Show HN: Unpricey, product price tracking service, looking for BETA users - <AUTHOR> https://unpricey.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello everyone!

Recently, I've got tired of tracking various retailers of certain products (I was looking for a decent cheapish non-smart TV!) so decided to do myself a service that does it automatically for me. I then though that I might as well just put more work (a lot more work) in it and make it publicly available.

So now, after a lot of weeks, it is ready for public BETA usage. I've implemented price tracking and email/sms notifying.

Since HN is a great community, I want to repay the community by giving out additional free credits for any user that does decide to test my service. Just contact me through the feedback button on the site or the contact email and I'll sort things out :)

I'm open to discussing the stack and tools if anyone has got any questions.</comment>


A super nerdy post about Hardware in Shenzhen (with loads of pictures) - <AUTHOR> http://www.txzero.com/hardware-in-shenzhen-part-3/ <comment><USER2> "I discovered this when the company told me they couldn't show off a lot of things they wanted to."

Many of these factories will tell you anything to get you to buy, so I wouldn't exactly believe this.

The problem is that not only can they share your secrets, there is pretty much no legal recourse.

<comment><AUTHOR> Always got to remain cautious of course!</comment></comment>


Finding Investors for Promising New Website - <AUTHOR>

I am trying to find investors for a new construction site that allows construction companies, suppliers, and individuals to network and manage projects through the site.  Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Attend tradeshows. This would be a good place to start <http://www.conexpoconagg.com/></comment>


How to ask your boss for help without looking stupid - <AUTHOR> http://www.climbuptheladder.com/how-to-ask-your-boss-for-help-without-looking-stupid/ <comment><USER2> I liked what I read here. Going to give some of these points a shot. Thanks.</comment>


POLL: How did you hire your team? - <AUTHOR>

We're studying how startups form their teams and hire their talent. <comment><USER2> This is how you submit a poll <http://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Posting a job online (ex: Monster.com)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Networking (Referral/introductions through friends)

</comment><comment><USER3> Elance and odesk.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Classified Ads

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Career Fairs

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Other.</comment>


Apple, Epic, and the App Store - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-epic-and-the-app-store/ <comment><USER2> "But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue.

Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would cost $2 billion.

Sorry, I'm not buying this excuse. OSX/iOS is free for every piece of HW, and it surely has much much larger costs to staff.

A $1250 iPhone had a $450 cost to make, giving Apple a staggering 64% gross margin, and $800 gross profit.

The costs to run the Apple store should be _included_ as a sunk platform cost of the phone just like OSX. The cost to run the store is _marginal_. The cost to serve up an additional developer app, to review an additional app, and to let someone buy one, is an insignificant fraction.

It should be _free_ like the Web, or some extremely low cost to cover CC processing fees (~3%) and electricity to keep the lights on.

I'm shocked at the number of apologists who think this 30% cut is somehow necessary for poor little Apple, with a hole in the pocket, with living on their spare change. It's egregious and unnecessary, and exists for one reason only: rent-seeking behavior. iPhones are reaching saturation, and Apple can either find ways to raise the price of the phone even more, lower the costs more, or increase service revenues, in order to keep their stock going up.

That's why you see focus on service revenues, because they can't really lower costs much to make the devices, and they can't really increase the price much more.

<comment><USER3> This is a great picking apart of Apples justification but I think the issue that most irks everyone who's not apologizing for Apple is where did this magic number 30% come from? Which market forces created it?

Here on HN most of us probably feel that product manager at Apple licked their finger, felt the wind and said "Yeah 30% seems about the most we can get away with"

And what irks even more is once Apple set the precedent, as their we're no outcries Google was like "Let's copy that!". Let's hope there was no collusion ...

<comment><USER4> It is interesting that few people are recognizing that the 30% buys you distribution on a billion devices.

Yes, I know, the web is free...and the App Store search is broken so discovery isn't what it was... but still. Market access is VERY significant and worth something and the incremental cost to Apple has no bearing on what it is worth.

As discussed, prior mobile cuts were far more one sided. We payed the carrier 50% and then Qualcomm 20% of what was left. Bottom line, we walked away with 40% and we were happy.

<comment><USER5> > It is interesting that few people are recognizing that the 30% buys you > distribution on a billion devices.

It's interesting that few people don't understand the difference between permission to distribute versus actual distribution.

If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay Facebook and Google for distribution.

Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.

<comment><USER6> > It's interesting that few people don't understand the difference between > permission to distribute versus actual distribution.

Not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here but in order for Apple to take their 30% cut, someone has to download the app, at which point Apple have de facto distributed it to someone.

> If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay > Facebook and Google for distribution.

This makes very little sense to me. Are you saying that if I pay Apple to distribute my app on the App Store then they should also distribute it on every app store? And that if they aren't then they're somehow failing me?

> Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app > store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.

The App Store is a shit-show in terms of discoverability, this is true. I'm not even sure what they can do to improve things at this stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's the thing. Even if you're OK with Apple (or whoever) controlling what you can run on your computers, this is a centralization of power that will be co-opted.

Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect.

That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you are using two points that are similar enough.

If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.

If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)

In a market with 2+ competitors and where its low switching costs (moving contacts is quite easy these days, not a lot of deep 2-year contracts for phones/providers) this point doesn't hold true

<comment><USER9> The points are not supposed to be similar... you're missing the part of the parent's argument where one is used as a tool to enforce the other, when otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to enforce.

There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as being worse when the congressional inquiries heat up.

Feature phones are not real competitors to smartphones.

<comment><USER10> I'd argue there is a third competitor in the form of Huawei/Xiaomi. Despite fears of spying by the Chinese, which might be justified, their phones tend to have better prices all the way to the ultra market, and due to the fact that they want to allow you to sideload GsmCore and Play Services, will never be locked down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Hey saga emphasized that Apple has multiple products interacting in a single app store.

* Screened apps - Apple only lets "safe" apps into the store. * Discoverability - Apple in theory lets users find apps that they didn't know about before. Customer Acquisition * Payments - Apple makes it easy to accept payments, for their 30% fee.

One or all of those are useful and great. Where I have an issue is when they use one (the required screened apps aspect) for force you into the others.

Hey wanted an app on the store, as an extension to their primarily web based experience. But they couldn't purchase just the rubber-stamp that says they're not malware and the app store hosting. They were being forced to buy into all 3.

That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to.

If Apple had a yearly fee of $1000 (arbitrary number, maybe pay per download or device or whatever), for an app to simply be reviewed & hosted, that would be reasonable. They provide a service, businesses can opt into that. But they're taking their core value prop of "closed app store helps customers" and forcing their way onto "and now you have to pay us a portion of revenue".

<comment><USER12> > That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's > similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. > Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and > decisions were focused on forcing them to.

In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.

<comment><USER13> Because you can buy the same exact item on Zalando and put it on fire if you want to

Imagine if you could buy shoes only at Walmart because you bought the shoe rack there.

<comment><USER14> > Because you can buy the same exact item on Zalando and put it on fire if you > want to

No you can't. Walmart often requires vendors to make a special Walmart-only version of their product. So there is nothing that's truly comparable.

<comment><USER13> We are talking about the same exact item with the same exact features, just a different brand

There is no "vendor lock in" for t-shirts

You are not forced to buy walmart special editions using Walmart payment gateway and vendors don't have to pay Walmart a 30% cut, the opposite is true, Walmart HS to buy at least N items and pay in advance to be able to require a special edition, even though they don't know if they are going to sell all of them

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think it's absurd that you can neither buy a kindle book from the iOS kindle app nor the Amazon app. How user unfriendly!

And yet, Apple runs their own digitsl bookstore... since there's no way to remove 30% revenue from apple's own venture, they're using a monopoly position to monopolize another market.

Oh, but Apple isn't a monopoly because there's Android.

