Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#101

Post by saagarjha »

omegacharlie wrote: post #92
saurik wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly--as someone at the front line of all of this stuff--none of these DMCA related arguments have much "practical" importance in the medium-to-long term :/. (This is not at all to say it is a waste of time or anything: the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research, so these lawsuits are extremely important and this DMCA law--which likely…

I am not entirely pessimistic towards the landscape of device level exploits in particular when low-level hardware glitching attacks seem to be the next research frontier as reliable persistent software exploits get harder and harder. Worth noting that certain people probably have means to dump streaming HD Netflix content but keep these methods private because presumably Netflix can change things around to break the…

Top end manufacturers are aware of and protecting against this already.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#102

Post by ItsMonkk »

userbinator wrote: post #47
musicale wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well. I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.

Gaming is different because you normally don't expect much freedom on the platform nor use it for anything other than entertainment.

But this is why the Steam Deck is such a breath of fresh air. Do whatever you want with it.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#103

Post by fastball »

musicale wrote: post #39
vorpalhex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.

> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.

I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets:

- the hardware I already paid for

- this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple)

- I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app

- I never listened to a podcast on my iPod

- I don't use the Podcasts app, I use the Spotify app

So in the case of Amazon/Spotify, what value is Apple delivering beyond paying for download bandwidth in order for me to download the app (which is like, $0.000001 of bw costs)?

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#104

Post by customkitchen »

saurik wrote: post #21
echelon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind providing some additional background as to the different sides and the potential outcomes / ramifications of this case? You seem to have a lot of context in this area. Could this lead to a VCR/DVR future where we're once again able to record or download steaming content? Platforms and DRM have taken us a step back from the freedoms we once enjoyed. I would be overjoyed to…

Frankly--as someone at the front line of all of this stuff--none of these DMCA related arguments have much "practical" importance in the medium-to-long term :/. (This is not at all to say it is a waste of time or anything: the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research, so these lawsuits are extremely important and this DMCA law--which likely…

>the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research

I hate to push back on you (of all people) for this, but no it's actually not. You are talking too much with your hacker hat on and not enough with your legal hat on. There is quite a difference between accredited security firms doing responsible security research, and random unaffiliated parties with shifting and conflicting motivations doing "security research". That angle is a losing angle and it's not because these companies did anything, it's because it is actually a fallacious and bad meme that has propagated around forever in hacker circles, seemingly for no other reason than that it is fun to think about it.

In my opinion, if you follow that "right" to its legal and technical conclusion, you will end up with the "right" of corporate security firms to do research. That's it. I don't mean to be all doom and gloom though. You are right that the idea of "right to repair" is a much broader thing that makes a much more compelling case for any kind of consumer protection angle.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#105

Post by josephcsible »

musicale wrote: post #26
smoldesu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "core problem" isn't Apple's rate - they're free to charge whatever they want. The real issue is that the App Store has no competition, so Apple could charge 90% and developers would have no choice but to abide or abandon the platform.

The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price…

While Android is more open than iOS in that alternative app sources are allowed, it's still far from a level playing field. The Play Store has special privileges that third-party ones don't, such as being able to automatically update apps, rather than forcing the user to hit "install" for each individual app to be updated.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#106

Post by marticode »

musicale wrote: post #39
vorpalhex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.

> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.

Pretty sure Apple was already (very handsomely) paid for their effort on designing, marketing and selling the hardware. When the customer bought it.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#107

Post by grapescheesee »

imoverclocked wrote: post #53
musicale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.

Agreed. I think people commonly mistake simplicity for ease. Apple spends a lot of engineering budget making products simple enough for the masses.

Isn’t this part of the problem? I enjoy when things are able to change in life based on effort, or choice, not the ease of sedation or being pacified from convenience.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#108

Post by jackmott »

musicale wrote: post #13

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#109

Post by Retric »

smoldesu wrote: post #24
musicale wrote: post #13

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…

The "core problem" isn't Apple's rate - they're free to charge whatever they want. The real issue is that the App Store has no competition, so Apple could charge 90% and developers would have no choice but to abide or abandon the platform.

Apple could legally still force developers to pay 90% even if there used some other iOS App Store.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#110

Post by Retric »

fastball wrote: post #103
musicale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.

I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPo…

> this should be included in the price of the hardware

But it isn’t. One of the reasons Apple continues to support old hardware is they collect revenue from the App Store on older devices.

The platform ecosystem is more than just device hardware + server hardware + bandwidth.

Post reply on HN