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

801–810 of 958 posts

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

#801

Post by true_religion »

paulmd wrote: post #790
zamalek wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

On the other hand if we had sideloading, we could finally get a browser on iOS that isn’t just Safari reskinned.

Mayne then we would have PWAs that work the same way everywhere.

The existence of competition might even motivate Apple themselves to adopting new video codecs and image formats that weren’t invented inside of Apple Hq.

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

#802

Post by acdha »

b3morales wrote: post #746
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…

You're talking about oranges. This case is about In-App Purchases -- for things that are used digitally, in the app itself. The Amazon app is selling physical goods, delivered outside the app. This is already permitted by Apple; the Amazon app already does this ; in fact if you have an app that sells stuff outside the app you are not allowed to use Apple's IAP system for those sales.

Try ordering a Kindle or Audible book on iOS. Apple treats that as IAP.

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

#803

Post by paulmd »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #3

Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.

Jeez, how long has it been since the Microsoft store on Xbox 360? 15 years now? Probably nearly predates the iPhone.

And Microsoft was a signatory to this lawsuit arguing Apple should have to open up but their store is “different”…

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

#804

Post by paulmd »

widowlark wrote: post #581
btmiller wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like the invisible hand of the free market economy. Use that phone, then. A given company is not obligated to serve all of your specific needs and desires.

but their practices might still be considered anti-competitive if harmful enough to end users

You’re perfectly welcome to consider whatever you want but the judge just ruled it isn’t. That’s legalese for “your opinion is wrong”.

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

#805

Post by tharkun__ »

darkhelmet wrote: post #710
msbarnett wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Precisely this. And I realize it's not the same around the world, but recurring payments get really bad in large parts of the world. If you, the customer, want to cancel a recurring payment and you're using ApplePay, it's one button and done. If you're using 3rd party billing from $randomcompany, it usually works by you, the customer, trying to find who to call and spending a substantial portion of your time being ba…

I've had to deal with this type of thing in the past. Not often. What has worked for me was saying something like the following right off the bat when they try to keep me (but I guess it only works if not all of us do it :):

I get it. You are doing your job. You have a script. You have to try and keep me. It's not gonna work on me. Skip to the part of the script where you begrudgingly give in and cancel the service for me and you can take your next call quickly.

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

#806

Post by throwaway_73849 »

true_religion wrote: post #801
paulmd wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the other hand if we had sideloading, we could finally get a browser on iOS that isn’t just Safari reskinned. Mayne then we would have PWAs that work the same way everywhere. The existence of competition might even motivate Apple themselves to adopting new video codecs and image formats that weren’t invented inside of Apple Hq.

Go buy a different phone. No one is forcing you to support Apple, and if you already use Android, get off your high horse and stop screwing with a product I like and you don’t.

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

#807

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #250
kodah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change , imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing congl…

In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more into anti-competitive practice discourse. Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too. They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch direct competitors ( > shady). That's the root of the problem in many cases. Of…

[deleted]

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

#808

Post by mr_toad »

kodah wrote: post #84
smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change , imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing congl…

Why would we want to change a term that is used in countless legal and economic contexts just to dumb down the definition for the sake of a few people who haven’t bothered to do a bit of light reading on the topic?

Have you any idea of how many laws would need to change, not to mention all the academic papers, legal and academic commentaries and textbooks?

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

#809

Post by dev_tty01 »

woko wrote: post #650
dev_tty01 wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It also allows the judge to slap them without agreeing with the other side. Epic didn't get anything they really wanted. This change will not make much difference. No change to single app store model. As far as I can tell, Apple will have to allow communication in the app about payment through other means. That's it. I think it is likely that Apple will require apps to offer Apple payment as an option alongs…

> I would rather use Apple payment system. The price would be higher if you used Apple payment system. That is how companies would get consumers to be enticed to use other payment systems. That is what Epic did with their V-bucks: either use Apple system at the usual cost, or use Epic payment system at a permanently decreased cost (20% cheaper in August 2020).

The ruling has no comment on Apple contractually limiting devs to charging the same price, so it is not at all clear that the price will be lower. These kinds of contracts are quite common in many retail sectors, so it wouldn't be unusual. Apple App store is still the only way to get on the platform. Devs will get a bigger cut.

The quote from the injunction is that apps may now provide "external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing."

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

#810

Post by zamalek »

paulmd wrote: post #790
zamalek wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The risk here was very much a return to the Google/FB

Only Google?[1]

In addition, there's a very steep slippery slope in use here. It is currently possible to sideload on Android, and has been since day one, and yet we don't see the kind of end result you have predicted.

[1]: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/06/apple-hulu-special-api-...

Post reply on HN