Live data from Hacker News

Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

theverge.com

381–390 of 958 posts

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

#381

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…

There’s tons of value in a unified payment system, which is why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users. For instance, ease of cancellation of recurring fees is enormous. You can bet that’s going to get harder as developers get more control. And anyway, The app developers have no motivation to charge you less, the market already bears the fees, they just want to capture that profit for themselves. Personally…

> why it’s app developers who were unhappy, not users

IIRC, Epic was offering their in game currency more cheaply outside of the App Store, which Apple didn't like.

I bet plenty of people would use an alternate payment method to save money..right now they don't have that choice.

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

#382
post #240

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…

As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes. When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in…

I'd be stunned if everyone starts using niche payment providers. I think it's more likely the larger providers will step up. It'll be more along the lines of:

    Pay With --- Apple IAP ($1.43) - Stripe IAP ($1.06) - Paypal IAP ($1.06)
That's also why Epic is disappointed. If Apple were forced to allow competing app stores, Epic is in a perfect position. They have app store tech with payments, commissions, etc. built in. If Apple's only forced to allow competing payment providers to become more prevalent, everyone thinks of Stripe, Paypal, etc. first. Epic probably has their own payment processing fees to cover, so they'll never be able to compete on price and that's where things are heading IMO.

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

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What things? What did apple arbitrarily allow? Netflix has never used its own payment system within iOS.

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

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And before, they might not have bothered developing an app, or one for iOS. Now you have choice. Choice is good.

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

#385
post #310

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.

Another edge case here. For now I trust apple with my credit cards (a lot) more than a bunch of smarmy payment processors (somehow I magically get subscribed to a bunch of things when I use the latter)

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

#386

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…

Just to be clear here (and this fact doesn't really detract from your point) - Apple Pay is very different to Apple's In App Purchases. Apple Pay can be used anyhere, and it could still be used if a company rolls their own purchase system on their website that they link to from the app. Apple only gets a very minor % cut of Apple Pay transactions, from the bank, compared to Apple IAP where Apple gets 30% from the dev…

Apple would also likely drop their cut from 30% overnight. Maybe not to 3% like Paypal, but low enough where companies would have to think.

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

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure.

They’re either already not on Apple’s IAP (Netflix or Spotify) or they are very sensitive to optimising conversions, and would pay a premium to give users an easier option (which Apple is now incentivised to lower)

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

#388
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Huh, I was just able to cancel my digital introductory subscription ($4/month) w/o talking to anyone. This must be a recent change. I've canceled several times in the past and had to talk with someone, either voice or via online chat.

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

#389
post #206

> “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…

> Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business

(emphasis mine)

Nobody said anything about Apple assisting other businesses. They could easily just let everything be, but instead, Apple is going out of their way to prevent competition.

Imagine if your favorite Linux distro only allowed you to install software from their package repos, and you had to jump through tons of hoops to install software from outside their repos, and adding other repos was impossible.

I know you'd say "I'd just switch distros!", but in the mobile world, you effectively only have two choices.

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

#390

Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.

Yet you are ok with your Microwave/Washing Machine/Car etc being supplied as a software/hardware combination...
Post reply on HN