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

881–890 of 958 posts

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

#881

Post by neop1x »

simonh wrote: post #501
danShumway wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really what lock-in means. An example of lock-in is making a conscious decision not to port iMessage to Android, specifically because it would make it easier for iPhone users to move to Android[0]. Making Apple products work well with other Apple products isn't lock-in. Purposefully making Apple products work worse with other systems, phrased within the company as a way to punish users who switch, is the k…

>Making Apple products work well with other Apple products isn't lock-in. Cool. iMessage works perfectly well with SMS, which is the only true open messaging standard, and therefore will work with anything else that interoperates with SMS. Job done.

Some time ago I received an ordinary SMS on the iPad but I couldn't read it until I signed into iMessage!

So iMessage app doesn't work like SMS reading app. It forces you into using iMessage account to just read an SMS. Later it lures you into using iMessage instead of SMS to make it harder to switch to another OS later.

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

#882

Post by paulmd »

jimbob45 wrote: post #79
baggy_trough wrote: post #62

Note Epic also has to pay 30% damages. > On the counterclaim, in favor of Apple on the counterclaim for breach of contract. Epic Games shall pay (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 throug…

In what upside-down world is that justified? It seems like the judge is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

What do you think is unjustified here? The 30% is literally the money they collected while breaching their contract, that was money Epic agreed to pay Apple and Apple is rightfully owed.

The big picture here is that Epic lost the case - they were ruled to be in clear breach of contract and Apple was determined to not have acted anticompetitively except in one specific respect (the anti-steering clause).

Epic gets no third party App Store - meaning ”platform” app stores are not anticompetitive, a ruling that 30% app store fees are not anticompetitive, a ruling that Epic still owes the money during the time when they were knowingly and willfully breaching their contract, a ruling that they have to pay apple’s lawyers for the frivolous suit, and no requirement for Apple to reinstate Epic’s account after all these shenanigans.

Oh yeah and anti-steering clauses are probably illegal. Big win for Epic there.

Despite newspapers racing to frame this as a big loss for Apple, it’s really Epic who lost here (and that’s why they get to pay the lawyers, pay the breach of contract, etc). It’s completely consistent with the rest of the ruling, because that’s what happens when you lose a suit.

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

#883

Post by nodamage »

NohatCoder wrote: post #649
kemayo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling explains the logic near the last page of the decision -- it's basically "Epic didn't have to break their contract in order to sue". I think it's the judge slapping Epic on the wrist for grandstanding, even though they basically-won.

It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it. The logical ruling would be to force Apple to pay reparations to all the app developers that they have illegally forced to pay for the app store.

> It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it.

From the ruling (page 172):

> In California, “where a single contract provision is invalid, but the balance of the contract is lawful, the invalid provision is severed, and the balance of the contract is enforced.”

In other words, even though the judge found the anti-steering provision of the contract to be illegal, the rest of the contract was still legal and enforceable, and Epic violating the other terms of the contract entitles Apple to damages.

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

#884

Post by ribit »

testfrequency wrote: post #348

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…

>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).

The only ones who can save money on third-party payments are big developers or apps that charge a lot of money. For usual $0.99-2.99 in-app buys, you won't be saving much, in fact, you are likely to pay more. And of course, you have to do VAT, refunds and other things yourself. I just don't see how a small dev is benefiting here. I'd rather pay Apple's 15% and be done with it.

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

#885

Post by valparaiso »

dannyw wrote: post #22
yurishimo wrote: post #15

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…

There are payment aggregators that charge about 30c and 3%: PayPal, Shop Pay, Google Pay, etc. And Apple Pay. There are also standards like Web Payments.

Apple is still allowed to take fee during third-party payments. So as developer if you pay 3% to Stripe, now you pay 33% fee.

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

#886

Post by l33tman »

pstrateman wrote: post #592
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 cancelled mine by sending them an email stating that I would be disputing every charge. The reply email I got was at 9:07am EST, 'dispute' probably automatically puts your email head of queue for them.

Seems like the right strategy. A chargeback request automatically implies a $25 fee for the merchant if I remember correctly (read this on Braintree long ago). I'd expect any merchant will want to avoid disputes/chargeback requests like the plague.

Take this with a grain of salt, it seems excessive, I should probably have looked it up again :) But there definitely is some kind of strong incentive for merchants to avoid these, not just because it wastes time for them.

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

#887

Post by chucky »

l33tman wrote: post #886
pstrateman wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cancelled mine by sending them an email stating that I would be disputing every charge. The reply email I got was at 9:07am EST, 'dispute' probably automatically puts your email head of queue for them.

Seems like the right strategy. A chargeback request automatically implies a $25 fee for the merchant if I remember correctly (read this on Braintree long ago). I'd expect any merchant will want to avoid disputes/chargeback requests like the plague. Take this with a grain of salt, it seems excessive, I should probably have looked it up again :) But there definitely is some kind of strong incentive for merchants to avo…

As someone in the fintech field, a $25 fee doesn't sound unlikely. The credit card companies love their fees, and every time I see them I'm amazed at just how high those fees get.

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

#888

Post by themihai »

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 IAP commission should be 0% and open to everyone.

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

#889

Post by nullifidian »

kllrnohj wrote: post #264
simonh wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to google, that is not correct. They levy a 30% fee on all Play Store transactions for apps and IAP. I've seen articles that say they are cutting the fee to 15% for businesses with under $1m revenue, but that's not what the support page says. https://support.google.com/paymentscenter/answer/7159343?hl=... Buying physical goods and services may not count, in the same way that they don't count on the Apple Ap…

It's a 30% fee if you use Play Store's IAP system. It's not a 30% fee to use Google Pay as a payment provider ( https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6288971?hl=e... ) Same distinction exists on Apple's side with IAP vs. Apple Pay. For example Apple Pay on the Web ( https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_pay_on_the_w... ) doesn't take anywhere close to a 30% cut. In fact it, like Google Pay, is als…

To use Google Pay this way, you'll have to find a payment processor that handles local taxes and all that. As a developer from a country where Stripe isn't available, it's a significant hurdle.

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

#890

Post by Factorium »

teruakohatu wrote: post #744
dleslie wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Valve could definitely be the next target. Valve would simply refer the judge to their rather-successful competitors, including: - Epic Game Store - Origin - Blizzard Store - Microsoft Store - GoG - Itch.io - Ubisoft Store - Bethesda Store And to further their point, Valve would show how many games on Steam are found on other stores, and Valve doesn't prevent other companies from listing games on other stores.…

Not only that, but Valve is bizarrely happy with developers selling games on their own website, or even competitor platforms, and then providing Steam keys for free. As a consumer it is amazing.

Valve only did this so that it could effectively bundle its software with retail CD copies of games, back when they existed.

When you dive into Steam, you'll see that it hasn't really changed in a decade. Valve are basically sitting back happy with the $billions pouring in each year owing to their 'first mover'/monopoly position.

Post reply on HN