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

831–840 of 851 posts

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

#831

Post by stale2002 »

tmp231 wrote: post #830
stale2002 wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we don’t like how they operate, we buy a competitor who does what we want. I agree that there are some other "free market solutions" that could work. The example that I gave, which would absolutely be a free market solution, would be if Fortnite, and other major companies, like facebook, banded together to build easy to use jailbreaking software, and to use their companies to try and convince a large critical ma…

If they would band together, why not just make a new phone? Going after jail breaking apple devices would be fruitless since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS. I wish they wouldn’t, but the market solution would be for people to stop buying apple devices.

> If they would band together, why not just make a new phone?

Because it is much easier to write jailbreaking software, than it is to build an entirely new phone.

> since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS

People have been jailbreaking phones for years. That is always the game of cat and mouse. And people have continue to get around it, even though they don't have large amount of resources, like big companies would.

But, furthermore, if there is a large enough userbase, that is jailbreaking their phone, then it would cause Apple a large amount of economic damage, if they decide to screw over this critical mass of users.

If 30% of Apple's users, would get their phone bricked after an Apple update, then Apple would probably be cautious about doing that.

But I guess it is hypothetically possible that Apple would be willing to brick 30% of their customers phones (if that was the critical mass). That would certainly hurt their customer friendly image though, and it would cause Apple billions of dollars in damages.

> but the market solution would be for people

Putting lots of resources into jailbreaking phones, and convincing a lot of users to do it, such that it would cause Apple a lot of damage, if they stopped it, is also a free market solution.

That is a free market solution that is much easier to do, than building a new phone.

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

#832

Post by matz1 »

josephcsible wrote: post #825
matz1 wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever the law I would like to be would depends on whether I'm Toyota or I'm the customer.

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.

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

#833

Post by tmp231 »

stale2002 wrote: post #831
tmp231 wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they would band together, why not just make a new phone? Going after jail breaking apple devices would be fruitless since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS. I wish they wouldn’t, but the market solution would be for people to stop buying apple devices.

> If they would band together, why not just make a new phone? Because it is much easier to write jailbreaking software, than it is to build an entirely new phone. > since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS People have been jailbreaking phones for years. That is always the game of cat and mouse. And people have continue to get around it, even though they don't have large amount of resources, like big…

As long as it doesn’t break the contract you signed when buying the device, go for it.

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

#834

Post by lossolo »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #464
lossolo wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple had 72.3 billion revenue from App Store in 2020. I can assure you that I can provide you with online store that I can find your app on, and run security checks against your app to check for malicious apps, etc. for 2.1 billion $ per year (3%).

Ah yes, and I’ll have that feature done in 2 weeks, max! How hard could it be?

I never said it would be done in two weeks but I think you underestimate what can be achieved with 2.1 billion dollars per year. For 200-250$ mil you will have ~1000 software engineers/project managers/other staff and you are left with 1.9 billion, costs for infrastructure + bandwidth not more than 400 mil, you are left with 1.5 billion.

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

#835

Post by stale2002 »

tmp231 wrote: post #833
stale2002 wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they would band together, why not just make a new phone? Because it is much easier to write jailbreaking software, than it is to build an entirely new phone. > since apple could release a new firmware to block your OS People have been jailbreaking phones for years. That is always the game of cat and mouse. And people have continue to get around it, even though they don't have large amount of resources, like big…

As long as it doesn’t break the contract you signed when buying the device, go for it.

> As long as it doesn’t break the contract

The contract that would be enforced by aggressive government regulation?

Yeah no. I thought you did not like government regulation, and supported people's ability to do what they want with things that they own? And in this case, such a contract, is enforced by government regulation, and we should work to invalidate it, if it prevents people from doing what they want with the phone that they bought.

Thats the point. I support the free market solution here, and apparently you want to use the government, to take away people's ability to do what they want, with their own phone, if you think that such a contract should prevent this.

I want to get rid of Apple's ability to use the government, to stop people from doing what they want with their own phone. The government regulations that prevent people from doing this is the problem.

