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

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

#551

Post by josephcsible » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

tmp231 wrote: post #544

nsajko wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that Apple shouldn't themselves bear the responsibility of choosing an unsustainable/immoral/illegal business model?

No ones forcing you to buy an iPhone; if this is really bothering you, go to Android or petition Microsoft or Amazon to start up their phone efforts again.

The problem with that is that this isn't just about end-users. Apple is being unfair to developers too, and just leaving iOS isn't a viable choice for them. Apple has a 50% market share in the US, so any American company who cut ties with them would instantly lose half of their customer base, since most people won't buy a new phone over a single app.

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

#552

Post by mdoms » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

aaronax wrote: post #248

jmull wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think malware should be controlled? An App Store has the ability to load executable code that might do anything onto your device. I don’t think an OS can just opt to do nothing about this. Some basic guard rails, designed to dissuade the technically unsavvy seems like the least that could be done. Additionally, I think there would need to be a malware management system, similar to ones on other more open p…

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

Which government?

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

#553

Post by josephcsible » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

tmp231 wrote: post #547

orisho wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.

Everyone should be held to the same standard of respecting private property. You know what you are getting into when going onto apples store; if you don’t like it then encourage all your clients to use Android.

Respecting private property? Whose property is an iPhone? Apple's or the end user's? Whose (intellectual) property is the Epic Store? Apple's or Epic's? Apple wants to use the only thing that's theirs in the equation (the App Store) to restrict an interaction between both of the other things that aren't theirs.

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

#554

Post by paulmd » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

abecedarius wrote: post #258

simonh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets say Apple allowed side-loading. They would have no way to examine side-loaded apps to see what they do. iOS would have to provide access to various basic services like networking and connectivity, but not e.g. your address book without checking with the user. All well and good. So I could write an app that interrogates the cellular network and other sources to implement location tracking (cruder than GPS but goo…

Your argument presumes apps get capabilities by default. OSes have been invented where apps get nothing implicitly (the object-capability model); it's a design problem to install mass-market apps with usable security in that paradigm, and it might be a difficult one. But there's been a little work on it and it's worth pursuing.

If there is no app-store review process then all apps will demand full permissions, which means apps effectively get everything by default.

If it's a choice between permissions and not using the app then users will give them the permissions, and that is the choice app developers will give users, if they are sufficiently large to get away with it (Facebook, Fortnite, etc).

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

#555

Post by josephcsible » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #548

josephcsible wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.

Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted . You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with application…

The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split.

And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.

> major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted.

And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?

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

#556

Post by ilovwindows » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

CPLNTN wrote: post #221

ilovwindows wrote: post #108

30% of a revenue is extortion. Why should an app developer pay that fee? It's like owning almost half of a business. Apple is the most developer hostile company.It charges $100 every year to devs for developing apps to it's platform. And additionally charge another 30% of their business. The worst thing is apps cannot use third party payments, why? Some people argue it's for security. I disagree. It's greed. Tim Cook…

> Take away all the apps from iPhone and what is it? A brick Saying that Apple needs devs more than devs need Apple is as stupid as saying the opposite. Is the same chicken/egg game. They both coexist and no one can exist without the other. Do you really think that dev can just trash iPhone apps and send a middle finger to Apple? I’ll tell you why it’s BS: 1 - iPhone users are more willing to pay for an app than andr…

A simple experiment will open your eyes wide.

Lets ship iPhones which cannot install any third party apps and see who goes bankrupt. Apple or the app developers?

No one with sane mind will by the iPhones. Where as devs can always make money from other platform like web.

Apple needs devs more than devs need apple. Proved !!!

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

#557

Post by Thorentis » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

fors wrote: post #509

crazygringo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing weird about it. If there were no food regulations, I don't know if I'd be able to pick restaurants and grocery store brands that were safe to eat. But I definitely know I want safe food to eat. Most people want safe food but they want the government to figure out what that means. Same thing here -- most people just want a safe app store. They don't want the work of having to figure out which app store…

Your comparison lags. There are food regulations yet there are a lot of stores where I can buy food. I trust the government to impose regulation on food manufacturers but I trust vendors with their selection of manufacturers. Why should the store landscape on iOS be any different where I put my trust in the store? This would actually mirror my food shopping as well. I trust my vendor, why would this not translate to…

This argument lends itself to constantly shifting goal posts. The moment Apple (the food safety authority) closes down a store for a breach of standards it has enforced, people will simply say that Apple is engaging in censorship, or not being open enough with its platform, or engaging in anti competitive behaviour.

The issue is compounded by imagining that the food safety board ran its own restaurant. It then closes down the cafe next door for unhygenic practices. Looks pretty bad right? That's the situation Apple will be in every time it has to make a call on something like this.

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

#558

Post by josephcsible » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #518

michaelmrose wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is literally just Apple because you can install apps outside the company store on other platforms. The inability to install outside the store is what makes disallowing outside payment an issue. The combination means that you can't sell to a customer without going through apple because they have used their control of the hardware to take the decision of whom to do business with from you in order to stand there with…

allowing sideloading instantly shreds user privacy because any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything. Facebook for example has already gotten their hand slapped for doing exactly this using their developer credentials, and if it suddenly becomes viable to do this for the full user-base…

> any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything.

If Facebook is chomping at the bit to do this on iOS as soon as they can, then why haven't they done it on Android where they already can?

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

#559

Post by paulmd » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #555

paulmd wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted . You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with application…

The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split. And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.…

Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument?

50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model.

> And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?

Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, permissioning is a major problem there, the "flashlight app that wants network access and your contacts list" was a very real thing (until Android finally implemented a flashlight app) and continues to be a thing for other types of applications.

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/298363-why-do-android-fla...

That's the thing app store review prevents on iOS, and the changes you're suggesting fundamentally undermine that process. When facebook removes themselves from the app store and creates their own so they can demand full permissions, the choice will become "give the permissions or stop using facebook" and that's a degradation of the iOS user experience, all for a nebulous argument that the app store cut is too much.

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

#560

Post by josephcsible » Sun, May 23, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #559

josephcsible wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split. And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.…

Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument? 50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model. > And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores? Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, per…

50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.