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

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

#911

Post by eropple » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #756

eropple wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having competition on their platform would make them worse. Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. I like Stripe as an app developer because I pick them as a seller ; they're not there to serve my customer and are there to…

> Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. Then don't use that competition? It's not like Apple is special here. They've developed a reputation for not doing that, which is what you're relying on for them to not do it. Any other competitor could develop a similar reputation i…

The unique aspect of Apple is that they are uniquely invested in getting me to buy the next iPhone.

Stripe doesn't care about having me do anything. The business using Stripe is their customer. I am an incidental aspect of their arrangement with that business and if that business decides to be an asshole, Stripe just shrugs.

Apple doesn't.

I mean this as politely as I can: that you're writing this off as a strawman argument sounds like deliberate misunderstanding.

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

#912

Post by FDSGSG » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #866

FDSGSG wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Over a 10 euro/month subscription? Zero chance. Even in Europe.

There are also 720 euro/month gym subscriptions in Europe, and probably everything in between.

Just a 30 euro/month subscription would quickly add up to amounts worth collecting, although I've even had a debt collector call me over a debt of 2 something euros.

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

#913

Post by passivate » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 5:03 PM 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.

>. 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.

Managing subscriptions is separate from payment processing. Apple could still have a central hub letting the user know what is going on. Apple grabbing 30% of sales for a digital only product is not something most people support.

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

#914

Post by thebean11 » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

badwolf wrote: post #904

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s getting into pretty basic economic theory, costs going down across the board in a very competitive market will generally bring down prices, eventually.

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

#915

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #910

sombremesa wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. This actually comes closes to answering the question I was asking in the first place.

It was actually a good question.

[deleted]

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

#916

Post by shagie » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

folmar wrote: post #751

shagie wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing some back of the envelope "what would it take to do micropayments with PayPal" https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees A micropayment is 5% + $0.09. For a $0.99 purchase, this is about 15%. I would expect other payment processors to be similar. This also leads to the question of "how do you maintain the in app purchases?" Is it an account on a website that has 100% uptime? Does it work for solo game…

> I would expect other payment processors to be similar SumUp wants just 1.95% flat for online payments. I would expect other payment processors to do even better with some shopping around.

In the UK and in person transactions that appears to be correct. For card not present (online) transactions its 2.50% ( https://help.sumup.com/en-GB/articles/4oI3qHHji2I2S9dyvRfec3... )

---

For the US ( https://support.sumup.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008338687-Pri... )

> When you take payments over the phone or via payment link, you’ll pay 3.25% + $0.15 per remote transaction.

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

#917

Post by whoisburbansky » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

hoveringhen wrote: post #703

whoisburbansky wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which apps do this?

YouTube Music / Premium does this if I'm not wrong

Huh, I was under the impression that the App Store guidelines didn’t let you do that, but maybe that doesn’t apply if you’re Google.

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

#918

Post by mertd » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

lmkg wrote: post #424

mertd wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web purchases.

To sell the purchase data to data brokers so they can aggregate purchase data across merchants by card number?

You don't need to control the checkout process to know who bought what from you.

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

#919

Post by folmar » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #916

folmar wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would expect other payment processors to be similar SumUp wants just 1.95% flat for online payments. I would expect other payment processors to do even better with some shopping around.

In the UK and in person transactions that appears to be correct. For card not present (online) transactions its 2.50% ( https://help.sumup.com/en-GB/articles/4oI3qHHji2I2S9dyvRfec3... ) --- For the US ( https://support.sumup.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008338687-Pri... ) > When you take payments over the phone or via payment link, you’ll pay 3.25% + $0.15 per remote transaction.

In Poland it's 1.95% for pay-by-link and 1.49% for card-present. https://support.sumup.com/hc/pl/articles/115008338687-Op%C5%... The card-present fee is actually on the high side for but there is no monthly fee, the usual rates are around 0.7%.

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

#920

Post by reissbaker » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

ascagnel_ wrote: post #347

madeofpalk wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is now a market force for Apple to make its IAP services better, which makes it more likely for developers to make apps with it (theoretically).

There will be larger players who won't bother with any cut -- they want to own the relationship with the customer, and view any intermediary with hostility.

No one wants to own the payment instrument. That's useless, causes missed sales, and is a security nightmare. Companies don't reinvent their own Visa or Mastercard, for example, because that's a huge pain and the fees for using the existing products are low.

App developers were mad about Apple's egregious 30% cut for doing payment processing. If Apple wants everyone to accept Apple IAP, it can simply lower its fees to competitive payment processing rates.