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

841–850 of 958 posts

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

#841

Post by tshaddox »

madeofpalk wrote: post #179
NationalPark wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s tons of value in a unified payment system, which is why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users. For instance, ease of cancellation of recurring fees is enormous. You can bet that’s going to get harder as developers get more control. And anyway, The app developers have no motivation to charge you less, the market already bears the fees, they just want to capture that profit for themselves. Personally…

> which is why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users The judge commented on that >> "Apple created an innovative platform but it did not disclose its rules to the average consumer. Apple has used this lack of knowledge to exploit its position. --- > Personally I probably just won’t buy things that require me to sign up for a new payment system You, as a consumer, will now have a choice, which you'll get to…

I already had a choice. That’s one of the primary reasons I chose iPhone and tend to recommend iPhones to friends and family. This decision will by definition reduce the amount of choice available to smartphone buyers.

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

#842

Post by IshKebab »

NohatCoder wrote: post #649
kemayo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling explains the logic near the last page of the decision -- it's basically "Epic didn't have to break their contract in order to sue". I think it's the judge slapping Epic on the wrist for grandstanding, even though they basically-won.

It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it. The logical ruling would be to force Apple to pay reparations to all the app developers that they have illegally forced to pay for the app store.

It wasn't illegal until this ruling. She didn't make it retroactively illegal, so Epic were still in the wrong at the time. Seems pretty obvious to me.

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

#843

Post by mhh__ »

MAGZine wrote: post #24
yurishimo wrote: post #15

I'm really happy to see this moving forward, but I loathe the potential future landscape. Every fortune 500 is going to immediately pivot to their own IAP options which will make my life harder compared to Apple Pay. I'm hoping with this movement, tools like Stripe/Paddle will develop some better IAP flows to make it as easy as possible. Adding my card information to 50 different in-app wallets does not sound appeali…

On Android, I use Google Pay all of the time for in-app purchases, and it doesn't require Google to take 30%. It's just another payment processor. It often shows up beside "add a credit card" in apps. I use it to order food, pay for rideshare, buy tickets, etc.

I agree. Literally makes no difference to me whatsoever. Even using a websites payment system is usually trivial because Android's autofill is pretty smart these days.

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

#844

Post by IshKebab »

Rels wrote: post #136

I don't understand the logic behind this ruling. So, Apple was in the wrong about forcing app devs to use their payment processor (and taking a 30% cut at the time - 15% or 30% now), and they have to change that. But Epic was also in the wrong when they tried to go around this rule, and they have to pay 30% on every transaction they made after their update in which they used direct payment? But if Epic didn't try to…

It's not retroactive. It wasn't proscribed at the time Epic broke their contract so they still broke their contract.

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

#845

Post by mcphage »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #771
mcphage wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, if the correlation between Apple revenue and salaries isn’t apparent, then how are you sure Apple dropping their take will provide you with 4 new salaries?

Sorry I might have been confusing you, I was only referencing the reverse calculation of current mobile devs on team. We would hire four people, maybe five, and distribute some to mobile some to backend. I would absolutely take all the savings from the fee drop and hire as many people as it allowed, napkin calculations says that’s between four and five for me.

Ah, that makes sense—thanks.

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

#846

Post by ksec »

YPPH wrote: post #831
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'…

>but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits.

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

Except that is not what's happened. I dont mean biased just in their verdict but actual ruling. The worst and most eye opening was Apple vs Qualcomm. Where evidence and explanation from Qualcomm were completely tossed out by the Judge. It was so bizarre that I wasn't the only only one who noticed it. But Twitter, Social Media and MSM only wants to cover Apple's narratives.

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

#847

Post by paulmd »

judge2020 wrote: post #351
smoldesu wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an issue given that I'd be more interested in using a Mac if I could choose which graphics card I get to use instead of perusing a pre-approved list of B-rate processing units.

Technically, if you've got the know-how, you could code your own graphics acceleration drivers for nVidia cards on MacOS, it'd just be extremely hard and expensive to do so.

You’d run into the same obstacle NVIDIA has, namely that Apple won’t sign your driver so it won’t run.

NVIDIA isn’t morally opposed to Apple, it’s largely Apple that’s opposed to NVIDIA, for reasons like the cuda ecosystem and how it locks you into something that’s not an Apple product and how that would affect Apple’s leverage in future negotiations. Apple wears the pants, not their suppliers.

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

#848

Post by YPPH »

ksec wrote: post #846
YPPH wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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'…

>but you would be hard-pressed to find a federal court judge who isn't trying to faithfully decide each case on its merits. >Judges are professionals and can express preliminary views on issues without being 'biased'. Except that is not what's happened. I dont mean biased just in their verdict but actual ruling. The worst and most eye opening was Apple vs Qualcomm. Where evidence and explanation from Qualcomm were co…

An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party falls well short of indicating bias. There are many good reasons why evidence may be rejected that does not result from judicial bias.

A judge who is biased against a party is not qualified to sit on a case. And if bias was established, the aggrieved party would no doubt seek the judge's recusal.

I see unfounded accusations of judicial bias as being similar to unfounded claims an election was rigged. You need a good basis to make such claims. The fact the media may have construed it this way is of no moment. It's not beyond the media to embellish reality for a good story.

I'm referring here to explicit bias: that the judge leaves court and says 'Well, I like Apple, so I'll decide for them'. This is not what is happening. I'm not venturing into the area of implicit/social biases, like what is dealt with in the book 'How judges think' by Richard Posner.

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

#849

Post by avereveard »

BackBlast wrote: post #138
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…

Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much? At the end of the day, services have to provide value. If your customers don't want to pay for your services, they do not value them. That's a dangerous position for any company to try to maintain. The mobile software industry generally has been chaffing at the fees for quite some time now, these are the warning s…

There this weird misconception floating around the topic that if Apple where to reduce their cut, things would be cheaper for people, conveniently forgetting this is a fight between providers and distributor for margins and not between consumers and sellers for pricing.
Post reply on HN