals.

There were a lot of competitors back then.

This was still around the time Palm had just given up, BlackBerry was briefly hopeful with the Playbook but most importantly the Barnes and Noble Nook was competing hard for these users.

In my anecdotal experience, Amazon Kindle fire purchasers were not in love with Amazon back then.

They just didn’t want to spend the money Apple was asking for iPads (which lacked as many purchase points and previous gens)

In one clear example, the person was downloading apps to do soduku, trying to listen to podcasts. whatever but did not subscribe to Prime and did not do delivery of items.

Do you understand the current posture of Amazon toward app dev on Fire to be negative / not encouraging?

I can see why these would be focused now entirely on portal to Amazon, but then I wonder why have an App Store for the product at all.

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

#797

Post by narrator » Tue, May 25, 2021, 12:58 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #681

narrator wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It works like this: 1. Make the game require resources to play This has many names: food, energy, stamina, etc. The fundamental concept is virtually identical in all cases though. It represents how much fun players can have. Once they run out, they can't play anymore. 2. Use timers to rate-limit the player's progression Distribute resources periodically. These timers place an upper limit to how quickly players can pr…

I've tried to play a few games that do that. As soon as I see that dynamic, I think to myself... What idiot thinks this is fun? What am I a mouse in a Skinner box pushing a f*king lever? Then I stop playing and delete the game. It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in. Is there a name in the psychological literature for this type of lack of awareness?

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

#798

Post by atq2119 » Tue, May 25, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #697

atq2119 wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers. What equilibrium? Equilibrium implies multiple forces balancing each other out. This doesn't seem to be the case here, because Apple are effectively dictating terms. A better term would be "status quo".

(Nash) equilibrium is a game theory term meaning the outcome that occurs when each player plays their optimal strategy; it's not a term that refers to any particular presence or absence of equity in light of that. You can think of it as similar to a "status quo" if you prefer. I can understand that colloquially it could mean the latter, so I apologize for using a technical term.

I understand what an equilibrium is. The question is: who are the players who are in equilibrium? Apple dictates the terms of the iOS app store. It's clear that Apple has a set of moves it can choose from. What moves do other players have, really, even if they were suboptimal?

It doesn't seem there really are any, other than to leave the app store entirely, which most would consider pretty extreme to the point where it's really hypotehtical. That's why I questioned whether the language of equilibria is appropriate in the first place: it just doesn't seem to be a pretty misleading framing of the situation.

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

#799

Post by stale2002 » Tue, May 25, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

tmp231 wrote: post #786

stale2002 wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> when there is a perfectly good alternative

There is very little cost in simply preventing Apple from taking so many intentionally anti-competitive actions.

It is not about forcing Apple to write software. Instead it is about preventing them from spending so much effort and trying to remove other people's ability to install other app stores.

Allowing other app stores, really would not be a huge burden on Apple, and it would give people a lot of choice.

> should be able to put whatever OS you want on it

That is not really very possible when Apple spends so much effort engaging in illegal anti-competitive practices, to prevent other app stores from being installed.

Finally, even if it were possible/easy to provide jailbreaking software, I think that Apple would almost certainly make serious efforts to prevent people from doing that.

But sure, I agree that game companies, and major tech companies should absolutely take action to provide people with very easy ways of jailbreaking people's phone.

Perhaps if Fortnite was available through Epic provided jailbreaking software, then that would be enough to kickstart things, and cause a bunch of other companies to move off of Apple's app store, and move to the jailbreak only version.

EX: imagine if fortnite provide incentives, like "free vbucks" to a large number of people, in order to get a large amount of people to jailbreak their phone, and then imagine if other companies, like Facebook, worked together on that, until almost everyone had a jailbroken phone.

That could certainly work. But I doubt Apple would just let that happen.

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

#800

Post by notafraudster » Tue, May 25, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

atq2119 wrote: post #798

notafraudster wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Nash) equilibrium is a game theory term meaning the outcome that occurs when each player plays their optimal strategy; it's not a term that refers to any particular presence or absence of equity in light of that. You can think of it as similar to a "status quo" if you prefer. I can understand that colloquially it could mean the latter, so I apologize for using a technical term.

I understand what an equilibrium is. The question is: who are the players who are in equilibrium? Apple dictates the terms of the iOS app store. It's clear that Apple has a set of moves it can choose from. What moves do other players have, really, even if they were suboptimal? It doesn't seem there really are any, other than to leave the app store entirely, which most would consider pretty extreme to the point where…

Players: Apple, developers, user; playing a finite iterated game of uncertain time horizon.

Game order: Apple chooses a policy burden \omega ~ [0, 1] which stands in for the restrictions they place on developers or the cut of purchases they take. Apple takes \omega \beta in profit and incurs no costs.

Let's take you at your word that a developer's only choice is to leave or stay -- Developers choose whether to develop exclusively on Apple [reward (1 - \omega) \beta], on all platforms (1 - \omega) \beta + \theta, or not on Apple [reward \theta]. \beta and \theta are both constrained to be non-negative. Developers pay a cost of development -c where c is constrained to be non-negative. Developers all decide simultaneously.

You could model this as one developer choosing a fraction of effort. You could make costs variable. You could make developers decide sequentially. You could model Google, who is not an actor in this scenario. etc. etc.

Users observe the fraction of developers who opted in ||d||. Each user has a type [0, 1] which determines the threshold amount of developer support it will require for them to choose Apple over another platform. \beta and \theta both update to be higher or lower depending on user choices according to some update function you prefer.

Let each player have either an individual or shared discount parameter \delta.

This is clearly a well-specified game. I am not going to solve it for the equilibriums; it may well be the case for any practice \beta, \theta, c, etc. that Apple's incentive is to choose a very high \omega and developers best response is to choose "develop for Apple anyway". That would still be an equilibrium. Most games have degenerate equilibria.

It seems to me that if you adjust developers to be sequential rather than simultaneous this is very nearly the Chain Store Game; if you make it a single developer this probably gets close to something like divide the dollar; if you want to model the lawsuit, it's a costly signalling game (Epic burning cash to establish type)

All of this is very traditional game theory. I get that your point is that Apple is mean and the government should do something about it, but there's nothing wrong with me describing the current arrangement of winners and losers as an equilibrium, or to describe the shock a lawsuit could induce via policy change as something that will establish a new equilibrium by exogenously changing or constraining parameters. I left all this out because I didn't think anyone would require this effort to accept the use of a very uncontroversial term.