Why did we think Microsoft was a monopoly? You could always buy a Mac and avoid the MS tax. But in the end the courts decided that MS was a monopoly unfairly restraining trade. We'll have to see how this turns out. But by not allowing other app stores, Apple has put themselves at risk here.

<comment><USER16> Windows still has 87% market share on desktop and laptop web browsing statistics. It was higher at the time that trial took place, and cell phone web browsing wasn't as popular back then. iOS still has less than half of the smartphone market.

p.s. Right to Repair laws ought to make it illegal for Apple to prevent users from installing third-party software on the iPhone. This talk of them being some sort of "monopoly" is totally irrelevant.

<comment><USER15> These arguments feel empty to me. There is only one source of software for the iPhone: Apple. The android ecosystem has no utility to the iPhone user. There is an Apple tax on every piece of software and every digital purchase on the platform. I don't see where the competition is.

<comment><USER16> You didn't have to buy an iPhone.

<comment><USER17> You didn't have to use Windows either. Linux, BSD, etc have been around for quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I don't like Apple's 30% cut on multiplatform/subscription products, I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store, build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves (they take 12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine, from developers in their store). They also make exclusive deals, bribing developers with funding/marketing support, so that the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo. Clearly they are not welcoming to competition themselves.

Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself).

Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic, and there has been criticism on Epic sending user data back to China.

> In early December 2018, Epic Games announced that it would open a digital > storefront to challenge Steam by using a 12% revenue split rather than > Steam's 30%.[20] Epic also said that it would not impose digital rights > management (DRM) restrictions on games sold through its platform.[20] The > store opened days later, on December 6, 2018, as part of the Game Awards, > with a handful of games and a short list of upcoming titles.[21][22] The > store was open for macOS and Windows platforms before expanding to Android > and other platforms.[20] Epic aims to release a storefront for Android > devices, bypassing the Google Play Store, where it will similarly only take > a 12% cut compared to Google's 30%. While Apple, Inc.'s monopoly on iOS > currently makes it impossible for Epic to release an App Store there, > analysts believe that if Google reacts to Epic's App Store by reducing their > cut, Apple will be pressured to follow suit.

<comment><USER19> I'm going to heavy push back against both-sides-isms here.

> I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store

Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough.

For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.

> build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves

You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a _bigger_ moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process?

What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like?

> and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine)

I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?

What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?

> They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their > store for 6-12mo.

I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works.

> Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic

Apple _actively_ censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.

<comment><USER20> > Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple > stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, > maybe we haven't been clear enough though.

Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.

That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors.

> We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, > and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer > better terms than we have right now?

Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.

<comment><USER21> I don't own an iPhone in large part because I cannot install an alternative app store or install non-Apple approved apps.

> _Right, and the rest of us don 't want that, and I also don't want games or > apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules._

Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.

> _They 've earned my complete trust._

This blind devotion to the Apple Way is baffling, especially considering how Apple-approved apps are not free of the tracking and user-data abuse you (correctly!) rail against.

<comment><USER22> > If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't

I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true.

An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.

If you get value out of the current App Store rules, like the person you replied to, then there is absolutely a cost to allowing alternative stores.

<comment><USER23> > An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store > because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a > user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit > card information to the app developer you may not trust.

But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).

Meanwhile if you don't want to give the app your credit card number, you still don't have to. Refuse until they use Apple's payment method. If most users share your unwillingness then developers will still have to use a payment method you do trust. If they don't, what right do you have to constrain the choices of the other users?

<comment><USER24> > But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and > allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be > back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. > Everyone benefits (except Apple).

No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti- trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".

<comment><USER25> If you're a seemingly unstoppable corporate juggernaut, you'll make enemies who think (rightly or wrongly) that your business practices are unfair, and they may successfully sue you using the laws intended to stop huge companies from engaging in unfair business practices.

I'm not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN: [https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its- independ...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its-independent- repair-program-to-mac-after-us-antitrust-investigation-examined-companys- repair-policies/)

<comment><USER24> It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.

> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the > front page of HN

it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.

<comment><USER25> It's true that we can't know how much cheaper Apple products would be if the antitrust laws didn't exist, and that some people (and not only shareholders) benefit from or prefer a less competitive market. But conversely, we don't know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep "bigness" in check. I am convinced by the history of antitrust that competition regulators do more good than harm.

<comment><USER24> > But conversely, we don't know how much worse things might be if there were > no laws to keep "bigness" in check.

We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market:

[1] [https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history- oil](https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history-oil)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Okay this is going to sound stupid but maybe someone else feels like me about it: I don't understand why Apple has to take such a big chunk from transactions of in-app purchases? Similarly Google. Why 30%? Why not 5%? That feels like it would be more honest.

Is it just because "they can"?

<comment><USER27> I assume their costs are just, Credit Card Fees, Infrastructure Fees (Bandwidth, Storage), Reviewers Salary. Not sure this adds up to 30%.

I think the real reason is that when the Apple store was started, they looked around at the current prices for "software distribution". Retail was like 70%, and other app stores; for example the Danger Hiptop / T-mobile Sidekick charged 60% for their apps store, and the carriers were worse. At the time, 30% was actually a lot cheaper than everyone else. Then I assume Google just copied Apple.

<comment><USER28> Maintaining XCode, running iCloud app-facing services, building/maintaining SDKs, etc...

Apple has to pay for these somehow. They can either get the money by charging more for each iPhone or they can get the money from the real end-users of these products: Developers.

<comment><USER29> Or you know, they could get the money from the yearly fee they charge developers for exactly these reasons

<comment><USER30> $100?

<comment><USER31> 20 Billion in 2018, but I read that in a similar thread here and sadly can't remember the source anymore

<comment><USER30> Apple has 200 million paying developers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Fundamentally, scale does matter.

If you have a small pub in the middle of nowhere you can be a selective as you want. If your pub chain feeds 50% of the people in the country you damn right will have to be heavily restricted in what you can do.

It doesn't matter if it's monopoly or not. After you cross a threshold the rules should be different and it's just amazing Apple has been allowed to grow so big with basically no oversight.

<comment><USER33> Fully agree with this sentiment - if there is anything which becomes so common place like say a road, then I think there should be some kind of oversight.

Apple saying no to people being able to bring their own payment provider feels akin to saying the road provider only allows cars they vet, and then charge 30% car manufacturers 30% of the price of the car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's a common meme that "With a free service you're not the customer, you're the product." Well, you may be Apple's customer at the beginning when you pay for the phone, but immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for the 30% tax. And to enforce that tax Apple maintains ultimate control over the hardware you supposedly bought, blocking you from doing things that would threaten Apple's revenue streams.

<comment> jagged-chisel > "...immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for > the 30% tax."

I don't understand the argument you're attempting. Apple doesn't sell my info "for the 30% tax." In fact, they charge app developers that 30% and then _keep my data away from those same developers._

<comment><USER35> The same way that GMail isn't really "free", that 30% tax doesn't come from Apple or the Developer's pocket, it ultimately comes out of your pocket.

<comment><USER36> But I don't pay for any Google product, so the comparison isn't apt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> A pretty well-thought out article, given the inflammatory nature of the subject matter.

I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptions are noted by the guidelines.

What would make it fair? Lowering the fee? If that were the case, then the problem isn't anti-competitive behavior. If it's the rules, what would fair rules look like that don't harm the end user or the product?

What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.

<comment><USER38> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown).

I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay _any_ percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a trusted investor/partner as they've copied successful apps and integrated them into their own platform.

The App Store should be a fixed fee, something like $19/month, for your app to be on sale there.

On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. It didn't charge Netscape money for access to Windows and IE wasn't generating any income. But the furor at the time was huge and the anti-MSFT attitude has prevailed to this day. Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.

