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

481–490 of 958 posts

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

#481

Post by sulam »

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…

Honestly the shadiest practitioner here is Amazon. Google and Facebook are possibly second and third. I think Apple is a pretty distant one, maybe behind folks like Netflix.

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

#482

Post by hraedon »

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?

Two separate things at play here. Parent is saying they trust Apple to manage their payment options, and since third parties have to go through Apple they don't have to trust a bunch of individual companies to do things right.

Apple Pay is one of those payment options, but if you have to trust a bunch of third parties to properly manage your information the specific form of payment doesn't matter much.

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

#483

Post by summerlight »

dpkonofa wrote: post #282
ethbr0 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh. Now I see what this was about.

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have…

> If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.)

Why? Apple has been arguing that iPhone, iOS, Safari and App stores are so tightly integrated in that they are in fact an essentially indivisible single business. With this logic, all the revenue comes from iPhone/iPad hardware can subsidize operation costs for App store right?

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

#484

Post by philip1209 »

kodah wrote: post #84
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…

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…

The issue is more that they are conglomerates - they control the device, the discovery mechanism, the payment mechanism, and the identity mechanism. In each of those areas, they may or may not be a monopoly - but together their broad control creates an anti-competitive environment.

I wrote more about that here: https://www.tinker.fyi/6-break-up-tech-conglomerates/

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

#485

Post by jeroenhd »

gokhan wrote: post #96
jeroenhd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the app store model stop working? Paying through the app store has a direct benefit to usability. Before in app purchases the app store model worked fine. Even if the Epic lawsuit goes completely off the rails and Apple is forced to allow external app stores on iOS, they can still maintain a profitable app store if they provide the best experience to end users. Building an app store is very hard, and convin…

> if they provide the best experience to end users I don't think they can. Their DNA on this evolved as a monopoly. They won't be able to compete, they will be slow and boring while clever people will overpower them.

I think they will find a way. The Mac App Store is far from a monopoly yet it still remains profitable as far as I know.

My grandma isn't going to use any alternative store, she probably doesn't even understand the concept of different app stores. I think Apple will be fine, at least until competitors somehow gain a MASSIVE usability advantage.

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

#486

Post by etchalon »

cblconfederate wrote: post #398
dannyw wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would it be a violation?

Probably. "Letter of the law" vs. "the spirit". Judges are not fans of people trying to be "technically in compliance".

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

#487

Post by webmobdev »

nutanc wrote: post #444
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…

It's not just that. As a developer I wouldn't want Apple to know who my paying customers are. Right now, there is no option. With this hopefully there will be more options.

Exactly. And as a user too, I don't want Apple to have access to any of my financial transactions!

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

#488

Post by kumarm »

moneywoes wrote: post #448
baldajan wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you ever used StoreKit or their subscription API... its so full of holes and poor documentation and poor implementation that it's a nightmare to work with (particularly subscriptions). Don't believe me? There's a YC startup raising millions of dollars dedicated to solving the subscription implementation problems Apple has created...

Which startup?

I think OP was talking about Revenue Cat: https://www.revenuecat.com

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

#489

Post by rofrol »

lostmsu wrote: post #317
jdavis703 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Apple only pre-installed a free leveling app on iPhones. What happened to time tracking is they also banned existing tools and APIs they used.

You mean this https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/apple-puts-third-party-scr... ?

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

#490

Post by [deleted] »

laurent92 wrote: post #380
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…

> All Apple has to do is to make the rates competitive enough No. All Apple has to do is amplify a few horror stories, for example people using [any competitor]’s renewable subscriptions and not being able to unsubscribe. Or amplify a story of a virus/malware on, hopefully, Epic or Steam. This is certainly what makes you choose a MORE expensive product, that’s certainly why I buy my fire extinguishers $200 instead of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN