39 ms·

Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

• Hamuko 5y ago
  Tim Cook's line of argument seemed a bit weird to me. On one hand he's saying that he doesn't know if Apple's customers would be able to distinguish between Apple's good and holy curated store and Epic's filthy shitheap of porn and blackjack, but he's also saying that Apple's customers definitely want Apple's App Store as-is. >Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there are multiple stores, people could still go shop at Apple,” right? >“It seems like a decision that they shouldn’t have to make,” Cook says. https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/1395796704381784069 https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579670438178406... >Will people not be able to distinguish between an official and unofficial store? >“They’ve never had to do it before. They’ve bought into something that’s an ecosystem that just works.” >So you don’t know if people can tell the difference? >“I’m saying I don’t know,” Cook says. https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/1395797118590365696 https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579711859036569... >Apple can’t really know that it runs a better app store than anyone else, when it’s never let anyone try, right? >“It’s an experiment I didn’t want to run,” Cook says. Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is." https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/1395797410765496320 https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579741076549632...
  • aero-glide2 5y ago
    Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores? Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store..
    • exporectomy 5y ago
      Sometimes less freedom is a good thing. It frees the customer's mind to let an organization they trust make the tedious product evaluations for you. We do it all the time with retail shopping where we enjoy the curated decisions of the shop's owner instead of a giant bazaar.
      • aero-glide2 5y ago
        I own the hardware (the floor space of the store). Should I not be able to decide who sets up shop in my phone?
        • Jailbird 5y ago
          I think the zoning laws in your area prevent you from operating a nuclear plant or a meat processing facility. (Sorry, it's just Hello Kitty shops for you! :) )
      • celsoazevedo 5y ago
        On the other hand, when Apple decides to block some app (eg: certain VPN apps in China) for reasons that aren't in your interest, you're screwed. Being able to use a different app store (which may or may not be as "curated" as Apple's own store) or to simply download the app from the devs website and install it doesn't seem to be a problem for Android users. Or for Windows, Linux and even macOS (eg: is it that bad being able to install Steam?) The thing is, most people will use the store that comes with the phone. I have F-Droid installed for some open source apps, but my parents have no idea of what that is. They use Google's Play Store, like most users... if Facebook wants them to use their apps, that's where their app needs to be.
        • notriddle 5y ago
          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27221083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27221083 Apparently, yes, it is a problem.
          • celsoazevedo 5y ago
            They're trying to defend their own store and business model... of course having a more open system is a problem. After years of "there are no viruses for mac", I find it funny to see an Apple exec saying that his own family members have been infected by malware on macOS.
      • pjc50 5y ago
    • vbezhenar 5y ago
      > Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores? Why would Apple want to do so? That would obviously reduce their earnings. > Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store.. I bet that is Microsoft's dream. They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. But they did something similar with Windows RT, so they definitely looking into it.
      • Hamuko 5y ago
        >They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. Microsoft became rather antitrust shy at some point. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I think it affected many of the decisions.
        • dan-robertson 5y ago
          They became shy exactly when they lost a massive antitrust suit in the late 90’s.
    • FredPret 5y ago
      But you do! Buy an Android. Or jailbreak the iPhone. As a consumer, his comments were spot on about me at least.
    • jrsj 5y ago
      Because my grandma is clueless and I give her an iPhone so she doesn’t install malware like she managed to on her Android phone
      • johnchristopher 5y ago
        Could the guest mode on android or enterprise/fleet thingy be used to achieve that (preventing user from installing malware) ?
      • celsoazevedo 5y ago
        It's weird that a clueless person was able to download and install a malware apk when by default Android forces you to go to your settings and allow apps to install other apps (the behaviour has changed over the years, but you always need to do something). Not to mention that Google Play Protect scans your apps and warns you if it finds something sketchy. In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I don't think my Android phone should only allow me to use the play store or that windows/macos/linux should stop me from installing Steam just because she's clueless about tech.
        • dan-robertson 5y ago
          What’s your argument here, that the GP is lying or that their grandmother wanted the malware or something else? I find it very easy to believe that some malware vendor managed to trick someone into enabling things in settings. I would also believe that malware was just sitting in the play store[1] and available to install the normal way. [1] same goes for the App Store.
          • celsoazevedo 5y ago
            His grandmother already has an iPhone, so it's unlikely that she was using Android 10 or 11 (which made it fairly easy to install an apk file). Until Android 9 you had to go through some menus and allow sideloading, something that "clueless" people usually don't do. It's more likely that the "malware" came from an app installed via the Play Store. Three or so years ago I was asked by someone to see if there was a virus on their phone. The "virus" was in fact a religious app, installed via the official store, which was opening a popup with ads every few hours. Now, I could be wrong and it's possible that his grandma actually sideloaded an apk. If she did, I still think that you should be able to install an app that isn't allowed by Apple on their store, after all they block more than just malware: apps with free licenses, some VPN apps in some countries, torrent apps without any illegal content in it, etc. If Apple wants to continue on this path, hopefully they'll go a step further and also remove the web browser and the ability to receive calls. Scam calls are a problem after all and we don't want people to send all their savings to "Microsoft" or "Amazon".
