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

521–530 of 958 posts

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

#521

Post by GiorgioG »

tshaddox wrote: post #517
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…

You can already buy stuff from the Amazon app using your existing Amazon payment method. All of this controversy is about in-app purchases of digital content.

Except you can't purchase Kindle/Audible content.

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

#522

Post by shagie »

bogwog wrote: post #336
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.

Im sure every random app wont be rolling their own payment system. Paypal’s transaction fees for example are significantly lower than Apple (less than 4% vs Apple’s 30%), and millions of users already have a Paypal account, so they could buy your product without having to create an account or enter payment info. Idk if Paypal lets you cancel subscriptions directly through them, but they could certainly implement that…

If you're making less than $1M/y, its 15% ( https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... )

If you're going through PayPal ( https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees ), a $0.99 micro transaction is $5% + 0.09. That's $0.14 which is about 15%. It also means you get things like PayPal deciding to not release the money it holds for some reason.

At that point, for the small developer, it appears to be a wash for how much you're making. Yea, this goes down if you've got bigger IAPs. It also goes up if its an international transaction.

Furthermore, it means that you (the developer) needs to manage your own IAP system. Website with 100% uptime? User accounts and passwords (more friction to creating the account to purchase the IAP)? Network connectivity issues (can a solo game be played off network)?

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

#523

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

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…

I subscribe to HBO through Apple. The platform I watch it on doesn't matter. We use Roku.

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

#524

Post by tshaddox »

summerlight wrote: post #483
dpkonofa wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why should revenue from iPhone hardware subsidize third-party iPhone app developers?

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

#525

Post by danShumway »

ricardobeat wrote: post #498
danShumway wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How easy is it to migrate from Google’s Messages app to iMessage?

Is your argument that Google doesn't try to engage in lock-in? Or is your argument that lock-in is good for users?

Either way, when there are literal emails in the company saying that the reason iMessage isn't on Android is because otherwise it would be too easy for Apple users to switch to Android -- then that's what lock-in is.

I don't get the whataboutism here. It's lock-in. Google is also a crappy company, but that doesn't change anything about what Apple is doing, and it doesn't change anything about the fact that the court case has revealed enough documents to show that lock-in is a deliberate market strategy that Apple undertakes.

Google also acting crappy in a few cases does not mean that the very concept of lock-in is suddenly invalid. People forget that Apple is not the only company being sued for antitrust in regards to their app stores.

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

#526

Post by rocqua »

This still allows apple to mandate same price on and outside the platform, and still allows apple to mandate apple pay be an option.

This is great for customer experience, because users still have the option to use apple their polished system. But if a (big) player offers a better experience, users get to pick that.

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

#527

Post by mcphage »

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.

I used to love buying comic books in Comixology—it was so quick and easy to try new titles. And then Amazon bought Comixology, and almost immediately removed in-app purchases. I haven't purchased many comics since.

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

#528

Post by cblconfederate »

etchalon wrote: post #486
cblconfederate wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

i dont think the spirit is to allow developers to engage in scammy behavior. Apple can still refuse the app based on its other rules.

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

#529

Post by shagie »

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.

The merchant fees for PayPal can be found at https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees - which includes micro transactions.

For a US company and a US customer, that's 4.99% + $0.09 for each transaction. For a $0.99 transaction, that's 15% of the total.

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

#530

Post by tshaddox »

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 problem is that the proposed new definition of "monopoly" generally goes something like "any company who has a product that I like and does anything at all with that product that I don't like." Like, regardless of what the iPhone's market share is, if I like to use my iPhone, but I don't like one aspect of the iPhone, that means that Apple is acting like a monopoly because they're not completely honoring my personal preferences and the only option I have is to switch to another smartphone which I don't want to do.
Post reply on HN