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

761–770 of 958 posts

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

#761

Post by paulmd »

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…

You’re using the term “competition” here like this is something that will be exposed to consumers, but it isn’t. Companies aren’t going to offer a “light pattern” option out of the goodness of their heart, the choice will be dark pattern or don’t use the app.

Which is fine for flashlight apps but as someone else put it heee, you don’t have the option of choosing another fortnite clone with a better payment provider - all your friends are on fortnite and you can either play with them or not.

Sijilaely, had the court forced Apple to open up “third party app stores” via sideloading, you would have Facebook and others immediately block web access via safari and Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit like they already got busted for. And sure you would have the choice to not talk with your friends via Facebook ever again, but network effect is a real thing.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

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

#763

Post by mbreese »

Drew_ wrote: post #755
mbreese wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the reason is the phrase “direct to purchasing mechanisms”. The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external (otherwise you wouldn’t direct them to it, you’d just let them purchase it).

It could be a website, a phone number, mail order, whatever.

Also, the sentence specifically includes “external links” as part of the App Store metadata/description, so that’s a logical step.

If there is a reference to allowing in-app purchases, it would be the next clause, but it isn’t clear to me what the proper interpretation is. It could be allowing a purchasing mechanism in addition to the existing Apple In App purchasing pipeline, or that Apple can’t disallow In App purchasing.

I bet it’s the former, but I’m sure it will be part of the appeal.

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

#764

Post by paulmd »

rhizome wrote: post #591
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.

People/apps that use alternate payment SDKs aren't going to care how difficult it is to unsubscribe, and very few people (citation needed) care enough to look into an app's cancellation flow before buying in.

It’s worse than that. Developers will actually seek out alternate payment providers that allow dark patterns. The whole reason dark patterns exist in the first place is because they’re more profitable for businesses than light patterns.

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

#765

Post by mweberxyz »

summerlight wrote: post #604
tshaddox wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should revenue from iPhone hardware subsidize third-party iPhone app developers?

Because Apple doesn't allow other form of app distribution? It'd be fine if they allow third party stores like Android.

If you want the ability to use a third party store, why not buy an Android phone instead? Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the market as affirmed by the outcome in TFA. Users choose to buy Apple devices for a reason.

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

#766

Post by stale2002 »

mrtksn wrote: post #689
stale2002 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Large corporations not paying taxes is bad, because it means society has less money to pay for things.

That is very different from companies paying less money to a multi trillion dollar company. Companies paying less to a multi trillion dollar company is a good thing.

It is dishonest to equate that to necessary government services being underfunded.

Lower costs are good. So no, I reject that this is bad for small developers.

It is most bad for apple, as they get less money.

> Tough luck

There is no tough luck. Smaller developers can continue to pay the same amount as they were paying before.

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

#767

Post by inopinatus »

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.

But that already happens. Apple did not invent online payment and subscription. Consumers do not have a problem buying things online outside the walled garden, and most could not tell you when they’re actually using a Stripe form in a WKWebView or whatever; those that can don’t care much either.

The most powerful force in play here is consumer indifference, which Apple have been relying upon.

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

#768

Post by zamalek »

tshaddox wrote: post #541
madeofpalk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank, compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the dev…

> Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Depends what you mean. The subtlety that is always lost in these conversation on HN is how deep does the competition have to go? I don't think anyone seriously argues that iPhones do not have viable competition in the smartphone market. And yet, if I as a consumer want to use a smartphone which places strong restrictions on third-party developers (which is one of th…

> which places strong restrictions on third-party developers

Malware isn't under the probe here; IAP is. Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Broadening the argument to Apple's desirable curation process is a misrepresentation of the issue.

People will continue to be able to enjoy the convenience of Apple IAP. Savvy users might seek better prices externally - but convenience does hold immense value. Developers can now also, as a pertinent example, ask for donations for open source projects without being taken down.

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

#769

Post by tshaddox »

zamalek wrote: post #768
tshaddox wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides, isn't the competition here what we want? Depends what you mean. The subtlety that is always lost in these conversation on HN is how deep does the competition have to go? I don't think anyone seriously argues that iPhones do not have viable competition in the smartphone market. And yet, if I as a consumer want to use a smartphone which places strong restrictions on third-party developers (which is one of th…

> which places strong restrictions on third-party developers Malware isn't under the probe here; IAP is. Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed. Broadening the argument to Apple's desirable curation process is a misrepresentation of the issue. People will continue to be able to enjoy the convenience of Apple IAP. Savvy users might seek better prices externally…

I'm not only talking about malware either.

> Apple's behavior has been objectively awful specifically concerning the subject being discussed.

Certainly not objectively. I would very strongly prefer an Apple ecosystem with no in-app purchases at all!

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

#770

Post by whckt »

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…

> no customer wants to use any company's half-assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system

They have this brilliant Apple Pay workflow that's almost completely unused in IAP — it bothered me that we couldn't just use Apple Pay to purchase a Spotify subscription directly in-app. Perhaps soon we'll see this.

Post reply on HN