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

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

#781

Post by summerlight » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

mweberxyz wrote: post #765

summerlight wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because I already have invested thousands dollars into the iOS ecosystem? What you're saying is something like "You don't like the only internet provider here? Why don't you move to other cities!". Life is not that simple, unfortunately.

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

#782

Post by ticviking » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

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…

Usually the easiest way to solve this is to send a written letter, registered mail for like $1.50 or whatever it is now.

Then you dispute the charge each time. It's a pain, but it's a bigger pain for them and costs them more than it does you. Especially once you've documented with that receipt of a registered letter.

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

#783

Post by paulmd » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

BackBlast wrote: post #326

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…

Trying to hang onto systems where your customers resent paying you is not where you want to be. You bring up an interesting proposal, fundamentally Apple needs to create a system where developers WANT to pay the fees because of the value they get in using the system and services. And all those connected credit cards and customer identities definitely have value.

> Trying to hang onto systems where your customers resent paying you is not where you want to be.

OK but like, dark patterns exist and everybody knows users don’t like them. Developers use them anyway because they’re profitable. Yeah I guess you feel bad but the bags of money help dry those tears.

If there’s no chance of customers altering their decision )because you have something exclusive for which there is no substitute, or no good substitute) then there’s very little downside to dark patterns. And this is true even for something as banal as a newspaper subscription, where you would think there’s a lot of substitutes.

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

#784

Post by tshaddox » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

summerlight wrote: post #781

mweberxyz wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because I already have invested thousands dollars into the iOS ecosystem? What you're saying is something like "You don't like the only internet provider here? Why don't you move to other cities!". Life is not that simple, unfortunately.

Unless you invested those thousands of dollars before the App Store and most of the relevant modern policies existed, I don't think your complaint is reasonable. This is nothing like moving to another city or country. It's a smartphone, which people tend to replace at least every 3 years, and I don't think Apple has significantly changed any of its policies in the last 3 years.

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

#785

Post by brazzledazzle » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:44 AM 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.

You’re not wrong but it might not apply universally for everyone with every subscription anyway. I’m not really all that frugal but I’ll happily sign up with a credit card through a browser if I see a 30% price difference.

Apple’s decision to force subscription services to use their payment system and charge exactly the same cut as they did for a single transaction app purchase was obnoxious. Sure, charge a fee for allowing access into the walled garden-but 30%? That’s 30% of $10-$15. Every month. They had the right to do that of course but that’s such an infuriating move.

Some companies didn’t play ball at all and just hoped users would connect the dots between the app’s home screen that was featureless except for a two form fields and seeking out the service in a browser. Even a link to a support portal would need to land on a version of your portal that you created to strip out any links that could, eventually, lead (indirectly) to a page where your customers could sign up for your service.

Some other companies just accepted it and then charged 30% more in-app for a subscription.

It’s probably fair to say some if not all of this is outdated. They may not charge as much and relaxed the requirements. But Apple is still Apple. I’m glad governments are moving the needle on this. Despite loving many of their products the way they behave and communicate is so conceited and nearly devoid of any humility or capability to deal constructively with mistakes or errors.

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

#786

Post by simondotau » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:48 AM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #174

Everyone seems to reading this ruling as "Apple has to allow other payment processors." But the text of the order seems to be about anti-steering, i.e. Apple can't tell developers they can't link out to other payment options on the web.

And there's nothing in the ruling that says Apple can't still demand a cut from in-app sales transacted through another mechanism. It's more work for Apple, but they're still legally entitled to do it, if developers must agree to Apple's terms in order to use their intellectual property.

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

#787

Post by simondotau » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

skizm wrote: post #553

I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to this non-Apple payment method."

Apple is far more likely to just require a cut from in-app sales transacted through any other mechanism, something Apple is still legally entitled to, and can be clarified in the developer terms which must be signed in order for others to sell products which integrate Apple intellectual property.

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

#788

Post by dodobirdlord » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

iknowstuff wrote: post #709

dodobirdlord wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but obviously no company will offer that option unless forced. This decision undeniably benefits app developers, but the benefit to customers is murkier. Apple couldn’t previously require payment flow through Apple’s payment systems, as evidenced by apps like Audible where you have no purchasing in the app and just have access to the content that you purchased through their website. Since Apple couldn’t outright…

They did try to force companies to monetize through them. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-...

This is an example of application of the policy I described.

> “They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP.”

> Today, Apple confirmed to us once again that the rule is more lenient than it sounds: “free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool” don’t need to use IAP as long as the apps themselves don’t offer purchases, and as long as the apps themselves don’t ask users to make purchases outside the app.

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

#789

Post by summerlight » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #774

ethbr0 wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No one seriously believes that Apple is claiming that the two things are literally physically impossible to split up technically.

Except Apple in the court does. That is the exact stance why they cannot allow third party stores and browser engines since those are technically a part of indivisible OS services. Of course, this is obviously BS and inconsistent to many other Apple's business practice, anyway it's their official legal stance in nearly all of its antitrust lawsuits.

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

#790

Post by paulmd » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

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…

Malware was absolutely under probe here until today’s ruling (which closed the door to forcing Apple to allow sideloading).

Had third party app stores/sideloading been allowed to happen as epic demanded, that would have made it impossible for any app sufficiently large enough to demand it from their users.

The risk here was very much a return to the Google/FB “gift cards for root access” scheme, minus the gift cards of course, if they had prevailed they would have just blocked web access to iOS and just demanded you root yourself for them if you want to use their service.

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