<comment><USER39> I'm super amused by people bemoaning Apple's cut of sales on the App Store. I remember mobile software before the App Store. Buying software for a Palm or PocketPC device was a fucking shit show.

There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners".

Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII.

If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.

<comment><USER40> 2020 is very different from 2008. Palm and PocketPC devices were "organizers" and not primary computing devices (as smartphones are today, for some users), so there was a lot less at stake back then.

Additionally, companies like Stripe have made integrating payments _way_ easier than it was back then. Hosting downloads is not difficult either. As noted in the Stratechery article, developers not only give up 30%, but give up a customer relationship and can't even issue refunds! They can't do upgrades, either. It's not just the 30%, it's the flexibility in payment models as well.

I don't know that prices would drop, but more developers would have a sustainable business.

<comment><USER39> Late model PDAs and early smartphones (Treo, Blackjack, N95, etc) were capable devices. The paid software for these you'd see were office suites, PIMs, e-mail clients, and games. Of course these weren't as capable as 2020 devices but we're not talking early Palm Pilots.

Payment processors like Stripe aren't new, there was PayPal, Kagi, and others before 2008. Handling payments is a non-trivial task for a small developer, the same goes for handling user accounts/data. They're not insurmountable problems but they're a lot more effort than Apple or Google just sending you money when people buy your app.

Hosting is worse than payments as it _costs_ the developer money and keeps costing money. If your app gets a popularity spike instead of getting a revenue spike you get a huge hosting bill.

I think you've got it entirely backwards, more developers have sustainable businesses _because_ of the App Store than without. Payment processing, hosting, managing user data? That shit is easy for big companies or it's an extant expense so mobile app sales aren't adding real overhead. So for Microsoft, Adobe, and Epic those aren't problems. They could easily sell their stuff without the App Store/Play Store and in fact currently do so. For the many thousands of small developers that _aren 't_ Epic payment processing and hosting are big costs as is advertising they need to even be found. Before the App Store mobile app aggregators charged money to get listed and wanted bribes to be featured.

Epic et all might see their overhead drop from Apple's 30% to maybe 10%. They pocket the extra revenue and prices don't change for consumers. For many thousands of developers their overhead goes from Apple's 30% to 50-60% doing it in house. So Epic rakes in even more money and small developers get the shaft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?

Yes, it's legal today but _should_ we make it illegal?

To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch)

In many iPhone debates, we throw around phrases such as, _" unlike a game console, it's a general computer"_ and _" I own the device so I should be able to put any software I want on it"_.

Understandable sentiments. So the question is, should consumers be able to _knowingly_ buy restricted hardware such as Prima Cinema? They pay $35000 and own the computer but they _know_ they _can 't sideload their own movies_. They _know_ can't pick another "movie store", or watch Youtube/Netflix on it, etc. The hardware has _anti-tampering_ sensors so that it bricks itself if the owner tries to open it. The hardware is a "general pc". It runs Wind River Linux. I think the cpu is x86 but it might be ARM or something else.

You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti- competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't. If a buyer wants to have 1st run movies at home, all those restrictions in place is they only way to get it. It's more restrictive than iPhone in that sense.

<comment><USER20> > Should closed hardware even be legal to sell?

I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.

If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just annoys me. I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system. Opening it up is the bad idea here.

Philosophically, amazon.com and Facebook are closed systems too. As is Wal- Mart and UPS. I'm not sure why we're only focused on hardware systems here, what's the meaningful distinction?

<comment><USER42> > I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will > emerge, or people won't purchase the product.

Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We have been waiting quite a few years for this and it did not happen. Instead we got the complete opposite: a duopoly of android and iOS which nobody, not even Microsoft, can compete against. At this point, we have to acknowledge that simply waiting is not going to fix anything.

<comment><USER43> But Android in general doesn't have these restrictions. Plenty of phones (including Google's flagships!) support rooting, and you can install a third- party App Store like F-droid even when they only support sideloading. So that's not really a good example of market forces failing to solve the unlocked hardware availability problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > Moreover, Amazon couldn't even tell users to visit Amazon.com, much less > offer a link or, as Android allows, a webview of the store.

I was recently baffled by this on the Bandcamp app. You can't purchase music through their iOS app, and there isn't even a link to the website where you can purchase it. Instead there's just a "purchasing music is not supported on this device" message.

Likewise, on my own app, I had a blog post (webview) about our patreon (with a link, of course). And Apple flagged it during a random bug fix app update. So I had to edit the blog post and remove the link to our Patreon. And from what I could tell, there isn't even a way to use the proper Apple Pay/whatever system with Patreon subscriptions.

</comment><comment><USER45> "This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not."

I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.

<comment><USER46> Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.

<comment><USER47> > If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.

Unfortunately, I don't see this as being true. I'd be willing to bet they're still breaking laws and ordinances today and we're just not aware of it.

Part of it is the news cycle today, we'd never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires.

Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they're not going to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> >This is not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life

OMFG. Is it just because I'm 56? Is it just because I've spent my entire adult life connected to the internet (barring a few early years where it was just Bitnet)? Is it because I helped start the biggest e-commerce company in the anglo/eurosphere? Is it that I spend all day in front of screens, connected to the entire goddam planet? Is it that I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon ?

The idea that the iPhone (or any network-connected portabl computing device) is the _center of modern life_ just needs to die already.

If this pandemic didn't provide it already, just these few things are far more "central to modern life" than your goddam smartphone:

       * a stable, diverse healthy food supply
       * trash pickup
       * a functioning, non-overloaded, sensibly priced and paid for healthcare system
       * a mail/package distribution system
       * fuel stations for your vehicle, if you have one
       * investigative, non-suck-up journalism
       * electricity (to charge your smartphone, naturally)

I could go on.

Your smartphone is not the center of your life. You have a variety of options for contemporary communication, and the fact that a bunch of you have decided that the most important one is the one that fits in your pocket and works anywhere there's a cell tower within range doesn't change the fact that it's the icing on top of the cake that is the rest of your life. It is totally amazing to be able to do what you can do with a contemporary smartphone, and no doubt they will get even more amazing.

But they are NOT the center of modern life, they are the black mirror- becoming-black hole sucking so many other components of human existence into their mundane, pedestrian and constrained vision of life.

<comment><USER49> It is honestly the center of modern life to many young people.

Half the things you mention are oblivious to the younger population. They don't have a vehicle, don't use physical mail (paper letters), and couldn't care less about journalism.

Consider somebody trying to get a job in modern society. The phone is needed to apply. The phone is needed to do the interview. The phone is needed to take a picture of your id and receive the contract when you're hired.

<comment><USER48> >Consider somebody trying to get a job in modern society. The phone is needed to apply. The phone is needed to do the interview. The phone is needed to take a picture of your id and receive the contract when you're hired.

That makes it a very useful tool in modern life. Not the center of modern life.

>They don't have a vehicle

Fuel for the bus or subway, then.

>don't use physical mail (paper letters)

and they don't vote? or participate in the census?

>couldn't care less about journalism.

doesn't match the young people I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Closed hardware should be opened when unsupported... meaning if apple cannot support old hardware anymore they should open it by law. There are so many ipads and phones that could still be in use but arent because you need to run their software. We need to stop the planet to be an electronics garbage bin. Same when they start with the new chip on apple computers.

<comment><USER36> They're discontinued, but they don't prevent you from doing what you want to those old devices. Sure, a first generation iPhone/iPod touch only runs iPhone OS 3.1.3, but you can still jailbreak it and do what you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> People don't get the console difference

I have a PS4

I can buy the game digitally from Sony

I can buy the digital code which activates on PS4 from Amazon or sometimes even straight from the publisher

I can buy a physical copy from countless retail stores both off and online from Walmart to BestBuy to Amazon to Gamestop

I can sell my used physical copy on Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, or Craigslist

This is the difference. And it's much bigger than people realize.