    • sokoloff 5y ago
      Customers have that choice today. On the Android platform.
      • nr2x 5y ago
        Which is partially why Apple makes it very hard to move to Android. No iMessage, Calendars, Contacts, iTunes Purchases, etc.
        • d3nj4l 5y ago
          You can very easily link your iCal with Google Calendar, and likewise sync your contacts with your Google account. I know because I've done both.
          • nr2x 5y ago
            You can't access iCloud calendars on an Android phone, they even block it over the browser.
            • kitsunesoba 5y ago
              It's a bit convoluted, but you can get the CalDAV URLs for your calendars which then work just fine with any CalDAV client (including those on Android). When googling "iCloud caldav" detailed instructions are the first result.
              • nr2x 5y ago
                Key point here is "very hard to move to Android". Seeing as this is not at all easy (and I have gotten to work via this method at some point), it presents a barrier to changing platforms. Likewise ,not allowing access to calendar on a mobile browser is pretty blatant.
    • jodrellblank 5y ago
      Also on HN today, endless comments about how Amazon is a shitheap full of fake products and fake reviews and wishing Amazon would tighten up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27253047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27253047 > "Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores?" Why can't people who don't want Apple's curation and want to install other app stores buy Android phones, instead of trying to ruin nice things for everyone else?
  • akg_67 5y ago
    I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware. Phone is used by too broad of user groups, from very young to very old, for apps to be left unchecked unlike laptops and desktops.
    • Nextgrid 5y ago
      How do you explain that the majority of apps are contaminated by spyware like the Facebook SDK and dozens of other equivalents? (which for the record is in breach of the GDPR and Apple could be considered complicit if they allow this while at the same time requiring all apps to comply with local laws and has removed apps who break or could be used to break the law before) How do you explain scam apps that deliberately mislead users into signing up to a "free trial" subscription that renews at a ridiculous price 3 days later?
      • akg_67 5y ago
        Have you looked at Google play store, in comparison? Apple is still doing 100x better job. 100% cleanliness is utopia but I will take an App Store that weeds out lot of contaminated apps than every other app being contaminated in some sort of way.
        • rjzzleep 5y ago
          I do think that the apple app store has better quality apps. But to be frank, those 3 day trial autorenew apps are definitely more common on iOS. There are so many highly rated iOS apps that look great and where you can't even get past the initial stage without having to sign up to a subscription without even know what it is.
        • detaro 5y ago
          Nobody is proposing that the Apple app store should go away, or that other stores shouldn't be curated. (E.g. exactly because the play store is as it is, on Android I go look at F-Droid first, because if it has something I trust it more)
  • tomp 5y ago
    You're making Tim Cook sound stupid and/or evil, but he does have a point. > If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy? > It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make. > Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs? > They've never had to do it before.
    • ohgodplsno 5y ago
      Equating alternative app stores to literal drug dealers. I don't think I even need to say anything to point out how bad of an argument it is.
      • giobox 5y ago
        I think that’s a little unfair - this example implies there are good _and_ bad actors in an unregulated app distribution system, which we already have some evidence for. Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial. There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!
      • tomp 5y ago
        I'm attacking the argument in general, not a specific instance of it.
      • bryan0 5y ago
        You’re right. The counter examples here are comparing the availability of non-Apple approved apps to matters of life and death. It’s disingenuous.
    • fartcannon 5y ago
  • lucasyvas 5y ago
    This exchange appears to be open admission of unapolegtic, monopolistic behaviour. Also, the suggestion that customers want it to stay like it is is a flat out lie given his preceding statement where he admits they've never offered the choice, so can't possibly know.
    • bnj 5y ago
      It’s really interesting to observe the way that we can all read that exchange with different interpretations. I don’t see the conflict you’re pointing to at all— to me, it makes sense that Cook can say users don’t want to navigate multiple stores if they had done, for example, focus groups. Meanwhile the experiment that he didn’t want to run is whether users could distinguish between good quality app stores and bad quality ones, which he doesn’t know because they’ve never had to do it before. That all seems sensible enough to me.
      • lucasyvas 5y ago
        I think you have a good point, but is there any proof they have focus tested it? My second question would be, are focus groups equipped to make a decision for potentially billions of users (given the sheer volume, and that focus groups are cherry-picked)?
        • cmorgan31 5y ago
          Focus groups? Who is unaware of what they are buying at this point? We have had no choice but one store and if we demanded two stores we would be on Android. Why in the hell do you think they’d go out to do market research on a key marketing plan they already devised? Privacy is their next marketing angle and third party app stores don’t go hand in hand with that desire.
    • stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I don't get the whole Apple thing though. I can see the prices as inflated, but there are literally dozens of other options to iphones if you don't like iphone. Do you just want government to step in and run Apple as it sees fit like corps in China?
  • crazygringo 5y ago
    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 stores are how safe. They just want Apple to figure that out for them.
