Seems like this essentially kills the game console business. If 3rd party Xbox and Playstation games are allowed to sell content with their own payment system, why would anyone buy games through Microsoft/Sony?
Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
181–190 of 958 posts
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#182[deleted]
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#183Earlier 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?
Fines now. Jail later.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
Why twist the words straight from the ruling ? If they “concluded Apple is not a monopolist” they would have said so. They deliberately choose a different turn of phrase for these words, let’s respect the nuance they cared to put there.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#185On the one hand this great for consumer choice, on the other, it will undoubtedly lead to a loss in purchasing confidence of regular users and a flood of scams or scam-like apps. Especially with regard to subscriptions, we’ve seen this play out via SMS-based ringtone subscriptions of days past.
Personally, I will never subscribe to anything on my iOS devices if I cannot view and cancel it via the built-in subscription management. Here’s to hoping that Apple is going to make integration with it mandatory.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
They literally did, at the bottom of page 1 of the ruling
> Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. [snip explanation] The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#187> “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: capturin…
I don't think we need a new word for this. What you've described is a cartel [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel]. To the extent that they restrain trade, prohibit competition, or artificially increase costs on consumers, cartels are already illegal in the US.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#188https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blu...
Should Apple appeal? I don't think so; they now have much bigger thing to worry about. If they decide to appeal, it'll generate even more publicity and congress and public are going to be more engaged. Apple desperately wants to get it over with as silent as possible.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#189> “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…
> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.
Unlikely. While there may now be a legal decision in place it will still be argued whether or not it was the correct one.
Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
#190I 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.
I am unclear about this actually. I think the actual injunction will be a separate document released soon. But here's the judge's description in the ruling:
> a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP
Obviously this would seem to imply that developers are allowed to accept payment from alternative systems to unlock digital content in apps. But it doesn't explicitly say that. All it explicitly says is that developers can link to alternative payment systems. I hope the actual injunction is more explicit.