<comment><USER52> I have a PS4

I can pay Sony to take a cut from the developer.

I can pay Amazon _and_ Sony to take a cut from the developer.

I can pay retail stores to take a 50% or more cut, and then Sony takes a cut.

I can regain some of the cut that I paid to a retail store, so that the developer gets _nothing_ , by selling it on Ebay or craigslist.

You are always buying the game from Sony, and Sony is always getting their cut. Your options are whether to involve other rent seekers or to just fuck over the developers completely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> all this because Epic didn't want to pay apple's app store cut and thought they could bully their way through blatant ToS violations. Move fast and ask forgiveness later, the Silicon Valley way!

It's pretty funny to look back and read the "whether or not apple backs down, Epic will have won a victory!" thinkpieces from last week.

Epic thought they could leverage their IPs into forcing Apple to play ball. Surely Apple wouldn't dare let _Fortnite_ get deplatformed (as the game updates on without iOS). Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Unreal Engine get deplatformed as the OS updates onwards without it.

Turns out Apple does dare, and now third party developers are going to pay the price for Epic's arrogance. To be very clear: nothing is going to piss Apple off quicker than fucking with their cut of the revenue, this was eminently foreseeable and a blatant violation of ToS and there was no way Apple wasn't going to react. You should be mad at Epic here for trying to play silicon valley games with your products, not Apple.

The fact that Epic would then take cuts from third party developers in this app store is just the icing on this cake. They want to be the ones running the walled garden, nothing more.

Steam manages to get along with Apple just fine - they went ahead and made a revenue sharing agreement, and they haven't had a problem. Epic wanted to keep it all themselves, be the ones running the walled garden.

This is Epic trying to run the playbook that _many of you_ have normalized, no different from Uber trying to bully their way out of background checks by threatening to pull out of Dallas, or threatening to pull out of California to bully their way out of paying for their employees' healthcare. Then cue the waterworks about _those heartless regulators putting all those innocent employees at risk_.

Only this time - it's Epic who's using your livelihoods as leverage for their power play. Very ironic!

All so that they can make $1 off a llama skin for bideo james instead of $0.92. Just like the Uber thing is so Uber doesn't have to pay 20 bucks to run a background check. Playing games with people's lives so you can run a little fatter profit margin, that's the silicon valley way.

</comment><comment><USER54> It seems like Epic is engaged in some hypocrisy here. From what i can tell, if I want to generate content for Fortnite (skins, mods, etc) I can do so, but their terms are that I give it to them and they can turn around and commercialize it for their benefit. I do not see a way that I could monetize my creation. So in the platform that is Fortnite, they do not even allow me to make 70%, instead taking any contribution as their property without remuneration. I prefer Apple's model to this by far.

</comment><comment><USER55> Honestly, I don't see the big deal. You pay for vendor lock-in, you get vendor lock-in. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly" on smartphones. If anybody wants variety, they can get an android or invest in a PinePhone or Librem5.

Epic complaining about being shut out of the App store is like Dominoes complaining about being shut out of that private university where all the rich kids go. They should just go over to Android where, if they want to, they can make their own app store.

> My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app > installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I > am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically > savvy than me.

This, I certainly don't agree with. Android has more app stores and is still quite easy to use and dependable for the less technically savvy. Apple getting more App stores won't change how "easy" the iPhone is to use.

</comment><comment><USER56> It's weird how Epic has no problem with closed hardware consoles...

<comment><USER57> How big of a cut do they have to pay on closed hardware consoles?

<comment><USER58> 30%, amazingly enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> A lot of the posts here are making points that I don't think a judge or jury will care for. This is clearly a case of two companies trying to commoditize their complements. End of story.

Epic doesn't have a problem with Apple running an app store, despite what their marketing on this legal issue makes out. Epic has an app store and they charge ~12%. Given my experience with Epic, I am certain that if they had gotten here first, they would be charging the same 30% that Valve charges. Epic's problem is that Apple wont let them run their app store on Apple's stack. Epic wants to run their software everywhere, and commoditize the platforms/OS/hardware.

Apple wants to do the opposite.

IANAL, but I haven't seen any evidence that Apple should not be allowed to do so.

If Apple were the only mobile device available, then we might have a monopoly conversation. But it isn't, so we wont. It isn't even the majority platform in the US.

Where are these points coming from? They aren't from the perspective of a customer.

I am a customer, and I will continue to buy iPhone _because_ of their total integration. Android is a shitshow and you are welcome to it. "Well, I want iOS, except for..." yeah that is Android.

So what is really underneath all this? The money. Epic wants to make more money from Apple's customers. And it wants to do so by destroying the value that Apple customers like me choose over Android.

Samsung makes phones that are at least as good as iPhone.

Android is an OS that lets owners do all of the things that people here are demanding Apple allow them to do.

Yet, strangely, rather than everyone here advocating that we all move to Android, instead, we are demanding that Apple become like Android.

Because nobody here is actually interested in what Apple customers want. They just want access to those customers, even if it means fucking those customers over.

</comment><comment><USER59> Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too.

0\. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.

1\. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.

2\. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.

3\. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.

The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.

4\. SOLUTION:

a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.

b) allow secondary payment providers (whitelisted only).

c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.

With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.

<comment><USER60> Allow side loading of apps. But broadcast that this device has sideloaded apps via an API. So banking apps can be disabled themselves if there are sideloaded apps. Block iOS updates. Also voids warranty.

Secondary payment method can be implemented along with apple's own payment system just like how it is for `Sign in with Apple` . If you have `Login with Facebook`, then there should be `Sign in with Apple`. The alternative payment option can be turned on and off in settings. If it is turned on, then no more Support from Apple

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> > but the benefit [the App Store arrangement gave] to developers was much less > clear cut.

I disagree, I think the fact that so many developers built apps for iPhone supports my point. Apple gave developers everything they needed, users with dollars to spend.

<comment><USER62> Those users would always be there. If there was another App Store instead they would be there. If there were app stores competing there would be users with dollars to spend on both. The App Store doesn't provide users because it does something special, it provides them because there is no other option to install apps on your expensive smart phone/tablet without using it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> > My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app > installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I > am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically > savvy than me.

I think people overestimate the importance/benefit of such level of control over instalation of apps. Yes, Wintel was plagued by malware viruses but Mac/Linux/Unix wasn't. I don't think the benefit (protecting users from threats) outweighs the drawbacks (not having control of device, not allowing ecosystem of paid thinkerers to help Muggles personalize their devices) of having such closed approach.

</comment><comment><USER64> I find the comparison that many people make to game consoles very short minded.

It should be clear to everyone that the smartphone will become more and more integrated into our lives to a point where at some point you cannot participate in society without a phone. Sure, many things have alternative options or are limited to tech enthusiasts but other options become less favorable more and more.

The alarm clock in the morning, communicating with friends and family, paying for things, doing your taxes, unlocking your door. Also unlocking your car is coming and there is even early talk of putting your driver's license in your phone. Getting driving directions, some people use their phone as an artificial pancreas system. ([https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/](https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/))

The smartphone has become the personal computing device.

A gaming console is something completely different, there I'm perfectly fine if a company wants to control the environment. I would prefer an open system but Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft controlling the games I can play is not even close to the limitations apple creates with their ecosystems on society. Google allows for third-party stores on their Android system, I would be doable for Apple to allow the same.

</comment><comment><USER65> Epic has billions of dollars and a lot of customers. Microsoft has billions of dollars.

There are a wide range of other parties that dislike Apple's policies.

Why don't they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content?

I can see two options:

1\. A full blown phone. Hard to do? Perhaps, but if Apple and a Google really aren't competitive, then it should be possible to take customers away from Apple over the next few years, especially if your device has the games that teens want and can't get from Apple.

