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

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

#601

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:08 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.

If a smooth cancelation is so important to users that it justifies a 30% upcharge, other payment processors will compete. They can even advertise the easy cancelation during checkout next to the payment method (“install the stripe subscriptions app or go to stripe.com for one-click, prorated cancellations!”). I think once one of them does it, they all will. If the injunction goes into effect in 90 days, it will be a gold rush for everyone who gets to finally compete with Apple Pay. This will induce a bunch of rapid innovation in the iOS payment space.

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

#602

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:08 PM UTC

mhermher wrote: post #157

mensetmanusman wrote: post #49

This is a big deal. I wonder how Apple will respond to dealing with the bandwidth costs of free apps with large bandwidth requirements. Hopefully they just get rid of free apps, and require customers to pay upfront so that they don’t have to deal with as many advertisements.

They're just gonna increase developer license fees.

Epic licensing fee $100,000,000?

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

#603

Post by easton » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:09 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #524

summerlight wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because Apple doesn't break out the money from the App Store from the rest of their software/services business, and iOS isn't free, it's licensed with the purchase of a iOS device. If money from every iPhone sold goes into the software/services budget, one could conclude there's enough money coming into that budget from device sales to pay for their CDN/developers/etc.

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

#604

Post by summerlight » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:12 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #524

summerlight wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because Apple doesn't allow other form of app distribution? It'd be fine if they allow third party stores like Android.

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

#605

Post by cblconfederate » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

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."

who says they won't review the payment processors? they obviously won't allow apps that they consider scams

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

#606

Post by cjfd » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #601

baxtr wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a smooth cancelation is so important to users that it justifies a 30% upcharge, other payment processors will compete. They can even advertise the easy cancelation during checkout next to the payment method (“install the stripe subscriptions app or go to stripe.com for one-click, prorated cancellations!”). I think once one of them does it, they all will. If the injunction goes into effect in 90 days, it will be a…

If not being robbed is so important that it justifies buying locks we might actually decide that robbing should be illegal and punishable by jailtime....

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

#607

Post by granzymes » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

Epic's statement (via Tim Sweeney): Today’s ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers. Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers. Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers.

Apple's statement: 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 or 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 the rules apply equally to everyone.

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

#608

Post by mbreese » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #270

mbreese wrote: post #235

IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing. > ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing ... To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able…

This is how I read it: permanently restrained and enjoined from 1) prohibiting developers from a) including in their apps and their metadata: i) buttons, ii) external links, or iii) other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, b) in addition to In-App Purchasing and c) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration withi…

But that's not how the clauses are written grammatically, which is why I'm unsure. There are two clauses: one about purchases and the second about communication.

The second clause is easiest to deal with. It is:

communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app

This means that the developer can communicate with the user -- using information the user gave them, not information that Apple has to give them. I think we can agree on that one.

The first clause is tougher, and I think there are multiple ways to read it (at least for a non-lawyer... lawyers might read this only one way).

prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing

The way that I read it is: developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, in addition to the existing Apple In-App purchasing.

The other way to read that is (which is how I assume you read it): developers can include links, buttons, etc that point a user to external purchasing mechanisms, as well as allowing non-Apple mechanisms for purchasing inside the app.

Without knowing how the judge has defined In-App purchasing, I'm not sure you can tell which is the right interpretation. The capitalization of it is curious to me, but maybe that's just how they referred to all purchases that happen inside an App, or maybe that's how the Apple App Store managed purchases were referred to.

I'm sure there will be some kind of better legal analysis appearing soon enough (I hope).

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

#609

Post by naravara » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

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…

Also scammers will want to redirect people to alternate methods, as well as those who engage in not-quite-scam-but-still-unsavory-business practices. Games aimed at kids are the biggest offenders, possibly using this as a way to circumvent parental controls on purchases or just to introduce some additional friction to customer service requests or requests to terminate subscriptions.

This is all stuff Apple can design around or codify into their approval standards, obviously. Which is why it's imperative they act on their own so they can dictate how it shakes out rather than having a poorly considered implementation forced on them by regulators.

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

#610

Post by criddell » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:22 PM UTC

dontblink wrote: post #513

criddell wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the Apple subscription system for things like streaming services simply because it makes unsubscribing a one-click process. I’m much more likely to subscribe to something via the Apple store than I am through any in-app service.

Would you be willing to pay 30% more? Why not let people choose how they wish to pay. If you like that UX and are willing to pay for it, app developers should be able to offer it along with cheaper alternatives.

One of the things the App Store protects against is abusive practices like making it difficult to cancel a subscription. I wish there was some way they could protect their customers and allow outside payment services.

FWIW, the streaming services I want easy unsubscribe options are typicall $5-$8 / month and yes, I would pay 30% more for a better experience.