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

841–850 of 851 posts

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

#841

Post by DangitBobby »

simondotau wrote: post #699
DangitBobby wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem quite right. Users Will Pay: $100 Dev Profit per $100: $60 Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99 Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42

> Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99 > Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42 Apple's cut is $30 but their profit certainly isn't $30 minus one cent. Obviously there's the hard cost of transactions, which includes but certainly isn't limited to merchant fees. If it's an international app, there's the currency exchange involved in selling that app in local currency, under local merchant rules. Apple also absorbs various costs caused by a…

I don't really think it's unreasonable to think that the app store costs them $1 per $1000 they take in, even including all of the work you described. Tellingly, they avoided admitting to their actual margins during the hearing with EPIC.

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

#842

Post by GordonS »

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…

From the outside looking in, it looks like Apple are so ashamed of their own 30% price-gouging that they won't allow you to include it. It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate Epic's pricing, and this seems like an obviously dangerous hill for Apple to choose to die on.

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

#843

Post by tmp231 »

stale2002 wrote: post #840
tmp231 wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Then you boot it up and have to agree to a bunch of stuff to use iOS. You can bail at that point and not use the device. Or you can know that you’ll have to agree to it later, and that the device is quite difficult to put another OS on, and just not purchase it. Get a librephone or Android or … You may say that you bought the phone and so you can do with it what you want —- ok. Hack/root it to run another OS.…

Ok, but then don't go around pretending like you are someone who opposes government intervention. Instead, it is other people, who want to get the government out of our phones, and not have the coercive, government force, under threat of violence, preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased. If you want to say that you support the government, using force and coercion, and government intervention, in…

> preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased.

Nobody is preventing you. Who is preventing you? There’s no government action here. You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. Let’s leave the government out altogether.

You’re the one pushing for some kind of regulation against free agents interacting. No need to contact the federals on this.

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

#844

Post by realityking »

DangitBobby wrote: post #841
simondotau wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99 > Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42 Apple's cut is $30 but their profit certainly isn't $30 minus one cent. Obviously there's the hard cost of transactions, which includes but certainly isn't limited to merchant fees. If it's an international app, there's the currency exchange involved in selling that app in local currency, under local merchant rules. Apple also absorbs various costs caused by a…

I don't really think it's unreasonable to think that the app store costs them $1 per $1000 they take in, even including all of the work you described. Tellingly, they avoided admitting to their actual margins during the hearing with EPIC.

That seems unrealistic considering credit card margins alone. Stripe will get you 2.9% + $0,30. Even if we assume Apple pays half that, it's already quite a bit more than you assume.

The physical gift card network is likely vastly more expensive. Not only are there frequent sales on these cards (I have no idea of why or how the economics of them work) but the cards need to be printed and the retailer will take a (small) cut.

Lastly, paid apps subsidise free apps. There is a ton of free apps, both from small indie devs and big businesses. They all pay $99/year. I'm pretty sure the bandwidth cost for all of Google's apps is a few orders of magnitude higher than that.

My, relatively unfounded, suspicion is that the App Store has a profit margin of around ~60%. Apple overall seems to strive for a gross profit margin of around 40% and it seems likely the App Store is doing a lot better. Of course this highly depends on what you consider part of the cost associated with the App Store.

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

#845

Post by jhgb »

0xEFF wrote: post #818
jhgb wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every time you launch it? That sounds like Apple's problem to fix, not anyone else's problem.

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

#846

Post by notSupplied »

sircastor wrote: post #649
ajkjk wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dystopian is the word for it. It's fucking insane that you can't talk about why it's priced that way. Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of t…

No. This is not dystopian. That is over-dramatic. We’re not talking about the loss of meaningful society. And iOS and Apple are not the whole of society. This is capitalism, plain and simple. Market position creates behavior, the market attempts to route around.

More economic activity is shifting from meat space and onto our phones over time. Apple’s idea that they deserve a 30% cut of “economic activity that happens on an iDevice” will appear ever more expansive.

During the pandemic, when fitness classes shifted to virtual video sessions, Apple demanded a 30% cut because what was once an offline “delivery of the goods” became online and iPhone -facilitated. What’s so dystopian about this example is that a virtual gym session is not too different from any kind of remote work.

Under the “value is delivered over an iDevice” philosophy, Apple’s tax can take a bite from nearly any plate in the economy.

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

#847

Post by notSupplied »

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…

Yes, but after you take the product home from Walmart, and open the packaging, a little card slips out with more deals from the manufacturer…deals that are neither controlled nor raked by Walmart.

The app upselling you on more features afterwards is equivalent to that. Apples view would only make sense if even when inside the app, you’re STILL in the store. Because to Apple, the AppStore is not Walmart, the iPhone is Walmart. You never leave.

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

#848

Post by stale2002 »

tmp231 wrote: post #843
stale2002 wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but then don't go around pretending like you are someone who opposes government intervention. Instead, it is other people, who want to get the government out of our phones, and not have the coercive, government force, under threat of violence, preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased. If you want to say that you support the government, using force and coercion, and government intervention, in…

> preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased. Nobody is preventing you. Who is preventing you? There’s no government action here. You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. Let’s leave the government out altogether. You’re the one pushing for some kind of regulation against free agents interacting. No need to contact the federals on this.

> Nobody is preventing you

You were advocating in favor of using the government to "enforce a contract" or whatever, on people doing what they want with the phone that they own.

> You buy the phone or you buy a librephone.

And if someone buys an iPhone they should have the full right to do whatever they want with it, and the government should absolutely not be preventing people from doing so.

> Let’s leave the government out altogether.

Yes, lets ensure that the government never prevents anyone from doing what they want with the phone that they purchased.

So if you take back your previous statements, and instead agree with me that the government should not prevent people from doing what they want with their phone, then cool.

But otherwise, if you disagree, then you would be the one advocating in favor of using government coercion here against people.

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

#849

Post by tmp231 »

matz1 wrote: post #832
josephcsible wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which do you think is more fair and better for society as a whole?

as a whole ? I believe there can't be such thing. Fair for one may not be fair for other. 'Better' for one may not be better for other.

It would be better for both to enforce contract law all around. Don’t let either lie or steal and you’ll have a better outcome for all.

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

#850

Post by tmp231 »

stale2002 wrote: post #848
tmp231 wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased. Nobody is preventing you. Who is preventing you? There’s no government action here. You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. Let’s leave the government out altogether. You’re the one pushing for some kind of regulation against free agents interacting. No need to contact the federals on this.

> Nobody is preventing you You were advocating in favor of using the government to "enforce a contract" or whatever, on people doing what they want with the phone that they own. > You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. And if someone buys an iPhone they should have the full right to do whatever they want with it, and the government should absolutely not be preventing people from doing so. > Let’s leave the govern…

So it sounds like you don’t agree with contract law. that if you make an agreement with someone or something that you are bound to keep your word. You somehow think that because you agreed to something voluntarily that the government should then act and impose new terms on the parties.

That’s one reason why we are regulation drunk in this country. Instead if having a simple rule that says you live up to contracts that you agree to, now we have to have a million rules for exceptions to contracts people sign.

I do t thing we can get anywhere if you don’t agree with contract law.

Post reply on HN