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

281–290 of 958 posts

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

#281

Post by cblconfederate »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #253
cblconfederate wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how many billions? It seems their max app gaming revenue lost would be 64 * 70% * 30% = 13.4B for 2021 , but it's probably a lot smaller due to special deals, and also this would assume they would lose ALL the revenue. In reality they'd lose about,maybe ~$3B ? The alternative would alienate some of their best developers -- who knows, maybe they'd leave?

where will they leave? 50% of market is Apple's and majority of people play games on their mobile phones and not on dedicated setups.

how much did fortnite lose?

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

#282

Post by dpkonofa »

ethbr0 wrote: post #266
WA wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have to stand up their own versions of this (or if they even can) and whether or not it'll be as seamless for the end user.

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

#283

Post by natpalmer1776 »

simonh wrote: post #172
kodah wrote: 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…

How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?

I just want take the time to compliment this question. I find it difficult to articulate exactly what you've done here, but I wish I saw it more often.

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

#285

Post by marricks »

gpm wrote: post #251
marricks wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, didn't it always seem like Epic was itching for a fight no matter what happened? That's the impression I got from the case but I also didn't follow it super closely.

It did, but Apple might have been able to prevent Epic from having standing to sue by giving them an exception.

I imagine that could have hurt their case if Epic was always going to sue anyways.

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

#286

Post by gpm »

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?

(Not a lawyer, or really an expert on anti-trust law)

I fully expect both sides to appeal. To much money is on the line to not try.

Even if Apple knew they would lose the appeal, I expect they still would, to try and get a stay on this ruling pending the outcome of the case.

I've always been very sympathetic to Epic's side of this case, still am, personally I don't expect Apple to win appeal [1], but I also wouldn't rank the odds of that happening as significantly lower that I thought the odds were of them winning the initial case.

Epic might be willing to settle without an appeal in exchange for the ability to continue developing unreal engine for iOS... but given that Apple is not likely to be willing to settle (see above) I doubt that will happen. Apple might choose to unban epic anyways, since the game engine only being available for android hurts them, but I doubt it.

[1] Though if a detail here or there changed in Apples favor that would not be surprising.

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

#287

Post by spywaregorilla »

plandis wrote: post #280

As a consumer I trust how Apple payments work and like the fact that everyone was using it on iOS. Now I will need to cut back on apps and do more due diligence to avoid scams and other issues. Hard to see how this is a win for consumers in addition to developers.

You can still use Apple payments.

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

#288

Post by echelon »

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…

We don't need a corporate nanny state. Society has thrived without Apple putting its mittens on everything and everybody.

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

madeofpalk wrote: post #179
NationalPark wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s tons of value in a unified payment system, which is why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users. For instance, ease of cancellation of recurring fees is enormous. You can bet that’s going to get harder as developers get more control. And anyway, The app developers have no motivation to charge you less, the market already bears the fees, they just want to capture that profit for themselves. Personally…

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN