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

551–560 of 958 posts

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

#551

Post by tracker1 »

eropple wrote: post #298
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…

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.

Worse still, is having to re-install a removed application when the renewal hit in order to then kill your account that was created during first run of said app.

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

#552

Post by pier25 »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #518

From Epic CEO Tim Sweeney from NYT article[1]: Tim Sweeney, Epic’s chief executive, said on Twitter that he was not satisfied with the ruling because it did not go far enough in allowing companies to complete in-app transactions with their own payment systems, versus having to direct customers to outside websites. He said Fortnite would not return to the App Store until such rules were in place. “Today’s ruling isn’t…

Wait... what?

So apps will be able to redirect you to a website but users won't be able to make the payment in the app itself?

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

#553

Post by skizm »

I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to this non-Apple payment method."

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

#554

Post by diebeforei485 »

ahurmazda wrote: post #385
travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.

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)

Developers can use payment methods that don't require credit card data to touch their servers (eg. Stripe, PayPal, Shopify).

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

#556

Post by tracker1 »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #358
bobthepanda wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair amount of companies makes their subscription cancellation actively hostile in an effort to not get people to do it. To give an example, though you can subscribe online, the NYT requires you to call during only certain hours to a customer service line where you get badgered and questioned like you’re trying to cancel a cable subscription. If the US mandated that you need to provide equivalent means of subscript…

This is exactly the example that's been on my mind. Had I known how horrible NYT's unsubscription process is, I would have never subscribed in the first place. I'm sure they extracted an extra month or two out of me because of the friction they introduce, so in management's eyes that's probably a win. I will never use NYT again in the future, but I think a big label letting users know an app isn't using iCloud paymen…

Similar opinion for XM... Would never sign up again without a generated card number that is only good for a single charge. I only wanted to cancel one radio of 3 I had at the time. By the third 40+m wait after mysteriously "disconnected" after they couldn't talk me out of it, I cancelled the whole thing.

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

#557

Post by mcphage »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #497
cush wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%

Not financially (we wouldn't lower prices), but I would immediately start to hire 4 more developers if they went from 30% down to 5%. Lowering prices increases the number of jobs available, and the only cost is that Apple loses some amount of it's astronomical profits.

How many developers do you have already, that 35% more money would let you hire 4 more? Back-of-the-envelope calculation says you've got 7, does that match up?

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

#558

Post by Razengan »

skizm wrote: post #553

I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to this non-Apple payment method."

That seems to be the best way to reduce the number of users pestering Apple for refunds for shitty apps.

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

#559

Post by danudey »

acdha wrote: post #275
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…

> 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…

Given how polished everything that Stripe makes is, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes the de-facto non-Apple alternative. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they'd already built an SDK to cover this very eventuality.

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

#560

Post by Vespasian »

eropple wrote: post #323
travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.

Third-party payment providers who I don't select , not being answerable to me as a platform holder, are incentivized to make it hard for me to cancel. Apple doesn't do that. I have better things to worry about than to track this stuff down and I desperately want to think about fewer stupid things in my life. Subscription management is solved and stupid. Perhaps look at it this way: I'm pretty OK with paying 30% to no…

Apple can still enforce in their rules the ability to cancel from one place

If that's all they'd done from the beginning this ruling would not have happened.

Apple wants to control the access to a very significant portion of the user base?

Fine, but then they'll act like a lawmaker-light and in many (western) societies that means you get some burdens and responsibilities piled upon you by the original lawmakers.

Post reply on HN