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

811–820 of 958 posts

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

#811

Post by mbreese »

nodamage wrote: post #772
mbreese wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s exactly how I’d interpret it. Which is not what many people here have been arguing. If this is the case, it’s not what Epic ultimately wanted and still lets Apple avoid allowing alternative In-App purchasing mechanisms. But it makes a lot of sense… protect people inside the garden, but still let people buy their VBucks anywhere else they want to. This also mirrors what happens on other game platforms - if you buy vbucks on Xbox, it has to go through Microsoft. But you can also buy prepaid VBucks gift cards at Target.

If this is the case, it’s a minor win for Epic, at best. And limits the collateral damage to other game platforms (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that also have the same in-app purchasing restrictions.

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

#812

Post by skygazer »

One thing that's bugged/occurred to me. People keep acting like Apple will no longer get to charge 30% to developers for in-app purchases, but it seems like they may still be entitled to their 30% and even in this ruling Epic still owes that 30% -- Developers will be able to use alternate payment providers, but may still owe a commission to Apple? Tim Cook alluded to this in his original testimony, and the judge doesn't seem to have had an issue with it, and she ordered Epic to pay the 30%.

In other words, only the anti-steering violated California law, but otherwise, she validated that Apple's business model is reasonable under the law and supported the commission structure, it seems.

That seems like a whole can of worms. How will Apple know what to bill developers for apple sourced transactions? Do they need to build new reporting APIs? Within the next 90 days? Is it the honor system? Will developers raise rates on their sites to cover Apple's commission? Will this all have been moot? What if a developer doesn't pay? Can they be removed? Does apple send them to collections? What does that do to developer relations? Or does Apple abandon commission for external sales they alluded to needing to collect.

Edit to add Tim Cook quote from Epic trial [0]: “IAP helps Apple efficiently collect a commission” — for payment processing, but also customer service and the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Without in-app purchases, “we would have to come up with another system to invoice developers, which I think would be a mess.”

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/22/22448139/tim-cook-epic-fo...

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

#813

Post by zamalek »

throwaway_73849 wrote: post #806
true_religion wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Go buy a different phone.

The plaintiff here is a developer, not a fan of any specific device.

"Just don't develop for the phone, then."

Great, who's going to pay out the lost sales?

Also, assuming I "just don't buy an Apple device," I can [legally] develop an app on my Windows or Linux device?

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

#814

Post by chii »

majani wrote: post #571
ghosty141 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>isn't the competition here what we want? In my opinion not in this specific case. As an iOS user I WANT a system where everything conforms to certain guidelines. I do NOT want to fiddle with some weird custom in-App payment dialog which does it's own thing again. It'll be interesting to see how this court order will be "implemented", my guess is that not much will change for now.

My guess is Apple will force developers to provide a drop down of payment options with Apple Pay as the default

apple pay is not the same as Apple's In App Purchases on iOS.

Apple pay is like a credit card, usable like one. IAP is the method by which apple forces app developers who sell through their app to pay the apple tax.

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

#815

Post by Drew_ »

mbreese wrote: post #763
Drew_ wrote: 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…

> The developer can direct the user to a purchasing mechanism. This would by definition be something external

Huh?

There's nothing about the definition of "direct" that has any notion of externality.

If a judge rules that I have the permission to direct visitors in my house to a bathroom, that surely does not mean the bathroom must to be in another building.

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

#816

Post by nkellenicki »

skygazer wrote: post #812

One thing that's bugged/occurred to me. People keep acting like Apple will no longer get to charge 30% to developers for in-app purchases, but it seems like they may still be entitled to their 30% and even in this ruling Epic still owes that 30% -- Developers will be able to use alternate payment providers, but may still owe a commission to Apple? Tim Cook alluded to this in his original testimony, and the judge does…

I believe the money owed to Apple is a seperate concern, raised from their apparent breach of contract.

At the time Fortnite was available on the App Store, the Apple In-App Purchase mechanism was the only contractually allowed method of purchase, and for the short time Fortnite enabled purchases via other methods, their contract with Apple was breached. As a result, the judge ruled that Apple is owed 30% of that revenue - money they would have gotten had those purchases been made via Apple IAP.

In addition, the judge ruled that Apple was well within their power to terminate Epic's developer relationship and App Store access, because of this breach of contract.

This new injunction only takes place in 90 days time, and doesn't nullify any power Apple has to determine who they wish to allow on their App Store. As a result, they are seemingly choosing to not permit Epic back on the App Store, again, due to their initial breach of contract.

My interpretation of this this new ruling is that Apple isn't entitled to money raised through other payment methods going forward, as likely the App Store developer terms of service will be revised to reflect the new state of the law. However I'm sure this will become clear in due course when we see the new terms.

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

#817

Post by Dylan16807 »

paulmd wrote: post #798
Dylan16807 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's only a couple percent, and credit card companies get all fussy if the prices are different.

If it was 30% you would absolutely see gas stations advertising a hot deal 20% lower cash-only price to draw in customers.

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

#818

Post by chii »

jerrycruncher wrote: post #342
selykg wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would. I'm very careful about what I pay for anyway. If you want me to pay for your product it needs to be something that brings me real value. Even then I limit myself, as I only have a certain amount to spend anyway, so you're competing with other products for my limited amount of budget. Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel service. It's consistent as well, which means I don't have to keep hunting th…

The ability to simply cancel any subscription without clicking through increasingly desperate "Don't go!!!" nag screens is easily worth an extra 30% for me, too.

which means the apple IAP is going to have a competitive advantage compared to third party IAP.

This means that competition is working, because you would choose apple's IAP, over the third party, even if it was more expensive.

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

#819

Post by tshaddox »

summerlight wrote: post #789
tshaddox wrote: post #774

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. 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…

I find that extremely hard to believe. Can you provide a source for this interpretation of Apple’s argument?

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

#820

Post by skygazer »

nkellenicki wrote: post #816
skygazer wrote: post #812

One thing that's bugged/occurred to me. People keep acting like Apple will no longer get to charge 30% to developers for in-app purchases, but it seems like they may still be entitled to their 30% and even in this ruling Epic still owes that 30% -- Developers will be able to use alternate payment providers, but may still owe a commission to Apple? Tim Cook alluded to this in his original testimony, and the judge does…

I believe the money owed to Apple is a seperate concern, raised from their apparent breach of contract. At the time Fortnite was available on the App Store, the Apple In-App Purchase mechanism was the only contractually allowed method of purchase, and for the short time Fortnite enabled purchases via other methods, their contract with Apple was breached. As a result, the judge ruled that Apple is owed 30% of that rev…

So it could be just a coincidence that the damages she awarded Apple were specifically 30% of Epic's in-app VBuck sales, the exact same amount Apple would have been entitled to via IAP. I guess that's plausible and I read too much into her selecting 30% of their sales.

But I'm still thinking about how Apple suggested without restricting IAP to Apple's system, they'd have to collect that 30% in a more complicated way. I think you're perhaps right that today's ruling is orthogonal to that, but Apple may well still have that in mind, and be within their rights to impose that?

Post reply on HN