    • whimsicalism 5y ago
      Apple isn't the govt
    • kmonsen 5y ago
      It would more be like if food safety inspections were optional, but only restaurants that opt in would be allowed to show a sign they were inspected either physically or on their web page. It would be trivial to be able to check for this. Door dash would show a sign saying which restaurant is safe to avoid being sued after an incident. If you think restaurants and food safety is a good analogy it’s not a good argument for Apple in my opinion.
      • judge2020 5y ago
        Apple is still the food inspector in this situation, and epic wants an App Store without any apple oversight - I doubt they allow a notarization-type system to be the outcome of this court case.
      • azinman2 5y ago
        Except now there isn’t just 1 inspector, but many. And you have to figure out which you trust. Now imagine there’s a very popular restaurant, but it uses an inspector you don’t know if you trust. But you want to eat the food because all your friends are already there… so you’ll go. This is exactly what would happen— various companies once they reach a certain size will just want to have their own store because either it makes them more money or they have less restrictions. Just look at Facebook and the new 14.5 privacy features that are cutting into their ability to collect data. If you let FB the chance to pull out, they’d do it in a heartbeat knowing they could easily force everyone to install their App Store… which would have 0 privacy restrictions and far less oversight (just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how FB might run an App Store). Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware, they’re the best incentivized to protect its user base. Disclaimer: I work for Apple but all views my own.
  • an_opabinia 5y ago
    The average iPhone user would not be able to tell the difference between an official App Store and a sophisticated copy.
    • Hamuko 5y ago
      Even though one of them is preloaded on the device and the other one has to be separately added?
      • nr2x 5y ago
        Depends a) on who is doing the adding and b) if they know what they are adding.
        • lanstin 5y ago
          Therefor the average user will not be able to keep themselves safe. QED. Om the other hand, I do want root on my devices. It can see both sides and it is not clear to me what the solution is. I have already left Android because I don’t have time or interest to security assess all the evil apps that look real similar to the free flow games I like or the solitaire games. But thirty percent is steep. And arguably Epic can curate games as well or better than Apple. Debian for phones would be good but so far the open source things are pricy and underpowered. And the it is true the Apple store has a lot of bad apps already and fake reviews. Lot of evil people clustering around so many chances to become rich without delighting customers.
      • d3nj4l 5y ago
        Given that tons of people blindly mash through any vaguely worded permission box, you either have to have so many strongly worded permission boxes that genuine competitors cry foul (like what Epic alleged Google was doing) or you have to make it easy for people to install alternatives, making it ripe for abuse.
      • spideymans 5y ago
        Yes. Users have always been willing to disable security measures to get shady software. Think of all the free screensaver malware out there. To a pretty big chunk of users basic computer security is inscrutable technobabble.
  • abecedarius 5y ago
    > Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is." I'm a customer and I don't.
    • _nalply 5y ago
      You comment on Hacker News. Therefore you are not an “uniform” customer.
  • LexGray 5y ago
    A fairly obvious situation where the top google result is “Kid friendly happy fun town App Store” set up by dark web Corp where you can get pre hacked versions of all major commercial apps for free with built in cheats at the cost of porn pop ups and just trust me levels of scamware. Most would go straight to Apple with their issues and how do you fix “I don’t know. My cousin installed it for me”?
    • musicale 5y ago
      > Most would go straight to Apple with their issues and how do you fix “I don’t know. My cousin installed it for me”? Presumably Apple has run into the "my cousin installed it for me" issue with Macs and they don't want to deal with it (or pay for it) at iPhone scale.
    • ric2b 5y ago
      So where's the evidence that this is a common issue with Android?
