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

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

#671

Post by falafel_muncher » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:34 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…

> most developers will happily just opt for Apple's system if the rates make sense

The _buyer_ experience with Apple's IAP is mostly good, but I would argue that the developer experience is downright horrible. Working with subscriptions and IAP receipts is clunky. You can only use one of about 100 SKUs, which makes it difficult to offer discounts and customized pricing at the higher price tiers, where the gaps between amounts are quite large. Until recently, it wasn't even possible for developers to issue refunds!

Even if Stripe charged 30%, I would choose them every time over Apple's IAP.

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

#672

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #666

mrtksn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues, large companies can remove friction by having their portfolio of users with credit cards collected. Small devs cannot do that because the user will need to enter payment details each time. The best chance would be to use something like Paypal, which is again a huge friction since the user will need to switch apps or enter login information. As a result, unless yo…

> It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues Then don't add the friction! Just continue to use Apple's payment system. Nobody is forcing app developers to use different payment processors. > but because it will make the user experience so bad that a fraction of your users will proceed. Then don't use it! Just use Apple.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is that smaller developers will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore. 180 million people have an account with Epic, who knows how many of them have already provided the CC.

If you are an indie, you don't have access to the 180 million people, which creates uneven competition.

When the only payment in town is Apple IAP, you and Epic have the same margin. Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin with at about the same level of friction. If you need to match Epic's margin, you need to introduce friction.

Are there App devs on this site anymore? It feels like arguing with people who have no idea.

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

#673

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

rubyn00bie wrote: post #563

yawn Apple is getting a mild slap on the wrist and the outcome of the case is probably the best for everyone. It did away with the most entirely absurd and egregious restriction but still lets a company like... choose how to run their business. If anything this is likely to drastically improve the quality of some big-name applications on Apple's platforms, further increasing their bottom line. I would bet money techn…

> back on the app store is pathetic, childish, and anti-consumer.

This makes no sense. If the price of something is too high, then a company is not going to purchase it.

I am sure that Epic would be happy to put fortnite back on the app store, if Apple charged 0%.

But you can't go around saying that it is "petty" for a company to think that the price of something is too high, and then refuse to pay that price.

Apple doesn't own fortnite. They aren't owed anything, unless you are going to make some reverso uno argument, and claim that actually fortnite is a monopoly, but that would be silly.

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

#674

Post by tveita » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #240

yurishimo wrote: post #15

I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my life harder compared to Apple Pay. I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible. Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appeali…

As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes. When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in…

> As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes.

It sounds like you should be using some kind of service that does that for you, maybe even provided by Apple?

> Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission

Independent devs seemed pretty happy overall with the 15% concession they already got as a result of the legal scrutiny on Apple. No doubt they'll enjoy further improvements to the terms once there is an actual threat of switching.

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

#675

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

woko wrote: post #664

mrtksn wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be more like Apple IAP($1.43), Your Local payment($1.43), Paypal($1.43). They will add something like a bonus if you choose the alternative ones. I'm baffled why people expect that the margin will go to the user. Do you think that Epic sued Apple because altruism? To help users save money? They are are after the margins. Because of the "Your Local payment" option, binary sizes will grow(Uber has this…

For the record, when Epic did their stunt on August 13, 2020, the margin went to the user. > Today, we’re also introducing a new way to pay on iOS and Android: Epic direct payment. > When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/news/the-fortnite-mega-dr...

They must be non-profit and doing it as charity. Totally not as a PR stunt for the upcoming Apple vs Epic thingy.

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

#676

Post by xkr » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:36 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…

As iOS and macOS user, I always subscribe directly through the app developer if they allow this. I stopped trusting Apple subscriptions when I called them asking to reimburse the subscription I forgot to cancel (just a few days later) and they said “no”. I never encountered any internet service declining this kind of requests.

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

#677

Post by roamerz » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

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.

Do you really think that the digital purchase cost would be 30% lower if you bought it directly through the vendor? The edge case would be that buying directly though the vendor would actually be 30% less.

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

#678

Post by jay_kyburz » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #667

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…

> Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own. So instead of 2 silos, you now have 3. How does that improve anything? The whole point is to move away from this idea that developers are apple's "ecosystem", like cows in a cow farm. They are not cattle, but independent people with the right to compete in a fair market, much like how apple is competing in a fair market, which is pro…

We might find that Epic chooses an open platform like Valve chose with the Steam Deck.

But developer are free to just not develop apps for Apple. Or just run their app as a web page like I do.

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

#679

Post by baxtr » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:37 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?

At least with my European CC I need to fill out a PDF, put a signature on it and upload. Not the level of convenience I am used to. Maybe it’s different elsewhere.

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

#680

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

tveita wrote: post #674

mrtksn wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes. When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in…

> As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes. It sounds like you should be using some kind of service that does that for you, maybe even provided by Apple? > Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission Independent devs seemed pretty…

The point is not that smaller devs like to pay more, the point is that smaller devs would like to compete on even playing field.

The lower the commission, the better. That should be obvious, but it is not better if it comes at cost that is potentially much higher than the reduction of commission.