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

261–270 of 958 posts

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

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #83
sombremesa wrote: post #50

What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?

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.

> Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling.

They can, but it has a high probability of additional adverse consequences.

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

#262

Post by WA »

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…

Apple could start to compete on price for IAPs, so that devs favor Apple’s solution out of free choice, not because they have to.

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

#263

Post by toast0 »

wvenable wrote: post #156
pwinnski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Laptops use mobile cpus, but desktop oses and software.

PC based tablets are kind of weird, but iOS/Android mobile OS based tablets are more or less phones with big screens and no/limited calling features.

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

#264

Post by kllrnohj »

simonh wrote: post #197
MAGZine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Android, I use Google Pay all of the time for in-app purchases, and it doesn't require Google to take 30%. It's just another payment processor. It often shows up beside "add a credit card" in apps. I use it to order food, pay for rideshare, buy tickets, etc.

According to google, that is not correct. They levy a 30% fee on all Play Store transactions for apps and IAP. I've seen articles that say they are cutting the fee to 15% for businesses with under $1m revenue, but that's not what the support page says. https://support.google.com/paymentscenter/answer/7159343?hl=... Buying physical goods and services may not count, in the same way that they don't count on the Apple Ap…

It's a 30% fee if you use Play Store's IAP system. It's not a 30% fee to use Google Pay as a payment provider ( https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6288971?hl=e... )

Same distinction exists on Apple's side with IAP vs. Apple Pay. For example Apple Pay on the Web ( https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_pay_on_the_w... ) doesn't take anywhere close to a 30% cut. In fact it, like Google Pay, is also free for merchants, who just have to pay the normal payment processor fees. https://squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/apple-pay-for-small-bu...

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

#265

Post by torstenvl »

kodah wrote: post #236
np_tedious wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: h…

I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to ask for the information I think would make your comment more helpful.

Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does she say it? Why does that appeal to you?

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

#266

Post by ethbr0 »

WA wrote: post #256
mertd wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web purchases.

Exactly. Stripe and PayPal could be integrated easily.

But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh. Now I see what this was about.

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

#267

Post by latexr »

hrbf wrote: post #185

On 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 subscriptio…

> it will undoubtedly lead to (…) a flood of scams or scam-like apps.

Scams are alive and well on the App Store, they don’t need this ruling to thrive: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...

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

#268

Post by foolfoolz »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #258
mertd wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web purchases.

For the money

all you need is a number smaller than 30%. build your own or use someone else for 10%? easy choice

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

#269

Post by dragonwriter »

sombremesa wrote: post #50

What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?

> What's the penalty for Apple just ignoring this ruling, if any?

In addition to whatever penalties are available in law for the act outside of the ruling, they would also face additional consequences for contempt of court. And its generally easier to prove a violation of the order than a violation of the law justifying the order.

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

#270

Post by cptskippy »

mbreese wrote: post #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…

This is how I read it:

    permanently restrained and enjoined from
      1) prohibiting developers from
         a) including in their apps and their metadata:
               i) buttons, 
               ii) external links, or 
               iii) other calls to action 
            that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, 
         b) in addition to In-App Purchasing and 
         c) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
Post reply on HN