  • tolmasky 5y ago
    I'm a customer (and I have no apps on the AppStore), and I constantly feel that the customer perspective is the best reason to want multiple AppStores: the Apple AppStore sucks. 1. Search is worthless. It's basically only useful for exact string matches on app names. And even then, you get the competitor app's ad that takes up 80% of the screen. They took every bad aspect of Google's search (the confusing take-up too much space ads), with none of the good parts (you know, the actual searching smarts). 2. The review section sucks. Instead of providing a streamlined system to get help from the developer, they just give you a place to rant. Reading the reviews isn't exactly ergonomic on a phone screen either, so it's just a waste bin to throw complaints at. Imagine if Apple actually lived up to their lip service of app quality and integrated a support mechanism that would reward apps that promptly replied (they would be marked with the "helpful developer" badge and get more prominent search placement for example). 3. Discovery is non-existent. At some point in the last 5 years I kind of just stopped "window shopping" the AppStore. I used to think that the Top Charts were a lazy way to encourage trying new things out -- but wow, it was way better than what we have now. The first thing the AppStore shoves in my face is these absurdly long profiles on developers or whatever as if the AppStore is a magazine I want to read. I don't. I don't care about some editorial article about the makers of some game. And it takes up the entirety of the start screen instead of trying to customize a variety of app suggestions just for me. This is such a missed opportunity. I would spend so much more money on the AppStore if it helped me at all to see new things. The experience instead requires you to be proactive to find things. Hence why it's really just a glorified database that's only really useful if you already know exactly what you want ahead of time. 4. It isn't safe at all. There are so many scams on the store. Subscription scams, etc. Apple does this weird thing where they simultaneously pretend they don't exist, and uses them as proof that their arcane review system is needed. If the store had no scams, they'd say "see, our filters work!". If it does have scams, they say "see, this is why the filters are so necessary, imagine how much worse it would be without them!". Anyways, as a customer, being "on the AppStore" no longer means anything to me from a quality or security perspective. 5. The UI feels generally like it was designed by a government bureaucracy or something. The tabs are: "Today", "Games", "Apps", "Arcade", "Search". The only tab that makes sense on first glance is Search (but then you find out how much the Search sucks). Why is there an "Apps" section in the "AppStore"? Aren't they all apps? It's like how there's Apple TV+ in the TV app of Apple TV. And what the hell is the difference between Games and Arcade? 40% of the UI is dedicated to games, but split into two opaque categories, with "Apps" in-between them. And "Today" is of course this stupid magazine interface I've already complained about. It seems like it's an infinite scroll interface of random bullshit, but eventually you do reach the end of "Today," where you find how to redeem a gift card and read the Terms & Conditions. All very "Today" items. Anyways, the AppStore Tim describes only makes sense in the abstract. I wish they would just open the stupid store on someone's phone in the trial and just try to use it. They've managed to perfectly capture the combination of boredom and cheapness of the free samples section of a grocery store, complete with the employee not knowing what aisle you can actually find the product at if you end up actually liking it and wanting to buy it.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• wccrawford 5y ago
  Other news on this has quotes from Tim Cook saying that they'd have to find a way to track purchases on IOS and bill developers so that Apple still gets their cut when using other payment processors. For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple services makes sense. But charging them simply because they make money while on a device that an end-user owns? No. Apple doesn't own that device any more. They sold it to someone. Apple owns the store, and the infrastructure. If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything. I'd be fine with however they want to charge, if there was another way to be on IOS. I'd be less happy with developers being able to use their own payment processors and be on the app store for free. There's a chilling anti-free-speech type of thing going on there. But I'm dead set against both of those happening at once, as it currently is.
  • deergomoo 5y ago
    > If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything I’ve been following this case and the only thing I can conclude is that their executives genuinely believe that Apple is responsible for all commerce that happens on an iPhone. It’s bordering on delusion. Without third party developers the iPhone would be nothing by now.
    • newsclues 5y ago
      Apple doesn’t take a cut of transactions I make in my iPhones browser.
      • Hamuko 5y ago
        They do actually get a cut if you pay with Apple Pay.
        • lotsofpulp 5y ago
          https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204274 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204274 >Are there additional fees to accept Apple Pay? >No. Apple doesn't charge any additional fees.
• austincheney 5y ago
  We need a WASM box for QT and Node running with full API access. This is the best way I can see to bypass the restrictions of the App Store.
  • GrayShade 5y ago
    The best way to bypass their restrictions is to stop buying Apple devices.
    • austincheney 5y ago
      I somehow imagine that is a less realistic an expectation.
      • cuu508 5y ago
        Why? Are you tied to Apple and unable to leave? I don't buy Apple devices, and so am not affected by their restrictions.
        • austincheney 5y ago
          Then your preexisting boycott makes no difference to the appstore.
        • dmitriid 5y ago
          Yes, I'm tied to Apple and unable to leave. Even if for the simple reason that I find other OSes and devices that run them shit in comparison.
          • layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
            Has it occured to you that maybe those other OSes and devices are shit precisely because they give unfettered access to developers/scammers/adtech on their platform?
            • 5y ago
• jorams 5y ago
  > “IAP helps Apple efficiently collect a commission” — for payment processing, but also customer service and the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Without in-app purchases, “we would have to come up with another system to invoice developers, which I think would be a mess.” If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP.” Apple doesn't provide payment processing, customer service or anything on payments made using other payment methods, so there's nothing to invoice developers for. They also already charge developers a yearly fee for a developer account. Am I misunderstanding the argument, does the article misrepresent it, or does it just not make sense?
  • saurik 5y ago
    > If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP.” Apple believes ("insists"?) that they deserve a cut of your app's revenue--however you might collect the money--because your app is using their "IP" in the form of all the libraries and tooling they nigh unto force you to use to build apps that run on their phone; like, to them, UIKit (I presume), Metal (which many people are only using because Apple refused to implement OpenGL or Vulcan), and (this is rich) apparently even Xcode (wtf: that thing sucks ;P) is so awesome that they deserve 30% of your revenue, and they spent a bunch of time during their testimony trying to show the various ways Epic used--and even liked--their software.
    • grey_earthling 5y ago
      You're paying for access to their userbase.
      • gbrown 5y ago
        ... which is monopolistic rent-seeking, the like of which would have been shut down (and was) in the 90’s
        • bawolff 5y ago
• newbie578 5y ago
  I do not understand why they didn't touch the point on Tim Cook lying before Congress, when he said that Apple doesn't make special deals with company, and then it later surfaced that Netflix and Amazon get a special deal...
