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

901–910 of 958 posts

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

#901

Post by rootusrootus »

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

Probably because it incorrectly characterizes the typical US banking system experience while throwing shade on Americans.

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

#902

Post by acdha »

inopinatus wrote: post #767
eropple wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that already happens. Apple did not invent online payment and subscription. Consumers do not have a problem buying things online outside the walled garden, and most could not tell you when they’re actually using a Stripe form in a WKWebView or whatever; those that can don’t care much either. The most powerful force in play here is consumer indifference, which Apple have been relying upon.

Apple would not allow you to open that Stripe form in a web view before, so we don’t really know what consumers prefer.

I think you’re also underestimating the degree to which normal people hesitate before putting in credit card details on a web form - almost everyone has heard stories about difficult cancellation processes, stolen card databases, etc. Services like ApplePay offer assurances that almost certainly result in sales which otherwise would not happen, so I’d expect this to consolidate on a few companies (Amazon, Stripe, Google if they can stay on message for more than a promotion cycle) which are relatively trusted as intermediaries.

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

#903

Post by WhyNotHugo »

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…

> The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system.

Apple only takes credit card in most countries. This makes sense in countries where credit cards are the norm, but not in countries where credit cards are not the norm and far from ubiquitous.

OTOH, external payment providers (eg: stripe) often integrate with local payment mechanism.

In my case, local payment mechanisms are far simpler, easier, and secure. Using a credit card requires me moving money into my Wise account before I can pay anything, adding so many extra steps. Not to mention that I have to remember to transfer money every month before subscriptions get charged.

Plus, the whole online payment system with credit cards is utterly unsafe: share your "secret number" with all merchants and pray none of them leak it or overcharge you.

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

#904

Post by badwolf »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #391
thebean11 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users IIRC, Epic was offering their in game currency more cheaply outside of the App Store, which Apple didn't like. I bet plenty of people would use an alternate payment method to save money..right now they don't have that choice.

It was pretty genius from Epic, they knew they'd get banned, but it instantly showed how the consumer is harmed by this behavior (pay more, get less). Every mobile game with a cash store would instantly give you a discount to go through a different provider.

I highly doubt every, or even many mobile game devs who could suddenly switch from IAP to Stripe would pass those savings on to the consumers... Let's be real here.

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

#905

Post by jwlake »

shagie wrote: post #695
jwlake wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's system does not allow a developer to refund a purchase. Seems like the height of half-assed.

With iOS 15: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/transacti... > Call this function from account settings or a help menu to enable customers to request a refund for an in-app purchase within your app. When you call this function, the system displays a refund sheet with the customer’s purchase details and list of reason codes for the customer to choose from.

Only took 12 versions!

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

#906

Post by will4274 »

endisneigh wrote: post #653
skohan wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have common sense property rights enforced by law?

What’s common sense property right? Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute ? Still don’t get why don’t you just buy things that advertise the functionality you want.

I think it's reasonable that if your toaster has modifyable software memory, that if that modifiable memory is locked down cryptographically, that the toaster manufacturer be required to include that cryptographic key with purchase of the toaster, yes.

We've had all these debates. It was called "TiVo". It should be illegal for manufacturers to sell hardware with capabilities specifically denied to the owner. That's not when any sane person would have thought "ownership" meant prior to 1980.

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

#907

Post by beckman466 »

One strategy Apple will explore is turning the Apple appstore into an Apple Arcarde/Plus -like service and use dark patterns to basically convince/force people to use it. Because the other alternative will be for customers to deal with malware on iOS for the first time (as any other appstores on iOS will always have lesser security because Apple's system isn't free and open) [1]. Apple didn't allow users to change their default browser until iOS 14. That's 13 years on from the release of the original iPhone in 2007. They sure as hell aren't going to make it easy for other appstores to exist.

Business customers will be able to afford this new Appstore 'service', but the negative costs will be carried by everyday people, who will, due to the closed nature of Apple's walled garden, be forced to get by with much less security.

If anything goes wrong with these other app stores Apple will deflect criticism by blaming the govt. for not allowing them to control the full 'iOS experience' anymore (or in business speak: 'to control all the verticals'). This of course is the weaponized rhetoric of a monstrous monopolistic entity who uses illogical arguments to misrepresent and confuse the average user/customer. We've already seen how far these profit-seeking firms are willing to go to even directly mislead customers into voting against labor protection laws with Uber and Prop 22 [2].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

[2] https://twitter.com/bigblackjacobin/status/12948656847829196...

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

#908

Post by mstade »

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…

> The moment they drop rates and ease restrictions apps that are not being built because of these rules will get built, and these apps will gladly pay the market rate of 5% to 10% for a full service payments system.

I have an app like that that's already done and in the app store. We would love to take advantage of Apple Pay for subscriptions, but the 30% tax means we literally can't. We'd have to jack our prices so much that the cost becomes prohibitive, and if we take the 30% hit ourselves we'd basically be giving things away for free.

If the cost would drop to somewhere in the 5-15% range it's a whole new ballgame.

EDIT: For anyone who's wondering – we basically use the same strategy as Netflix et al, the app is useless unless you already have an account and in order to get one you have to sign up elsewhere. We don't have links or information on how to sign up, you have to just magically end up on our site or have an account added through one of our partners.

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

#909

Post by dragonwriter »

chillage wrote: post #892
dragonwriter wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an order by a California district judge. No, its an order by a federal district judge in California ; specifically, a judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (Media reports often use sloppy language which confuses federal courts located in a state with courts of a state.) > So that means it must only be valid in California? No. > Or if not, then how can a California decision…

Oh ok thank you for the explanation, that does clear it up. So this decision applies to the US (though maybe not outside the US)

The permanent injunction applies to the conduct it specifically mandates and/or prohibits and the named parties it says it applies to (so long as those parties are subject to US law, but that seems likely to be th case for Apple for the foreseeable future.)
Post reply on HN