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

681–690 of 958 posts

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

#681

Post by danudey »

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.

You think the people who move to their own payment systems are going to drop their prices by 30%, when instead they could keep them the same and make 30% more revenue?

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

#682

Post by stale2002 »

mrtksn wrote: post #672
stale2002 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore.

Yes they will... They will have access to same exact Apple In App Purchases feature that they had before.

> Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin

Ok, so then it is not about you having access to the exact same thing that you had before.

Instead, it is that other developers, have more money, and don't have to pay an Apple fee.

Thats pretty different.

You are not complaining about losing something. Instead, you are complaining that other developers, have to pay a lower fee than they had before. But you still have exactly the same thing as you had before.

Generally speaking, lowering costs are not something to complain about.

Lower costs are good.

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

#683

Post by cush »

solarmist wrote: post #121
cush wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%

No, and it wasn’t meant to. It was meant to let companies keep more and give Apple less. That’s all. In all likely hood things will get worse for consumers. I will definite not buy apps requiring custom payment platforms. Hopefully it’ll settle on stripe companies will offer multiple payment methods rather than trying to force their own. I look forward to it making Apple lower its IAP fees for everyone. I’d still lik…

Right. I bet this will be huge for companies like Stripe, Square, and Shopify.

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

#684

Post by forty »

falafel_muncher wrote: post #671
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 betwee…

Thanks for the explanation. They must be talking about UX indeed.

I have implemented subscription using many APIs (stripe, PayPal, processout, Apple, Amazon, Android...) And Apple is by far the shittiest.

And you cannot even refund your own customers...

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

#685

Post by cush »

Osiris wrote: post #108
cush wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%

That's a big assumption.

Assuming a company will maximize profits is a big assumption to you?

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

#686

Post by shagie »

falafel_muncher wrote: post #671
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 betwee…

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

Note that Apple is charging 15% for small developers ( https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... ) - not 30%.

Stripe's rates are $0.30 + 3% ( https://stripe.com/pricing ). Paypal is a quite a bit better at $0.09 + 5% for micropayments.

For a $0.99 IAP through Apple (with all of the associated infrastructure to handle IAP) that would cost $0.15 to the developer.

That same purchase through Stripe would cost $0.33... and the developer would need to provide some way to handle IAP. Paypal would be the same as through Apple.

That "set up some way to handle IAP" is going to be interesting too.

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

#687

Post by Dylan16807 »

mrtksn wrote: post #675
woko wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their costs are lower, so they offer it at a lower price to encourage more people to buy it. While still having a higher profit per unit!

That's normal business behavior. Why would it have to be "charity" or some kind of fake "PR stunt"?

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

#688

Post by gwoplock »

eropple wrote: post #323
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.

Third-party payment providers who I don't select , not being answerable to me as a platform holder, are incentivized to make it hard for me to cancel. Apple doesn't do that. I have better things to worry about than to track this stuff down and I desperately want to think about fewer stupid things in my life. Subscription management is solved and stupid. Perhaps look at it this way: I'm pretty OK with paying 30% to no…

> Maybe Apple can straitjacket them properly. "You must use XYZ API in iOS/MacOS and you must support one-click cancellation via a standard process." But I think the dark-pattern farmers who are angry about this would be angry about that, too.

Im not sure Apple want's to do that. By not restricting the 3rd party payments there is more of a case for using Apple's payment processor so you can cancel easier.

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

#689

Post by mrtksn »

stale2002 wrote: post #682
mrtksn wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore. Yes they will... They will have access to same exact Apple In App Purchases feature that they had before. > Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin Ok, so then it is not about you having access to the exact same thing that you had before. Instead, it is that other developers, have more money, and don't have to pay an Apple fee. Thats pretty different. You a…

Duh. You are going to find me complaining about large corporations not paying taxes as much as me due to their access to creative accounting too.

It's simply not good for the smaller developers. How more clear I can be? Tough luck, go be a large corp then you say?

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

#690

Post by datavirtue »

hnra wrote: post #373
bobthepanda wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just checked my NYT account I can cancel from the website? I only have a digital subscription however.

I had to cancel a debit card to get rid of WSJ.
Post reply on HN