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

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

#731

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

gwoplock wrote: post #699

danShumway wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Job done well enough that internal emails at Apple said, "the #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage"? Come on. Apple's VP of software engineering would not be debating Android support in internal emails if SMS worked "perfectly well".

I agree that Apple not bringing iMessage to Android is lock in and very purposeful. But I don't think (at least not initially) it's because it works better than plain old SMS. I think there is quite a bit of social pressure to have "the blue bubble" especially in middle/high school. Most of the iMessage features, text, video, pictures and "reactions/tap backs" work over SMS. The only real feature missing is delivery…

> Most of the iMessage features, text, video, pictures and "reactions/tap backs" work over SMS

Other than 'text', none of those things use SMS:

Sending pictures and videos uses MMS, which is one of the most flakiest parts of the old feature-phone ecosystem because it's inextricably tied to the level of support from both the sender's carrier and the receiver's carrier for particular MMS message content - and how carriers love to charge insane $-per-byte for SMS/MMS content. While in the US exchanging video MMS between the 4 (or 3...) major carriers you likely won't experience any problems provided the video is under a few megabytes and using a well-supported codec like H.263/H.264, if you see what it's like for the rest of the world (Europe, India, etc) you'll understand why services like WhatsApp are so popular: because carrier SMS/MMS service is awful... if not obscenely expensive.

The "reactions" thing you mention, to my knowledge, is not supported by SMS either - it's either an Android-specific MMS extension or you're using RCS - and Apple has no incentive to support RCS, excepting any kind of laws requiring phone carriers and handsets to fully support RCS (I wish...) in order to be sold in a giving region.

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

#732

Post by eins1234 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

woko wrote: post #650

dev_tty01 wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alongs…

> I would rather use Apple payment system. The price would be higher if you used Apple payment system. That is how companies would get consumers to be enticed to use other payment systems. That is what Epic did with their V-bucks: either use Apple system at the usual cost, or use Epic payment system at a permanently decreased cost (20% cheaper in August 2020).

Was there anything in the ruling preventing Apple from just forbidding higher prices on the Apple payment option?

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

#733

Post by veilrap » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #279

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%

The win would be that you're actually able to sign up for more things in the iOS ecosystem that you previously weren't able to, like Netflix or Spotify.

You can already sign up through Safari on iOS to those services. And besides signing up to that sort of subscription is a one time thing.

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

#734

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #697

summerlight wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't really see why there would be any expectation of that from the legal system or for ordinary people, other than that Apple obviously shouldn't drastically reduce functionality of iPhones which they have already sold. But again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Apple might stop having an App Store altogether, or that the outcome of any of these legal battles would be that iPhone users would have signific…

Summerlight's point was that if you take Apple's argument at face value (that iOS and the App Store are so tightly integrated as to be indivisible), then it boggles the mind that Apple could then turn around and sell you iOS (via an iPhone purchase) but not include the App Store in that same transaction.

Or, in a sentence: you can't claim something is indivisible, and then charge for its pieces separately and at separate times.

Your point is probably that developers and customers are two separate groups, and there's a history of making a thing free to customers (the App Store) while charging vendors (developers) for the privilege.

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

#735

Post by paulmd » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #601

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.

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…

It’s very wholesome (or, naive) of you to think that developers will give users the choice for a less predatory payment gateway out of the goodness of their hearts, but that’s not going to happen.

Making it harder for users to cancel their recurring payment is a feature, it’s customer retention, the only choice you’ll have is whether a given site or payment processor is so egregious that you will forego use of the service entirely rather than take the risk.

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

#736

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:28 PM UTC

syspec wrote: post #729

From: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-to-appeal-decision... > Epic Games has announced that it plans to appeal the judge’s decision from today’s Epic v. Apple case. Although today’s ruling says that Apple must relax rules around In-App Purchase and allow apps to link out to third-party payment systems, the judge ruled in Apple’s favor on all other counts. > For instance, Apple was not shown to have a monopo…

> Apple must [...] allow apps to link out to third-party payment systems.

> Apple [must not] be compelled to allow third-party app stores or alternative third-party payment systems inside the app itself

It sounds like Apple cannot legally sanction a developer account when their apps open their own self-hosted payment page in a WebView instead of going-through iOS' IAP system - while Apple is under no obligation to allow iOS's IAP system to use a different payment back-end.

...shat's the effective difference here, as far as a regular punter's experience is concerned, though?

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

#737

Post by znpy » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #707

msbarnett wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here in UK if a company wants to charge you regularly for anything they have to start something called a "direct debit" on your bank account - then they can withdraw money from your account whenever they see fit. The thing about direct debits though is that you can cancel them for any reason within few clicks on your account website, and all charges are reversible without having to provide a reason - I just call my b…

Yup, same here in Italy.

The infuriating thing is that some american users think that since they have to endure crappy banking then everybody else on the planet must also be enduring the same thing, and that's not the case.

I must explicitly approve any direct debit subscription before it can withdraw money from my balance and I can kill a subscription from my home banking (I'm an Unicredit customer btw).

That's actually how I made sure my gym subscription was terminated for good.

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

#738

Post by kevincox » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

It isn't clear to me if they need to allow third-party payments on the iPhone or they need to allow third-party payments in the App Store. I suspect Apple is less likely to do the former (as presumably that means sideloading) but the latter is great news for open source developers that are getting kicked off app stores for donation links or even webpages in various app stores (Apple isn't the only one guilty of this).

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

#739

Post by gutnor » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #707

msbarnett wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here in UK if a company wants to charge you regularly for anything they have to start something called a "direct debit" on your bank account - then they can withdraw money from your account whenever they see fit. The thing about direct debits though is that you can cancel them for any reason within few clicks on your account website, and all charges are reversible without having to provide a reason - I just call my b…

I may not understand properly what you are saying but here in the UK you can have regular payment on your credit/debit card. Except for Utilities, basically all my recurring payments just happen like that. Netflix does not require a Direct Debit, neither does a variety of service, including Apple iCloud.

Although you can chargeback those payment, that's not really a cancellation. It's a last recourse type of stuff. I'm still subscribed and liable for whatever charge I have incurred. If I want to cancel Netflix or iCloud, I need to go there. So sure, if the payment fails your account will eventually be suspended but not necessarily cancelled.

Even Direct Debit are like that. I cancelled my Electricity DD by accident, but I still received the bill in the mail (at the time) and the electricity wasn't just cut.

Also in the UK, Paypal will allow to setting up subscription. Similarly you can cancel the subscription, but it is not a cancellation of the service. You need to go to whatever setup the subscription and unsubscribe there.

Apple system is a centralised cancellation of the service first, the fact that the payment are stopped is a consequence of cancelling the service. Not the other way around as with all the systems I listed.

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

#740

Post by hatchnyc » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #298

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…

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.

Is there any doubt but that this is _the_ motivating factor for these companies? They employ all sorts of dark patterns to charge customers on the sly and make cancelling recurring payments as difficult and painful as possible, but at least if they want to sell on the lucrative iOS market they can't do this at the moment.

This is their business model, they've already shown they'll stop at nothing to put these practices in place, obviously this is just the next step in pushing it further.