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

141–150 of 958 posts

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

#141

Post by themaninthedark »

Factorium wrote: post #82
wormslayer666 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it doesn't.

See Rimworld. https://store.steampowered.com/app/294100/RimWorld/

Sidebar has link to visit the website. https://rimworldgame.com/ You can buy directly with Credit Card or Paypal.

Fantasy Ground is the same way: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1196310/Fantasy_Grounds_U...

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

#142

Post by Osiris »

cblconfederate wrote: post #32

Should apple appeal this? Is it really worth further damage? It turns out the little guys were right all along. It's surprising that it took legal action for apple to realize that, when you invite millions of third parties in your marketplace, you should treat them with some respect. And when this leads to prices of purchases going down, how are people going to keep justifying apple's position. I think the biggest wi…

The ruling could cost them billions of dollars in revenue. It's absolutely worth appealing. Even if they lose in the long run, they'll make a few billion more in the mean time.

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

#143

Post by colinmhayes »

noxvilleza wrote: post #6

If someone has read the full ruling and is familiar enough with the case, what are the odds Apple appeals this - and if they do, is it likely they will win the appeal?

100% chance apple appeals. App store revenue is like 15 billion a year and margins have got to be huge.

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

#145

Post by cblconfederate »

endisneigh wrote: post #137
cblconfederate wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on the effort needed to "do it yourself" which is a lot if you're accounting many many tiny transactions. There's definitely a market there, or at least there was during the FB games era.

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

#146

Post by bialpio »

madeofpalk wrote: post #46
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…

What does an answer actually look like?

I'd expect one of the 2 phrasings to be present:

"the Court concludes that Apple is a monopolist under federal / state antitrust laws"

"the Court concludes that Apple is not a monopolist under neither federal nor state antitrust laws"

Instead, the court went with the third, which to me means "we have not ruled on whether Apple is a monopolist or not, lawsuits welcome". Is that not the right way to look at it?

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

#147

Post by barkerja »

madeofpalk wrote: post #101
coldcode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My concern is less about random one-off purchases but more the management of on-going subscriptions. Having Apple handle that, is a blessing, from a user perspective. I have a single place to manage all the random $1 - $10 subscriptions that I have, making it easy to change/cancel at any moment's notice, and from any device.

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

#148

Post by rvz »

dannyw wrote: post #36
theginger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems pretty big, like it should have an immediate impact with everyone who ever wanted to use alternative payments on any app store should be submitted an updated app today kind of big. Are there strings like appeal rights that means we won't see a change for years?

the injuction only applies after 90 days. Likely both Apple and Epic will appeal.

So it is not over yet. Anything can happen until then.

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

#149

Post by akmarinov »

nullspace wrote: post #47
socialist_coder wrote: post #35

This 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.

Yeah, agree. I think this would kill the App Store model. It's surprising that the stock only dipped by 2%. What am I missing?

This ruling enables devs to use third party payment providers, it doesn't force Apple to let alternative App Stores on iOS.

Apple can and will still reject any apps they feel like.

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

#150

Post by mystcb »

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…

> 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?

I think this is a fair argument, and I believe also shows that if options are available, that is where us as a consumer have our freedom. I also personally like the ability to quickly pay when needed for things using Apple, but in return - if I was able to pay for it because another offer, or option, or something was presented to me that was easier, I would totally take that that too. However, I can see how that would be a loss for the people writing and maintaining the app and the associated services.

The problem I see is that this swinging at the moment between a single payment gateway and every payment gateway out there is a huge pendulum that is swinging to the extremes of both, neither side actually gets anything good out of it.

It would be lovely in a world where the option was to use Apple + an external, and letting users decide what they feel safe with. Some will be happy going direct with Apple, some would be happier with .

I think it is mentioned below, I can see larger companies immediately dropping the Apple method because it loses them the extra profit, and just making the ecosystem harder. People lose faith in paying for services, and then another service comes along, charging 30%, and we are back where we started.

So yeah, IMHO, it is good it is being recognised, but at the same time, its going to be a bumpy ride.

Post reply on HN