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

221–230 of 958 posts

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

#221

Post by shadowgovt »

borski wrote: post #155
bialpio wrote: post #122

Earlier 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…

Bialpio has a reasonable interpretation for court-speak. The fuller relevant quote is this:

"Having defined the relevant market as digital global gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple's conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."

Borski's interpretation is right under the "innocent until proven guilty" burden-of-proof in criminal cases. Bialpo's interpretation is correct in that this Court has not made, as a finding of fact, that Apple is not a monopoly, only that the evidence brought by Epic to this trial does not prove Apple is a monopoly (i.e. another case on this topic may be brought if more compelling evidence is available).

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

#222

Post by modeless »

Macha wrote: post #217
modeless wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Unr…

> possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? I think this is unlikely. Mac gamers need Unreal more than games developed using Unreal need Mac users. Mac is an incredibly niche market for games - they're not going to rewrite their game using a different engine to run on Mac, and Apple knows that. Of course, Apple could decide they don't give a shit about native Mac games, why don't you play our iOS games, but tha…

Apple already terminated Epic's Mac developer account for Unreal, and refused to reinstate it until the judge forced them to with a restraining order earlier in the trial. So they've demonstrated willingness to retaliate in this way. And now that the trial is over I think they are not bound by the restraining order anymore.

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

#223

Post by sudhirj »

Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S. Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue.

1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account, say at $5,000 a year.

The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system. All Apple has to do is to make the rates competitive enough, that after considering building their own purchases system, factoring in sales tax and VAT, most developers will happily just opt for Apple's system if the rates make sense. Many people are putting up with 30% already — bringing the rates down to something reasonable with an upgrade path to put them on par with payment processors like Stripe (with VAT and Billing and Radar) or Paddle will just increase revenues for them.

The moment they drop rates and ease restrictions apps that are not being built because of these rules will get built, and these apps will gladly pay the market rate of 5% to 10% for a full service payments system.

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

#225

Post by dannyw »

pupppet wrote: post #210

I don't see developers dropping their price now they can use their own payment processor. All I see is me, the user, having to struggle through using their janky home-made payment processors as I pay and/or try to end my subscriptions.

Developers will probably just use apple pay plus PayPal.

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

#226

Post by poniko »

OisinMoran wrote: post #195

To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right" thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or decisions like this should include the…

Why, the curt said follow the terms of contract (Since the contract is valid). Why should you get a penalty because you legally have a chance to dispute a contract? You might need to pay the legal fees etc but the default must be to have the fair chance to challenge what you might seem unfair in said contract.

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

#227

Post by simonh »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131
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.

How dare they make their systems work so well together and easy to use.

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

#228

Post by paulpan »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this ruling only applies for in-app purchases correct? E.g. Apple cannot force apps to default to and only use to its payment infrastructure for post-sale and within app transactions (which comes with 30% fees).

In other words if my app costs $10 and in-app transactions are $1 apiece, Apple still gets $3 from initial purchase but instead of $.30 from each subsequent in-app transaction, I could potentially keep $.97 (assuming 3% credit card fees).

If so I think the long-term impact will be most interesting in that will Apple raise its developer fee significantly and/or discourage "free" apps to cover its hosting, review, other overhead costs. It would also incentive app developers to become more like game developers: every feature becomes its own add-on/DLC.

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

#229

Post by shadowgovt »

ecf wrote: post #206
smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “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 nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

Apple goes beyond not facilitating other businesses; they actively ban other app stores (because the only legit way to get an app store on an iPhone is to install it from their app store).

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

#230

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 »

OisinMoran wrote: post #195

To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right" thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or decisions like this should include the…

Very good point. I believe that the judge just gave a slap on the wrist to Epic Games with that fine (that's why it was equal to just the "back-pay") for breaking a contract (which is wrong, legally speaking.)

I believe the judge did this (just a slap) because Epic was right and Apple was anti-competitive.

I could be wrong though. I have very little knowledge of anti-competitive laws.

Post reply on HN