Supreme Court rules against Epic, so Apple can keep its App Store payment rules(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Supreme Court rules against Epic, so Apple can keep its App Store payment rules
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/9/23826043/epic-apple-app-store-supreme-court-petition
38 comments
> If I understand correctly, this is not a final decision.
It is not a final decision. The title is flat-out incorrect, the SC didn't "rule" anything. They didn't even hear the case.
It is not a final decision. The title is flat-out incorrect, the SC didn't "rule" anything. They didn't even hear the case.
Not hearing a case is nearly as impactful as hearing one. Its just easier to overturn it in the future if they want to.
I don't think the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, they've just refused to vacate the stay that is preventing the lower court's ruling from taking effect yet.
Overturning long standing law doesn’t seem to be a problem for the current supreme court
1) Mixed feelings. As an Apple user I really enjoy the consistent flow as a user in purchasing and with recent changes (likely caused by Epic pushing them) to indie dev cuts in the app store I am less worried about Apple over reaching here.
2) I really want to be able to side load on my iPhone easily.
3) I am really tired of hearing about these companies fighting over their mass wealth streams.
2) I really want to be able to side load on my iPhone easily.
3) I am really tired of hearing about these companies fighting over their mass wealth streams.
Whatever merits Epic may or may not have the noise in the industry has moved on. App Store discovery is impossible, user acquisition costs too much, and you're going to see increasing consolidation in apps and games with huge user bases as a result.
Of course the existing massive players want their cut increased, but Apple (and Google) would be wiser to try and fix the funnel entry problem before the big guys eventually get their way and deny them their piece of the pie. Epic and Roblox in particular are aiming to be the next platforms taking their own cuts.
Of course the existing massive players want their cut increased, but Apple (and Google) would be wiser to try and fix the funnel entry problem before the big guys eventually get their way and deny them their piece of the pie. Epic and Roblox in particular are aiming to be the next platforms taking their own cuts.
>and you're going to see increasing consolidation in apps and games with huge user bases as a result.
Is this necessarily bad? How many versions of the same functionality/game play do we really need just so the dev can quickly start selling the data they collected?
Is this necessarily bad? How many versions of the same functionality/game play do we really need just so the dev can quickly start selling the data they collected?
The way for Epic and other developers (especially game developers) to bypass the app store walled gardens and associated distribution tax is to go through the open web instead, delivering their software directly to consumers. Leveraging new bleeding edge browser technologies such as WebGPU and WebAssembly, it's going to be possible to distribute games and applications online that can run at near native performance as webapps. These webapps can then be pinned to the homescreen for an even more authentic app-like experience.
Yes, WebGPU isn't available on Safari yet, but when it is it will be a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software, one where you don't have to go through the platform owner's store as the only option available to you.
Yes, WebGPU isn't available on Safari yet, but when it is it will be a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software, one where you don't have to go through the platform owner's store as the only option available to you.
Ugh.
This is why they're coming for the web with Google's "Web environment integrity" stuff.
> a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software
Maybe I'm just old and grumpy but this isn't NEW at all. Until about ten years ago when you bought a computer you owned it and could install whatever you wanted on it.
This is why they're coming for the web with Google's "Web environment integrity" stuff.
> a paradigm shift ushering in a new era of distribution of software
Maybe I'm just old and grumpy but this isn't NEW at all. Until about ten years ago when you bought a computer you owned it and could install whatever you wanted on it.
Between App Store and Web there are still normal apps that you can download/copy from external disk.
not on iDevices there aren't
> Yes, WebGPU isn't available on Safari yet
... I wonder why that is ...
Apple knows everything about bypassing restrictions. Their initial play on iOS was meant to be webapps - just so that carriers (which had, until then, dictated what could and could not be delivered and installed on every device) would be totally bypassed. It just so happened that the carriers capitulated to Jobs' marketing magic so completely, that Apple didn't have to go that way - they could become the gatekeeper themselves.
WebGPU on Safari, if it ever lands, will always be borked "just enough" that it won't be viable as a commercial platform. Apple will fight for their cut as viciously as a mob boss fights for his corners.
... I wonder why that is ...
Apple knows everything about bypassing restrictions. Their initial play on iOS was meant to be webapps - just so that carriers (which had, until then, dictated what could and could not be delivered and installed on every device) would be totally bypassed. It just so happened that the carriers capitulated to Jobs' marketing magic so completely, that Apple didn't have to go that way - they could become the gatekeeper themselves.
