Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

771–780 of 958 posts

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

#771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry I might have been confusing you, I was only referencing the reverse calculation of current mobile devs on team. We would hire four people, maybe five, and distribute some to mobile some to backend.

I would absolutely take all the savings from the fee drop and hire as many people as it allowed, napkin calculations says that’s between four and five for me.

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

#772
post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, s…

I agree this is confusing. Pages 149-150 of the ruling explicitly conclude that it is not illegal for Apple to require developers to use IAP for purchases of in-app content. On the other hand, the injuction on page 168 says Apple cannot prohibit developers from linking to other purchasing mechanisms besides IAP.

The way I would interpret this is:

1. If you want to make a purchase inside the app itself, you still have to use IAP.

2. But you are allowed to leave the app to make a payment that does not use the IAP system, and Apple cannot prevent developers from telling users about such alternative payment systems.

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

#773
post #510

I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a legislature was ultimately going to do it for them. And you're almost always better off making that change yourself. Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines. Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO…

Imagine being the Apple executive that proposes voluntarily cutting app store commissions:

"So, what did you do this quarter?"

"Oh, I reduced the revenue of the whole company by 7% to reduce future risk to our revenue stream."

There's only downside, and no upside to your career by doing this. Much better to wait for external forces to do it and then it's nobody's fault.

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

#774
post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sepa…

> 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.

I just don't see how your "then" follows from your "if" at all! The integration of iOS and the App Store is from a user's perspective. No one seriously believes that Apple is claiming that the two things are literally physically impossible to split up technically. You might as well be arguing that it boggles the mind for the calculator app to be free, but for iCloud storage to cost money!

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

#775
post #552

From Epic CEO Tim Sweeney from NYT article[1]: Tim Sweeney, Epic’s chief executive, said on Twitter that he was not satisfied with the ruling because it did not go far enough in allowing companies to complete in-app transactions with their own payment systems, versus having to direct customers to outside websites. He said Fortnite would not return to the App Store until such rules were in place. “Today’s ruling isn’t…

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 how I interpreted “buttons, external links, or calls to action that _direct_ users to purchasing mechanisms” (emphasis line): that the user will be directed to an external payment mechanism outside the app.

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

#776
There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is allowed to keep its practices outside of that state? Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? And why do none of the articles on this topic address this point?

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

#777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is my hope as well. This ruling explicitly pushed back against the attacks on App Store review and other Store policies - and as such they can still leverage that into a requirement to implement some API that allows one click control of recurring subscriptions.

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

#778
post #761

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…

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 -…

> 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.

That might be the case with a market that doesn't already have a competitor offering it, but Apple has already positioned themselves as pro consumer with fairly well known differences. Any competitor store on iOS will compared and contrasted to the App Store. I have no idea why you think any dark patterns that Apple specifically has rules and procedures to combat won't be obvious points of comparison, and won't be something competed over.

> 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.

Or, Apple is forced to compete on price, and their cut goes down, and Fortnite is available through the App Store at a slight markup (that is, not 30%) or through the Epic Store without that markup. And if Epic chooses not to list on the App Store, well maybe they lose customers for that choice, but it's the customers choice.

If you actually care about combating bad behavior of companies with regard to private data, put your efforts behind legislation or regulation. Markets can't completely deal with that, and a single market definitely isn't doing so. All you're supporting is a system where those with more money get to pay for the rights we all have. There's no reason someone should have to opt into the expensive Apple ecosystem when a $50 whatever phone should have the same safeguards. Letting Apple prevent competition doesn't help that situation at all. I would argue it makes it worse (with competition, we might see better options arise).

> Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit

Allowing a separate store does not mean allowing rootkits. A sane permissions system where the store is not the only defense over what is actually allowed would be better for everyone involved, even iOS App Store users.

If Apple wants to say certain permissions just plain aren't supported, even for App Store apps, there's nothing wrong with that, and it would keep the whole phone more secure.

In the end, if Facebook really wants to pull something like that, let them try, and let them face the backlash for it. Ultimately, Apple is not a good steward for your interests, because your interests only matter to them as much as they align with their profit motives, and there are places where they definitely do not align, such as App Store pricing. Just because you're happy with what Apple says they're doing right now, and perhaps you actually are coming out ahead (but it's important to consider that Apple advertises where they help you, but they hardly advertise where they hurt you, so there may be harms you're not yet aware of), but there's no guarantee that the balance will stay that way or that you can even accurately assess it.

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

#779

There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is allowed to keep its practices outside of that state? Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? And why do none of the articles on this topic address this point?

> This is an order by a California district judge.

No, its an order by a federal district judge in California; specifically, a judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (Media reports often use sloppy language which confuses federal courts located in a state with courts of a state.)

> So that means it must only be valid in California?

No.

> Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state?

It's a federal decision. In any case, even if that wasn’t the case, much Apple conduct occurs in California even if it impacts users outside of California.

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

#780
post #532

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.

Apple doesn't need to monopolize payment to centralize subscription cancellation. More importantly, Apple's fee structure prefers cheaper trashy apps over expansive to produce quality apps. I hope users will feel the difference with an overall better app selection. Example: Apple takes a flat 30% fee while Stripe takes (IIRC) 0.3 + Y% (when Y much lower than 30). So a cheap app will pay the same or less with Apple, b…

There is absolutely no causal mechanism where reducing fees by 5-10% will magically produce an improvement in app quality and variety.
Post reply on HN