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

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

#341

Post by fabianhjr » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #311

spywaregorilla wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still use Apple payments.

What do you mean? If purchases are directed to a developers own payment system I don’t have a choice, I cannot force that developer to use Apples payment system can I?

You have the same choice developers had: their way or the highway.

Though, developers would be likely to:

- choose established and trusted payment processors (like PayPal or Stripe) rather than rolling their own solution or a small unknown payment processor, and

- offer many processors and let the user choose

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

#342

Post by jerrycruncher » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

selykg wrote: post #200

BackBlast wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to spend 27% more for everything to use Apple payment gateway? Do you love it that much? At the end of the day, services have to provide value. If your customers don't want to pay for your services, they do not value them. That's a dangerous position for any company to try to maintain. The mobile software industry generally has been chaffing at the fees for quite some time now, these are the warning s…

I would. I'm very careful about what I pay for anyway. If you want me to pay for your product it needs to be something that brings me real value. Even then I limit myself, as I only have a certain amount to spend anyway, so you're competing with other products for my limited amount of budget. Apple's IAP makes it incredibly simple to cancel service. It's consistent as well, which means I don't have to keep hunting th…

The ability to simply cancel any subscription without clicking through increasingly desperate "Don't go!!!" nag screens is easily worth an extra 30% for me, too.

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

#343

Post by wlesieutre » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

> Apple’s offerings are quite polished so I don’t think they’ll fall out of favor

Any iOS devs care to weigh in? Apple's system could just as easily be a godawful mess. No personal experience but I've seen people online complaining about how StoreKit sucks.

They've had in-app purchases since 2009 and no competitive pressure from other SDKs, because they can block them with app store policy instead of needing to offer a better product. That sounds like an easy environment for it to become an afterthought; the people using it have no choice in the matter if they want to be on the App Store.

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

#344

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #278

ethbr0 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..…

It's a good point. To quantify it, I guess you'd look at total user count and percent of all users on the platform?

Most of the ills we're trying to avoid don't seem to easily slip around, if there's a law that says "If you control more than 25% of a market of more than 1M users..."

I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't be allowed to create an iEcosystem.

But what we all want is a future where Apple's ownership of the iEcosystem can't be used in such a way, and generate enough profit, that no one can ever overturn Apple's position.

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

#345

Post by HideousKojima » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

ecf wrote: post #206

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 nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

Because end-users own their phones, and Apple restricting the ways software can be loaded onto the phone is robbing those users of their rights. The same applies to game consoles and other similarly locked-down devices.

If I buy a table, I can choose to stain it a different color, or put a tablecloth over it, or cut the legs off, or burn it for firewood. I have the right to use it however I want for whatever purpose I want, because I own it. For some insane reason bootlickers are willing to throw such rights out the window the moment you try to apply them to computer hardware and software.

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

#346

Post by SXX » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

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.

Steam does have rules about it, but they are not strictly enforced. If your game have it's own backend / website then you can freely bill people there after you onboarded them via Steam.

IAPs are different: here Valve actually require you to process payments through steam when game is running via Steam. But even in this case a lot of games can be launched independently after installation through Steam.

Also on top of this Valve already decreased it's comission from 30% for large publishers.

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

#347

Post by ascagnel_ » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #232

coldpie wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sounds like a win! Not if I wasn't interested in having the choice to begin with. Now some apps will not be purchasable by me unless I go through their account flow, which I don't want to. It's strictly worse (for me).

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.

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

#348

Post by testfrequency » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

I believe people are over conflating the "friction" involved with using an outside payment system (such as Stripe or PayPal). Apple ID's already allow you to attach your PayPal account as primary funding...this is just giving developers that direct choice now.

PayPal, you confirm checkout total, login to paypal, confirm subscription or price. Done.

Stripe, you can use their standard checkout page, autofill your card info, or just use Apple Pay to confirm the subscription/item, pay. Done.

What's changed is just giving developers that flexibility. Ultimately saving them money, they can hire more devs, and make their products hopefully cheaper (and better).

Most consumers will still have no idea that their checkout is not happening with Apple, and it's happening elsewhere (aside from PayPal Checkout being obvious with their checkout/login flow).

Apple could absolutely adapt their native subscriptions SDK to support the status of a third-party app, though I doubt they ever would. They tried to do this with streaming services (HBO, Netflix, etc.), but they shut this down recently

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

#349

Post by dannyw » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #333

xvector wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple WILL appeal. This is 25% of their yearly revenue at risk. I think many people don't realize just how critical this case is to Apple.

If they appeal, they'll be on the line to lose even more (and Epic is itching for this fight to continue, so Epic might appeal). Apple can cut its losses and be happy with the current, quantified ruling, or roll the dice and possibly run into a terrible precedent for other jurisdictions that have been rattling their sabers at Apple.

I expect both Apple and Epic to appeal.

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

#350

Post by manquer » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #110

falcolas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that how any convenience works? Credit cards already increased the price of everything for the convenience of using credit cards, as an example. I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for cash, and another for credit cards.

> I'm old enough to remember there was once one price for cash, and another for credit cards. Some businesses in my town still do this. When I see it, the only thing I think is "they must be committing light tax fraud". Maybe it's wrong, but I know what merchants pay for CC transactions and it doesn't justify the whining from business owners who have been accepting cards for decades and suddenly decided CC transactio…

It is not tax fraud [1]. Merchants are violating the terms of CC provider. The merchant agreement explicitly forbids merchants to have different cash price from what is charge with the card.

It is fairly common in geographies where CC providers can't litigate/enforce easily . It is not a penal crime, only a contract violation between two private parties and settled in arbitration/civil courts .

[1] Such Merchants also may commit tax fraud if they don't declare the cash income for tax purposes, that however is not directly related to Credit Cards or payment medium and usually even if they do commit tax fraud, they don't pass on their tax benefits for GST/VAT or Income Tax (10+% in most countries) to the customer.