2\. Don't start when a phone. Make a gaming handheld with exclusive content - Epic's super popular titles, plus XBox streaming. Sell it for $200. Basically an iPod for games, done right. If Nintendo can sell handheld consoles it's obvious Epic and Microsoft can.

Then just build this out with phone functions, and a great browser for SPA's etc, leveraging flutter, and eat Apple's lunch from the bottom up in classic low-end disruption style.

Bonus: have an open bootloader - bootcamp style so that enthusiasts can hack the thing.

#2 seems like they could have a product on the market next year if they wanted.

I could see this strategy easily forking the market into iPhones for productivity and Epic devices for fun, and causing both segments to improve at a greater pace.

Apple simply isn't unassailable if people are willing to put in the sustained effort needed to compete with them, but to do so will take a similar sustained effort over a similar time period to what it took them to obtain their position.

<comment><USER66> >Why don't they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content?

They don't want to spend their cash to do the R&D, and build up the network of stores and customer support required to be able to compete with Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Apple has a monopoly on making apple products to sell in apple stores? Quick call the feds!

Seriously, the game Apple/Google/etc have been playing has been pretty anti- consumer at times, and downright unjust at other times. That said, Epic's (cough cough tencent's) only move here is to turn this dumpster into a dumpster fire and I don't see that as a particularly helpful direction to go in.

<comment><USER68> Int the US, I believe it accounts for about 70% of ponds, which is a lot. Globally not so much but still the biggest by revenue, and has all the elites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Part of the problem I have with the notion that Apple (and Google) need such tight control over their app stores is that they do such a bad job of it.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone- fa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone-fake-retail- apps-before-holidays.html) [https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security- intelligence/...](https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security- intelligence/gambling-apps-sneak-top-100-hundreds-fake-apps-spread-app-store- google-play/) [https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click- fr...](https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fraud/) [https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games](https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games)

</comment><comment><USER70> How is this any different from PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox services? Not only do they get a cut of all of that revenue from those services and DLC, but the companies have to even pay for the right to make software for these devices. so are we going to start attacking Nintendo now? At some point I think a manufacturer should be allowed to manage this kind of stuff.

<comment><USER71> Those aren't general purpose devices, but also they've got a smaller userbase. iPhones and iPads have sold more than two billion devices. All the consoles combined probably do not come close. Especially in an anti-trust lawsuit, a bigger target is easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Software is speech

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case- estab...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established- code- speech#:~:text=One%20of%20EFF's%20first%20major,way%20for%20international%20e%2Dcommerce).

You can read any book, watch any movie, listen to any music, but not run any code. That limits expression. Plenty of topics are off limits because the only way to run them is as apps and apple doesn't allow them.

Some of you would apparently be okay of Apple restricted movies, music, and books to only movies, music, and books apple sells and made it impossible to view/read/listen otherwise including removing the browser? Because that's effectively what they've done for apps.

There should be no distinction. Either the platform is open to all media or the platform is a form of suppression and control of ideas those in control don't approve of.

</comment><comment><USER73> I think apple's 30% cut of app purchases is too much and I think they know this. With that being said I think this is part of apple for a long-term plan.

iPhones are getting more expensive to build considering all the tech their cramming into each iPhone and other products. eventually they might get so expensive that Apple would be forced to sell them at a price that will not work well wih consumers. If you think about how much apple has invested in services that only function on their devices, I think apple will start selling products at a loss, with the plan to make that money back and more through services they offer on devices. In the same way that Sony and Microsoft lose money with every console sold, but recoup those loses many times over with games purchase fees.

</comment><comment><USER74> A 30% just seems wrong to me. It just screams: we have a monopoly, if you want to build something that everybody around can you use, if you want to be a successful startup, you'll have to give us a third of what you charge. There's no other way: we'll be your middle man forever.

</comment><comment><USER75> Apple lost track of their value exchange proposition and has now resorted to extortion. Yay 2020.

</comment><comment><USER76> IANAL, but I think the strategy epic will use is called tying in anti-trust law. That means obtaining an unfair advantage for one line of business by requiring its use in another line of business. The android app market is big in numbers, even bigger than the number of iPhones, and therefore it may be difficult to call the App Store a monopoly. In Epic's case, while the App Store may or may not be a monopoly, forcing anyone who uses the App Store to use Apple's payment services as well may be the illegal part in the eyes of the court.

</comment><comment><USER77> I see streaming video games as simply videos that the user is able to interact with. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but does Apple collection commission on ad revenue from YouTube ads?

</comment><comment><USER78> Unfortunately the App Store 30% cut is Apple's revenue cocaine and it will be really hard for the rest of us to stop such addiction without multi-national governments help.

</comment><comment><USER79> Simplest compromise I've heard so far is for Apple's cut to scale with size of IAP/subscription.

30% cut starting at $0.99 purchases. As mentioned this barely covers processing fees.

20% cut starting at $9.99.

10% cut starting at $49.99.

Not only does this fix the Epic, Netflix, Hey, etc issue where high value or high volume txns get unfairly middlemanned by Apple. It also incentivizes developers away from the "race to the bottom" effect that made everything a crummy $0.99 microtransaction in the first place.

<comment><USER80> The simplest compromise is to let me easily install what I need from whatever source I want on the goddamn hardware that I own. The rest will follow from that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Not versed enough in law to argue about this, but from a customer point of view, I hope that Apple wins as I would hate the iOS ecosystem to end up being a Wild West like the Android.

I am happy to pay for a premium to have peace of mind. To give an analogy it's kind of like gaming console vs PC gaming where I am happy to sacrifice a bit of performance in exchange of getting rid of all shady game-specific launchers

<comment><USER38> You're not addressing the real issue here though - should Apple get a cut of the revenue from in game purchases? Once you download the game and are looking to purchase more of the game you've already let the app pass your "shady wild west" internal warning system.

<comment><USER81> Yes, for the simple reason that if they don't, it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether.

Also from customer prospective, I feel more comfortable knowing the payment will go through Apple.

<comment><USER82> > , it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether.

But this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Literally the purpose of all this, is to get around this cut. It is better for developers and consumers, to take whatever actions possible, to support loopholes, that get around this 30% cut.

This is the explicit goal here, and the reasons why it is good. The loophole would be a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Its interesting if Epic's and Xbox's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via the browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based rendering and only controls/decompression of the rendering down on the device).

Basically figure out how to make mobile gaming available via Mobile Safari, Mobile Edge or Mobile Chrome browsers.

</comment><comment><USER84> > But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, > it all costs money

This is the investment Apple has to put in to make sure there are apps on their platform.

Their "funding" for this is iPhone and iPad sales.

</comment><comment><USER85> The entire way Epic went about this has me scratching my head. Just looks like a lose-lose situation to me. They lose out on 70% of their revenue on iOS now and likely lose a lawsuit later.

<comment><USER86> I'm guessing they are very confident in their legal position.

Just think how much it would be worth to Epic to run their own Games store on iOS - literally billions.

This is big brain thinking from Tim Sweeney.

<comment><USER85> They're definitely taking a gamble, rooting for them but I wouldn't bet against Apple on this one. Also seems like you would have better odds if you took on only Apple or Google instead of both at the same time.

<comment><USER86> Oh, I completely agree, and I really can't see a solid foundation for Epic's claims at all.

But, on the other hand, anti-trust was never my area of legal practice, it's a highly specialized area of US law (something I'm not familiar with in the slightest), and thousands of (billable!) man-hours would have already been spent researching, crafting and refining their argument.

In other words, my legal opinion is meaningless here. I'm interested to see how it plays out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?

Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?

How much % do they take from console game sales?

</comment><comment><USER88> I really love all the financial experts on this thread, both pro, and con.

</comment><comment><USER89> Most of the discussion on this topic has been around who is _morally_ right, but I've been curious to find out how strong Epic's _legal_ case is.

