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

951–958 of 958 posts

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

#951

Post by [deleted] »

acdha wrote: post #802
b3morales wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about oranges. This case is about In-App Purchases -- for things that are used digitally, in the app itself. The Amazon app is selling physical goods, delivered outside the app. This is already permitted by Apple; the Amazon app already does this ; in fact if you have an app that sells stuff outside the app you are not allowed to use Apple's IAP system for those sales.

Try ordering a Kindle or Audible book on iOS. Apple treats that as IAP.

[deleted]

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

#952

Post by ascagnel_ »

reissbaker wrote: post #920
ascagnel_ wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one wants to own the payment instrument. That's useless, causes missed sales, and is a security nightmare. Companies don't reinvent their own Visa or Mastercard, for example, because that's a huge pain and the fees for using the existing products are low. App developers were mad about Apple's egregious 30% cut for doing payment processing. If Apple wants everyone to accept Apple IAP, it can simply lower its fees t…

> App developers were mad about Apple's egregious 30% cut for doing payment processing. If Apple wants everyone to accept Apple IAP, it can simply lower its fees to competitive payment processing rates.

Apple has never characterized the 30% as "payment processing" -- it's it's always characterized it as a commission, which the court affirmed and explicitly mentioned that Apple is allowed to pursue that commission, even if the developer chose to use another payment provider. Apple's IAP has been an enforcement mechanism for that 30% cut.

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

#953

Post by kjreact »

moogly wrote: post #753
kjreact wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that you’ll get a 30% discount by subscribing via an external website? More likely they’ll give you a small discount to entice you and pocket the difference.

Wouldn't it be better if that money went to the actual creator instead of a greedy middleman though? Apple will be fine. They have more money than they know what to do with. Literally. Steve Jobs even asked Warren Buffett WTF to do with their hoard, and that was over 10 years ago now.

Truthfully, aren’t the only developers who are really affected by this decision mega-corporations anyways? Epic had $5B in revenues in 2020. Should I feel indignant which greedy mega corp gets more money? Apple already lowered the commission to 15% for small developers (under $1M annually) where the additional income really matters.

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

#954

Post by widowlark »

paulmd wrote: post #804
widowlark wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but their practices might still be considered anti-competitive if harmful enough to end users

You’re perfectly welcome to consider whatever you want but the judge just ruled it isn’t. That’s legalese for “your opinion is wrong”.

that's not legalese, and that's not the judges ruling

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

#955

Post by smoldesu »

kjreact wrote: post #953
moogly wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be better if that money went to the actual creator instead of a greedy middleman though? Apple will be fine. They have more money than they know what to do with. Literally. Steve Jobs even asked Warren Buffett WTF to do with their hoard, and that was over 10 years ago now.

Truthfully, aren’t the only developers who are really affected by this decision mega-corporations anyways? Epic had $5B in revenues in 2020. Should I feel indignant which greedy mega corp gets more money? Apple already lowered the commission to 15% for small developers (under $1M annually) where the additional income really matters.

Apple's refusal to allow alternative payment methods is (and has been) the issue. They can take 99% for all I care, but their smug refusal to allow alternative payment methods all but confirms that it's a ripoff.

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

#956

Post by dpkonofa »

summerlight wrote: post #789
tshaddox wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Summerlight's point was that if you take Apple's argument at face value (that iOS and the App Store are so tightly integrated as to be indivisible), then it boggles the mind that Apple could then turn around and sell you iOS (via an iPhone purchase) but not include the App Store in that same transaction. I just don't see how your "then" follows from your "if" at all! The integration of iOS and the App Store is from…

> No one seriously believes that Apple is claiming that the two things are literally physically impossible to split up technically. Except Apple in the court does. That is the exact stance why they cannot allow third party stores and browser engines since those are technically a part of indivisible OS services. Of course, this is obviously BS and inconsistent to many other Apple's business practice, anyway it's their…

That's not true at all. They're not claiming they can't split it up technically. They're claiming that part of the end-to-end user experience is that users trust the App Store because Apple has oversight into the entire chain from downloading apps to the OS to taking payment information on their devices. If they have to open it up to other parties, then that chain of trust is broken.

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

#957

Post by dpkonofa »

colinmhayes wrote: post #321
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…

I'm not sure apple is interested in destroying user experience to spite developers. IPhone will still make incredible amounts of money with lower app store margins because it's still the best product on the market. Pissing off users isn't how they built the best product.

They're not pissing off users. Users overwhelmingly approve of the App Store process that Apple has in place and developers overwhelmingly benefit from the value of the customers Apple provides them. It's not about the lower margins, it's about recouping the costs that Apple spends to provide the end-to-end experience that they do.

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

#958

Post by raxxorrax »

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 thing is that it is still worse than an open system. Why pay the bridge bandit? There is some infrastructure and that is fine, but I hate to see the tendency in tech to insert themselves as middle man. OS that don't do that are superior targets.
Post reply on HN