Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by solarmist » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

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%

No, and it wasn’t meant to. It was meant to let companies keep more and give Apple less. That’s all.

In all likely hood things will get worse for consumers. I will definite not buy apps requiring custom payment platforms. Hopefully it’ll settle on stripe companies will offer multiple payment methods rather than trying to force their own.

I look forward to it making Apple lower its IAP fees for everyone. I’d still like to use their infrastructure, but without the enormous fees (15% for small devs is still huge).

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

#122

Post by bialpio » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

radley wrote: post #52

bialpio wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hmm. I'm reading "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws" as "we cannot decide on this matter". Is this not the right interpretation?

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

#123

Post by echelon » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

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's a new game, and we need new definitions.

Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous.

They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole.

Their objective: capturing attention and keeping their users on their platforms longer. They use their platform bubbles to capture a large group of users that will never leave their services. Like Apple users. They're all in a bubble, and if you want access, you have to pay a steep tax and jump to the beat of the their whims.

And this isn't a new kind of monopoly? It's a monopolization in a new sense: they wrap their shroud over individuals and companies and keep them attached at the hip. Switching costs become incredible.

Apple, Google, and Amazon are turning us into serfs. They have a quasi republic going on that they tax and control. You can't start new businesses. You can't escape. If they target your small market, you're screwed.

The DOJ needs to break these companies up into twenty or so smaller ones that don't form a cobweb of entrapment.

Apple/Google/etc fans and shareholders will disagree, but these companies are hurting our industry and soaking up all the innovation.

[1] FAAMG companies with supremely anticompetitive behavior

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

#124

Post by dannyw » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

spzb wrote: post #104

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…

Apple's concession was for reader apps only. This expands it to all apps.

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

#125

Post by colinmhayes » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

fxtentacle wrote: post #70

Reading this, I cannot help but imagine someone at Apple thinking to themselves "I wish we had granted Epic an exemption like we did with Netflix". The court proceedings and the documents that they were required to disclose were surely bad for PR and now it looks like they won't even keep the monetary benefits.

Epic is interested in creating their own store and increasing revenue developers get because of their unreal engine fee.

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

#126

Post by belltaco » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

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?

Are ultraportable laptops tethered? Would you call them mobile?

Anyway, "mobile" has long been used as a short form for "mobile phone" rather than a "mobile device". E.g. the iPod was not called a mobile, and AFAIK barely anyone uses that term for tablets.

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

#127

Post by diebeforei485 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

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?

Correct- it is 0.15% on credit card transactions, or a flat $0.005 per debit card transaction.

Stripe (which charges 2.9% + $0.30) is willing to eat this fee, presumably because of the benefits of vastly lower fraudulent transactions and chargebacks.

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

#128

Post by dannyw » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

throw_m239339 wrote: post #106

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.

huh? The judge pretty much told everyone the outcome in May: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/epic-appl....

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

#129

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #118

endisneigh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple were a minor player, would the things you describe still be anti-competitive?

Yes, but if you're tiny it just doesn't matter, and the laws are explicitly written with this in mind.

Do you have examples of these laws (in the USA specifically)?

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

#130

Post by fotta » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #29

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…

It explicitly prohibits Apple from prohibiting any form of In-App purchasing, not merely links to external payments methods.

I disagree here. My read on it is that Apple is prohibited from prohibiting "calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms", not "purchasing mechanisms" themselves. So Apple can still say App Store IAP is the only allowed form of IAP, but they have to allow CTAs to other mechanisms.