Epic's lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in two different markets: 1) the "iOS App Distribution Market" and 2) the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". Proving a violation in one of these markets may be a lot more challenging than the other.

A. Monopoly Power

The first step in proving a monopolization offense under the Sherman Act is proving the company possesses "monopoly power in the relevant market". In determining monopoly power, the courts start by examining market share, but "but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area." [1]

Obviously, with Apple's current market share of 46% [2] in the United States, they are unlikely to be considered possessing monopoly power in the smartphone market.

B. The "iOS App Distribution" Market and Aftermarkets

Since proving Apple's monopoly power in the smartphone market seems unlikely, Epic instead alleges Apple has monopoly power over a different market: "iOS App Distribution". Since Apple has complete control over iOS App Distribution, problem solved, right? Not so fast.

Much like razor blades and razors or printers and ink, "app distribution" would be considered an aftermarket of the smartphone market. Aftermarkets are very common in antitrust cases, and in general, the US legal system does not allow you to define an aftermarket in the context of a single brand's product unless very specific rules are met:

> _Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly > in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against > analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand > relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a > market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market."_ > [3]

A good summary on antitrust issues in aftermarkets can be found here. [4] Of particular relevance is that an aftermarket monopoly based on a customer's voluntary agreement to a contract is not considered a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes.

In _Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC_ [5], Ceiling Fan Software attempted to argue that Blizzard held monopoly power in the market of "add-on software for WoW", and preventing them from releasing their own WoW add-on was a violation of antitrust law. Blizzard argued (successfully) that the "WoW add-on" market was not the relevant market because WoW users voluntarily agreed to a EULA stipulating they would only used Blizzard authorized add-ons when they initially purchased the game, and if they wanted to use third-party add-ons they could have purchased another game instead.

In _Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp._ [6], Psystar Corp attempted to argue that Apple held monopoly power in the "Mac OS" market and used it to unfairly block competition in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket. The court ruled that Apple's monopoly power in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket was based on the EULA that customers of Mac OS agreed when they purchased Mac OS, and was again not a relevant market for antitrust purposes, because _" customers knowingly agree to the challenged restraint"_. In other words, if they didn't like the restriction of not being able to install Mac OS on non- Apple hardware, they could have purchased an alternative operating system instead.

Circling back to the iPhone and its app distribution aftermarket, it seems the same reasoning would apply here. If the iPhone EULA specifically states that customers can only install apps via the App Store, and the customer knowingly purchases the product knowing such limitations are in place, it seems very unlikely that a court would agree that "iOS App Distribution" is actually a relevant market for antitrust purposes.

C. The "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market"

On the other hand, the antitrust claims Epic makes regarding this market are much more compelling because unlike the app distribution market, customers have no information about the restrictions in the relationship between the developer and Apple, and they certainly did not agree to any such restrictions when they purchased their phones. Without a contractual restriction in place, the determination of whether the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market" is a relevant market depends on multiple factors which I won't go into too much detail here or this post will be even longer than it already is, but suffice to say they have a much higher chance of successfully making this argument.

Epic also has a strong argument here that Apple requiring in-app payments to go through the App Store and taking a 30% cut of each payment directly harms consumers by increasing prices, and lacks any justification other than to hurt competition. And the rebuttal that you can buy a different product without this restriction falls flat because the other major product on the market also charges the same cut.

The upshot of all of this is it seems unlikely that Epic will be able to compel Apple to permit third-party app installation on the iPhone, but they may be able to successfully argue against the restriction that all in-app purchasing must go through the App Store.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition- guidance/guide-a...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition- guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined)

[2] [https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone- sh...](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/)

[3] [https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive- service-...](https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service- equipment-co)

[4] [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us- submissions-...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions- oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf)

[5] [https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling- fan-s...](https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software- llc)

[6] [https://casetext.com/case/apple-2](https://casetext.com/case/apple-2)

</comment><comment><USER90> Essentially, it's a win-win for Epic.

If they win the lawsuit they will (probably) be able to have more control over how they want to distribute their iOS apps.

If they lose, they won't have to deal with iOS anymore. Free players cost money too, and it's possible iOS is not so interesting to Epic with the %30 Apple cut.

Also, since their business model is based on microtransactions, most of their revenue must come from whales. These are committed players who will most likely go get their Fornite fix somewhere else. Specially if Apple wins. Most gamers will always side with Epic here.

<comment><USER91> They made several million dollars daily. I think you severely underestimate the gaming market.

<comment><USER90> Yes, but those millions come from whales which will most likely follow Fortnite to other platforms.

You think Epic would start a lawsuit without having done their math and willingly decide to lose millions daily plus the legal fees?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> This particular company decided to grow financially by cutting apple from a revenue stream. Apple invested billions of dollars in rnd, PR , legal protection, security, servers etc... Behemoth like Epic decided to ignore that, at the same time still using apple services and platforms. Such a simple case to me. The funny part is I never heard from small company that gain traction from apple store that it's bad. It's a social lift for them. But once you grow , you forget about it... and start complaining...

<comment><USER93> And they didn't even start with the lawsuit, they just broke the terms of service explicitly and then surprise pikachu faced when Apple slapped them down.

<comment><USER38> They weren't surprised at all by the lawsuit. They wanted a lawsuit. The only person who could change the TOS was a judge and Epic could only sue if Apple enforced the TOS on them.

Plus, if you don't think Epic had already talked to lawyers and lobbyists in Washington DC and already been given a heads-up that they might win, then you don't know business that well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> I think I am with Apple for this one.

It has always been a 30% cut, even when it launched.

Apple did not raise the cut when the iOS app market got bigger.

Apple pricing is not cost-based, it is value-based.

Why should their pricing be cost-based? Why should they try to do an Amazon by sucking all the air in the room?

If that value-based pricing strategy translates into billions earned, great for Apple.

It could also have translated into billions lost, if their app store had turned into a ghost town. I'm sure it happened to other platforms.

I can care less if Apple has high or low costs to maintain their platform. That's their problem, not mine. If I buy something it is because I want it at that price. If the price point is above my perceived value, I will not buy and both Apple and Epic will lose revenue but again, that's their problem.

Epic has the option not to use IAPs if that sales model is not profitable for them at any price point.

</comment><comment><USER95> >That means, for example, allowing purchases via webviews, particularly for products and experiences that are not zero marginal costs. Sure, that could mean less App Store revenue in the short run, but Apple would be well-served having to build more and better products to win developers over. At the end of the day, squeezing businesses that can stomach the cost of Apple development, both in terms of implementing in-app purchase and that 30%, by definition has less ultimate upside than growing the pie for everyone.

Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to.

The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to _raise_ the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down.

That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.</comment>


Could Tiny Bubbles Cool the Planet? - <AUTHOR> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/03/could-tiny-bubbles-cool-the-plan.html

<comment><USER2> But how large an area would you have to cover with bubbles to get the 3 degree change he suggests?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good question. He only mentions a bubble concentration of 1ppm by volume but nothing about the area.</comment></comment>


Start-ups: your blog is your soul, baby. - <AUTHOR> http://radleymarx.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/start-ups-your-blog-is-your-soul-baby/ [UPDATE] moved to my blog:
http://radleymarx.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/start-ups-your-blog-is-your-soul-baby/ <comment><USER2> When I come across a non-business blog that hasn't been updated recently, I assume the person lost interest in whatever interest they were pursuing, rather than simply losing interest blogging.

Losing interest in a hobby happens a lot. However, when I find a company blog that hasn't been updated recently, I assume nothing is happening.

Even if nothing is happening and/or something is happening and it can be divulged, I feel the company blog gives me a behind-the-scenes into how the business is growing. If nothing is happening, why not write about other companies (in other industries) like SmugMug's Don MacAskill does?

