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

661–670 of 958 posts

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

#661

Post by FDSGSG »

woko wrote: post #644
baxtr wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn’t cancel online. You have to call them, wait in line and then let them talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad experience. It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked. This experience was definitely more expensive than using Apple’s services.

I don't understand how this works in favour of Apple. Imagine you had paid with any other third-party payment provider, e.g. Paypal. Wouldn't you have been able to cancel the recurring payment just as easily? Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel the recurring payment by going through the account options on your bank website?

>Even with a CC payment, wouldn't you be able to cancel the recurring payment by going through the account options on your bank website?

High quality bait right here.

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

#662

Post by bjohnson225 »

shagie wrote: post #529
heavyset_go wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Payment processors and their networks are infinitely more complex and resource intensive than a mobile app distribution store, and their commissions tend to only be between 1% and 3% per transaction.

The merchant fees for PayPal can be found at https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees - which includes micro transactions. For a US company and a US customer, that's 4.99% + $0.09 for each transaction. For a $0.99 transaction, that's 15% of the total.

Stripe is 2.9% + $0.30 in the US, 1.4% in Europe. Large merchants will also get a much more favourable deal than those prices.

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

#663

Post by stale2002 »

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…

> . If they don’t like it, they can go and create their own phone hardware and app ecosystem.

What do you even think a monopoly or anti-competetive behavior is?

During the standard oil trials, would you support the argument of "If people don't like it, they can go build their own railroad!"?

Do you simply not believe in any forms of monopoly law? Because your argument could be used in literally any monopoly trial, if you actually believe it.

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

#664

Post by woko »

mrtksn wrote: post #405
donmcronald wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For the record, when Epic did their stunt on August 13, 2020, the margin went to the user.

> Today, we’re also introducing a new way to pay on iOS and Android: Epic direct payment.

> When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you.

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/news/the-fortnite-mega-dr...

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

#665

Post by skohan »

endisneigh wrote: post #653
skohan wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have common sense property rights enforced by law?

What’s common sense property right? Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute ? Still don’t get why don’t you just buy things that advertise the functionality you want.

A toaster is clearly not a general purpose computer. Should a car manufacturer be able to dictate which destinations you're allowed to reach with it?

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

#666

Post by stale2002 »

mrtksn wrote: post #416
Why_O_My wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make It sound like apple's service will disappear over night. If you're fine with them taking 30% then that's your choice. And if your app does become big enough to reap the benefits of implementing mutiple payment providers then thats even better.

It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues, large companies can remove friction by having their portfolio of users with credit cards collected. Small devs cannot do that because the user will need to enter payment details each time. The best chance would be to use something like Paypal, which is again a huge friction since the user will need to switch apps or enter login information. As a result, unless yo…

> It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues

Then don't add the friction! Just continue to use Apple's payment system.

Nobody is forcing app developers to use different payment processors.

> but because it will make the user experience so bad that a fraction of your users will proceed.

Then don't use it! Just use Apple.

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

#667

Post by cblconfederate »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #652

I'm going to put this comment on every Apple vs Epic thread from now on, regardless of how many internet points I lose. Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own. If Valve can make the Steam Deck, Epic can make a Fortnite Phone. Epic could then choose to make the phone as open or locked down as they like. They could have their own app store policies, and they could allow any pa…

> Instead of trying to ruin Apples ecosystem, Epic should try and develop their own.

So instead of 2 silos, you now have 3. How does that improve anything?

The whole point is to move away from this idea that developers are apple's "ecosystem", like cows in a cow farm. They are not cattle, but independent people with the right to compete in a fair market, much like how apple is competing in a fair market, which is provided by general market state regulations.

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

#668

Post by eropple »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #601
baxtr wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a WSJ subscription which I couldn’t cancel online. You have to call them, wait in line and then let them talk you into another free month and stuff. A bad experience. It was so annoying I just gave up until my CC was locked. This experience was definitely more expensive than using Apple’s services.

If a smooth cancelation is so important to users that it justifies a 30% upcharge, other payment processors will compete. They can even advertise the easy cancelation during checkout next to the payment method (“install the stripe subscriptions app or go to stripe.com for one-click, prorated cancellations!”). I think once one of them does it, they all will. If the injunction goes into effect in 90 days, it will be a…

The thing that I think you're perhaps missing is that Stripe etc. will be competing with Apple for developers. Letting developers make it harder for consumers to cancel something is a feature, not a bug.

Stripe etc. do not care about competing for consumer favor. Apple does. As far as any large company is on the consumer's side, Apple is, because they need me to buy another iPhone more than they need me to buy a subscription to somebody else's app, even at a 30% vig.

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

#669

Post by duskwuff »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #284
foolfoolz wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all you need is a number smaller than 30%. build your own or use someone else for 10%? easy choice

10% sounds very aggressive to me still

Even if you implemented the whole checkout process yourself, you'd still be paying at least ~3% to your credit card processor -- more if you're handling small payments, as most processors charge a fixed fee as well.

10% to handle the entire subscription/checkout process isn't bad at all, especially if it means that many of your customers can check out without entering any billing details.

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

#670

Post by trollied »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #508
trollied wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then high street margins for physical games would really surprise you...

The physical game store isn't charging X% for payment processing. They're charging X% to get your product in front of customers.

> They're charging X% to get your product in front of customers.

Oh, right. The app store doesn't also do that?

Post reply on HN