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

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 701 posts

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#31

Post by dannyw »

fotta wrote: post #14

> permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. This sounds like the same agre…

Apple's concession didn't apply to games; only "reader apps".

Apple's concession also limited to one link, whereas this refers to links in the plural, and also metadata (eg app store descriptions).

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#32

Post by cblconfederate »

Should apple appeal this? Is it really worth further damage?

It turns out the little guys were right all along. It's surprising that it took legal action for apple to realize that, when you invite millions of third parties in your marketplace, you should treat them with some respect. And when this leads to prices of purchases going down, how are people going to keep justifying apple's position.

I think the biggest win is that micropayment services will grow which is good for all developers (not just in iOS)

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#33

Post by newaccount2021 »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #19
smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.

no, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#34

Post by maccard »

scardycat wrote: post #7
gigatexal wrote: post #2

That’s it. The App Store is broken. Major win to Epic. I’ll keep using apps and services that take funds via Apple Pay though. I trust Apple in this sense.

More choice is always a win for the customers. Customer can get to decide who is providing a better quality of service and go with them instead of the current situation of having one choice forced down their throats because the vendor decides that is whats best for the customer.

> More choice is always a win for the customers.

Not if it solely results in fragmentation. Having the choice between Ubisoft Connect, EA Origin, Steam and Battle.net isn't a "choice", it's just 4 different storefronts for me to manage credentials for.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#35

Post by socialist_coder »

This will certainly get appealed and bogged down even more in the legal system, right? What are the chances this actually happens? And when?

Secondly, this is such an easy way to increase your take by 20+% that I would imagine almost every publisher is going to be offering their own payments platform, not just the biggest ones like Epic.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#36

Post by dannyw »

theginger wrote: post #18
sparker72678 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reads like it applies to all developers.

This seems pretty big, like it should have an immediate impact with everyone who ever wanted to use alternative payments on any app store should be submitted an updated app today kind of big. Are there strings like appeal rights that means we won't see a change for years?

the injuction only applies after 90 days. Likely both Apple and Epic will appeal.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#37

Post by BizarroLand »

pwinnski wrote: post #16
belltaco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile Not just mobile, but iPad Pro and iPads too.

Wait, are you suggesting that iPads and iPads Pro are not mobile? In what sense are they tethered?

I think they mean systems with a SIM card or internet access without being tethered to WIFI.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#38

Post by falcolas »

sabellito wrote: post #26
yurishimo wrote: post #15

I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my life harder compared to Apple Pay. I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible. Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appeali…

Apple Pay charges the banks a percentage per transaction on the credit card, despite not taking absolutely any of the risk in that operation. Plus a quarterly fee per card. Do you think the banks are going to foot that bill? Of course not: it's us, the consumers. Are you willing to have everything be a bit more expensive, for everyone, so that you, apple users, can have something a tiny bit more convenient?

Isn't that how any convenience works? Credit cards already increased the price of everything for the convenience of using credit cards, as an example. I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for cash, and another for credit cards.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#39

Post by colinmhayes »

socialist_coder wrote: post #35

This will certainly get appealed and bogged down even more in the legal system, right? What are the chances this actually happens? And when? Secondly, this is such an easy way to increase your take by 20+% that I would imagine almost every publisher is going to be offering their own payments platform, not just the biggest ones like Epic.

NYT article said this goes into effect in 90 days, although I assume an appellate judge could change that.
Post reply on HN