Two fresh blogs <http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/> (business) <http://www.throughth3wall.com/> (non-business)

Two stale or "dead" blogs <http://www.startup-ceo.com/> (last update 7/2007, business) <http://mightymo84.blogspot.com/> (last update 2/2006 did she succeed?, non-business)

Making of follow-up to dropsend.com <http://www.barenakedapp.com/page/8>

</comment><comment><USER3> Tim O'Reilly had a great post back in August of 2006 "Round 2: Dial Tone" [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/round_2_dial_tone....](http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/round_2_dial_tone.html) where he said:

New applications often start out requiring operators, but eventually move towards dial-tone. For example, you can look at blogging as the "dial tone" equivalent of creating a web site. For ordinary folks (not most of my readers, but non-technical folks), creating a web site was something that required an operator. You went to a web design shop or an ISP and had them do it for you. The blogging revolution, the wiki revolution, the MySpace revolution, the CyWorld revolution, are really about providing a kind of self-service dial- tone for creating a web presence and community.

Your blog is the dial tone for your website, go too long between posts (and a month seems to be pushing it) and visitors will wonder if you are still there.</comment>


The Texas telemedicine breakthrough - <AUTHOR> http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article168731522.html <comment><USER2> This makes it sound like Texas is somehow leading the country in telemedicine. The real story here is that despite early progress in this area, doctor's groups successfully lobbied to have heavy restrictions put on telemedicine in the past few sessions, because the legislature in Texas is generally up for sale to the highest bidder, and the bill that passed simply eases up on those.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another area that is sorely in need of telehealth reform is dietetics and nutrition. Nineteen states require a license to provide any type of nutrition guidance, education, etc. but they only allow dietitians, people with just a bachelors degree in something like food services, to qualify for that license. The laws are written so that even tele-health is completely out of bounds when it comes to nutrition. I hope more states wipe out these prohibitive licensure laws when they do more to protect market share, than public health.

<comment><USER4> All new Dietitians must have a Masters starting in 2024, and all current RDs have completed a Dietetic Internship with practical experience in addition to Bachelors in order to sit for the registration/licensure exam for some time now. I don't know about elsewhere, but in NV anyone can legally say they are a Nutritionist but cannot practice as a Dietitian, so there are ways to provide general nutrition guidance without being an RD. In addition, anyone can run a blog or write books with their advice, etc.

I want someone who has verifiable expertise if I'm receiving medical nutrition therapy from them. Perhaps the portability of licenses is too restrictive, but elimination of licensure is a bad idea for many medical aspects of nutrition (beyond basic weight loss or general guidance).

<comment><USER3> Actually Nevada's law is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They can practice nutrition, but they cannot call themselves a Dietitian. That's fair. They can practice as a dietitian, nutritionist, whatever they want. The law was completed neutralized a few years ago.[0]

Medical Nutrition Therapy is a scam. It's the dietitians trying to practice medicine in the diagnosing and treatment of diseases. There is no medical necessity to licensure for nutrition, and the last thing we want is dietitians trying to pretend they're doctors.

Show me one example of actual harm from bad nutrition advice. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has been running a contest for years trying to come up with one good example and they've failed. Ohio just passed a law that moved the board of dietetics under the state medical board, dissolving that whole board. States have finally caught on that there is, never has been, and has yet to be found, any actual harm or threat to public health from the practice of nutrition. It's just market exclusivity. They don't want the competition.

If you want to be sure the person you're receiving care from is qualified enough, ask them. Make your own judgement. Don't depend on the government to create a monopoly for one profession/modality in the name of public health.

[0]. Nevada Revised Statutes section 640E.090(a), (d), and (2) is the exemptions which totally guts the law.</comment></comment></comment>


Acid-state + IxSet + data-lens = fully native Haskell, NoSQL cloud DB  - <AUTHOR> http://www.happstack.com/docs/crashcourse/AcidState.html

<comment><USER2> Thanks for that post! I was looking for some tutorial that explains IxSet. Will try out the code.</comment>


Gmail on your Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/gmail-on-your-desktop.html <comment><USER2> wasn't compelling until his example of two gmails at once (currently a pain) I think this applies to many most hackers who might have two seperate social or business commitments at once

<comment><USER3> You can forward your mail from multiple gmail acccounts to a single account and use the "Send mail as" (under Settings/Accounts). Gmail is smart enough to usually pick the right "send as" address.

<comment><USER4> Except for mailing lists.

In my experience it seems that if To:/CC:/BCC: doesn't contain one of your addresses gmail sticks with your default rather than using the address of the mailbox it fetched the email from in the first place.

<comment><USER2> also when it sends under an "alias" mine always says From x using y (where y = my original account) ;(</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would you do if you had all classical music to work/play with? - <AUTHOR> The conservatory I work for is considering releasing its deep history of classical music recordings online. The collection covers the entire canon of western classical music, often with multiple recordings of each piece. It is substantially less IP-restricted than most similar libraries, and our intent is ultimately to release as much as possible under something like CC Attribution 4.0 International.<p>Most of this music is already available online in other forms, but usually with substantial rights restrictions. Our goal is not just to get the music out to the world, but to engender the development of valuable new content, hopefully educational, by encouraging use and reuse of our collection. What would you do if you had access to professional-quality recordings of all of western classical music, and you could do whatever you want with it? <comment><USER2> I'd want three axis of discovery:

1\. Music Style

2\. Composer

3\. Conductor

4\. Performer(s)

5\. Techniques

It would be fantastic if I had a curated tool that could aid in this. I don't know what all classical musical styles I , but I know pieces I like and it would be great to springboard from that into other pieces I would most likely enjoy.

Likewise with composers, if I like Composer X then I'll probably like Composer Y. Then combine the two - if I like these musical styles of Composer X then I'll probably like these other musical styles of Composer Y.

You can see where I'm going with this. I want to explore and discover.

Finally, I'd like to be able to search through pieces for examples of a particular playing technique. For example, if a student were learning _pizzicato_ it'd be great to be able to search for good examples of the technique from what's known they already enjoy or would likely enjoy.

<comment><AUTHOR> The multiple axes (facets in a search eg) make great sense to me, thanks. I'm not sure about any kind of behavior-based recommender tool, but we can certainly make offers based on metadata matches.

Is there anything about the fact we're (hopefully) allowing derivative works that gets you interested? After you used the axes to find something new, what would you do with it? Just listen or could you imagine writing/building something that would educate others?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For some composers, I really enjoy hearing substantially different interpretations of a piece. For example, some violin solos are interpreted in a super precise mathematical way when someone else might pour on the legato sugar when the transcript allows for it. It can radically change the overall feeling of the piece, even while maintaining note-for-note accuracy.

I live for those moments, and learn a lot more deeply about composition by digging into different interpretations of pieces that I enjoy most.

Personally, I think it should play a part of early music learning for everyone. Opening up collections like this leads to the ability to learn music at the performance level, instead of just a cursory sprinkling of famous themes played only one way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! If you were building that early music learning app/tool, what form would you want it to take? Is it like a blog post, illustrated with embedded videos/audio of the relevant passages?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When you say "professional-quality", just how good are the performances? You mean, recordings by students at your conservatory? Or as good as, say, the top European orchestras? What years do the recordings span? Which famous performers are represented? Sorry, it's not at all clear to me what kind of animal you mean. Sounds great though!

<comment><AUTHOR> Arguably the top conservatory in the world, with an orchestra that is often called one of the top orchestras in the world. But our expectation is that e.g. on Youtube a recording of piece X by the NY Phil will generally get more interest than a recording of piece X by the Curtis Symphony Orchestra. But we're not trying to compete on quality, we're trying to use these recordings in ways other orchestras can't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Assuming your collection consists primarily of vinyl LPs, does Curtis plan to pay someone to convert them to a digital format? Just curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, digitization is a big part of it and somebody will get paid to do it. Probably not internal staff but nothing is decided.

