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

791–800 of 958 posts

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

#791

Post by simondotau »

arsome wrote: post #449
marricks wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a case of choosing how you lose. Android certainly is more open and free in terms of what you can do with it, but you become Google's product and they will mine all meaningful data from your interactions. What would be swell is an open device you fully control which doesn't spy on you. Turns out that cuts off most of the ways to make big bucks.

You can basically have this today - you might have to give up a few niceties, but if you don't rely on anything too fancy, Lineage + F-Droid, with optional MicroG will generally do the trick for most apps. Gotta be a bit of tinkerer to set that one up though, not something for grandma.

If she had an iPhone, how many paid apps or in-app purchases was Grandma going to make anyway? Probably none.

Heck, I'm a developer and tech enthusiast that owns numerous Apple devices, and I honestly can't remember the last time I made a financial transaction through the iOS App Store or IAP.

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

#792

Post by simondotau »

ssaturn wrote: post #520
gchokov wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Devices are anything but owned by customers. You don’t have anything yours there, not even your data, location.. anything. Wake up.

Freedom is not a boolean, it is a scale and google offers more than apple at the moment. Ironically the pixel devices are one of the few where bootloaders are unlocked in the US and you can flash a customer google free rom. Assuming there is no hardware based surveillance this is as close to free as we can get at the moment.

Close to free—for the 0.1% of owners who are willing to put in tens of hours of their time.

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

#793

Post by chillwaves »

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…

I just report my card as stolen and call it a day, but I have noticed sometimes it does not stop recurring payments.

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

#794

Post by IX-103 »

tracker1 wrote: post #556
ilikehurdles wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the example that's been on my mind. Had I known how horrible NYT's unsubscription process is, I would have never subscribed in the first place. I'm sure they extracted an extra month or two out of me because of the friction they introduce, so in management's eyes that's probably a win. I will never use NYT again in the future, but I think a big label letting users know an app isn't using iCloud paymen…

Similar opinion for XM... Would never sign up again without a generated card number that is only good for a single charge. I only wanted to cancel one radio of 3 I had at the time. By the third 40+m wait after mysteriously "disconnected" after they couldn't talk me out of it, I cancelled the whole thing.

Don't get me started on XM. Starting the second year after I bought a car they were calling me several times a week. It took a few years of "No" and blocking any number in my area code that isn't in my contacts (my phone number is not local) for it to stop. Then I brought my car to the dealership to have some recall handled, and the calls have started again....

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

#795

Post by fomine3 »

judge2020 wrote: post #383
fomine3 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Fortnite did same things like Netflix, they'll be banned. Why Netflix or Kindle isn't banned is because Apple arbitrary allowed such app for some category, but not for games. See Hey case.

What things? What did apple arbitrarily allow? Netflix has never used its own payment system within iOS.

Hey and xCloud tried to release an Netflix style (only allow login by existing account) app, but Apple rejects them. Finally Hey accepted but xCloud still not.

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

#796

Post by paulmd »

webmobdev wrote: post #539
coldcode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways? Also if people move away from giving Apple any money for the App Store, I expect the annual fee to increase to make up for it, and might Apple make you pay more if you don't use Apple's gateway? I don't see…

> how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways? It's your government's job to make sure that you have faith in financial institutions and trust the infrastructure through which financial transactions happen. If not, corporates like Apple will continue to exploit your misplaced trust by charging you 30% - 50% on every transaction. The solution isn't Apple or Google or some other corporate, but your government and…

HN libertarians: “This isn’t the right approach! You need government regulation!”

Everyone: so could I get some regulation on [literally any exploitative startup practice”

HN, creepy smiling face: “haha eat shit”

The reaction to GDPR, or the Cali privacy law, or the Uber employee classification, or literally any other regulation* shows how hollow those words are. When anyone tries to regulate these sorts of things you’ll shriek like a banshee about how unfair these regulations are.

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

#797

Post by summerlight »

tshaddox wrote: post #784
summerlight wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Unless you invested those thousands of dollars before the App Store and most of the relevant modern policies existed

Oh, so every iOS users need to understand all the app review policy and TOS before spending their money on iOS ecosystem. Otherwise they cannot complain about what Apple's doing? Customer protection and antitrust regulation don't work like that.

> This is nothing like moving to another city or country.

Why? The main reason of using alternative store is mainly having cheaper apps and contents, usually several cents per each. And you're suggesting that I need to spend ~$1000 upfront cost as well as giving up all the apps and contents that I purchased in iOS? I think it's pretty similar to "moving to other cities", which illustrates how classic monopolist lock-in strategy works.

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

#798

Post by paulmd »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #687
mrtksn wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They must be non-profit and doing it as charity. Totally not as a PR stunt for the upcoming Apple vs Epic thingy.

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"?

spoken like someone who’s never been to a gas station and seen cash and credit charges at the same price.

Do some do it right? Sure! A lot will pocket the extra profit.

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

#799

Post by nodamage »

stavros wrote: post #633

I don't understand why Epic is dissatisfied with this. Doesn't the injunction mean that Apple now has to allow other payment processors? Is it that Epic wanted third-party app stores on iOS?

The main reason is the court affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer account and ban them from the App Store. In other words, this verdict benefits all other developers except Epic.

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

#800

Post by mr_toad »

madeofpalk wrote: post #392
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple would also likely drop their cut from 30% overnight. Maybe not to 3% like Paypal, but low enough where companies would have to think.

For context, Netflix was getting 15% in some markets and that was not enough to keep them on IAP.

Netflix is in a fairly unique position. They have a good brand, and most customers probably watch Netflix mainly on non Apple devices.
Post reply on HN