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

#836

Post by tmp231 »

stale2002 wrote: post #835
tmp231 wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it doesn’t break the contract you signed when buying the device, go for it.

> As long as it doesn’t break the contract The contract that would be enforced by aggressive government regulation? Yeah no. I thought you did not like government regulation, and supported people's ability to do what they want with things that they own? And in this case, such a contract, is enforced by government regulation, and we should work to invalidate it, if it prevents people from doing what they want with the…

I certainly support contract law. What I don’t want is coercion. They make a device, offer it to you with a contract, and you can say yes or no.

You make a recommendation for how they run their platform, they can say yes or no. You can go or you can stay.

It’s that simple.

But I think we’ve run this well dry.

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

#837

Post by josephcsible »

tmp231 wrote: post #836
stale2002 wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as it doesn’t break the contract The contract that would be enforced by aggressive government regulation? Yeah no. I thought you did not like government regulation, and supported people's ability to do what they want with things that they own? And in this case, such a contract, is enforced by government regulation, and we should work to invalidate it, if it prevents people from doing what they want with the…

I certainly support contract law. What I don’t want is coercion. They make a device, offer it to you with a contract, and you can say yes or no. You make a recommendation for how they run their platform, they can say yes or no. You can go or you can stay. It’s that simple. But I think we’ve run this well dry.

> offer it to you with a contract

If I walk in to Best Buy and get an iPhone, I'm not signing any contract with Apple. All I'm agreeing to is "I give Best Buy money, and Best Buy gives me this physical product." The reason we're upset with Apple is that they're imposing terms on us as if we signed a contract with them, but we didn't.

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

#838

Post by jsjohnst »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #794
jsjohnst wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store The ability to bypass the App Store for yourself exists and has for a long time. The process might not be to your liking, but let’s stop pretending that you have no choice if you want to use iOS but not go through the App Store.

When I say "bypass the App Store", I mean installing an app like you can do on Android, Windows, macOS or Linux. Jailbreak isn't supported by Apple and it's not something most people can or would do.

> I mean installing an app

I meant exactly that and didn’t mean Jailbreaking. Apple officially supports allowing you to sign apps for your own device with a free developer account, it’s just the signing expires after 7 days (unlike the paid developer accounts which expire after a year). It’s a hassle to need to reinstall weekly (hence my point about it likely not being to one’s liking), but there are apps[0] available to automate the process. So my point stands, nothing is stopping you from using iOS and installing apps from outside the App Store but yourself.

[0] https://altstore.io/

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

#839

Post by tmp231 »

josephcsible wrote: post #837
tmp231 wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly support contract law. What I don’t want is coercion. They make a device, offer it to you with a contract, and you can say yes or no. You make a recommendation for how they run their platform, they can say yes or no. You can go or you can stay. It’s that simple. But I think we’ve run this well dry.

> offer it to you with a contract If I walk in to Best Buy and get an iPhone, I'm not signing any contract with Apple. All I'm agreeing to is "I give Best Buy money, and Best Buy gives me this physical product." The reason we're upset with Apple is that they're imposing terms on us as if we signed a contract with them, but we didn't.

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. It’s your device in that sense. But they are under no obligation (nor should be forced to be) to make it easy.

I agree with you that I wish they would make it easy, but alas. Buy a librephone.

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

#840

Post by stale2002 »

tmp231 wrote: post #839
josephcsible wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> offer it to you with a contract If I walk in to Best Buy and get an iPhone, I'm not signing any contract with Apple. All I'm agreeing to is "I give Best Buy money, and Best Buy gives me this physical product." The reason we're upset with Apple is that they're imposing terms on us as if we signed a contract with them, but we didn't.

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, into people's lives, fine. But that is your position. And it is extremely anti-free market.

But, if your position, is that you support this government coercion, then I am not sure why you would get upset about other forms for laws, and government coercion, given that you want the government to forcibly prevent other people from doing things with phones.

Because you absolutely support government coercion, that would be government force on people, who are doing things with phones that they own.

Post reply on HN