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

Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 389 posts

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#131

Post by jbverschoor »

nostromo wrote: post #85
roamerz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requires, no but in all regards it’s a great deal for app developers. You write code they do everything else. You want options? They exist (Windows/Android) but are all shitified minefields of commercial ads and poor design choices that I only use when required. Is Apple perfect? No far from it. When I buy and use their products though I feel more like the customer than the product. It’s a tool built for me not their…

This is correct. App devs hate "paying" the 30% cut, but often aren't smart enough to realize that they make more on iOS than Android specifically because it's a high-trust environment and people trust that Apple has their back. There's a reason most of us app devs make most of our money on Apple devices.

They also happily pay 3+% for charging a card with stripe. And more than happy to fork a few percent for some accounting / VAT handling.

That’s included with the App Store.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#132

Post by adrr »

philistine wrote: post #21

Tim Cook has overstayed his welcome. He should have left years ago at this point. That plus the fact that all his successors are built on the same nondescript mold he came out of, does not bode well for the strategic vision of Apple.

Multiple failed large projects under his watch, Apple Intelligence, Apple Vision, Apple Car. For comparison, Huawei and Xiaomi both have launched cars. Samsung AI offering is much better than Apple's.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#134

Post by wtallis »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #123
nostromo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Apple to protect me from app developers. For me, it’s a feature not a bug. I want them to prevent social media companies from tracking my device across my other apps. I want them to integrate billing so I can easily cancel subscriptions or get refunds. I want them to require Oauth that allows me to keep my email private from app developers. These features make my customer experience better not worse. I’m sorry…

I want Apple to protect me from app developers. For me, it’s a feature not a bug. Security is not mutually exclusive with informed consent. Apple's greatest trick was convincing you -- and, evidently, themselves -- that it is.

Every attempt at providing the general public with an "informed consent" escape hatch to security or privacy features ends degrading to either consent fatigue or "misinformed consent" dark patterns.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#136

Post by KerrAvon »

rideontime wrote: post #99
wtallis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app... > Keep in mind this whole thing stems from an injunction from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games that Apple largely won . The result of that lawsuit was basically, “ OK, Apple wins, Epic loses, but this whole thing where apps in the App Store aren’t allowed to inform users of offers available outside the App Store, or send them to such offers on the web…

I don't buy into the analogy. Cable providers can't prevent you from watching free OTA channels on your television, but Apple prevents Epic from publishing iOS apps outside of the App Store. Considering Fortnite was removed from the App Store specifically due to offering outside payment options, denying its return will likely lead straight back to court.

IANAL, but that's not true. Fortnite was removed due to breach of contract.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#137

Post by n_ary »

bee_rider wrote: post #117
jofla_net wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally believable. My grandmother lived though the great depression, wherein she was lucky to get an Orange at christmas. The last few decades of her life she basically was a food hoarder, pantries overflowing with canned goods, and a freezer where you never saw the back.

When I was a kid I did odd jobs, and one of the odd jobs was cleaning out a semi-hoarder’s house after he’d passed away (iirc he’d lived through the Great Depression). Not like you see on TV, with the heaps and heaps of garbage. Maybe like your grandmother, tons of… basically well organized supplies and stuff. I dunno. Toilet paper, some canned goods, lighters, I guess that stuff all lasts decades if stored properly.…

> Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.

EOL devices(tablets, phones, macbooks, thinkpads, hobby electronics boards, home lab equipments, hdd and ssd full of archive data, swag from conferences, outdated books on product and programming, smart watches etc).

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#138

Post by Bluestrike2 »

throwanem wrote: post #75
WD-42 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What made the early apps great and viral on iPhone were the indie developers. The ones making flashlight and farting sound boards. They paved the way, and for them $3500 is a lot of money. Who cares if it’s pocket change for google or meta, nobody wants another Facebook app.

Sure. And those early indie devs paid, inflation adjusted, iirc around $500-1000 for the hardware they developed against to put those indie flashlight fart noise apps on the then nascent App Store, because that's what an iPhone cost. $3500 is, as I said, pretty close to petty cash even for a sole-owner LLC that needs taking at all seriously, and I would front that sum without a second thought out of my own personal p…

I think the issue is less the cost to developers and more the cost to users. Were there more users, no doubt a larger number of indie developers would be able to justify the expense. Without those users--or at least a reliable promise of those users in the near future--it's tough to justify even dipping your toes into it. It's a chicken and egg problem that's fundamentally tied to cost as well as hardware limitations. Discomfort from the bulk and weight was my biggest sticking point even before the price, for example.

Plus, the hardware is just the initial starting point. Your initial outlay will quickly be eclipsed by the dev hours spent working on Vision versions of your app(s), and that's when the opportunity costs become particularly noticeable. Time spent on a Vision app that may have no real market for years is time you could be spending adding features, testing changes, fixing bugs, marketing, etc. Skipping on Vision Pro is really a no-brainer for most indie developers, at least for the foreseeable future.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#139

Post by CamperBob2 »

wtallis wrote: post #134
CamperBob2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Apple to protect me from app developers. For me, it’s a feature not a bug. Security is not mutually exclusive with informed consent. Apple's greatest trick was convincing you -- and, evidently, themselves -- that it is.

Every attempt at providing the general public with an "informed consent" escape hatch to security or privacy features ends degrading to either consent fatigue or "misinformed consent" dark patterns.

What do you suggest, then? As users, does rent-seeking paternalism really serve us better in the long run?

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#140

Post by RajT88 »

RajT88 wrote: post #30
jerjerjer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. I think it's mostly the lack of users. Apple snubs mobile developers all the time, but since they gate access to a large chunk of well-paying customers, developers are ready to jump through any hoops. If there were millions of Apple Vision Pro users I'm sure the developers would have followed, but it's of course a chicken and egg situation con…

I know a lady who owns an ISV. Per her, you make a lot more money on the app store compared to other platforms.

Why the downvotes about an anecdote about the owner of (actually a couple of) software companies? She gives talks, in those talks she says she makes more money off iOS apps than other platforms. You can probably find a few of those talks on Youtube.

Her gaming company you can read about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webfoot_Technologies

Post reply on HN