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

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

#831

Post by YPPH » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:46 AM UTC

ksec wrote: post #503

I just want to say I follow a lot of court case within the Tech Industry mostly Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel. And Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is the only Judge that seems to have clear, well reasoned verdict in all of her cases. Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning. The other thing that really irritate the heck of me from Apple's PR, are their insistence of men…

>Compared to many others cases where the Judge were clearly biases from the very beginning.

Judges in the US certainly have varying political persuasions and values, but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. It's part of their oath or affirmation.

Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'.

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

#832

Post by makeitdouble » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #821

makeitdouble wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels ironic to ask customers to bear the burden to make big companies behave, in a thread about a court ruling regulating anti-competitive behavior.

the burden has always been with the customer. But the fact that apple had been able to mandate the use of their IAP means the customer could not have exercised this "burden" until now!

Customer rights are always balanced with corporate rights, and laws and rules are there to assure neither customers nor corporations act in detrimental ways to society.

Customers can choose what they want to succeed, but none of the choices should have strong moral implications. I shouldn’t have to choose between destroying the env. or not, or support crushing rival businesses or workers rights or not, etc.

So no, I don’t think it’s customers burden to have companies behave. Except if by “burden” you mean suing the companies collectively.

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

#833

Post by p2t2p » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:58 AM UTC

I personally don't care what courts say and what devs do. If your app wants me to buy a subscription out of IAP system - I won't do it. I want my subscription to be present in a central place with a single-click cancellation.

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

#834

Post by couchridr » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #599

baxtr wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn’t cancel online. You have to call them, wait in line and then let them talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad experience. It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked. This experience was definitely more expensive than using Apple’s services.

We just got an email notice that $locl_newspaper was doubling its monthly subscription rate effective immediately. When we called to cancel they permanently us in at the old subscription rate. Pretty clearly a cash grab against those subscribers who aren't watching the notices + auto-billing closely...

Let me guess. A Tribune paper.

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

#835

Post by sfifs » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:10 AM UTC

p2t2p wrote: post #833

I personally don't care what courts say and what devs do. If your app wants me to buy a subscription out of IAP system - I won't do it. I want my subscription to be present in a central place with a single-click cancellation.

The point of this ruling and the Korea law is you'll have to be given the option. Pay a given price in Apple OR pay a lower price outside.

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

#836

Post by forty » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

shagie wrote: post #691

forty wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation. They must be talking about UX indeed. I have implemented subscription using many APIs (stripe, PayPal, processout, Apple, Amazon, Android...) And Apple is by far the shittiest. And you cannot even refund your own customers...

> And you cannot even refund your own customers... I was looking at StoreKit earlier today and saw https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/transacti... as part of it. I realize that this is new with iOS 15... but there's something there now.

Ah indeed there is... something.

This is from yesterday https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/10/apples-storekit-2-simplifi...

> “They’ve made the process a bit smoother, but developers still can’t initiate refunds or cancellations themselves,” notes RevenueCat CEO Jacob Eiting, whose company provides tools to app developers to manage their in-app purchases. “It’s a step in the right direction, but could actually lead to more confusion between developers and consumers about who is responsible for issuing refunds.”

> In other words, because the forms are now going to be more accessible from inside the app, the customer may believe the developer is handling the refund process when, really, Apple continues to do so.

Yeah, maybe that's even worse...

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

#837

Post by pronlover723 » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:19 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.

I know I'm in the minority but Apple does a shitty job on subscriptions. I frequent 2 countries. As such I need apps that are only available in one country's store (banking apps). In order to download needed updates have to switch stores. Switching stores cancels all subscriptions.

Another example of place Apple is failing (though I know of no alternatives), I went to a restaurant, the waiter told me I could pay by scanning the QR code in the receipt. This took me to a webpage that allowed me to pay via Apple Pay, but there was a message "Your email will be share and used to send ads". No way to opt out. I hadn't entered any email address, Apple was just going to give it to them. I closed the page and paid cash but was frustrated that Apple gives out email addresses.

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

#838

Post by Mavvie » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:36 AM UTC

IX-103 wrote: post #794

tracker1 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

I wonder if you'd get put on a block list if you answer the call but play a train horn into the phone every time instead of talking

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

#839

Post by bradknowles » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:37 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…

This is why I use privacy.com. Each company or subscription gets their own personal dedicated credit card number, and if I don’t like their service, I can pause or cancel the card.

And if someone else tries to charge that card, then I know who leaked it.

Done.

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

#840

Post by fillipvt » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

weixiyen wrote: post #696

dntrkv wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 30% covers a lot more than just processing payments.

I assume by that you mean the developer tools to create apps in the first place. Apple is free to not make developer tools anymore, that's their choice. Nobody is forcing them to. They do it b/c apps make the iPhone better. In fact an iPhone without apps is pretty useless.

So you are saying they have to? Otherwise the iPhone would be useless.