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

751–760 of 958 posts

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

#751

Post by folmar »

shagie wrote: post #493
rfrey wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that would only happen if Apple were very uncompetitive in price. In the example above, the options would be equivalent to the company if Apple only dropped their cut to 25% and the competition was free. Assume Apple dropped to 15% and the competition was 10% - then it would be 9.99 IAP, 9.63 on Amaozon/Stripe/Netflix, which probably wouldn't be worth the consumer confusion.

Doing some back of the envelope "what would it take to do micropayments with PayPal" https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees A micropayment is 5% + $0.09. For a $0.99 purchase, this is about 15%. I would expect other payment processors to be similar. This also leads to the question of "how do you maintain the in app purchases?" Is it an account on a website that has 100% uptime? Does it work for solo game…

> I would expect other payment processors to be similar

SumUp wants just 1.95% flat for online payments. I would expect other payment processors to do even better with some shopping around.

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

#752

Post by FridgeSeal »

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.

After using Apple Pay, centralising my subscriptions, and things like Apple-managed IAP’s I’ve little desire to go back to handing my card details over to n different apps, with varying and unknown degrees of payment security. Centralising the subscriptions is worth it alone.

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

#753

Post by moogly »

kjreact wrote: post #747
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.

You think that you’ll get a 30% discount by subscribing via an external website? More likely they’ll give you a small discount to entice you and pocket the difference.

Wouldn't it be better if that money went to the actual creator instead of a greedy middleman though? Apple will be fine. They have more money than they know what to do with. Literally. Steve Jobs even asked Warren Buffett WTF to do with their hoard, and that was over 10 years ago now.

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

#754

Post by Drew_ »

archon810 wrote: post #641
pier25 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait... what? So apps will be able to redirect you to a website but users won't be able to make the payment in the app itself?

That's right and it's exactly what he's unhappy with.

There isn't anything in the ruling that specifically and only protects a payment mechanism through a web page. The ruling protects linking to any alternative payment mechanism. That should include a payment mechanism implemented in-app.

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

#755

Post by Drew_ »

mbreese wrote: post #619
sangnoir wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves How do you foresee Apple disallowing that in the apps without violating the injunction? The injunction gives apps free-reign on UI elements that direct customers to non-Apple payment systems.

The way I read it (which might be wrong) was that the developers could put links to external websites in the app, but not necessarily require that the transaction be allowed to occur in the app itself. In the case of Fortnite, Epic could include a link to their online store where you could buy V-Bucks that would be linked to your Fortnite account. This link would open in Safari, but could also be done on any other co…

There's no such reference to "external websites" in the ruling. I'm not sure why so many people are taking this logical leap.

The injunction simply references "directing to purchasing mechanisms". There's no such qualifier that the purchasing mechanism must be an HTML document displayed from web browser.

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

#756

Post by kbenson »

eropple wrote: post #656
kbenson wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Then don't use that competition? It's not like Apple is special here. They've developed a reputation for not doing that, which is what you're relying on for them to not do it. Any other competitor could develop a similar reputation if they chose to compete on that level.

> For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side.

And in what way is any of that untrue or different if a different store is allowed to compete on iOS.

> Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side?

Why is the options Apple pay or Stripe? Why isn't it App Store + Apple pay or Some other store + stripe or some other service that attempts to put the same constraints in place?

For whatever reason, people only seem to see this issue in terms of straw man arguments. There is nothing unique about any one aspect of Apple or the services they run that some other service couldn't attempt to do the same or better, and maybe that might actually make Apple's version evolve to be better than it is, so I'm confused why people are so against this.

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

#757

Post by Dylan16807 »

mrtksn wrote: post #692
Dylan16807 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Right, companies have fixed profit rate and they lower the price when the costs go down. Got it, thanks. Great business tip!

When costs go down, and profit margin increases, the price point where a company can achieve maximum profit also goes down. This doesn't require altruism or stunts or a fixed profit rate.

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

#758

Post by nodamage »

modeless wrote: post #161
Rels wrote: post #136

I don't understand the logic behind this ruling. So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30% now), and they have to change that. But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made after their update in which they used direct payment? But if Epic didn't try to…

I guess the judge's logic is that Epic could have sued without breaching the contract first, even if the contract was actually illegal. I don't agree that it should work that way, but the damages are immaterial. The bigger issue is: can/will Apple permanently terminate Epic's developer account for breach of contract and prevent them from releasing Fortnite despite this ruling, and possibly even cause problems for Unr…

The judge explicitly said, yes, they can (page 179):

The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely:

(1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment; and

(2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion.

This may very well kill Epic's Unreal Engine business (at least on Apple platforms) if they no longer have the necessary licenses to use Apple's developer tools.

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

#759

Post by commoner »

msbarnett wrote: post #660
woko wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In PayPal, any recurring payments and subscriptions can easily be cancelled on the centralized "Pre-approved payments" page:

https://www.paypal.com/va/smarthelp/article/how-do-i-cancel-...

The process can be done in the PayPal app, or on any web browser. It is just as easy as Apple's process, and PayPal doesn't charge 30%.

PayPal is not a bank, however.

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

#760

Post by mcphage »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #588
mcphage wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many developers do you have already, that 35% more money would let you hire 4 more? Back-of-the-envelope calculation says you've got 7, does that match up?

It’s more about what our annual app fees to Apple are, 1.2mm. We have diverse revenue streams so the correlation between Apple revenue and salaries isn’t apparent.

Uh, if the correlation between Apple revenue and salaries isn’t apparent, then how are you sure Apple dropping their take will provide you with 4 new salaries?
Post reply on HN