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

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

#811

Post by narrator » Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

etherealG wrote: post #810

narrator wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I liked one of the answers in another thread, “did you go to the arcade as a kid?”. I think as children we enjoy fantasy and are more able to suspend belief to take part in it. Games almost all have some fantasy wrapped around the mechanics. A part of the fun is maintaining that fantasy. For many people, the exploitation loop costs little enough that they don’t mind paying it to maintain the fantasy and enjoy the gam…

So you're saying they view the game world as actually real, or they want to believe it's real, and thus when stuff costs money, they view it as legitimate, just like you have to pay for food and shelter in the real world and pay up?

I don't think the chess example really works because playing chess can be fun all by itself. Paying money for avoiding waiting in a game can't reasonably be considered to be an end in itself.

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

#812

Post by calsy » Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:10 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #779

calsy wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The anti-competitive environment setup by Apple means that the developers are beholden to Apple. That is the whole point of the case.

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

#813

Post by calsy » Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #778

calsy wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 negoti…

Do you understand the power dynamics of the business you listed in your example. Costco is a worldwide juggernaut and American Express is not the only payment gateway in business. That is not the case with iOS devices. Apples services are the ONLY OPTION, you either like it or leave. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the anti-competitive argument the trial is addressing.

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

#814

Post by calsy » Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:29 AM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #760

calsy wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Again, apps are owned by businesses, not developers. Developers don't work for Apple, they work for their employer. Any industrial action by developers hurts their employer, not Apple. If what you suggested was an effective strategy it would have been taken already.

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

#815

Post by calsy » Tue, May 25, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

cmorgan31 wrote: post #755

pnt12 wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

'At the expense of the current ecosystem'. Stop peddling this nonsense that adding alternatives will somehow degrade the current App Store.

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

#816

Post by jbergens » Tue, May 25, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

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…

I find that analogy very bad. It would be more like you buy a Sodastream (that can make carborated water). When you want to refill it you have to go back to Walmart. You are not allowed to go to any other store, including Sodastream. Even if you order a refill gas bottle from Sodastream directly the payment will have to go through Walmart since you bought the machine there a long time ago. And they will add 30% to the price.

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

#817

Post by mbesto » Tue, May 25, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

amatecha wrote: post #791

mbesto wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, anywhe…

> haven't powered on in close to a year.

Didn't you just say you were viewing that website from the iBook but yet it hasn't been turned on in over year? So which is it? Are you actively using that computer or are you just using it as a strawman to prove some orthogonal point..

> 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.

Take two scenarios: one where everyone is on a unpatched 2004 iBook and one that we live in today. The chances of the former being hacked are WAY higher.

> What point do you think I apparently helped prove?

That you're an edge case and people aren't actively running on older versions of software because software vendors provide support to those systems. Support requires costly resources (humans, systems, etc.) to maintain. Those updates don't just come for free. The "system" that the WP article is referring to is the whole mobile ecosystem and internet. iOS needs to constantly be updated (including the SDK) to mitigate every new attack that comes with changes in ISPs, people's usage behavior, SSL/TLS changes, Wi-fi changes, and and and...this list goes on forever.

So how do you expect Apple to keep up with those changes? How do they enforce their walled garden has gardeners who water their plants and give them nutrients?

EDIT:

To further reiterate, back to one of your points before:

> Still, yes, I wish there wasn't such a constant expectation from tech companies to constantly update to the latest & greatest

For exactly the reasons I put above. There's probably a good reason TLS/SSL is throwing an error...because SSL2/3 is deemed insecure and this is an enforcement policy to change webmaster's behaviors.

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

#818

Post by 0xEFF » Tue, May 25, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #147

0xEFF wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything. How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode? “Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.

How is infrastructure "a blurry concept"? If it doesn't touch Apple's servers, it's none of Apple's business.

The system call to run an app touches apples servers to verify the app for example.

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

#819

Post by 0xEFF » Tue, May 25, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

Sargos wrote: post #204

0xEFF wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose you install a messaging app to talk to your friend. How do you know they installed their copy from the good App Store and not the bad one?

Why do you care what software your friend runs? Why do you feel the need to dictate what software someone else runs? This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.

I don’t feel the need to dictate anything, but I care because my messaging app exchanges my personal data with my friends messaging app so there’s value knowing their copy is authentic.

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

#820

Post by aaronax » Tue, May 25, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #403

aaronax wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.

There are some problems with that approach… (1) Which government? Governments have limited jurisdictions, so, e.g., the U.S. federal government, or the State of Michigan, is going to have a hard time prosecuting a Russian citizen in Russia. (2) Under what laws? There are a lot of things that are malware that aren’t strictly illegal, at least not yet. Laws like this aren’t easy to write, either. They almost surely nee…

(1) The government that also governs your power, water, roads, etc. Maybe some sort of visa process for people who wish to "import" software.

(2) For sure new laws would need to be created, and it would be difficult.

(3) Right now that "agency" is Google and Apple, and even though it is additional bureaucracy to bring those functions into something controlled by citizens, I think that is obviously better.

(4) Let's see if we can stretch existing criminal processes into this problem domain. For severe crimes, an individual can be arrested and have to pay bail to go free. How about the allegedly illegal software has its certificate revoked and is reinstated if bail is paid? That would be for "felony"-class software; maybe just tickets and fines for misdemeanors.

> the threat of criminal prosecution does not seem to have proven to be a deterrent

I believe this is largely due to the very high levels of anonymity that are currently possible on the platforms where malware is prevalent (Win32). It is much less of a problem on the platforms where anonymity of software creators is mostly removed (iOS and Android). I think it is VERY interesting to ponder a scenario where the government removes the anonymity, rather than a corporation.