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

931–940 of 958 posts

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

#931

Post by paulmd »

BackBlast wrote: post #922
paulmd wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying to hang onto systems where your customers resent paying you is not where you want to be. OK but like, dark patterns exist and everybody knows users don’t like them. Developers use them anyway because they’re profitable . Yeah I guess you feel bad but the bags of money help dry those tears. If there’s no chance of customers altering their decision )because you have something exclusive for which there is no su…

Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I believe that good and honest companies will generally prosper over those actively employing dark patterns in the long run. Any exclusive niche employing dark patterns makes an opportunity for an honest broker to come in and clean house.

And that’s why the truth -

Evil will triumph because good is dumb.

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

#932

Post by berkes »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #458
luckylion wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And before, they might not have bothered developing an app, or one for iOS. Now you have choice. Choice is good.

What big names haven't developed iOS apps but may do so now? I'm hard pressed to think of any. They may not always allow in-app purchases, of course, but they generally exist.

Well. Fortnite for example.

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

#933

Post by znpy »

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

I can't hear them over the sound of proper banking :P

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

#934

Post by stoobs »

paulmd wrote: post #869
015a wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I actually think it’s the exact opposite and Epic would have picked a fight with Apple even if the fees were 15%. This isn’t about fees and it’s not even (just) about Apple - Apple is just a relatively unsympathetic defendant for them to fire their opening shot. As noted, Microsoft fees are 30%, Google fees are 30%, etc, and yet Apple was singled out (with those companies actually jumping onto the lawsuit against App…

Nail on the head, this is entirely about Epic wanting carte blanche access to a lot more eyeballs and wallets so they can ram in as many v-bucks purchases or whatever into the applications and funnel as much cash their way as possible.

This was never about fairness for all developers, it was always Epic wanting a bigger slice of the pie factory.

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

#935

Post by sumedh »

cletus wrote: post #510

I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a legislature was ultimately going to do it for them. And you're almost always better off making that change yourself. Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines. Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO…

> they would be a lot less willing to challenge the status quo when they might lose that privilege.

There is no guarantee that Apple wont be sued even with 10% cut so why not charge 30% and make money till the sun is shining.

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

#936

Post by tacocataco »

fuzxi wrote: post #926
hutzlibu wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I literally cannot speak to a human at my ISP unless I tell the robocall system that I want to cancel. As in, I'll call and say I need to return some equipment, be on hold for an hour, leave a callback number, and not get called back in the same week. Versus calling and saying I need to cancel, then getting connected to a service rep in 15 seconds and asking them about returning equipment.

I recently had the same issues you did with my ISP. I started mentioning firing middle management for tolerating such poor customer service. I received a call from a person within a couple minutes.

If only there was meaningful ISP competition in my area.

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

#937

Post by tacocataco »

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…

My bank let's me make a "temporary credit card" with only so much money on it. Good luck squeezing blood from this stone

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

#938

Post by curryst »

ricardobeat wrote: post #498
danShumway wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really what lock-in means. An example of lock-in is making a conscious decision not to port iMessage to Android, specifically because it would make it easier for iPhone users to move to Android[0]. Making Apple products work well with other Apple products isn't lock-in. Purposefully making Apple products work worse with other systems, phrased within the company as a way to punish users who switch, is the k…

How easy is it to migrate from Google’s Messages app to iMessage?

Absurdly, I've done it multiple times. It runs over SMS, literally any phone that can receive SMS' is already compatible.

I believe many of the messaging apps on Android also support exporting your messages as an archive, but no idea whether iMessage has any support for importing message history.

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

#939

Post by acdha »

inopinatus wrote: post #924
acdha wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 res…

There’s no need to try reasoning things out from first principles. People have been buying online for decades now, and all the experience shows most consumers are indifferent and clueless. If you don’t believe me, ask a non-tech-sector family member what they think Apple Pay is.

> You can stop trying to work things out from first principles. People have been buying online for decades now, and all the experience shows consumers are indifferent and clueless.

Who said anything about first principles? I’m describing real problems which are well known in the industry – and having been involved since the mid-90s I wouldn’t say that “indifferent and clueless” is remotely accurate. I know more than a few people who’ve had to replace cards because a small vendor was compromised and, unsurprisingly, they favor Apple/Google/Amazon now.

Most of the non-tech sector people I know think Apple Pay is what they use to buy coffee, lunch, groceries, etc. It’s not just tech sector people using it — if you look at their usage numbers, the tech sector just isn’t that big.

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

#940

Post by izackp »

cletus wrote: post #510

I've been saying this for years now: this is why Apple should've ushered in lower commissions on larger publishers themselves because otherwise a court, a regulatory authority or a legislature was ultimately going to do it for them. And you're almost always better off making that change yourself. Big publishers have their own payment processing pipelines. Apple's is just extra overhead. Smaller publishers still (IMHO…

>lower commissions on larger publishers

From what I understand that Apple does do this. It's just not public information, and EPIC rejected the offer.

Post reply on HN