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

Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 375 posts

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#341

Post by moogly »

tshaddox wrote: post #159
nucleardog wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is opening it up so users have a choice. Users have a choice: Don't use iOS. Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to are still full of iPhones.

I’m a techie and I don’t want to worry about malware, spyware, extensive software configuration, etc. on my microwave, my car, or my phone. I’ve got plenty of computing devices for that!

iOS isn't immune: https://interestingengineering.com/apple-reportedly-kept-mal...

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#342

Post by slver »

stale2002 wrote: post #335
slver wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do whatever you want with your phone already. As I said you don’t own iOS. Install your own OS.

> You can do whatever you want with your phone already. But, with the court decision, it will become much easier to install other app stores on the phone, if Apple's actions are ruled illegal anti-competitive. Thats the point. The illegal anti-competitive behavior, that makes it more difficult for people to install other software, could be blocked by the courts. At which people, people will be able to install other a…

I don’t get what I want. I want Apple to control their ecosystem. It significantly altered the iPhone experience for the better imho and this is why I buy the products.

A store in a store is like a country in a country. I declare myself a country now laws no longer apply to me. How would that work for society.

And you already had what you want. It’s full of phones where you can install whatever. Why should you force Apple to offer a product they don’t want to?

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#343

Post by skohan »

tshaddox wrote: post #317
skohan wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have less average negative experiences in the home if everyone were only allowed to buy new Ikea furniture and appliances directly from Ikea. But there are a lot of reasons people would find that level of restrictiveness unacceptable.

Indeed, and no one is suggesting that everyone should only be allowed to buy iPhones.

Indeed, they are suggesting that Apple comply with the current legal frameworks

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#344

Post by trboyden »

nodamage wrote: post #175
trboyden wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.

You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.

Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#345

Post by trboyden »

trboyden wrote: post #114
mason55 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible. You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.

That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.

These replies to my comment are completely missing the point. The debate isn't about what is the better system, which is arbitrary, it is about whether you have a choice, period. If you didn't want to use Windows, you had a choice; you could use Apple, Unix, or Linux. You do not have a choice on iOS, you use the App store, or you can't get apps. That's the anti-competitive behavior under review.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#346

Post by slver »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #195
slver wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.

How about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.

How about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does".

I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.

It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.

The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those.

"How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#347

Post by slver »

trboyden wrote: post #344
nodamage wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.

Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.

Epic wasn't dropped for offering sales on a site. Inform yourself.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#348

Post by pixl97 »

pmmucsd wrote: post #262
pixl97 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you'd start screaming blood murder if your grocery store put a flat 30% markup on all items tomorrow.

That's exactly what they do. They buy products from suppliers and mark them up, sell the the products and take the margin.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22...

That is profit margins in a competitive market.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#349

Post by matheusmoreira »

slver wrote: post #346
matheusmoreira wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.

How about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does". I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that yo…

> wasting my time

Yes, your time is so precious you spend it defending the monopolist practices of a multi-billion dollar corporation on a hacker forum.

> I'm not moving any goalposts.

First you compared having software freedom to invading someone else's private property. "Can I go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without permission?" You implied people's iPhones were still Apple's private property despite people having purchased them.

So I asked you in direct terms if this is really what you believe. You immediately backtracked by changing focus from hardware to software. "Just install your own OS", you said.

Okay. So how are people supposed to do that on the locked down device they bought? "I don't know, do your research, buy something else, stop complaining."

And I am the one being "intellectually dishonest"?

> Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.

It doesn't have to be said. If I buy something, it's perfectly reasonable to assume I can do whatever I want with it. It shouldn't require some corporation's permission.

> It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.

It's like buying a car and then finding out it only drives to pre-selected locations which pay 30% tax to the manufacturer for the privilege of having people reach them via that manufacturer's product.

> "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.

It's entitlement to actually want to own things I paid money for? You gotta be kidding me.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#350

Post by zepto »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #320
shagie wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would point to Epic's use of exclusives. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-covering-refund-costs-... https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/08/why-one-pc-developer-... https://www.vg247.com/2019/07/09/epic-games-wants-pc-games-m... Given epic's current behavior on PC, I think it would be a given that they would also do this on another App Store.

How else should Epic compete? They can't reduce the price in line with their 12% cut vs steam's 30%, because steam doesn't allow games to have cheaper prices elsewhere. Which now that I think of it seems anticompetitive from Valve.

Exactly this - exclusives are a standard move which we can be guaranteed will be used if multiple apps stores are allowed on iOS.

It won’t help consumers or developers, but it will allow epic and other well funded companies to insert themselves into a revenue stream without creating value.

Post reply on HN