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

321–330 of 958 posts

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

#321

Post by colinmhayes »

dpkonofa wrote: post #282
ethbr0 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh. Now I see what this was about.

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have…

I'm not sure apple is interested in destroying user experience to spite developers. IPhone will still make incredible amounts of money with lower app store margins because it's still the best product on the market. Pissing off users isn't how they built the best product.

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

#322

Post by sangnoir »

mbreese wrote: post #235

IANAL, but I'm not sure that this order actually forces Apple to allow alternative in-app purchasing. > ... hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing ... To me this reads as Apple must allow people to be able…

> So users can be directed to alternative payment mechanisms, but that doesn't mean they must be allowed in the Apps themselves

How do you foresee Apple disallowing that in the apps without violating the injunction? The injunction gives apps free-reign on UI elements that direct customers to non-Apple payment systems.

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

#323

Post by eropple »

travoc wrote: post #310
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.

You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.

Third-party payment providers who I don't select, not being answerable to me as a platform holder, are incentivized to make it hard for me to cancel. Apple doesn't do that. I have better things to worry about than to track this stuff down and I desperately want to think about fewer stupid things in my life. Subscription management is solved and stupid.

Perhaps look at it this way: I'm pretty OK with paying 30% to not pay 200% and, kinda more importantly, not to feel upset and angry later for forgetting a dark-patterned subscription dinging me again. If that's an edge case, y'all are wrong.

Maybe Apple can straitjacket them properly. "You must use XYZ API in iOS/MacOS and you must support one-click cancellation via a standard process." But I think the dark-pattern farmers who are angry about this would be angry about that, too.

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

#324

Post by MillenialMan »

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…

Given the option, I think most customers would absolutely rather use the company's system, if the company offered lower prices for buying through them. Of course, that assumes both systems would be on offer - but if there's market pressure for companies to offer Apple as an option, that may be enough.

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

#325

Post by manquer »

dpkonofa wrote: post #282
ethbr0 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Stripe and PayPal and Square have far lower fees... oh. Now I see what this was about.

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have…

Sure they can and should charge for all the other "services" they provide transparently. Many of those services not dependent on my DAU, or the kind of usage users have via IAP.

This is none of Apple's business they don't need to provide me any services(if i don't use their payment) if my user uses 5 IAP transactions a day or one.

As a developer I get to choose which model makes more sense for me and in turn pass on benefits of that to my user, right now there is no choice and this ruling allows only for that.

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

#326

Post by BackBlast »

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…

Trying to hang onto systems where your customers resent paying you is not where you want to be. You bring up an interesting proposal, fundamentally Apple needs to create a system where developers WANT to pay the fees because of the value they get in using the system and services. And all those connected credit cards and customer identities definitely have value.

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

#327

Post by [deleted] »

travoc wrote: post #310
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.

You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.

[deleted]

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

#328

Post by smoldesu »

endisneigh wrote: post #202
skohan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes exactly. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's preventing free use of the hardware.

Is that actually an issue though, given that Apple has never advertised their hardware as being "free-use"?

It's an issue given that I'd be more interested in using a Mac if I could choose which graphics card I get to use instead of perusing a pre-approved list of B-rate processing units.

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

#329

Post by junipertea »

gok wrote: post #181

Seems like this essentially kills the game console business. If 3rd party Xbox and Playstation games are allowed to sell content with their own payment system, why would anyone buy games through Microsoft/Sony?

Convenience, existing game libraries, the pain of setting up another payment system using 12 buttons, price..

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

#330

Post by dleslie »

Factorium wrote: post #92
fxtentacle wrote: post #70

Reading this, I cannot help but imagine someone at Apple thinking to themselves "I wish we had granted Epic an exemption like we did with Netflix". The court proceedings and the documents that they were required to disclose were surely bad for PR and now it looks like they won't even keep the monetary benefits.

Fortnite will come and go but Unreal Engine will be generating revenues forever. Epic are more motivated by transferring the excess profits of Apple into modest profits for developers, who then redistribute 5% of their revenues (as part of the Unreal Engine license) back to Epic. I wonder if Epic will sue Steam and console developers next... Epic sells Unreal to Sony and Microsoft, so suing them is probably unlikely.…

> But Valve could definitely be the next target.

Valve would simply refer the judge to their rather-successful competitors, including:

- Epic Game Store

- Origin

- Blizzard Store

- Microsoft Store

- GoG

- Itch.io

- Ubisoft Store

- Bethesda Store

And to further their point, Valve would show how many games on Steam are found on other stores, and Valve doesn't prevent other companies from listing games on other stores.

Valve does not have a monopoly; not by a long shot.

Post reply on HN