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

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

#591

Post by rhizome » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

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.

People/apps that use alternate payment SDKs aren't going to care how difficult it is to unsubscribe, and very few people (citation needed) care enough to look into an app's cancellation flow before buying in.

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

#592

Post by pstrateman » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #572

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/…

I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn’t cancel online. You have to call them, wait in line and then let them talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad experience. It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked. This experience was definitely more expensive than using Apple’s services.

I cancelled mine by sending them an email stating that I would be disputing every charge.

The reply email I got was at 9:07am EST, 'dispute' probably automatically puts your email head of queue for them.

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

#593

Post by a-dub » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

ThatCaio wrote: post #404

a-dub wrote: post #367

this seems ridiculous. does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband? apple is not a monopoly, nor is it anticompetitive. it is, however, opinionated and differentiates itself in the marketplace with that opinionation. there are less opinionated, yet very competitive alternatives and both users and d…

>does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband? No, this is equivalent to the vendors having the ability to accept other forms of payment, such as cash or other credit cards, if they choose alongside the wristband.

but then because the wristband is more expensive, they'll hide or break the wristband machine and the next thing you know, downtown disney is now the bowery with sketchy ad men in pinstripe suits chasing everyone around. the whole reason why people pay to go to downtown disney is because they don't want to deal with that shit.

the simple fact no one wants to admit is that the msrp for an iphone or an android does not even come close to the r&d costs for the software, hardware and backend platforms. android is open, but in exchange for that, users pay by broadcasting all their activity to creepy marketers. ios is closed, but rather than take money from creepazoids who are stalking and trying to sell to and complicate the lives of users, they charge a tax on all commercial activity on the platform... to pay for the platform.

now third parties are saying "we don't want to pay the platform tax" but this is couched in all this bullshit about app store freedom or choice in payment processor or whatever.

if you don't want to pay the platform tax, don't do business on the platform. don't try to wreck the platform's business model and value proposition for the users who choose it over the digital advertising dystopia that is the "open" internet in 2021.

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

#594

Post by skohan » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #533

skohan wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to where it stands in the current legal framework, but personally I don't think the vendor of any product should have any rights to determine how it's used once the customer has paid for it.

Why not just stop buying products that can’t do what you want?

Why not just have common sense property rights enforced by law?

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

#595

Post by easton » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #540

toseupthrow wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I love how apple lets me use a visa gift card purchased in cash at the local convenience store. When trying to pay for a VPN service anywhere but the app, they reject the card, but Apple let me use it to purchase the subscription.

How did you get the phone number you used to create the Apple ID? Mint?

Unless something has changed in the past year since the last time I've made an Apple ID, they don't verify the phone number. For 2FA, you can also give it an email address. And I'm almost certain I've used a Google Voice number with an Apple ID before with no qualms.

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

#596

Post by robocat » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

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…

The Guardian allows you to sign in from a browser with your AppleID - does that not give you access to your subscription? https://profile.theguardian.com/signin

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

#597

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #510

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…

[deleted]

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

#598

Post by TillE » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

manquer wrote: post #395

bberenberg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be interesting to see how many small companies figure out that tax and general compliance is worth every penny that Apple charges them. Smart ones will opt for a seller of record approach, but many will get burnt.

Stripe provides a lot of tooling ( more than apple) for compliance. Apple is hardly the only payment provider which simplifies payment processing for small developers.

"Tooling for compliance" sounds a hell of a lot more complicated than "you sell my app and send me a check", which is the deal on the App Store, Steam, etc.

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

#599

Post by sdenton4 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #572

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/…

I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn’t cancel online. You have to call them, wait in line and then let them talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad experience. It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked. This experience was definitely more expensive than using Apple’s services.

We just got an email notice that $locl_newspaper was doubling its monthly subscription rate effective immediately. When we called to cancel they permanently us in at the old subscription rate.

Pretty clearly a cash grab against those subscribers who aren't watching the notices + auto-billing closely...

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

#600

Post by Zenst » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:08 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…

Another option is for Apple to offer their digital store as a service to larger players for a lower % fee. Akin to MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) and equally on some levels comparable in a way that building that type of network in the first place is costly and in Apples case, it is battle proven software back-end as well as front.