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

851–860 of 958 posts

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

#851

Post by nnain »

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.

Yeah! I hate the idea of retroactive taxes. But the way big-tech blocks others, there should be some compensation to the things they inhibited.

(Should oil companies be penalised for the damage they have done to the environment just in terms of promoting plastic?)

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

#852

Post by nixass »

znpy wrote: post #737
gambiting wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in UK if a company wants to charge you regularly for anything they have to start something called a "direct debit" on your bank account - then they can withdraw money from your account whenever they see fit. The thing about direct debits though is that you can cancel them for any reason within few clicks on your account website, and all charges are reversible without having to provide a reason - I just call my b…

Yup, same here in Italy. The infuriating thing is that some american users think that since they have to endure crappy banking then everybody else on the planet must also be enduring the same thing, and that's not the case. I must explicitly approve any direct debit subscription before it can withdraw money from my balance and I can kill a subscription from my home banking (I'm an Unicredit customer btw). That's actu…

> That's actually how I made sure my gym subscription was terminated for good.

If for nothing else, the angry Americans downvoted you to hell for this

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

#854

Post by FDSGSG »

nixass wrote: post #852
znpy wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, same here in Italy. The infuriating thing is that some american users think that since they have to endure crappy banking then everybody else on the planet must also be enduring the same thing, and that's not the case. I must explicitly approve any direct debit subscription before it can withdraw money from my balance and I can kill a subscription from my home banking (I'm an Unicredit customer btw). That's actu…

> That's actually how I made sure my gym subscription was terminated for good. If for nothing else, the angry Americans downvoted you to hell for this

Very likely that doing this will still mess up your credit ratings and result in calls from debt collectors, even if you're in Europe.

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

#855

Post by ineedasername »

jackson1442 wrote: post #708
testfrequency wrote: post #348

I believe people are over conflating the "friction" involved with using an outside payment system (such as Stripe or PayPal). Apple ID's already allow you to attach your PayPal account as primary funding...this is just giving developers that direct choice now. PayPal, you confirm checkout total, login to paypal, confirm subscription or price. Done. Stripe, you can use their standard checkout page, autofill your card…

Apps based around "physical goods" (read: food ordering) have been able to do this for ages, and if the trend I see there expands into "normal" apps, about 50% will support Apple Pay, 25% will support PayPal without AP, 10% will support card scanning, and the rest will make you manually enter your card number, billing address, name, email, firstborn child, etc. So no, I don't think the flow will remain nearly as seam…

firstborn child

That only works the first time. Now, I'm running out of kids and you'd be astounded at how little value they hold once you get to fifth born.

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

#856

Post by tompazourek »

akmarinov wrote: post #149
nullspace wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, agree. I think this would kill the App Store model. It's surprising that the stock only dipped by 2%. What am I missing?

This ruling enables devs to use third party payment providers, it doesn't force Apple to let alternative App Stores on iOS. Apple can and will still reject any apps they feel like.

> Apple can and will still reject any apps they feel like.

Apple now cannot reject apps because they have "Buy" links that redirect users elsewhere. And that's still a big deal.

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

#857

Post by raverbashing »

015a wrote: post #749
sudhirj wrote: post #223

Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S. Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue. 1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account, say at $5,000 a year. The thing is no customer wants to use any c…

If you could choose between 30% of a billion dollars, or 15% of twenty billion, which would you pick? There are externalities to each choice, of course, but the correct answer is, actually, the obvious one. Apple is not in the right on this one, from any perspective. If they care about their users and developers: they'd drop the commission. If they cared about their revenue and investors: they'd drop the commission.…

For real, obviously you're right.

I wonder how much of this hard-headedness is on the App Store division and how much of it is Tim. Or just Apple Hubris.

The only way the 30% would make sense is if publishing on the App Store was free. But of course it isn't, you need to pay a yearly fee for that.

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

#858

Post by mrtksn »

stale2002 wrote: post #766
mrtksn wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duh. You are going to find me complaining about large corporations not paying taxes as much as me due to their access to creative accounting too. It's simply not good for the smaller developers. How more clear I can be? Tough luck, go be a large corp then you say?

Large corporations not paying taxes is bad, because it means society has less money to pay for things. That is very different from companies paying less money to a multi trillion dollar company. Companies paying less to a multi trillion dollar company is a good thing. It is dishonest to equate that to necessary government services being underfunded. Lower costs are good. So no, I reject that this is bad for small dev…

How hard it is to understand that I am talking about small business potentially getting disadvantaged by all this?

It’s so frustrating.

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

#859

Post by hutzlibu »

tyingq wrote: post #645
pstrateman wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cancelled mine by sending them an email stating that I would be disputing every charge. The reply email I got was at 9:07am EST, 'dispute' probably automatically puts your email head of queue for them.

"chargeback" is probably a good keyword too.

Ah, it seems we are back to dark magic times, where you have to find the right magic words, to actually have an effect and not default to bots. To achieve complicated things, like cancel a subscription.

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

#860

Post by DrSiemer »

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

They might try to force developers to offer Apple IAP as an option for centralized in app purchases. I don't think they can enforce the default setting though.

And developers will have the right to offer a cheaper non-centralized in-house IAP payment system, of course.

Post reply on HN