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

291–300 of 958 posts

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

#291

Post by kllrnohj »

OisinMoran wrote: post #195

To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right" thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or decisions like this should include the…

I think it's worth stressing that both sides did something wrong. Apple's contract was also just ruled invalid, and they also aren't being forced to pay any penalties for that. They aren't being forced to compensate Netflix, Spotify, etc... for all the years those companies have been unable to link out to subscription signups on iOS, for example.

So consider instead that Epic and Apple were both penalized an identical amount rather than neither side being penalized at all.

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

#292

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

simonh wrote: post #227
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fact that has emerged is that Apple is pushing lock-in as a strategy. So to everyone who has ever felt like they are too "invested" in the ecosystem to leave- that is by design. You are victims.

How dare they make their systems work so well together and easy to use.

Not mutually exclusive. You can build systems that work well together and are easy to use without lock-in. Users should want to use the product because it is the best, not because they feel trapped.

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

#293

Post by jacobr1 »

echelon wrote: post #123
smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “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…

It's a new game, and we need new definitions. Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous. They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole. Their objective: capturin…

How does this differ from traditional brick and mortar retail? The retailers posed a barrier to selling to consumers at scale and wholesale prices, I think, were closer to 50% of retail markup.

Sure, manufactures could find small retailers and build a following from there, or find ways to market direct to consumers. But it seems like that is still true, if not even easier in the modern age. So what is different. I ask this not rhetorically, clearly there are differences. Is the scale the difference? Was it always wrong and we just didn't see it a clearly? Is the smaller number retailer the major factor?

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

#295

Post by wvenable »

toast0 wrote: post #263
wvenable wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If iPads are mobile, why aren't laptops?

Laptops use mobile cpus, but desktop oses and software. PC based tablets are kind of weird, but iOS/Android mobile OS based tablets are more or less phones with big screens and no/limited calling features.

"Desktop OS's and software" is an arbitrary definition. Smartphones are just computers that make calls. Steve Jobs even famously said that the iPhone ran "OS X" when it was first launched.

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

#296

Post by gpm »

marricks wrote: post #285
gpm wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did, but Apple might have been able to prevent Epic from having standing to sue by giving them an exception.

I imagine that could have hurt their case if Epic was always going to sue anyways.

I imagine it would have hurt their case if someone else, say Unity Technologies, sued. I really do think that Epic would have failed on the standing argument and not have even gotten to the fact finding stage of the trial where it could hurt their case.

On the claim that Epic won, the courts finding on standing is already "just barely"

> Thus, although the question is close, the Court finds that Epic Games has standing to bring a UCL claim as a quasi-consumer, not merely as a competitor.

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

#297

Post by _ktx2 »

torstenvl wrote: post #265
kodah wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Lina Khan is one of my favorite voices on this matter for that reason. Edit: Stating my opinion without why isn't very HN-ly of me, eh? She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of). If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: h…

I initially downvoted but thought it would be better to ask for the information I think would make your comment more helpful. Would you mind linking to something pertinent, in order to add to the discussion? What does she say? Where does she say it? Why does that appeal to you?

She's been on Planet Money and discussed her ideas, where they come from, etc before. I don't think I'd quite do them justice explaining them myself. Apparently she's now a chair of the FTC as well (which I was unaware of).

If you want a raw view of her views on anti-trust: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...

In one of the podcasts she dives into the history of anti-trust. She talks about how after Standard Oil we convinced ourselves everything was a monopoly and stifled a lot of innovation, which led to some reforms later and the anti-trust we have today which are demonstrably too permissive. She has picked on Amazon (as a wider corporation) quite a bit, but a lot of it has to do with the practices of their ecommerce division and the extent to which Amazon can compete with it's vendors. Basically, she believes there's a middleground to be found between the two anti-trust time periods and that it's important to be concise in how we do that. You can see some of her specific criticisms in the article above.

A more full bibliography can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan

I highly suggest "The Separation of Platforms and Commerce" as that's the one that resonated with me, having worked in the startup world.

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

#298

Post by eropple »

acdha wrote: post #275
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. 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.

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

#299

Post by 8K832d7tNmiQ »

Factorium wrote: post #82
wormslayer666 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam doesn't prevent games from linking to alternative payment processors in-app.

It most certainly does! All payments must be within the Steam ecosystem when you are distributing a Steam app. Valve even prevents developers from linking to their own website, if said website includes ways to buy content independent of Steam payment.

Warframe, one of the most active userbase game on Steam, literally has a dedicated page just to purchase a platinum coin in their own website [1]

[1]:https://www.warframe.com/buyplatinum

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

#300

Post by trollied »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #284
foolfoolz wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all you need is a number smaller than 30%. build your own or use someone else for 10%? easy choice

10% sounds very aggressive to me still

Then high street margins for physical games would really surprise you...
Post reply on HN