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

151–160 of 958 posts

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

#151

Post by colinmhayes »

sombremesa wrote: post #134
AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why can't you ignore your tax bill?

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

#152

Post by kkcorps »

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 think it will ultimately boil down to 2-3 major payment gateways such as Stripe after initial chaotic 'every app trying to be force their own payment processor' phase

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by spzb »

dannyw wrote: post #124
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.

I meant "sounds similar to". I've edited my comment for clarity now.

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

#155

Post by borski »

bialpio wrote: post #122
radley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is not the right interpretation. They didn’t say they cannot conclude one way or the other - they said they cannot conclude that Apple is a monopolist, period - meaning that they have concluded Apple is not a monopolist (under current state and federal laws).

They did not say “we cannot ultimately conclude whether Apple is a monopolist” which would be your interpretation.

[edit] Given the downvotes (really?) I suppose I should add the nuance that all of this is based on this specific case and evidence presented; the case did not conclude that Apple can never be a monopoly (in another case, with other evidence) but that in this case, it isn’t.

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

#156

Post by wvenable »

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?

If iPads are mobile, why aren't laptops?

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

#157

Post by mhermher »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #49

This is a big deal. I wonder how Apple will respond to dealing with the bandwidth costs of free apps with large bandwidth requirements. Hopefully they just get rid of free apps, and require customers to pay upfront so that they don’t have to deal with as many advertisements.

They're just gonna increase developer license fees.

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

#158

Post by akmarinov »

dannyw wrote: post #124
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.

Also a "reader app" is whatever Apple felt a reader app is, it's not something specific that an app should be.

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

#159

Post by ZekeSulastin »

maccard wrote: post #34
scardycat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Not if it solely results in fragmentation. Having the choice between Ubisoft Connect, EA Origin, Steam and Battle.net isn't a "choice", it's just 4 different storefronts for me to manage credentials for.

If and when Apple is forced to allow other app stores (and Google is forced to give them the same abilities and privileges as their own), the wailing and gnashing of teeth when “competition” ends up like the much derided state of PC gaming will be hilarious. At least there’s the login with google/Apple ID thing and OS level restrictions on program privileges?

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

#160

Post by jimbob45 »

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…

Epic only has to pay out ~$4 million for their "damages" so it's largely moot and ceremonial for them. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it seems contradictory.
Post reply on HN