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

631–640 of 958 posts

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

#631

Post by isk517 »

shados wrote: post #614
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…

I agree with this. On top of that, the experience in games is often downright weird. I'm no Apple user, but on Android, you're in the game, you try to buy something, it pops the Android payment UX, you pay, then you wait a sec or two, get your thing in the game. If its a Gacha or something, you then are getting some in-game currency, that you then have to redeem for the item you wanted. The extra steps are really ann…

I many would argue that making gacha game purchases harder is a feature.

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

#634

Post by uberduper »

travoc wrote: post #310
eropple wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

What makes you so sure it would be 30%? Somewhere a middleman gets their cut. Why wouldn't bigCorp just make you use their payment system at the same price without allowing purchases via Apple at all?

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

#635

Post by jdgoesmarching »

jacobr1 wrote: post #293
echelon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a new game, and we need new definitions. Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous. They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole. Their objective: capturin…

How does this differ from traditional brick and mortar retail? The retailers posed a barrier to selling to consumers at scale and wholesale prices, I think, were closer to 50% of retail markup. Sure, manufactures could find small retailers and build a following from there, or find ways to market direct to consumers. But it seems like that is still true, if not even easier in the modern age. So what is different. I as…

No brick and mortar store has anywhere close to Apple’s dominance on mobile apps and the retail industry is not a defacto duopoly. Apple and Google control 95% of the global app market. Apple alone was 65% last year.

For reference, Walmart and Amazon have about 14% and 10% market share respectively. Numbers differ from report to report, but the scale of difference is pretty clear.

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

#636

Post by dodobirdlord »

yyyk wrote: post #496
selykg wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would. I'm very careful about what I pay for anyway. If you want me to pay for your product it needs to be something that brings me real value. Even then I limit myself, as I only have a certain amount to spend anyway, so you're competing with other products for my limited amount of budget. Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel service. It's consistent as well, which means I don't have to keep hunting th…

>Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel service. This doesn't require Apple's payment monopoly. IAP would just need to make an API call to some 3rd party API. Besides did everyone forget they can call their credit card issuer and suspend payment?

> Besides did everyone forget they can call their credit card issuer and suspend payment?

This does not get you out of your contractual obligation to pay, if you have one. You could end up getting an annoying surprise from a debt collection agency a few years down the road. An important thing that Apple was able to provide that a credit card processor suspending payment can’t is to force the vendor to let you actually cancel the subscription, not just the payment.

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

#637

Post by ChrisLomont »

dannyw wrote: post #87
Supermancho wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?

There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.

Yes, those laws in California are not uniform among states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case is more likely to reversed.

Since other states do not have the same laws of California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal Law, not California law, on appeal.

Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California law only applies to transactions in California.

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

#638

Post by another_kel »

stavros wrote: post #633

I don't understand why Epic is dissatisfied with this. Doesn't the injunction mean that Apple now has to allow other payment processors? Is it that Epic wanted third-party app stores on iOS?

No. This injunction is allowing info\link to website where you can use other payment processor. And Epic wanted to integrate a different payment system directly into the app.

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

#639

Post by ChrisLomont »

ethbr0 wrote: post #315
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…

Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of everything together, so that nothing can be independently valued. "30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide you", etc. Edit : As an example, in the US this is mandated for home mortgages. "T…

>The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market.

Historically line itemization makes it harder, not easier, for users to understand what they're being charged for. Compare Verizon versus Google fi statements, for example. The complexity hidden in all those fees confuses people, and let's Verizon (and others) claim monthly fees are X in ads, then listing that fee as X, then tacking on a lot of line items that make the actual payment much more.

Be careful what you wish for.

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

#640

Post by Drew_ »

stavros wrote: post #633

I don't understand why Epic is dissatisfied with this. Doesn't the injunction mean that Apple now has to allow other payment processors? Is it that Epic wanted third-party app stores on iOS?

I believe they're disatisified that the App Store wasn't deemed a monopoly
Post reply on HN