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

161–170 of 958 posts

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

#161

Post by modeless »

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…

I guess the judge's logic is that Epic could have sued without breaching the contract first, even if the contract was actually illegal. I don't agree that it should work that way, but the damages are immaterial. The bigger issue is: can/will Apple permanently terminate Epic's developer account for breach of contract and prevent them from releasing Fortnite despite this ruling, and possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? It seems to me that they can.

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

#162

Post by kemayo »

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…

The ruling explains the logic near the last page of the decision -- it's basically "Epic didn't have to break their contract in order to sue". I think it's the judge slapping Epic on the wrist for grandstanding, even though they basically-won.

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

#163

Post by jcranmer »

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?

Reading only a snippet of the opinion, 100% chance of appeal. At the very least, the court effectively says it has no authority as to why it can issue a nationwide (instead of statewide) injunction; you'd be a fool to not at least appeal that. The fact that the court also came to a different decision from both Apple and Epic as to what constitutes the appropriate market for determining monopoly also seems like it would be fruitful grounds for appeal.

Will Apple win? I don't know 9th Circuit or the applicable law anywhere near enough to answer that question.

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

#164

Post by zachlatta »

BackBlast wrote: post #138
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…

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 s…

Honestly in some cases, yes. Subscription in-app purchases are the only subscriptions I have ever signed up for that are easy to cancel.

I prefer to subscribe to services through in-app purchases over the service's website itself because it's always easy to cancel subscriptions made through Apple, and I never forget I'm getting charged because I get payment receipts.

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

#165

Post by wvenable »

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.

When you get hacked and your account is destroyed, at least all your eggs won't be in one basket.

There are always pros and cons.

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

#166

Post by dundarious »

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…

They seem to have ruled only that you can’t prohibit links to alternative payment methods (which would not be IAPs). You can still prohibit alternative actually IAPs, so Epic’s alternative IAPs must pay the fee.

Edit: Note that this a descriptive statement regarding the ruling, not a normative statement of my opinion.

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

#167

Post by gumby »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #97
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…

It would be hilarious if the end result was iOS users no longer being as valuable to app developers, if the ecosystem just starts to feel sketchy and people stop spending as freely on it. I don’t think it’s likely, but it feels plausible enough to lol at the idea.

This doesn’t stop Apple from controlling which apps can be installed. It stops them from using a link to external payment as a criterion.

I do think this will have some effect that you describe (e.g. perhaps Epic suffers a breach in their payment system) on the end user side but it’s not as bad as the android store situation. if anything it will make iOS users more attractive to devs as they can now keep a larger percentage of IAP sales.

But when IAP costs less than 30% I expect all paid apps to go the IAP route.

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

#168

Post by bialpio »

cush wrote: post #66
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…

Dodging the question would be a non-ruling. The judge issued an injunction. It's in the title of the post.

I seem to recall reporting around some Supreme Court ruling that was phrased as "there is a ruling but the question is still undecided". It may have been Google v. Oracle, where it didn't say APIs are copyrightable or not, but Google's use fell under fair use irrespective of that. So just the existence of a ruling doesn't mean there is an answer to the question that was asked.

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

#169

Post by therealdrag0 »

endisneigh wrote: post #144
dannyw wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name me another platform where you are forced into a duopoly with identical policies.

Gaming consoles.

We can still buy games outside the platform at this point. But we're probably nearing an age of consoles without disk drives, then yeah.

I guess there is still the in-app purchase angle.

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

#170

Post by perfectstorm »

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…

> Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appealing to me, despite the win for consumers and developers.

this is not an unresolvable issue though. Apple could force developers to make their payment option as the default payment option similar to how they forced devs to use Sign in with Apple (when they have third party login). Big companies like PayPal could provide an SDK which can be used by devs to complete trasaction similar to web. I could think of many more ways to solve this issue.

Post reply on HN