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

451–460 of 958 posts

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

#451

Post by dubcanada »

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…

Yes, if it saves me from having to call to cancel my subscription or going through a bunch of weird "are you sure", "how about 2% off", "how about 5% off", "how about we bill you $5 less", "why do you not like us? Fill out this 75 question survey to cancel". Yes it does.

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

#452

Post by webmobdev »

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.

> Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will.

Explain to the user that a $10 / month in-app transaction is $13 or $15 because Apple wants 30-50% of every transaction, and I am pretty sure most Apple users will recognize this as plain extortion and not appreciate it.

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

#453

Post by vngzs »

bobthepanda wrote: post #337
travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subscript…

Just tried this. I had to talk to a support staff on the website, and they made one attempt to offer me a lower rate for a year (which I declined).

In my opinion, it should be as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe. I interpret anything else as consumer-hostile. It's very strange coming from NY Times ... I know they find it hard to finance journalism nowadays, but dark patterns are never the answer.

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

#454

Post by simion314 »

ecf wrote: post #206
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…

> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

>If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the company that allows the whole ecosystem

What about the sucker that bought the phone? why the company that created the device should decide what the owner can do?

Isn't ironic Apple prevents someone showing you a link to the product webpage and the explanation is that you are too stupid to be let opening a webpage from the app = will they remove the web-browser ?

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

#455

Post by dylan604 »

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.

You're assuming that the Epics of the world will actually lower their rates the 30%. Epic could just as easily keep the same prices, but now make that extra. That's the issue I have with Epic's arguments. They might lower the rates by a percent to entice people over to their system, but over time pull the cable company routine and just up the rates each time it renews or new version.

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

#457

Post by gunapologist99 »

zamadatix wrote: post #417

> 43 With respect to the appropriateness of Peely's "dress," the Court understood Apple merely to be "dressing" Peely in a tuxedo for federal court, as jest to reflect the general solemnity of a federal court proceeding. As Mr. Weissinger later remarket, and with which the court agrees, Peely is "just a banana man," additional attire was not necessary but informative. Trial Tr. (Weissinger) 1443:17.

If you were confused by this as well, here's a reference:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666922/apple-epic-peely...

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

#458

Post by mrtranscendence »

luckylion wrote: post #384
ascagnel_ wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be larger players who won't bother with any cut -- they want to own the relationship with the customer, and view any intermediary with hostility.

And before, they might not have bothered developing an app, or one for iOS. Now you have choice. Choice is good.

What big names haven't developed iOS apps but may do so now? I'm hard pressed to think of any. They may not always allow in-app purchases, of course, but they generally exist.

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

#459

Post by asdff »

bobthepanda wrote: post #337
travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subscript…

It's a law in california at least. If you log onto NYT in california you can cancel online I believe. Outside of california if you have no issue burning a bridge, you can issue a chargeback and most services will ban your account.

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

#460

Post by djrogers »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #413
acdha wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll get no argument from me that Apple's system is pretty good from a consumer standpoint — that's the primary reason why I predicted that it'd remain popular. It's really nice knowing that you can nuke a subscription without getting some dark patterns trying to talk you out of it. On the other hand, it's really easy to imagine that you'd see something like “$9.99 IAP; $7.99 direct from Epic/Amazon/Google/Netflix/…

The other part is, what do the Apple subscription cover in terms of platforms? e.g.: If I can pay for say Guardian subscription either: 1. via their website/app and use it on iPhone, android, PC, etc; or 2. Pay for same subscription via Apple subscription and ONLY have it on my iPhone - that's a HUGE diff, and one that I have been extremely peeved off to discover in the past :-/. It only took one such experience to p…

That's not a shortcoming of Apple's system - every subscription I have using IAP has a way to tie to to an existing or new account for use on other devices. If the Guardian decided not to do that, that's kinda crappy and 100% on them.
Post reply on HN