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

401–410 of 958 posts

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

#401

Post by dntrkv »

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.

That 30% covers a lot more than just processing payments.

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

#402

Post by Spivak »

ethbr0 wrote: post #315
dpkonofa wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of everything together, so that nothing can be independently valued. "30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide you", etc. Edit : As an example, in the US this is mandated for home mortgages. "T…

I mean you also assume that it will be line-item'd instead of "give us 30% of your revenue made through iOS" in the ToS to publish an app which has any paid features or content.

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

#404

Post by ThatCaio »

a-dub wrote: post #367

this seems ridiculous. does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband? apple is not a monopoly, nor is it anticompetitive. it is, however, opinionated and differentiates itself in the marketplace with that opinionation. there are less opinionated, yet very competitive alternatives and both users and d…

>does this mean that if disney resorts open up to third party vendors (assuming they haven't already), they can't require them to accept the disney payment wristband?

No, this is equivalent to the vendors having the ability to accept other forms of payment, such as cash or other credit cards, if they choose alongside the wristband.

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

#405

Post by mrtksn »

donmcronald wrote: post #382
mrtksn wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think it would be more like Apple IAP($1.43), Your Local payment($1.43), Paypal($1.43).

They will add something like a bonus if you choose the alternative ones. I'm baffled why people expect that the margin will go to the user. Do you think that Epic sued Apple because altruism? To help users save money? They are are after the margins.

Because of the "Your Local payment" option, binary sizes will grow(Uber has this problem, they need to ship the framework of numerous payment providers on every market) or you will start maintaining different binaries for each country.

Also, each payment provider will come with its own rules. One will say "this is too close to gambling, no unless put this text next to the price to clarify" the other will be like "is this related to crypto, you can't do that", the next one will be "I think you must provide 3 months refund guarantee. Also, coins allowed boxes not allowed".

Then you will have to do the legal work for each country separately or work with publishers who do that for you for a hefty cut.

The business side of things is a full time job. That's why when you publish a book or release a song you tend to get tiny amount of the price payed.

I am afraid, this fragmentation has the potential to turn the App&Game business into Books&Music business where you don't make money unless you are superstar.

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

#406

Post by Dayshine »

ahurmazda wrote: post #385
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.

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)

Why on earth wouldn't you be able to use Apple to pay (with the normal 2-3% transaction fee)?

Does Apple not support paying in arbitrary websites like Google Pay?

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

#407

Post by bink »

hnra wrote: post #373
bobthepanda wrote: post #337

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.

This might depend on the state in which you live:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/companies-mu...

This makes the practice even more egregious as you know the website has the ability to allow cancellations they just choose not to enable it for people living in other states.

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

#408

Post by donmcronald »

pupppet wrote: post #210

I don't see developers dropping their price now they can use their own payment processor. All I see is me, the user, having to struggle through using their janky home-made payment processors as I pay and/or try to end my subscriptions.

It's possible they could use the difference for promotion too. In the PC world there's things like nexus.gg that I've been seeing more of lately. It allows creators and streamers to set up a game store so you can buy from them and the creator gets the (rough) equivalent of Steam's cut.

That's a much better model IMO. The creators and streamers are actually promoting your product to a core audience that's likely to buy, so they're more deserving of that big cut. For example, the YouTube channel where I learned about that is from a creator that plays the style of games I like, so their nexus.gg store is actually pretty good as a discovery mechanism (for me).

So smaller developers can keep uniform pricing, but leverage other forms of promotion where the people that are actually driving sales benefit instead of some rent seeking middle man like Apple or Google.

That's not some "janky home-made payment processor" either. I set up an account with the primary platform (nexus.gg) and I can buy from / support any creator curated game store I want within that platform.

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

#409

Post by scardycat »

maccard wrote: post #34
scardycat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More choice is always a win for the customers. Customer can get to decide who is providing a better quality of service and go with them instead of the current situation of having one choice forced down their throats because the vendor decides that is whats best for the customer.

> More choice is always a win for the customers. Not if it solely results in fragmentation. Having the choice between Ubisoft Connect, EA Origin, Steam and Battle.net isn't a "choice", it's just 4 different storefronts for me to manage credentials for.

You cannot have choice without fragmentation, you cannot complain about lock-in without wanting choice. Choice and fragmentation go hand in hand, and customers get to decide who wins and who loses.

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

#410

Post by cto_of_antifa »

bogwog wrote: post #336
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.

Im sure every random app wont be rolling their own payment system. Paypal’s transaction fees for example are significantly lower than Apple (less than 4% vs Apple’s 30%), and millions of users already have a Paypal account, so they could buy your product without having to create an account or enter payment info. Idk if Paypal lets you cancel subscriptions directly through them, but they could certainly implement that…

paypal actually does, i used it the other day. they've given their web app a lot of polish recently.
Post reply on HN