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

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

#501

Post by simonh » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #464

simonh wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 k…

>Making Apple products work well with other Apple products isn't lock-in.

Cool. iMessage works perfectly well with SMS, which is the only true open messaging standard, and therefore will work with anything else that interoperates with SMS. Job done.

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

#502

Post by flohofwoe » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

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…

For the hypothetical case that there will ever be Steam on iOS I'd rather pay through the Steam account I had already setup on the PC rather than through the Apple payment system. Same for 'cross-platform' subscriptions like Spotify.

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

#503

Post by ksec » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

I just want to say I follow a lot of court case within the Tech Industry mostly Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel. And Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is the only Judge that seems to have clear, well reasoned verdict in all of her cases. Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning.

The other thing that really irritate the heck of me from Apple's PR, are their insistence of mentioning how App Store has provided jobs in each country. Creating X amount of Jobs. Below is the statement from Apple on this verdict

>Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone.

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

#504

Post by cletus » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

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.

There's two sides to this actually.

I, as a customer, don't want to pay many companies directly. The prime example is any news publication. There are many I'd happily pay for except (like gym memberships it seems) it can be incredibly difficult to cancel. I won't reward that model so they get none of my money.

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

#505

Post by agilob » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:49 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.

>Bundling the OS with hardware

Is this anticompetitive if it's a fundament of old business model back from 80s?

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

#506

Post by collaborative » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #474

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…

Apple has always given me a refund for shitty apps without question, whereas shitty apps who have their own payment system, like CouchSurfing, never even respond to requests for refunds at all. The silent majority – the users – will always prefer to go through Apple. But HN seems to be full of user-hostile devs (as you can tell by looking at all the downvoted comments here who speak from a user’s PoV) who only hear t…

We are not user-hostile

We just don't want to be vilified and forced to bow to the giants because of a few bad apples

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

#507

Post by spywaregorilla » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #311

spywaregorilla wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still use Apple payments.

What do you mean? If purchases are directed to a developers own payment system I don’t have a choice, I cannot force that developer to use Apples payment system can I?

I don't see anything to suggest apple cannot force apps to offer apple pay as an option. Only that they cannot force apps to make apple pay the only option.

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

#508

Post by spywaregorilla » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

trollied wrote: post #300

spywaregorilla wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% sounds very aggressive to me still

Then high street margins for physical games would really surprise you...

The physical game store isn't charging X% for payment processing. They're charging X% to get your product in front of customers.

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

#509

Post by OneEyedRobot » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

Is Apple surprised?

It seems to me that the current model for tech companies is..

. Do something clearly sketchy to build your market. It might be copyright violations, it might be lock-in.

. Grow/profit until someone cares.

. Hold off the court cases for as long possible

. When they finally go against you, it's probably too late since the new thing has come along.

. Wash rinse repeat.

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

#510

Post by cletus » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a legislature was ultimately going to do it for them.

And you're almost always better off making that change yourself.

Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines. Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO) can see a lot of benefit from Apple's 30% cut. It's those large publishers who are most likely to challenge your rules in court or lobby against you.

If the very largest publishers were paying 10% as a Preferred Partner instead of 30%, they would be a lot less willing to challenge the status quo when they might lose that privilege.

We've already have ridiculous workarounds for Apple's policies here like how you can bypass it to buy directly from Amazon through the app for physical goods. The carve out for digital goods is and was always a tortured post facto justification.

Where once the 30% cut funded the App Store (when it was small). It's clearly transitioned to being a massive profit center and Apple executives couldn't see past the short term revenue to see the writing on the wall. Woops.