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

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

#651

Post by spsful » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #643

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.

> Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Is Amazon was allowed to run a store on iOS, Android, and Fire devices, and if you bought an app you were guaranteed the equivalent version on other devices if it existed, I think there would be a lot of incentive for people to use it. I wouldn't necessarily prefer Amazon be the entity running it in the end, but they're probably best poised to do so with customer…

The issue of subscriptions gets worse --not better-- if there are more companies competing for subscription revenue. Having to use more than one service to manage all your subscriptions would make things even more of a headache, so I don't see how consumers would benefit.

Ex. if a 3rd party makes their own subscription management that somehow allows you to cancel subscriptions faster than Apple does, maybe that is more convenient, but now you have to figure out which of your services work with that provider and likely would have to use both as neither could offer you everything you wanted. I understand how the idea of competition for revenue could incentivize better management from the likes of Apple and others but I just don't think the market for this will be competitive at all.

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

#652

Post by jay_kyburz » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

I'm going to put this comment on every Apple vs Epic thread from now on, regardless of how many internet points I lose.

Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own.

If Valve can make the Steam Deck, Epic can make a Fortnite Phone.

Epic could then choose to make the phone as open or locked down as they like. They could have their own app store policies, and they could allow any payment platforms they like.

It could be an Android fork, or they could have a look at what is going on in the Linux phone community.

Would it be a success in the market place? I just think that depends on Epics choices it makes along the way. But I do know that millions of kids would rather have a cool gaming phone rather than an old fashioned iPhone.

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

#653

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

skohan wrote: post #594

endisneigh wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

What’s common sense property right?

Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute?

Still don’t get why don’t you just buy things that advertise the functionality you want.

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

#654

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:15 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?

Subsidizing 3rd party developers, would be if Apple paid app developers to be on their platform, on top of a 0% commission.

Instead, what people want, is for users who already own their own phone, to be able to do what they want with it, without an uninvolved 3rd party (Apple) getting in the way of transactions made between the user and the developer.

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

#655

Post by kaishiro » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #652

I'm going to put this comment on every Apple vs Epic thread from now on, regardless of how many internet points I lose. Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own. If Valve can make the Steam Deck, Epic can make a Fortnite Phone. Epic could then choose to make the phone as open or locked down as they like. They could have their own app store policies, and they could allow any pa…

Surely they could do both?

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

#656

Post by eropple » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #643

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.

> Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Is Amazon was allowed to run a store on iOS, Android, and Fire devices, and if you bought an app you were guaranteed the equivalent version on other devices if it existed, I think there would be a lot of incentive for people to use it. I wouldn't necessarily prefer Amazon be the entity running it in the end, but they're probably best poised to do so with customer…

> I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having competition on their platform would make them worse.

Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem.

I like Stripe as an app developer because I pick them as a seller; they're not there to serve my customer and are there to serve me. I am reasonably confident that Apple's there to serve me at least as much as an app developer because I as a buyer picked Apple. For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side.

Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side? Why should I want this as a consumer? The money's already a rounding error, the time and stress aren't. If the end result here is "you must use Apple's subscription system, must honor one-click cancellations through a centralized clearinghouse, and sure you can use your payment provider on the other hand", then that's great. Anything else is worse than the status quo ante.

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

#657

Post by woko » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #504

nutanc wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that. As a developer I wouldn't want Apple to know who my paying customers are. Right now, there is no option. With this hopefully there will be more options.

There's two sides to this actually. I, as a customer, don't want to pay many companies directly. The prime example is any news publication. There are many I'd happily pay for except (like gym memberships it seems) it can be incredibly difficult to cancel. I won't reward that model so they get none of my money.

That is why I use Paypal. As a customer, why should I be constrained to use Apple's payment system as my only choice of middle-man?

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

#658

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #337

travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fair amount of companies makes their subscription cancellation actively hostile in an effort to not get people to do it. To give an example, though you can subscribe online, the NYT requires you to call during only certain hours to a customer service line where you get badgered and questioned like you’re trying to cancel a cable subscription. If the US mandated that you need to provide equivalent means of subscript…

[deleted]

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

#659

Post by summerlight » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #611

easton wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You answered why there might be enough money to subsidize developers. Apple has a lot of money, there's no question about that, but I was asking why they should subsidize developers (or why we should expect them to).

I think you don't understand the answer. When customers buy iPhone, they already paid a plenty amount of money for accessing third party apps via App Store since it's so essential and inherently indivisible value from iOS and iPhone, in favor of Apple's argument. Apple may not be obligated to subsidize developers with direct cash, but to pay operational expenses for App Store since there is no alternatives. Otherwise, it would be a textbook example of abusing monopolistic power.

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

#660

Post by msbarnett » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

woko wrote: post #644

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.

I don't understand how this works in favour of Apple. Imagine you had paid with any other third-party payment provider, e.g. Paypal. Wouldn't you have been able to cancel the recurring payment just as easily? Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel the recurring payment by going through the account options on your bank website?

> Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel the recurring payment by going through the account options on your bank website?

No? I don't know where you're located, but I'm not aware of any North American banks that offer anything of the sort. Typically the only thing you could do through your bank is dispute a charge after the fact and request a chargeback. The end of that process may or may not see the company in question left unable to charge you again, but it's not a "cancellation of recurring payment" process in any normal sense, and it's going to require some phone calls and form-filling.

Companies will famously decline to offer subscription cancellation options on their website, leaving consumers with the only option of calling them on the phone and facing a hard sell when attempting to cancel. Apple's subscription cancellation options are night-and-day better than the status quo.