• deergomoo 5y ago
  > Cook used more privacy and safety claims to defend that system, saying it would be both insecure and inconvenient to let apps process payments separately This one is always funny to me, because sellers of physical goods are of course totally exempt from IAP rules, because it would be untenable otherwise. I can type my card number directly into the Amazon app and buy a paperback without any intervention from Apple. And yet it’s apparently insecure for me to buy a Kindle book with the exact same mechanism in the exact same app? Get the fuck out of here.
  • gondo 5y ago
    Maybe it's time to start selling paperclips with an ebook (or any other digital goods) as a gift.
    • wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I can imagine the listings now. > Paperclips for rent, will ship to any location within 2 metres of my house, must be returned within five seconds. Complementary electronic copy of my latest book.
      • ineedasername 5y ago
        "Buyers may optionally choose to purchase paperclips for donation to a charity of my choice" Just imagine the confusion at Red Cross as they're inundated with hundreds of thousands of paperclips.
  • bredren 5y ago
    On the surface, ebooks as a category of content make sense to allow direct sale as you described. However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of Apple’s case. Among kindle enthusiasts, Amazon had notoriously neglected the Kindle product hardware and software platform. From neglecting Goodreads to stagnation, to not including USB-C on its very expensive Oasis product, the whole brand is a picture of “we don’t improve it because we don’t have to.” Kindle ebooks do offer interactive behavior like showing commonly highlighted passages and other light features. But in most of the hardware, the interfaces are very laggy in comparison to iOS. As much as text selection on iOS still isn’t great, it is certainly better than what you get on Oasis right now. If Amazon cared to create a stronger social experience around goodreads and kindle for iOS users any time soon, it will leverage a huge amount of investment Apple has made in their software and hardware. This is money Amazon had failed to invest themselves and it shows.
• AwaAwa 5y ago
  The AOL walled garden approach that befits the company, and the users who can't deal with 'choice'. Decide for me what is best please! It won't last, but by golly has it been successful. No wonder, history is replete with examples of this. Only difference is that as money continues to devalue, the nominal financial heights seem ever higher.
• jmull 5y ago
  I don’t know the legalities, but I think Apple should be free to set their App Store policies but allow alternative app stores to be installed (with some hoops to jump through so that it isn’t too easy for the tech-blind to do).
  • fartcannon 5y ago
    That's the same trash Google does with Android and it's effectively as anti-competitive. They shouldn't be permitted to limit competition at all. In any way.
    • jmull 5y ago
      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 platforms like macOS or Windows.
      • aaronax 5y ago
        Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.
        • donkarma 5y ago
          tell that to an Iranian who wants to make a gay dating app please
          • aaronax 5y ago
            Does the Iranian government allow Google and Apple to distribute gay dating apps?
        • 5y ago
• pseingatl 5y ago
  Apple's lawyers screwed up, big time. It is unimaginable that a party to a lawsuit would tell the judge, "You and I have a different view." OMG. Better go in the hall right there and then, Timmy, because the person holding the "different view" is deciding your case. There are dozens of other ways to get your point across without openly disagreeing with the judge. Apple is toast.
  • dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    There are dozens of other ways to get your point across without openly disagreeing with the judge. Apple is toast. That's only true if the judge is petty and unprofessional. Sure, judges are people, and people could always give into emotions. Though I think that's a pretty big leap to say they are "toast" for disagreeing.
  • nikanj 5y ago
    I have an inkling that the Apple legal team might have more legal expertise than someone on HN
• ilovwindows 5y ago
  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 said it does not charge companies for services apps serves to end users e.g Uber, e-commerce, etc. Are your serious? It's like postal service saying hey we need 30% of every IPhone we deliver. Or the workers at china demanding cuts on every financial transactions that happens through the iPhone. Some even argue devs need apple more than Apple needs devs. Do you guys know why Windows phone failed? Cos they didn't have enough devs developing enough apps. Take aways all the apps from IPhone, and what is it? A Brick.
  • paul_f 5y ago
    If a developer's net profit margin, after dev and marketing costs, is less than 60%, then Apple makes more money on the app than the developer. 30% is outrageous.
    • simondotau 5y ago
      You’re saying that 60% of 70% is less than 30%?
      • DangitBobby 5y ago
        Doesn't seem quite right. Users Will Pay: $100 Dev Profit per $100: $60 Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99 Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42
        • kbelder 5y ago
          You're holding their margin % equal, but cutting 30% off revenue probably won't cut 30% off their margin costs. In reality it's too complicated to figure with a simple formula. But, he was right if margin is a fixed cost (like, all initial development). If margin is purely an incremental cost (like network costs that increase with each sale), then he would be wrong.
