Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

271–280 of 958 posts

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

#271
post #224

Kids are the customers, parents have the credit card. Epic will have to onboard the parents to really make a dent. What Epic wanted was their own separate store, and that wish is clearly shut down.

Majority of parents will choose epic if epic is cheaper for the same thing.

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

#272

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

I'm sure it won't put a stop to it, I love to read discussions about "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are they a big enough player that it's a problem". That seems to be a much more useful discussion (i.e. it gets at "do they need to be reigned in by We The People") than "are they a monopoly" which is just bickering over what words mean (with some shades of "if they _were_ a monopoly, then We The People should do something about it).

At the end of the day, who cares if they are a monopoly or not - you don't have to be a monopoly to be in a position to do Bad Stuff to The Market.

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

#273
That Apple collects high fees ought to be considered separately from whether Apple mandates at least the use of Apple Pay. As a user, I love Sign in with Apple + Apple Pay. It allows my family members to give over very little information over to app companies.

This is a level of consumer privacy that's not found anywhere else.

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

#274
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean systems with a SIM card or internet access without being tethered to WIFI.

You can buy iPads with cellular. You’ve been able to since the iPad 1.

Yes, you can buy them, but not everyone does. Phones are by default portable with their own network connection, whereas iPads have to be specifically chosen to have cellular data service. It's alright to overlook them.

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

#275

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. 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 for web payments. Apple’s offerings are quite polished so I don’t think they’ll fall out of favor but it’s going to reduce their profit margin and I’m sure the number of people who will use alternatives is much greater than zero.

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

#276

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…

I'm not sure if you ever used StoreKit or their subscription API... its so full of holes and poor documentation and poor implementation that it's a nightmare to work with (particularly subscriptions). Don't believe me? There's a YC startup raising millions of dollars dedicated to solving the subscription implementation problems Apple has created...

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "cartel" fitting? These companies aren't always associated. (Though recent leaks do seem to indicate behind-doors conversations are taking place.) Some of the prevailing themes: - These companies are after attention across any vertical a person may touch - These companies build platforms that scope creep into other platforms and verticals. They connect and entrench them. - They make it impossible to access consume…

What you're describing looks more like the supermarket shelves. Some 80% of products in the cereal aisle are owned by three companies. Nobody really cares, but the switching costs to get a cereal outside that controlled space turn out to be pretty high (just try it with a family with kids). If you want to make your own cereal, good luck; the supermarkets trust the Big Three and are pretty uninterested in flighting so…

I think you have that analogy backwards. Google, Apple, and Amazon are the supermarkets. But they're also filling the shelves with their own products. It might not be too different from Walmart, save for a few points:

- They make it hard for consumers to shop at other stores. Or repair their devices (bad analogy).

- They're doing all kinds of things a supermarket would never do. Like turning into music and movie studios.

- The really sad thing is that before the giants sprang into existence, you could distribute your software and services without the need for a supermarket. Famgopolies created an artificial warehousing system and forced us all into it.

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

#278
post #243
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?

Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an…

I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create.

When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market.

Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear the scale and extent to which this platform impacts people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual world and compete to drive prices towards a free market equilibrium.

Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that these companies have large control over our lives.

Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and enforce that competition be allowed.

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

#279
post #88

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…

I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%

The win would be that you're actually able to sign up for more things in the iOS ecosystem that you previously weren't able to, like Netflix or Spotify.

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

#280
As a consumer I trust how Apple payments work and like the fact that everyone was using it on iOS. Now I will need to cut back on apps and do more due diligence to avoid scams and other issues.

Hard to see how this is a win for consumers in addition to developers.

Post reply on HN