Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by DannyBee » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

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…

You are very confused. Courts don't make calls as to whether companies are monopolist in general. The judge doesn't even try to do that (though someone is trying to make it seem like they have).

They make a call about whether a company has monopoly power in a specific market defined in a specific case.

In this case, the court does not believe Apple is a monopolist in a specifically defined digital gaming market.

That has no bearing or relevance on whether they are a monopolist in some other defined market (or even on a different day in the same market!)

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

#302

Post by volkk » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

sudhirj wrote: post #223

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 c…

> 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.

the apple developer ecosystem (with regards to subscriptions and app purchases) in my experience has been quite awful for a multi trillion dollar company. really bad API docs, really poor experience around understanding what is even happening in their black box. i'm honestly astonished at how "unfinished" the whole experience feels. something like Stripe is on another level

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

#303

Post by jdavis703 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #250

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…

In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more into anti-competitive practice discourse. Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too. They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch direct competitors ( > shady). That's the root of the problem in many cases. Of…

Most of the apps that Apple sells are already in highly competitive markets like music, video streaming, cloud storage, etc.

I really don’t feel bad if some developer selling a leveler app for 99¢ goes out of business because Apple pre-installs a free leveling app on the iPhone.

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

#304

Post by 8ytecoder » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #275

sudhirj wrote: post #223

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 c…

> 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. The first sentence is true but incomplete, making the second wrong. For example, the Amazon app is highly likely to have people using their existing Amazon payment method. Companies like Stripe are going to offer their own SDKs just like they do fo…

Oh I agree with you. I think 30% is highway robbery and that opinion hasn't changed since day one.

But also just take a look at the number of subscriptions we all have these days - Entertainment stuff (Spotify/Music, Netflix/streaming, HBO, Xbox Live), Donations (Charity, Github Sponsors), Software (Password managers, backup solutions, Jetbrains, Adobe), Membership (Prime/equivalent, internet, mobile), ... yada yada yada. It's a huge unwieldy list.

I have tried my best to keep at least all the app ones in iTunes/Apple (in my case - weather app, dating apps, productivity apps). My alternative is I just won't subscribe. I'm sick of the subscription economy as it is. This would be the last straw. If Bumble tells me I have to give them my cc info and have to call them to cancel (like NYT does), I just won't subscribe.

Essentially I'm subscribed to some of these apps because I'm not being forced against my will to stay subscribed using terms and conditions that are outrageous (looking at Adobe with its annual contract).

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

#305

Post by cblconfederate » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

Apple is probably going to make a list of "allowed" payment partners. This decision doesn't seem to disallow them to have a say in that.

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

#306

Post by howinteresting » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #227

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does not allowing alternative browsers (only skins) on their best-selling platform have to do with that?

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

#307

Post by draw_down » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #25

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…

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank, compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the dev…

Who is we? I imagine app makers want this, but as a user I do not care to enter my credit card details just so they can save on their cut to Apple. It’s understandable from their POV, but not my problem.

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

#308

Post by chipotle_coyote » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

BackBlast wrote: post #138

coldcode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways? Also if people move away from giving Apple any money for the App Store, I expect the annual fee to increase to make up for it, and might Apple make you pay more if you don't use Apple's gateway? I don't see…

Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much? At the end of the day, services have to provide value. If your customers don't want to pay for your services, they do not value them. That's a dangerous position for any company to try to maintain. The mobile software industry generally has been chaffing at the fees for quite some time now, these are the warning s…

> Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple payment gateway?

This is the argument Epic's tried to make, and it isn't particularly convincing. The iOS App Store is filled with cheap apps, to the point where many people react to a one-time price of $9.99 as disturbingly expensive. Apps and games that are literally identical on iOS to other platforms are frequently cheaper in their iOS releases because that's what the market expects. So in practice, the 30% cost is usually being eaten by developers, not passed on to consumers. There's a lot of good arguments to be made for cutting that 30% share down to 15% for everyone across the board, but "now you'll only be charged $4.99 instead of $5.99 for this game you would have paid $14.99 for on the Switch version" just isn't one of them.

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

#309

Post by Retric » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #278

ethbr0 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an…

I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create. When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market. Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people..…

> 99%

Your describing a monopoly. IMO the real question is what actually harms consumers.

Requiring companies to open their platforms is one option for regulation, but perhaps not ideal. Great for tech companies sure, but possibly a huge opportunity for scammers. Consumers and companies are often at odds, banning app coins for example is great for gamers and the opposite of an open platform.

A flat regulation that all software platforms are limited to X% fees might be a better option.

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

#310

Post by travoc » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #298

acdha wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The first sentence is true but incomplete, making the second wrong. For example, the Amazon app is highly likely to have people using their existing Amazon payment method. Companies like Stripe are going to offer their own SDKs just like they do fo…

Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Apple does a really good job of warning me, I feel, and centralizing subscription cancellation etc., and that's huge. Like, if I have to go to your app--or worse, your website--to cancel a subscription? I'm gonna just not use your stuff, because I'm going to forget about it until you whack me for another year or whatever.

You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.