Hopefully this will eventually lead to a day where users once again have full control over their devices. Android is a bit better, even if alternate app stores don't have the same system privileges as Google Play, but Apple devices are wholly authoritarian in what you can run on a device you supposedly own.
Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
51–60 of 958 posts
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#52> “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…
> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Why would it? The court basically dodged the question, so we still don't have an answer provided by the court system. Until that happens, we can discuss it to death if we want! Edit: excerpt from the ruling is: "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist unde…
The injunction clearly states Apple is anti-competitive, but not a monopoly.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#53Note that Epic also has to pay 30% damages.
> n the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment, and interest according to law.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can buy iPads with cellular. You’ve been able to since the iPad 1.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#55Wow, how did this ruling come so quickly when court cases are so slow to play out normally? Is this something that can get appealed?
It took over a year for this ruling to come out. Also, this was a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, which also makes it faster.
Of course, what really makes court cases take very long is when they get appealed to hell and back -- see Google v Oracle for an example of such a case.
(And this is a final order, so it can get appealed).
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#56Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?
Or, more interestingly, game consoles...
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#57Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?
> Notably, the judge rejected both parties’ definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,” Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.
I guess the question is does Mobile gaming cover handheld game device like Switch? If so, it may impact Steam Deck as well.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple Pay has no bearing on IAP. You can use Apple Pay with Epic's IAP implementation.
apple pay expressly forbids being used for digital content delivered within apps.
Right, but the only reason for that is it prevents circumvention. I would assume after this injunction they will allow using apple pay in order to re-capture some of that revenue.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#59This 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.
> What are the chances this actually happens? And when?
If new laws/regulations are made which are clear about this, then potentially very soon.
For such thinks sadly "making more clear laws" is sometimes faster then "enforcing not fully clear laws".
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Likewise with video streaming services: Netflix, Disney+, etc. It would be nice if content could be unbundled from distributor in this case - like what you see with music.