• lucasyvas 5y ago
  There appear to be a lot of comments effectively saying that Apple's "altruism" is what keeps the app store advocating for user privacy and security. Let's say that's both true and a good quality of the app store that could be lost on another curator's store. This is still not a problem, because Apple can instead improve the iOS permission API system to achieve a similar result. The store that delivers you the app is irrelevant - the permission model is what users should be expected to learn, not where they get it from. This is a computer literacy problem and is the user's responsibility, not the platform. Not to sound too harsh, but how long will users like Grandma - who don't know better - live? Should we cater the entire system to these (comparatively) incapable users when they are a disappearing demographic? Not to mention, Grandma won't even know how to enable a third party store, so Apple has absolutely no leg to stand on. Apple will continue to make a killing being the default store since they are posturing that their users are too dumb to do anything else.
  • merrywhether 5y ago
    Punting responsibility to users is well and good until (for example) their IoT devices start doing damage under the control of Mirai. I’m not saying that a patrician approach is the only solution, but we are not each our own perfectly isolated islands.
  • mensetmanusman 5y ago
    One issue with this is that people are finding humans essentially become more gullible and trusting as they age as part of the natural dying process. Insurance companies are even considering whether they have to create a new class of fraud insurance that becomes activated after a certain number of years of age. To put it simply, we all become grandma
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  > If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP Well you could charge developers per download. I find these arguments very audacious and entitled. Saying that developers are not entitled to profits, only apple is, with a straight face, is... remarkable
  • gondo 5y ago
    With some limited amount of downloads for free bundled in apple developer subscription.
• framecowbird 5y ago
  I just don't buy this argument that Apple maintaining control over iOS is necessary for privacy. I think it's a false dichotomy. If you build a good OS, with good strong APIs, you can achieve both privacy and a more open ecosystem.
  • simonh 5y ago
    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 good enough for many purposes), snoops local wifi networks for information about connected devices. Even if it couldn't run in the background, it could snoop network traffic from iOS built in background services while it was running. If it had a built-in browser function it could track whatever browsing activity it liked. I'm sure there are plenty of other snooping activities that could be implemented that I can't think of in 5 minutes. So there are plenty of ways such an app could violate your privacy, and you would never know. Right now, such apps have to pass App Store Review and such activity can be detected and the App kicked out. So side-loading potentially bypasses a lot of controls that can't really be implemented directly in the OS. Users like yourself might assume that Apple could prevent these things in the OS, might think that even with side loading this is Apple's responsibility to protect you from it, as you seem to do. That a "good OS" as you put it would not allow these things to happen even in side loaded apps, therefore iOS can't be a "good OS" if side loaded apps break your privacy in ways you hadn't anticipated. But it's not all about the OS. This is the sort of reputational damage Apple is trying to avoid.
    • abecedarius 5y ago
      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.
• no_wizard 5y ago
  Just to iterate my take on this trial: If Apple either lowers fees or comes up with an API allowing alternative payment processing this all goes away I think. This is what developers care about. This isn’t really about alternative app stores, I don’t think Epic or any company cares about the distribution model ok the whole, and certainly it’s not something the average consumer is thinking about. See the lack of success with alternative app stores en masses on Android for example. It’s the payment model thers got the whole thing twisted up. The irony here is if they just charged more for a developer license Thera based in the size of your org I think everyone would be happy, and it would compensate Apple for the lowering of the processing fees. If it was 5% I don’t think this trial would have ever happened. I am stilll really interested to see how this turns out
• tyingq 5y ago
  "While Rogers’ questions don’t necessarily indicate how she’ll rule" Really? Here's some quotes from her: “The gaming industry seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of money to the IP you’re giving them and everyone else” “You don’t have competition in those in-app purchases, though,” “It doesn’t seem to me that you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of developers” I suppose that doesn't say exactly how she'll rule, but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it.
  • websites420 5y ago
    >but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it. This is not true. The judge's job is to follow pertinent line of inquiries to the case and get responses from the plaintiff and defense. Not pursuing a line of questioning might indicate that the questions were already resolved in briefs, and are therefore not needed in open court. Open court is a very, very small part of these trials, so trying to get a read on what a judge thinks based on questions in open court is spurious at best.
    • tyingq 5y ago
      What I posted weren't questions though. They are statements from the judge that don't sound like "devil's advocate" type set ups.
      • websites420 5y ago
        It applies to anything said by the judge in open court. It is intended to elicit a response from the parties. Judges don’t make comments on their thoughts out loud for the benefit of participants.
• topkai22 5y ago
  My problem has always been that Apple is both the gatekeeper and a competitor in its app store. I'd have a lot more trust in Apple as a consumer if they didn't offer up first party products such as Apple TV and Apple Arcade. It makes the shutdown of game streaming services seem particularly disingenuous. The payments issue is more complex, but I can't get a metaphor to origins of monopoly law out of my head: If payments processing is like shipping around little bags of money, its like we have a railroad that controls half the market forcing exclusive transport contracts on manufacturers. It certainly FEELS wrong. I think, ideally, Apple should be barred from offering first party services without providing a mechanism for third parties to receive the same treatment via a certification process. That means that other game stores could get access to that apple arcade button in the app store and that other payment processors could be used, so long as they met Apple's declared standards for privacy and security.
  • Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
    My iOS game which was in arcade category for years before Apple launched Apple Arcade was changed to an irrelevant category(Casual) as soon as Apple launched its Arcade platform. Just information over email, No permission was asked.
    • egocentric 5y ago
      I’d love to know more about this, mind sharing some more details over DM? Thanks! https://twitter.com/keleftheriou https://twitter.com/keleftheriou
  • perryizgr8 5y ago
    This is the best solution. Apple should not be operating the platform and then compete on that same platform. They can either shut off all their services and operate the store, charging whatever tax they like. Or they can shut off the store, allow others to operate stores on iOS, and continue distrbuting stuff like Apple music over any third party store they like. Otherwise it is just a blatant abuse against apps like Netflix and Spotify. I'm surprised why those companies are not fighting this.
• eplanit 5y ago
  Hmmm.. Apple makes the phones that run only Apple's OS. Apple's OS runs apps that others create, but only Apple controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Apple, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Apple. If this isn't a monopoly, then what the hell are antitrust laws for?
  • dublidu 5y ago
    People are too fixated on the definition of monopoly. We should just focus on anti-competitive practices.
    • SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      That would solve a lot of “well at worse it’s a duopoly so you still have a choice!”. But I’ve given up on purchasable politicians to enforce antitrust on big tech a long time ago. So I don’t know how it will happen. I’d sooner expect congressional term limits which might help.
    • plandis 5y ago
      What is Apple doing that’s anti-competitive? How have consumers been harmed?
  • freediver 5y ago
    It is not, because Apple is not the only supplier of the said commodity (apps). And apps are not only not a basic human right, but you can easilly get them elsewhere - Google, Microsoft.. or just from the web. What Apple is, is a private corporation with certain standards and rules for their products (which is one of the things that makes them desireable in the first place IMO). You have to obey these rules to get the benefit of their distribution platform. Millions of people end enterprises do because they believe those benefits outweight the cost and risk, us included. Imagine I want to sell my goods at a local farmer's market. I have to get their approval, obey their rules and pay their fees. It is up to me to wage in pros and cons. We accept that as perfectly normal. If it was the only farmer's market in the country then it would become problematic. What should happen is that this regulates through market forces. If indeed enough people are in protest of those rules so much that they start voting with their wallets elsewhere, thus hurting Apple's bottomline in a meaningful way, then the market just created pressures for Apple to change those rules.
• badkitty99 5y ago
  Lying through his greedy teeth
• lmilcin 5y ago
  Just imagine car manufacturers demanding you to provide listing of every trip, person traveling in the car, every product delivered, so that the manufacturer can get their percentage of the value of goods and services, on top of the value of the car itself.
• sroussey 5y ago
  Apple should line item the 30% charge on the bill, not have it hidden.
• tangy_fluid 5y ago
  > Giving users control creates risk, and Cook argued that people choose iOS specifically so they won’t have to make risky decisions with sensitive data. “We’re trying to give the customer an integrated solution of hardware, software, and services,” he said. “I just don’t think you replicate that in a third party.” A million times this. I own an Apple phone because I want a device that works like an appliance. I don't have to program my toaster. I don't have to worry about security risks in my washing machine. I want the same consistency and dependability in the device I communicate with. Android doesn't deliver this. If I want to tinker with something I'll get on a Linux computer.
• stephc_int13 5y ago
  I bet that Apple will be forced to make big changes to its App Store policies, including allowing third parties payment processing for digital goods. But it will remain the only store on iOS.
  • perryizgr8 5y ago
    I think so too, because even with those concessions app store combined with the absolute control over a billion phones is outrageously profitable. On the other hand allowing users to use their phones as they see fit would result in huge loss of profit. Users like me would literally never pay a penny (apart from $1200 for the hardware) to Apple after that happens.
• tmwed 5y ago
  i’d like to think if Apple allowed the AppStore to be an interface/gateway to other stores, most users would be happy. similar to how RSS works, but it keeps it unified for the user. as many people have mentioned before, one of the main reasons people choose iOS is that it removes the choice and worry about unintentionally installing malware. opening up the AppStore like this i think would allow Apple to ease up a bit on the gouging they’ve been doing now and instead become a pro-active leader in creating a specification/platform that others can adopt.
• erikpukinskis 5y ago
  The only aspect of the Apple App Store that strikes me as truly anticompetitive is their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees, or even to tell the user what they are. I can accept that Apple can demand a 30% fee for billing customers on their devices. And I can accept that they would prohibit installation/sales of software any other way. But I should be allowed to mark up the price by 30% and then call it out as a line item. The fact that Apple can control what prices I set on other platforms and prohibit me from disclosing what’s happening to my users... That is the part of this that strikes me as dystopian, and that’s the area where I think antitrust and free speech laws perhaps ought to step in.
  • ajkjk 5y ago
    Dystopian is the word for it. It's fucking insane that you can't talk about why it's priced that way. Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of their purchases anyway.
