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

101–110 of 958 posts

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

#101

Post by madeofpalk »

coldcode wrote: post #85
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…

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…

> how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways?

Do you not buy things online currently? Do you not use Amazon, or Lyft, or Netflix, or Spotify?

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

#102

Post by jffry »

dataflow wrote: post #11

Wow, how did this ruling come so quickly when court cases are so slow to play out normally? Is this something that can get appealed?

The lawsuit was filed in August of last year, and arguments in court spanned most of May (and were conducted in-person, not virtually), and then the judge issued her decision today. That's not exactly lightning quick.

The rate at which court cases proceed really depends a lot on the complexity of the case, the length of the discovery phase, etc. Both Apple and Epic didn't want to have a jury trial, so there also wasn't the matter of empaneling a jury.

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

#103

Post by handrous »

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.

It's sometimes a win for customers.

[EDIT] trivial and clear illustrative case that should be easy to apply to murkier situations: a regulation that bans known poisons in food reduces choice.

[EDIT EDIT] more relevantly, and a bit tangentially to the example above: thanks to coordination problems it's possible for more-desirable states to be unmaintainable without reduction of choice—it's possible for someone's—even everyone's—favorite outcome to require a reduction of choice, and for that option to cease to be when more degrees of freedom are introduced.

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

#104

Post by spzb »

My reading of this is that it's nowhere near the big deal people are making out in the comments here. According to CNBC's report "Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing" [0]. That's a long way from forcing Apple to allow alternative IAP providers or installing alternate app stores. It suggests you'll have to step out of the app to make a payment (which adds friction) and it'll be up to the app developer to validate back in the app that the right person has made the right payment. This sounds similar to what Apple had already conceded they'd do [1]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-rea...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/27/apple-agr...

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

#106

Post by throw_m239339 »

Wow this is unexpected, until now Apple had a solid case, or so I thought. This is welcome of course, since it means other developers can use that judgement AGAINST Apple. Was it worth it for Apple to go to court all things considered? I guess they were really confident the court would rule in their favor.

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

#108

Post by Osiris »

cush wrote: post #88
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…

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

That's a big assumption.

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

#109

Post by fotta »

baldajan wrote: post #72
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…

"purchasing mechanisms" is what's interesting... it's not just information.

But it doesn't force them to allow other purchasing mechanisms, just that they cannot bar "calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms". My read on that is that Apple is still allowed to force Apple-only IAP, but they cannot bar CTAs to external purchasing mechanisms.

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

#110

Post by josefresco »

falcolas wrote: post #38
sabellito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for cash, and another for credit cards.

Some businesses in my town still do this. When I see it, the only thing I think is "they must be committing light tax fraud". Maybe it's wrong, but I know what merchants pay for CC transactions and it doesn't justify the whining from business owners who have been accepting cards for decades and suddenly decided CC transactions were unprofitable because business is slumping /rant.

Post reply on HN