Not actually a lot of vinyl LPs but lots is still analog in various forms.</comment></comment>


Keeping groundwater at bay crucial in Bertha fix - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023225378_berthapitxml.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the Google cached version

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fseattletimes.com%2Fhtml%2Flocalnews%2F2023225378_berthapitxml.html&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb)

for those bumping up against their paywall.</comment>


The largest methane fountain so far discovered in the Arctic Ocean - <AUTHOR> https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/first-pictures-and-video-of-the-largest-methane-fountain-so-far-discovered-in-the-arctic-ocean/ <comment><USER2> "'This result makes us reconsider the belief that subsea permafrost is stable and can only thaw by a few metres by the end of 21st century', he stressed."

<comment><USER3> Also, "Microplastic has been discovered in seas of the eastern Artic thousands miles away from residential settlements."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Read up on methane hydrate and what it's like offshore. Years ago doing research seismic surveys off the Oregon coast, we saw a lot of it. Shows up as a very bright layer just below the surface, and very easy to find. It's just sitting there waiting for the right trigger.

</comment><comment><USER5> So if this mechanism exists, wouldn't that point to temperatures rising very fast in the past as well?

<comment><USER6> In fact there are such periods, although the precision in the geologic record doesn't allow us to quantify just what timeframe "fast" operated over, except "within 20K years".

Google PETM if you want to see more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How do they get a boat this close without risking some sort of fire?

<comment><USER8> I doubt the methane concentration is high enough for that. The seas tend to be quite windy.

</comment></comment><comment> tedk-42 Is this the beginning of the end of the climate change debate? Will these melting permafrosts release an uncontrollable amount of methane into the atmosphere, further raising the average temperatures across the globe?

Only time will tell...

</comment><comment><USER9> BS there's no methane fountain - it's all a Chinese/lefty/Exxon/Pentagon/academic hoax.

OK there is a methane fountain, but it's nothing to do with human activity.

Alright, the methane fountain might be in part a consequence of CO2 emissions. But it's no big deal. We all love fountains, don't we? And plants and stuff.

I've bought my patch of New Zealand.

<comment><USER10> I know your being sarcastic, but I would agree with most of your comment. I also have purchased my own piece of swampland/temperate rain forest in northern Canada, just waiting for the earth to warm up a bit now. I want to know how people can be so arrogant to think we can stop global warming, let alone reverse it, California is burning in November,the artic is melting, so it's time to stop wasting effort on such foolish ideas and accept the inevitable. It's time to focus our efforts on planning and preparing for a warmer earth and all the problems that come from that.

<comment><USER8> If you truly want to prepare for an apocalyptic event then you need to start building a community, acquiring survival skills, learning how to produce food and to communicate with other members of your local community without using modern means.

Sure, the land you bought might end up prime real estate sometime in the future, and that means that everyone will know it and flock there, regardless of how remote it is.

<comment><USER10> I didnt mention that I now live on my land an am building a farm..read my rant below for more info in you care..or dont.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough! Link to the rant, just for the record: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419274](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419274)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


63 Essential Things to Learn Before 2012 Ends - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5969430/63-essential-things-to-learn-before-2012-ends <comment><USER2> Great info. Spent last hour learning 24 of them lol</comment>


PayPal founder's new app aims to help couples conceive - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/111398/the-founder-of-paypal-wants-to-put-a-baby-in-you/

<comment><USER2> I really dislike it how 'big data' is increasingly mentioned left and right these days, even when the application context doesn't call for it. Perhaphs the reporter should've sticked with the safe option of what the app creator(s) used instead, 'data science' or data analysis.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting how thorough the app is. I suppose that'll set it apart from the simpler ovulation trackers.

What a _huge_ mine of private data, however! Can you imagine how it would feel to have someone else find a record of your sexual activity, including positions and count of female orgasms?

<comment><USER4> honestly, who cares about that data?

<comment><USER5> My ex-girlfriend was kicked out of her church and disowned by her parents because she admitted to being sexually active. She was a senior in high school. She had to finish the school year living out of her car and relying on friends' charity.

Privacy is a protection against (often irrational) people who are out to hurt you.

<comment><USER6> There might be reason for people to care about the general fact of "did they have sex?"\--but this can be inferred/derived from other sources, e.g. purchasing habits.

 _How_ people are having sex, on the other hand, is pretty irrelevant to everyone except those people, isn't it?

<comment><USER7> The attorney-general of Virginia is seeking to preserve a law that would ban sodomy, which in Virginia includes oral sex. Yes, there are some people who think that how you have sex is very much their business, notwithstanding the fact that they talk out the other side of their mouth about their disdain for big government (I refer here to his arguments against Obamacare).

[http://theweek.com/article/index/247156/ken-cuccinellis- crus...](http://theweek.com/article/index/247156/ken-cuccinellis-crusade- against-sodomy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think they are on to something - this part for me stood out (quote from Max Levchin)

      "Anything that can be measured, you record—and
      it's applied to things like managing your weight,
      or deciding how likely you are to dope in the Tour
      de France. But with infertility? You get a Xerox
      from the 1960s."

<comment><USER8> Most up-to-date fertility clinics use ultrasound and hormonal tracking to check the cycle; temperature & mucus are unreliable.

And, even if someone's ovulating or not-ovulating... it's often moot when it comes to whether to opt for fertility treatment. It's much more about time spent trying already, and finances.

This app is a "me-too" app

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Both men are cyclists in their spare time"

Anyone read this and then think of this study?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/10/us-sperm- exercise-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/10/us-sperm-exercise- idUSTRE6B90CY20101210)

<comment><USER10> I lived until recently in a very active community of both cyclists and family- aged couples (Marin, CA, Fairfax to be specific), and heard numerous stories at the local pub about many cyclist men having this very issue. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but enough to make me find an alternate form of exercise if/when I am trying to have a child.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting how many commenters thought (from the headline) this was Elon Musk, despite the fact that Paypal had 5 founders and Musk has his hands pretty busy right now.

On a related note, has there ever been anything unsuccessful from the Paypal Mafia?

</comment><comment><USER12> How is a phone supposed to passively collect information about sexual positions?

"By asking about sexual positions and female orgasms, for example, the app is collecting data on oft-cited but little-researched possible factors in successful conception. The founders say that physicians have already signed on to use this data in studies. And eventually, Levchin said, they hope to make the data collection totally passive (by using a combination of phone sensors and specialized hardware) so that you don't even have to take the trouble of entering any numbers yourself."

<comment><USER13> Simple, just prop up your phone and video yourselves having sex. Like a Kinect, it can detect the position of your bodies. And it can analyze the audio to determine if the female orgasmed.

And then the video will be automatically uploaded to the NSA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It doesn't bring the $1m kick-off grant for the fertility fund, but another new app in that space is [http://www.helloclue.com/](http://www.helloclue.com/) It focuses more on tracking the monthly cycle and how it affects you personally, instead of pregnancy/ fertility and crowdsourced data on conception. Clue was actually started by a female founder - seems that could be helpful in this instance.

</comment><comment><USER15> I half expected this to be an article about Elon trying to work out best practice for populating Mars.

</comment><comment><USER16> an idea about Elon Musk announcing a plan to fund 100 women/year to have his children through sperm banks, in 10 generations (1 generation/year), with fully paid support and tutoring for life for the kids, and regularly schedule reunions of generations / the whole group.

It was at attempt to re-introduce cloning style massively parallel reproduction to the human species.

That was what I thought this story would be about.

Seriously though, don't you think Snowden could get a few hundred extremely smart, civil libertarian women to agree to bear his children?

<comment><USER17> Huh?

Before we start indulging in fantasies of tech folks begatting like in the Bible and creating a master IT race, could we care about the kids that people already created first?

The kids on the planet already have plenty of potential, we really don't need to keep pumping them out.</comment></comment>