Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

561–570 of 958 posts

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

#561

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.

And to have to just through countless hoops to unsubscribe.

Looking at you, annoyingly hard to unsubscribe from, New-York Times.

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

#562

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…

> "they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue."

cutting prices that drastically will most certainly not increase revenue. in a competitive market, pricing is near/at the price elasticity equilibrium. in a monopoly situation, pricing is much beyond that point, in the company's favor. you're suggesting they move prices in the opposite direction, which would most certainly impact revenue negatively. note that these are not nascent, high growth markets where the growth rate can overwhelm the price elasticity dynamics.

the court should be mandating broad, open, and honest competition, not dictating prices, which is will practically always get wrong in some way. price is a signal for how competitive a market is, not a lever to drive competition.

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

#563
yawn Apple is getting a mild slap on the wrist and the outcome of the case is probably the best for everyone. It did away with the most entirely absurd and egregious restriction but still lets a company like... choose how to run their business. If anything this is likely to drastically improve the quality of some big-name applications on Apple's platforms, further increasing their bottom line. I would bet money technologically illiterate people have sworn off of Apple's platforms because they bought a device for a single purpose (like watching Netflix) and then couldn't signup for the fucking service on the device. Is that going to be a huge boon for Apple's bottom line? Nope. But it will likely make their ecosystem stickier because there's less friction for groups of consumers. Chances are Apple-HQ is poppin' open some champagne today having a laugh that they ever were allowed to prevent links or calls to action.

The real winners here, no one seems to be talking about, are the console manufacturers who I'm sure had their buttholes puckering at nearly the speed of light waiting for the verdict. While Apple could surely continue on without an exclusive AppStore on its platform, Nintendo and Sony would begin to feel some absolutely critical burning. Both manufacturers have de-facto monopolies on their platforms, and those monopolies are at least as restrictive as Apple's if not more so because they act as barriers to entry into their markets (i.e. If Sony doesn't like your game idea, you can just fuck off with no recourse).

The one thing about this case that pisses me off is Sweeny running his mouth like he and Epic are really victims here. His refusal to put Fortnite (which I've never played) back on the app store is pathetic, childish, and anti-consumer. It is honestly as disgusting to me as Facebook trying to peddle their unwavering commitment to tracking their users every waking-action as "pro consumer." If Sweeny and Epic brought this same case against Nintendo and Sony, I'd maybe be more sympathetic to his bullshit because at least then it would be consistent. My thought is Epic is likely big enough to bully Sony or Nintendo into better deals on their platforms; while, Apple doesn't have to take it's shit for a single solitary second because Epic poses no threat to Apple's revenue. Then this inability to bully the platform owner threw Sweeny into an _epic_ tantrum and here we be.

shrug I'll stop ranting here.

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

#564
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How dare they make their systems work so well together and easy to use.

The Google Pixel works well and is easy to use but still lets you install custom ROMs.

Sounds to me like the invisible hand of the free market economy. Use that phone, then. A given company is not obligated to serve all of your specific needs and desires.

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

#565
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?

It's because then Apple Books would have to compete with the Kindle app on fair terms. IE Apple is being anti-competitive and giving their own app an advantage. This is basically a part of what the original lawsuit was about.

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

#566

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…

That may be true for Apple, but most Windows users prefer Steam to the MS Store, for example.

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

#567
post #275

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…

With apple I know that I can cancel easily. I am not going to sign up for a subscription with anybody but Apple.

I am also an irrational cheap skate so if I see Apple around but more, I won't subscribe at all.

My guess is that a lot of people see it that way.

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

#568

I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my life harder compared to Apple Pay. I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible. Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appeali…

The most likely move here is that Apple forces developers to put a drop down of payment options, with Apple Pay being the default. Same way Google did when Android was forced to offer a choice of default search engines

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

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank, compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the dev…

>isn't the competition here what we want? In my opinion not in this specific case. As an iOS user I WANT a system where everything conforms to certain guidelines. I do NOT want to fiddle with some weird custom in-App payment dialog which does it's own thing again. It'll be interesting to see how this court order will be "implemented", my guess is that not much will change for now.

you will still be able to do this, at a 30% premium through IAP

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

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Apple announced it was introducing intentional security vulnerabilities to their Apple Pay platforms last month that was the signal that they were done trying to be a bank. I wonder if that decision was made knowing the likely outcome and downstream results of this case.

Wait, what intentional security vulnerabilities?

The backdoor.
Post reply on HN