Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

81–90 of 958 posts

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

#81

Note Epic also has to pay 30% damages. > On 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 throug…

I think they’ll be happy to pay $4,000,000 for this though.

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

#82

Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?

Steam doesn't prevent games from linking to alternative payment processors in-app.

It most certainly does! All payments must be within the Steam ecosystem when you are distributing a Steam app.

Valve even prevents developers from linking to their own website, if said website includes ways to buy content independent of Steam payment.

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

#83

What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?

Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling. And they don't need 30% fees for maintaining IOS ecosystem - when you buy an apple phone for $1000, you pay Apple enough for it to maintain its AppStore.

Also they earn money from AppStore advertising (which apps out of the millions should the small screen show); so maintaining AppStore should not be a problem.

I don't know about the bad-actors part though.

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

#84

> “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…

From my perspective folks are arguing two things:

The current definition of a monopoly.

Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change.

If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change, imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly.

I'm also interested in discussing conglomerates and whether they are good or bad, and how to control them similar to monopolies, but that discourse can't be had until we can agree on something like the definition of a monopoly.

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

#85

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…

As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways?

Also if people move away from giving Apple any money for the App Store, I expect the annual fee to increase to make up for it, and might Apple make you pay more if you don't use Apple's gateway? I don't see the ruling as forcing Apple to lose money.

If I were Apple, I would have gone nuclear early on, and eliminated all % fees but made the annual fee per app of $X to each developer (whatever $ makes sense) and then you can collect money however you want. This would likely kill a lot of small app developers, but the big ones would not care. The ruling makes Epic a big winner, but everyone else loses in the long run, because Apple (and Google) will find a way to recover lost revenue.

Some people also want to have 1000 app stores allowed. Good luck with that one... imagine having to build an app store just for your app, or supporting 25 different app stores.

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

#86
post #40

Does this apply to all apps or just games?

All apps; the language in the ruling against Apple is:

>>

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 communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

>>

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.

> It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?

There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.

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

#88

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…

I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%

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

#89

Note Epic also has to pay 30% damages. > On 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 throug…

I'm sure Epic included this in the legal costs of the case. If they get to create their own store they can potentially make billions.

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

#90

What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?

The law is not software.

"Apple must allow the use of third party payment processors" does not mean "Apple cannot enforce any other rules against apps using third party payment processors". If they decide to go on a harassment campaign of petty violations against third party payment using apps or put undue requirements on them, those parties can complain to the courts and likely succeed. If the third party payment provider is stealing credit cards or obviously malicious behavior in some other area, Apple would likely prevail when pointing to that as the reason they banned them.

Post reply on HN