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

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

#371

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #323

travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

>If that's an edge case, y'all are wrong.

I don't want to pay an extra 30%, and have that 30% taken away from the devs who actually deserve the money, because _some_ might make it hard to cancel.

Most would likely just have a Paypal button same as 90% of websites if that makes you feel better.

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

#372

Post by fomine3 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #356

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.

Netflix did not get an exemption. They still don't link to Netflix.com from the app since Apple dictates that they can't direct people to paying for subscriptions outside the app store. When Netflix did do some IAP subscriptions, they costed more to the user and were only available for a limited time.

If Fortnite did same things like Netflix, they'll be banned. Why Netflix or Kindle isn't banned is because Apple arbitrary allowed such app for some category, but not for games. See Hey case.

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

#373

Post by hnra » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #337

travoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fair amount of companies makes their subscription cancellation actively hostile in an effort to not get people to do it. To give an example, though you can subscribe online, the NYT requires you to call during only certain hours to a customer service line where you get badgered and questioned like you’re trying to cancel a cable subscription. If the US mandated that you need to provide equivalent means of subscript…

I just checked my NYT account I can cancel from the website? I only have a digital subscription however.

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

#374

Post by Nevermark » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #319

echelon wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stud…

- They make it hard for consumers to shop at other stores. As a user of Apple, Google, and Amazon tech for decades, I simply disagree on the other two. You'll have to clarify in what way Google and Amazon make it hard to shop at other stores. Google, in particular, enables side-loading on every Android device. Of the three you've named, Apple is the biggest offender, and it appears they have touched the hot stove, un…

> >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

> I remember, and what I remember is, I think, one of the reasons American law tends to take a relatively hands-off approach in this space.

It is a false dilemma that you either have vetted apps with Apple, or unvetted apps.

You could still have other app stores reviewing apps. That would increase competition but still let users choose safety over a Wild West.

And brands who have gone to great efforts to obtain user trust can sell directly.

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

#375

Post by blackoil » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #355

hospadar wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 T…

We should care if they are a monopoly, because if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. Even if they aren't a monopoly, they shouldn't be allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

> if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Market driven de-facto monopoly are allowed. If you own >90% search engine marketshare it is fine as you have earned it. If you abuse the marketshare to enter shopping, travel market it is monopoly-*abuse* and it should be blocked/fined.

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

#376

Post by acdha » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #343

acdha wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm just speaking from the user experience: I know that there are issues with the App Store's model for upgrades, trials, etc. so those are valid considerations but if you're just using an app it is really convenient to that you can buy something securely with a tap and a double-click and have zero problems getting a refund or canceling a subscription.

Basically I'd expect successful competitors with Apple to be companies which do the same. Abusive companies aren't going to be popular but I suspect Stripe, Shopify, Amazon, etc. could convince a fair number of people that they're no worse on that regard and better in some other way.

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

#377

Post by manquer » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:42 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.

Epic will need to appeal, they are still not allowed in the App store for breaching contract, this ruling did not change that.

They need get favorable ruling on appeal taking the view the contract was not valid and had illegal terms therefore Epic was not in breach.

Without that Fortnite is still not returning to the App Store.

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

#378

Post by r00fus » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

BackBlast wrote: post #138

coldcode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I have zero desire to use some random payment gateway, using Apple makes my life easier, I can reasonably trust Apple not to let someone steal my money, how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways? Also if people move away from giving Apple any money for the App Store, I expect the annual fee to increase to make up for it, and might Apple make you pay more if you don't use Apple's gateway? I don't see…

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…

27% more? Are you kidding - it will be 12% more, if Apple doesn't reduce their rates at all for most developers (most don't make $1m revenue).

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

#379

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

>I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.

Are those threads arguing about a legal definition, because if not then this would have little impact on them. Even if they are arguing form a legal perspective, it would have to be within the same legal system as this court and thus could be argued for other legal systems. And even then one can argue the judge is wrong, look at how many judges end up being wrong based on appeal results. Technically you can't be sure which judge is actually wrong, you know which one is in the court that overrules the other, but you can still point out that the disagreement means one of them is wrong even if you can't say definitely which one is.

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

#380

Post by laurent92 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

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…

> All Apple has to do is to make the rates competitive enough

No. All Apple has to do is amplify a few horror stories, for example people using [any competitor]’s renewable subscriptions and not being able to unsubscribe. Or amplify a story of a virus/malware on, hopefully, Epic or Steam.

This is certainly what makes you choose a MORE expensive product, that’s certainly why I buy my fire extinguishers $200 instead of $50 for the same model (but a trusted source). Apple should be able to keep a more expensive margin based on reputation alone.