[HN Gopher] Apple-Epic Judge Asks Why Offering iOS Users a Choic...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple-Epic Judge Asks Why Offering iOS Users a Choice Is Bad?
Author : CrankyBear
Score : 36 points
Date : 2021-05-16 20:59 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pcmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pcmag.com)
| deep-root wrote:
| From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App
| Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS
| users that they can purchase virtual goods or subscriptions
| cheaper elsewhere. [US Judge] Gonzalez Rogers was questioning why
| allowing this to be conveyed to App Store customers would be
| bad..."
|
| It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice
| multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be
| directed off iOS for purchases.
|
| This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground
| between the parties.
| loceng wrote:
| That Apple's trying to control the narrative, that you can't
| even tell people what $ of their payment is going to Apple, is
| a problem; this is a problem with food ordering-delivery
| service apps too, it should be law so people can make informed
| choices of what app they want to use.
| noT1 wrote:
| So the court should force Apple to implement advertising for
| others?
|
| Edit: Apple built the ecosystem. No one has to develop for it.
|
| You all want to be indie wonders? Go do that.
|
| You want to be unicorns? Build something novel.
|
| Wait, wait, I got you; release your source code. I want choice in
| how things run on my device.
|
| "But but but I made this IP!"
|
| On top of Apples infrastructure, and intellectual property.
|
| Circular grifting.
| sorenjan wrote:
| This is what the payment screen looked like in Fortnite which
| made Apple ban it. Why shouldn't it be allowed?
|
| https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
|
| https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct
| payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules.
|
| I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that
| buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going
| through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open
| that link automatically.
|
| I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party
| payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and
| provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're
| dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they
| don't all just use Stripe).
|
| I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be
| used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep
| and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also
| don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from
| advertising their own payment system out of the app.
| monocasa wrote:
| > Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct
| payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules.
|
| Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if
| they thought the rules were not something that would stand
| up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on
| the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want
| to be discussing actual damages. Because of that,
| flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken
| off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to
| rule on if they were legal in the first place.
| salamandersauce wrote:
| But they already allow third party payment processors in
| physical goods retail apps e.g the Amazon app for example
| (and many other much smaller retailers). Is fraud a much
| bigger concern in digital only apps? Why should I trust a
| small retailer with an app over a big development house
| like EA?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| >this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules.
|
| Rules that many believe are unjust, hence this making it to
| court.
|
| >I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party
| payment processors, though. It's inconvenient
|
| Paying for goods has never been easier especially with all
| the payment app integrations like paypal, cash app, venmo,
| etc.
|
| I want choice and I want Apple to compete by being a better
| product not by being the only game in town. If Apple opened
| up they would gain me as a customer.
| wernercd wrote:
| As opposed to Apple forcing you to go through their gated
| options? When better payment, ad, search, email, browser, etc,
| etc, options exist?
|
| Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for
| each of their offerings, there are better options and their
| options aren't worth the 30% tax.
|
| Tons of companies have better payment options and should be
| allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions
| placed by Apple.
| noT1 wrote:
| They forced developers to develop for iOS?
| salamandersauce wrote:
| No, but considering iOS is roughly 50% or more of the
| mobile market in the U.S, U.K, Japan, etc. any developer
| choosing to forgo iOS is essentially shitting away half the
| market in some very lucrative places.
| wernercd wrote:
| They forced people to use subpar options within their
| environment - just like Microsoft forced IE to be used on
| theirs.
|
| If you want to reach millions of customers, you are
| restricted to the Apple Payment options... even when better
| options exist. Same for Ad and other subpar options.
|
| Why? Because they are better options? No... because Apple
| FORCES you to use those options.
|
| "but you don't have to develop for Apple" is a copout that
| ignores the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior
| Apple is using to force people into subpar options for a
| 30% gateway tax.
|
| Similarly, others can't put good browsers onto Apple
| because of restrictions... why? because webkit is the
| REQUIRED base... despite the fact that its restrictions
| mean you can't use webapps as real alternatives because of
| limitations with controllers, bluetooth, etc.
|
| Google can make better alternatives to Safari? Firefox can?
| Microsoft can? doesn't matter... Apple FORCES you to use
| their subpar options because if there was real competition,
| they wouldn't get a 30% tax.
|
| Spread that decision to email clients and all other corners
| of the Apple "ecosystem" and you have a company using
| monopolistic practices to limit competition to increase
| prices.
|
| "but don't do business on their platform" doesn't change
| the fact that they are using monopolistic practices to
| fleece their customers.
|
| I don't like EA and think they are an equally horrible
| company - and should be judged equally poorly for many bad
| practices... but EA (and netflix, steam, etc) should have
| the ability to not use Apples gated options and not pay for
| a service that isn't worth 30% - especially when they can
| host their own payment and ad services.
|
| Stop with the bad arguments to defend a company using
| monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
|
| I say this as an iPhone owner and a programmer.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Nothing in your comment is on topic? This is about app
| developers implementing something in their own app. Not Apple.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| This is about people advertising in their own apps. Apple wants
| to prevent that using their monopoly power over their devices.
| noT1 wrote:
| Apple would effectively be acting a distributor of apps that
| redirect people from their platform.
|
| I think you're seeing this in terms of what some solo dev
| should be allowed to do when they have a choice; don't sell
| iOS apps.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| What about if Amazon prevented a seller from advertising
| "direct to sale at a discount" and bypassing Amazon on their
| product page?
| void_mint wrote:
| uhhh....this happens all the time already. Lots of Amazon
| sellers maintain web stores and purchasing options outside
| of Amazon.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| That seller almost certainly signed a contract with amazon
| saying that they would give amazon most-favored nation
| status with regards to product prices. So they could
| absolutely say such a thing, but in the end they couldn't
| contractually offer anything at a cheaper rate than what
| they list it for on amazon.
| noT1 wrote:
| What monopoly when their mobile OS is only 18% of the mobile
| market?
|
| You all want these corporations to learn a lesson? Stop
| giving them attention.
|
| There are more useful political conversations to be had. This
| is more David v Goliath crap bros use to seek Valhalla
| ericwooley wrote:
| Nonsense. No where has anyone implied that.
|
| Apps should be able to offer a choice of how users can pay.
| noT1 wrote:
| Why? They know what they signed up for.
|
| It's a legal contract.
|
| Don't like the terms, don't sign up?
|
| I frankly don't care about some small dev that could vanish
| when and take my paid app or service with it.
|
| If we as a culture cared about small business still we'd not
| have enabled this mess to begin with.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| So, in your opinion, it should be legal to sell yourself
| into slavery? How about debt peonage?
|
| Society has determined that certain things are not allowed
| because they are inherently abusive, "legal contracts" or
| not.
| cletus wrote:
| The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend
| processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have
| that infrastructure.
|
| What Apple should've been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the
| conversation and thus the outcome. It's going to be bad if a
| court decides this.
|
| Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This
| is clearly just a PR move and shows it's not about costs anymore
| (it would've been when this was a much smaller venture). It's
| simply a profit center now.
|
| This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to
| offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10%
| (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe
| they could've completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit.
|
| Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount
| program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-16 23:00 UTC)