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

331–340 of 958 posts

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

#331

Post by 0xf8 »

travoc wrote: post #310
eropple wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am also more than ok to pay that premium for the benefit of centralized subscription management. an additional instance of the “edge case”.

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

#332

Post by hwbehrens »

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 could decide they don't give a shit about native Mac games

I think it's possible to make persuasive argument that this already took place around the time that they killed OpenGL support and/or refused to allow Vulkan support. Requiring a proprietary API that only works on a tiny subset of gaming devices* seems like they've already made their position on this topic very clear.

* I'm excluding mobile devices here since mobile games were called out as a different market in the parent comment.

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

#333

Post by sangnoir »

xvector wrote: post #245
summerlight wrote: post #188

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blu... Should Apple appeal? I don't think so; they now have much bigger thing to worry about. If they decide to appeal, it'll generate even more publicity and congress and public are going to be more engaged. Apple desperately wants to get it over with as silent as possible.

Apple WILL appeal. This is 25% of their yearly revenue at risk. I think many people don't realize just how critical this case is to Apple.

If they appeal, they'll be on the line to lose even more (and Epic is itching for this fight to continue, so Epic might appeal). Apple can cut its losses and be happy with the current, quantified ruling, or roll the dice and possibly run into a terrible precedent for other jurisdictions that have been rattling their sabers at Apple.

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

#334

Post by skrtskrt »

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.

Shopify's "Shop Pay" has already introduced a seamless payment interaction across many sites without a need for a separate account or to trust so many people with payment info - the idea that something similar wouldn't be created and get adoption for subscriptions on mobile seems highly unlikely.

I have subscriptions and accounts all over the web, and I have never have had an issue canceling anything via a website - the only exception being the NYTimes and all its dark patterns.

Out of probably 10+ subscriptions we use (Netflix, Spotify, HBO, Hulu, etc), I have only ever had one through the Apple system, and it's not even active anymore.

Just using a password manager and having a separate email for junk/mail from various accounts keeps me in the loop on what accounts I still have laying around. The Apple subscription section is the absolute last place I look when I don't know where a charge came from.

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

#336

Post by bogwog »

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.

Im sure every random app wont be rolling their own payment system. Paypal’s transaction fees for example are significantly lower than Apple (less than 4% vs Apple’s 30%), and millions of users already have a Paypal account, so they could buy your product without having to create an account or enter payment info.

Idk if Paypal lets you cancel subscriptions directly through them, but they could certainly implement that if there’s demand. The same goes for any other payment company that wants a piece of this new and enormous opportunity.

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

#337

Post by bobthepanda »

travoc wrote: post #310
eropple wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fair amount of companies makes their subscription cancellation actively hostile in an effort to not get people to do it. To give an example, though you can subscribe online, the NYT requires you to call during only certain hours to a customer service line where you get badgered and questioned like you’re trying to cancel a cable subscription.

If the US mandated that you need to provide equivalent means of subscription and unsubscription with equal ease of use that would be one thing, but we do not live in that world.

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

#338

Post by judge2020 »

dundarious wrote: post #215
modeless wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unclear about this actually. I think the actual injunction will be a separate document released soon. But here's the judge's description in the ruling: > a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP Obviously this would…

I doubt they’re saying you can link to methods of payment but can’t provide goods or services in return for that payment, even in app.

I think the question is "can I have an in-app flow for purchases outside of IAP, or do i need to redirect people to my safari site to purchase?"

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

#339

Post by dannyw »

cblconfederate wrote: post #318
etchalon wrote: post #174

Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow other payment processors." But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e. Apple can't tell developers they can't link out to other payment options on the web.

It says they can't prohibit developers (so they must allow) adding links to non-IAP. OTOH it doesnt force apple to allow any link, they can still filter which payment providers are allowed

Violating an injuction via a technicality will land you in court again.

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

#340

Post by criddell »

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…

I love the Apple subscription system for things like streaming services simply because it makes unsubscribing a one-click process.

I’m much more likely to subscribe to something via the Apple store than I am through any in-app service.

Post reply on HN