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

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

#461

Post by cyberlurker » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

ibdf wrote: post #422

I believe this will cause managing subscriptions to be a lot harder and untrustworthy. I will probably have to sign up for different payment systems I never heard of… the store won’t be able to track when subscriptions expire, and this will open up so much room for fraudulent behavior.

Why would that be the case? Can’t apps still use Apple as one of the payment options? If subscriptions are important to you, keep doing it through Apple.

Unless the discounts are significant I don’t see myself going through the 3rd party payments. I already try to avoid subscriptions anyway. But for one off purchases, it’s nice to have options. I think this is a modest win for consumers.

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

#462

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

I think it will be fine, but the one big worry that I have, is that I expect a significant percentage of these "alternatives" to point to scams.

That will put Apple in another hot spot. If someone reports that an approved app has scam links in the app, will Apple be on the hook to block the app? If they do, will that, then open them up to charges? What about if they don't?

I have been quite impressed with the ingenuity of scammers. The Apple customer base is a lucrative target. I am constantly getting hijack attempts and phishing scams, aimed at my AppleID.

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

#463

Post by dylan604 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #437

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.

One drawback of the current situation is that for example you can’t purchase ebooks through the iOS Kindle app (because Amazon can’t/won’t let Apple take their 30% cut there), and the app can’t even link to the corresponding product page on Amazon. If the new ruling enables such purchases and linking, then as a consumer I’m very much in favor of it.

But yet you can by directly from Amazon in their app without using Apple. How can Apple say that they cannot sell eBooks directly on Kindle app, but allow direct sells from the retail store?

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

#464

Post by danShumway » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:23 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.

That's not really what lock-in means.

An example of lock-in is making a conscious decision not to port iMessage to Android, specifically because it would make it easier for iPhone users to move to Android[0].

Making Apple products work well with other Apple products isn't lock-in. Purposefully making Apple products work worse with other systems, phrased within the company as a way to punish users who switch, is the kind of thing we're talking about when we describe lock-in.

[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-never-made-i...

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

#465

Post by sebzim4500 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #378

BackBlast wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

27% more? Are you kidding - it will be 12% more, if Apple doesn't reduce their rates at all for most developers (most don't make $1m revenue).

What portion of payments go to people not making $1m revenue? Hard to believe it is a large portion.

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

#466

Post by commoner » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

manquer wrote: post #350

josefresco wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for cash, and another for credit cards. Some businesses in my town still do this. When I see it, the only thing I think is "they must be committing light tax fraud". Maybe it's wrong, but I know what merchants pay for CC transactions and it doesn't justify the whining from business owners who have been accepting cards for decades and suddenly decided CC transactio…

It is not tax fraud [1]. Merchants are violating the terms of CC provider. The merchant agreement explicitly forbids merchants to have different cash price from what is charge with the card. It is fairly common in geographies where CC providers can't litigate/enforce easily . It is not a penal crime, only a contract violation between two private parties and settled in arbitration/civil courts . [1] Such Merchants als…

Not sure about other countries, but in the US, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2011) ensures that merchants are allowed to offer cash discounts.

> A PCN cannot stop you from offering your customers a discount or another incentive for using a certain method of payment, as long as you offer it to all your customers and disclose the offer clearly and conspicuously. For example, you can offer your customers a discount or a coupon if they pay with cash or a debit card rather than a credit card.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/new...

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

#467

Post by JohnWhigham » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #3

Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.

I'm not. Amazon does the same thing: produce a great end product, and users won't give a shit about what you did behind closed doors to get it that way.

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

#468

Post by djrogers » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

Dayshine wrote: post #406

ahurmazda wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another edge case here. For now I trust apple with my credit cards (a lot) more than a bunch of smarmy payment processors (somehow I magically get subscribed to a bunch of things when I use the latter)

Why on earth wouldn't you be able to use Apple to pay (with the normal 2-3% transaction fee)? Does Apple not support paying in arbitrary websites like Google Pay?

Yes they do support that.

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

#469

Post by leptoniscool » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

This is a big money maker for AAPL, they'll probably need to raise the profit margins on their hardware to make up for the lost revenue.

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

#470

Post by asdff » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #309

adam_arthur wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

What probably harms consumers the most is that companies with large purses have an outsized influence on policy and typically write their own regulations that serve to generate additional profit and make it difficult for new entrants to the market to emerge. You don't need to have a monopoly for that, just a good old fasioned colluding industry and a politician who cares more about their individual wealth than the collective good of their electorate that they represent.