    • Lazare 5y ago
      Really can't agree more. It's clear that the App Store offers significant value for many vendors, and charging for it is fine. Epic apparently generates $500m of revenue per year from the iPhone, and they're doing so using platforms, tools, and APIs that Apple built to help developers do that. It's reasonable that Apple would get a slice of that. The company I work for makes, well, a lot less revenue that Epic, but a decent chunk of the revenue we do make goes to AWS and Stripe, as compensation for their help in letting us earn that revenue. What's not great is the specific way Apple has chosen to get this cut. AWS and Stripe both run, more-or-less, on a cost-plus model; they package up a service, and resell it to us at a markup (in the case of AWS bandwidth, a very, very, fat markup), and they let us decide how much of that service to consume, and how we want to balance our purchases between them and competing vendors. Apple's stance here is a little like if AWS tried to force people who use any AWS service to use their overpriced egress bandwidth for everything, and sued customers found to be using Cloudflare to reduce their costs.
• yesenadam 5y ago
  "in 2020, Apple’s app store commission revenue was close to $15bn, which was larger than total global revenue from the entire digital music industry... Around 90% of this revenue comes from games, and almost all of that comes from in-app purchases." https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads-music https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads...
  • narrator 5y ago
    Has someone written a treatise on in-app game purchases? It's a huge aspect of human behavior that I cannot understand intuitively and I guess I ought to. I have no desire to do it. I'll pay under $10 for an old Grand Theft Auto game that I can play start to finish, but the in-app stuff I don't get. It's like some sort of exploit for human psychologically that is phenomenally lucrative that somehow I got a patch for.
    • matheusmoreira 5y ago
      It works like this: 1. Make the game require resources to play This has many names: food, energy, stamina, etc. The fundamental concept is virtually identical in all cases though. It represents how much fun players can have. Once they run out, they can't play anymore. 2. Use timers to rate-limit the player's progression Distribute resources periodically. These timers place an upper limit to how quickly players can progress in the game. There's only so much players can do with the resources it periodically gives them. Distribute resources at predictable intervals and only if the player has used the previous items. This will create a powerful habit in players: they will feel the need to log into the game frequently in order to use up resources and keep the timer running at all times. 3. Allow players to pay money to reset the timers Paying customers get to buy resources directly instead of waiting for the timer to run out. They essentially pay to reset the timers and can therefore progress at unlimited rates. 4. Make players outspend each other Once players can pay to advance, the game is reduced to a spending competition. The player who spends the most money on the game wins.
      • narrator 5y ago
• nwallin 5y ago
  I will not buy any device that does not give me control of the device. If I can't sideload apps, can't install a 3rd party store, do not have the ability to root my own device, I won't buy it. Apple has decided that's not allowed, fine, I won't buy their product. That's between Apple and their customers. But it is certifiably insane that Apple thinks they have the right to dictate to Epic what Epic charges for its apps on their store. If Epic thinks Fortnite is worth $30, and Epic charges Android users $30 for the binary to sideload onto their Android devices, and because Apple charges a 30% surcharge, Epic sells the same app on iOS for $42.86, and Apple says, "no, you're not allowed to do that, you have to charge $30 just like you do on Android" -- no. Absolutely not. Apple does not have the moral/ethical right to do that.
  • newsbinator 5y ago
    It’s still unclear to me why Apple should have any limits in what rules they set for their store. Don’t publishers have the option to skip Apple’s store and sell in other ones? I mean this isn’t price gouging generators during a winter storm. This is video games and apps. What stops publishers from simply shrugging, walking away, and letting Apple users miss out?
    • Zevis 5y ago
      It's still unclear to me why anticompetitive behavior is so hard to understand for people here. Free markets don't exist. Stop pretending they do. Apple has a crazy amount of power over companies selling apps on their platform. Power that would easily be considered a monopoly and anticompetitive if brought to court in, say, Germany. The fact that Apple doesn't own the smartphone market completely is irrelevant. What matters is their potential and real power to unilaterally decide on contract/business matters affecting any number of companies that use their platform.
    • matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > It’s still unclear to me why Apple should have any limits in what rules they set for their store. It's an exploitative monopoly. That's more than enough reason to place severe limits on it.
• rationalData 5y ago
  As an fdroid user, this is laughable.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• mark_l_watson 5y ago
  I will have the minority opinion here: I love having at least two Linux laptops (not to mention servers) to play with and configure just how I want them. I also want my Apple devices to be locked down (security wise) - secure and sort-of privacy enhanced digital appliances for research programming, writing my books, and as part of my personal digital life. I know that it can be rough on iOS and macOS devs, but I buy apps, and hopefully the extra hassles are compensated by making sufficient money.
• Mikho 5y ago
  Cook's narrative looks a lot like a dictator's political propaganda: "Without us the world would turn into hell. Our centralized control, punishment, extortion, and dictatorship are the only way for all of us to survive. Otherwise the hell would let loose and y'all wouldn't want that. So, obey! Pay your share for our protection!" This is absolute classic and through the whole human history this was the main narrative for dictators to defend their position. The same goes in Russia, China etc. — everywhere there is a dictator, there is this exact rhetoric. They try to scare and paint themselves as the only barrier that protects paradise from hell.