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

131–140 of 958 posts

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

#131

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #3

Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.

One fact that has emerged is that Apple is pushing lock-in as a strategy. So to everyone who has ever felt like they are too "invested" in the ecosystem to leave- that is by design. You are victims.

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

#132

Post by madeofpalk »

Factorium wrote: post #23

Can this legal precedent also be applied to Steam?

It's hard to draw parallels to Steam, because this case was about iPhone + App Store, not just the App Store itself.

If you don't want to pay Steam's cut, or follow their restrictions you have plenty of other options. You are not restricted in the sense you are with iPhone + App Store.

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

#134

Post by sombremesa »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #83
sombremesa wrote: post #50

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.

> they cannot ignore a ruling

Why not?

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

#135

Post by diebeforei485 »

dannyw wrote: post #27
christopherwxyz wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

If they want to keep this rule, they can- but they're just losing out.

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

#136

Post by Rels »

I don't understand the logic behind this ruling.

So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30% now), and they have to change that.

But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made after their update in which they used direct payment?

But if Epic didn't try to go around the rule and loudly complain, there would be no judicial case, and no ruling forcing Apple to change?

This is weird to me.

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

#137

Post by endisneigh »

cblconfederate wrote: post #105
endisneigh wrote: post #77

Is this also true for Epic Games? Why would anyone not circumvent all fees for any platform?

In many platforms it's not worth the effort, or the native payment method is actually cheaper than any potential competitor

Curious to know which platforms have lower fees than doing it yourself.

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

#138

Post by BackBlast »

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…

Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much?

At the end of the day, services have to provide value. If your customers don't want to pay for your services, they do not value them. That's a dangerous position for any company to try to maintain. The mobile software industry generally has been chaffing at the fees for quite some time now, these are the warning signs that all is not well.

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

#140

Post by kkcorps »

Rels wrote: post #136

I don't understand the logic behind this ruling. So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30% now), and they have to change that. But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made after their update in which they used direct payment? But if Epic didn't try to…

Taking one for the team.
Post reply on HN