Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

Post by djrogers » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #463

layer8 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #430

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your argument, we CAN commit murder, but it has a very high probability of additional adverse consequences (such as life in prison)

> By your argument, we CAN commit murder, but it has a very high probability of additional adverse consequences Which...is obviously true. I mean, it would be nice if people could not commit murder, but they can and do .

Post by tw600040 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:27 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.

Post by biztos » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

Post by djrogers » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #447

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…

> 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. Payment processors and their networks are infinitely more complex and resource intensive than a mobile app distribution store, and their commissions tend to only be between 1% and 3% per transaction.