Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

231–240 of 958 posts

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

#231
If an app has been blocked from the app store because it doesn't have In-App purchases (it has its own credit card form), do we know how this judgement affects things?

It sounds like the app would be allowed to link to an external payment system, but it's not clear if a non-Apple in app payment system would be allowed.

It's also not clear to me if In-App purchases (through Apple) could be required for approval into the store? I assume Apple would still have the power to require use of their payment system.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users The judge commented on that >> "Apple created an innovative platform but it did not disclose its rules to the average consumer. Apple has used this lack of knowledge to exploit its position. --- > Personally I probably just won’t buy things that require me to sign up for a new payment system You, as a consumer, will now have a choice, which you'll get to…

> This sounds like a win! Not if I wasn't interested in having the choice to begin with. Now some apps will not be purchasable by me unless I go through their account flow, which I don't want to. It's strictly worse (for me).

There is now a market force for Apple to make its IAP services better, which makes it more likely for developers to make apps with it (theoretically).

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

#233
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if Epic will sue Steam Why would Epic sue Steam? Fornite isnt on Steam, because it doesn't need to be. It's the platform (Windows) working in a competitive way!

Console developers on the other hand, are almost certainly next.

I think Epic has a good relationship with console developers, generally, because they help each other out. Epic seems happy that it actually gets something back for giving up that 30%.

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

#235
IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing.

> ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing ...

To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able to link out to an external purchasing mechanism. So, for example a link to the Epic Store web page must be allowed, but a different in-app purchasing mechanism could still be limited. Which, I think that was the main complaint for many other developers -- you couldn't accept payments outside of the App Store (like on your website).

So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves. This seems to be a pretty common-sense written injunction, meaning that developers are allowed to communicate with users and accept payment outside of the Apple garden. This seems pretty straightforward and would cover many (most?) of the developer complaints for dealing with their customers.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i...

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

#236
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change , imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing congl…

Some good faith changes to the definition of monopoly could certainly be valuable. However, I fear most efforts would start with "Companies X, Y, and Z need to be categorized as monopolies. Let's write rules to fit"

Agreed. Lina Khan is one of my favorite voices on this matter for that reason.

Edit:

Stating my opinion without why isn't very HN-ly of me, eh?

She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of).

If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...

In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we convinced ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled a lot of innovation, which led to some reforms later and the anti-trust we have today which are demonstrably too permissive. She has picked on Amazon (as a wider corporation) quite a bit, but a lot of it has to do with the practices of their ecommerce division and the extent to which Amazon can compete with it's vendors. Basically, she believes there's a middleground to be found between the two anti-trust time periods and that it's important to be concise in how we do that. You can see some of her specific criticisms in the article above.

A more full bibliography can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan

I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce" as that's the one that resonated with me, having worked in the startup world.

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

#237
post #217

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 is an incredibly spiteful company. They will happily cut off Unreal Engine to spite Epic even if it fucks over their users and developers. They did exactly the same to Nvidia and to Khronos group, and they will do it to Epic too.

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

#238

This is somewhat surprising to me. I thought Epic had a reasonable chance of getting an eventual win on some points, or in getting enough attention that regulators stepped in. I also thought Apple had a pretty decent chance of winning. But I did not think that Epic had a particularly strong chance of getting an injunction like this. I hope that the takeaway people take from this is "it's tricky to guess what a judge…

Something that I like to do, when discussing these issues with people, is get the other person to commit to a position, ahead of time, and go back to those comments later to see who was right.

I had multiple discussions, with many commenters on hacker news, where people were way too certain about the court case, when clearly it could have gone many different ways (Thus, I agree with you that "it's tricky to guess what a judge will do during a contentious case" ).

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

#239
post #226

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.

His argument was that if you don't pay all the time and get caught some of the times, then you only have to pay some of the time.

If fees is $100 each time and you don't pay 100 times and get caught only 50 times, then you only pay 50 times 100=5000 rather than 100 times 100=10000.

And we are talking in tens of millions, so legal fees are negligible.

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

#240

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 Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes.

When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in France? Apple collected the money, paid the VAT to the French government. If you do this through your own means, you will need to establish a relationship with the French government so that you can pay them the VAT that you have to collect from your users.

This will ultimately benefit large companies who can jump through the hops of managing all this, putting the independent developers in a disadvantaged position due to the high barrier of entry into improved margin(compared to Apple Store where everyone gets the same cut) payments. In some places you can be required to send a printed receipt to the user.

It would not be fun to watch, let's say Zynga, collecting their low cost payments across all their portfolio by making users sign up once and having indie games instantly losing a payment or falling back to high commission options because users are tired of entering payment info for each game.

Sad day for the little guy. Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission or is it Epic, Netflix, Spotify who will benefit from this? Unless you do low margin commission work (like platform where you take a cut, i.e. online tutoring) the %30 commission is a non issue.

Game crystals don't really have a cost, so %5 cut or %30 cut doesn't really matter that much. However, one company having access to the %5 and other not having access to it will change the landscape because the large company will be able to advertise more thanks to its better margins, wiping out the rest.

Post reply on HN