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

621–630 of 958 posts

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

#621

Post by pertymcpert »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #248
barkerja wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My concern is less about random one-off purchases but more the management of on-going subscriptions. Having Apple handle that, is a blessing, from a user perspective. I have a single place to manage all the random $1 - $10 subscriptions that I have, making it easy to change/cancel at any moment's notice, and from any device.

What is to stop you from searching for services that still let you use Apple Pay? No one is stopping you from living in your tight-knit Apple world, but you seem discontent with the idea that people will no longer have to live there and would rather find ways to force them to stay there with you.

I don't think Apple Pay can do that? It's a one off payment thing.

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

#622

Post by asdff »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #3

Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.

It blows my mind how Apple can do all of this but windows got dinged for IE

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

#623

Post by dev_tty01 »

majani wrote: post #514
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…

When you consider the Pareto nature of app store earnings, Apple's best move was to wait and be forced to make the change.

I agree. It also allows the judge to slap them without agreeing with the other side. Epic didn't get anything they really wanted. This change will not make much difference. No change to single app store model. As far as I can tell, Apple will have to allow communication in the app about payment through other means. That's it. I think it is likely that Apple will require apps to offer Apple payment as an option alongside the new communication about an external payment system. That is just a guess on my part, but it wouldn't be surprising.

If I guessed right, Apple's income probably won't go down much. I would rather use Apple payment system. Lots of other people will also. It is simple and allows me one-stop management of subscriptions and purchases. Some folks won't of course, but it is the easiest choice.

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

#624

Post by jdgoesmarching »

_ktx2 wrote: post #297
torstenvl wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to ask for the information I think would make your comment more helpful. Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does she say it? Why does that appeal to you?

She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of). If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p... In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-trust. She talks about…

I highly recommend people read the law review article, it’s extremely non-lawyer friendly.

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

#625

Post by asdff »

simonh wrote: post #227
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fact that has emerged is that Apple is pushing lock-in as a strategy. So to everyone who has ever felt like they are too "invested" in the ecosystem to leave- that is by design. You are victims.

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

Until these systems start aging and are no longer interoperable with more recent versions. It's not like Apple is giving us a bash like experience where things just work for decades.

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

#626

Post by hardolaf »

manquer wrote: post #325
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…

Sure they can and should charge for all the other "services" they provide transparently. Many of those services not dependent on my DAU, or the kind of usage users have via IAP. This is none of Apple's business they don't need to provide me any services(if i don't use their payment) if my user uses 5 IAP transactions a day or one. As a developer I get to choose which model makes more sense for me and in turn pass on…

Since Apple doesn't provide you any services, I guess you'll no longer be distributing your app updates through the App Store?

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

#627

Post by svachalek »

cjfd wrote: post #606
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

Not when the robbers are writing the rules.

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

#628

Post by ltbarcly3 »

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…

People will prefer to use Apple's system if the cost is close enough to the same. The larger/more trusted the brand making the app is, or the higher the cost difference, the more likely the user will be to go to the trouble of going off platform to make the purchase.

Most of the revenue Apple makes is from top apps and top brands, which is why they had no problem cutting the rates to 15% for the little guys already, the little guys are a tiny slice of the overall pie.

There is no way this will overall increase Apple's revenue, especially as companies concentrate on building solid 'Apple fee avoidance' funnels. Not to mention that many pay-for apps will very likely convert to free to download and then push the user to pay for the app externally to the app store as a 'one time lifetime subscription'.

This is going to cause a massive revenue loss for Apple if it stands.

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

#629

Post by dodobirdlord »

widowlark wrote: post #569
ghosty141 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

Yea, but obviously no company will offer that option unless forced. This decision undeniably benefits app developers, but the benefit to customers is murkier.

Apple couldn’t previously require payment flow through Apple’s payment systems, as evidenced by apps like Audible where you have no purchasing in the app and just have access to the content that you purchased through their website. Since Apple couldn’t outright force app vendors to monetize through Apple payment channels, their cudgel has been to ensure that app vendors have no way to link to external purchase options in the app, and hope that this was inconvenient enough for app vendors that they would choose to integrate with Apple’s payment channels. And it worked for most, but not all of them. Some apps, like Audible, just chose to live with having no way to sell anything from the app.

If Apple can’t even do that, they lose the ability to provide for their customers a consistent payment experience across apps.

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

#630

Post by ThatPlayer »

ecf wrote: post #206
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…

> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

Because it's vertical integration and refusal to deal. To me, it's very similar to the Hollywood anti-trust case, when movie studios used to own movie theaters. By your reasoning, those theaters should have just made their own movies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-trust_Case_of_1...

Post reply on HN