WebGPU on Safari, if it ever lands, will always be borked "just enough" that it won't be viable as a commercial platform. Apple will fight for their cut as viciously as a mob boss fights for his corners.
Doesn't Apple have a history of dragging their feet with adopting new technologies in Safari? Not sure why this would be any different...
[deleted]
The Supreme Court didn't rule against Epic on the merits, they just declined a stay. It's very likely that they will take up the case later.
They should take it up.
As time passes, Apple is owning more and more of the total compute surfaces humans use. Just like Google.
We need our devices to be functionally independent of vertical-stack owning, horizontally expanding monopolies.
We only have two choices, both increasingly essential to modern life, where each player gets to charge every software and banking decision. It's entirely uncompetitive.
I'm imagining a future where they take a cut of every point of sale purchase, where they insert ads in front of travel destinations, and where they control the software and information you can run and access.
Both of these companies need to be scaled back to protect not only the consumer, but the entire computing and commerce future of the world.
As time passes, Apple is owning more and more of the total compute surfaces humans use. Just like Google.
We need our devices to be functionally independent of vertical-stack owning, horizontally expanding monopolies.
We only have two choices, both increasingly essential to modern life, where each player gets to charge every software and banking decision. It's entirely uncompetitive.
I'm imagining a future where they take a cut of every point of sale purchase, where they insert ads in front of travel destinations, and where they control the software and information you can run and access.
Both of these companies need to be scaled back to protect not only the consumer, but the entire computing and commerce future of the world.
Not really - the SC declined to hear Epic's motion to vacate a 9th circuit stay on the ruling while Apple appeals the ruling in Epic's lawsuit against them.
We haven't even gotten to the appeal part, yet.
We haven't even gotten to the appeal part, yet.
A court will decline a stay if it’s likely the case will not prevail.
Note that the ability to use an alternate payment vendor is a separate question from whether Apple can enforce a contract where you agree to the Apple store fee. This question is one of whether apps should be able to direct you to metaphorical Paypal.
As a consumer who buys phones for the whole family, I much prefer payment through Apple due to (1) one-stop shop for cancelling all subscriptions, and (2) Apple is much better on privacy.
As a consumer who buys phones for the whole family, I much prefer payment through Apple due to (1) one-stop shop for cancelling all subscriptions, and (2) Apple is much better on privacy.
[deleted]
I want Apple to change their App Store rules, but I don't want Congress or the Supreme Court to decide how.
I'm not sure I understand. Is it that you don't want legal regulation to limit them (and similarly, other companies), but rather it were the market to naturally do so?
I'm not sure that's sound economics.
Or perhaps, that you think the government would place limits ineptly?
I'm not sure that's sound economics.
Or perhaps, that you think the government would place limits ineptly?
So what mechanism do you think will make them change?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I dont want to be the first to don the tinfoil cap but at what point can we assume that there are back channel pressures and corruption at play in the US Supreme Court. Which Apple is knowingly exploiting.
We 100% know there are back channel pressures as we have at least one long standing well documented example of it.
https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus
Not a tin foil. Matt Stoller, one of the most important anti-trust advocates wrote on this [1]
[1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/bidens-bad-judges
[1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/bidens-bad-judges
Is of course possible. But IMHO this was the correct outcome.
We passed that point given the lack of disclosures lately
Your account seems to be shadowbanned. You might want to shoot an email over to the mods at [email protected].
I mean there is documentated evidence that Clarence has been on the take for decades so not very tin foil hat-y to assume this is happening with all of the justices
It's reasonable to be suspicious of the other justices, question their motives, investigate their finances and pass laws banning the exact kind of nonsense that Clarence Thomas has been accused of.
That said, I think it is absolutely tin foil hat-y to _assume_ that the other justices are just as bad.
That said, I think it is absolutely tin foil hat-y to _assume_ that the other justices are just as bad.
>and pass laws banning the exact kind of nonsense
how do you then keep the Clarence Thomases on the court to not rule them unconstitutional and strike them down?
how do you then keep the Clarence Thomases on the court to not rule them unconstitutional and strike them down?
On the flip side, we know Apple pays bribes when it needs to do so
Previously on hn https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25190668
Previously on hn https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25190668
It's simply a temporary one. Apple is appealing the lower court's decision to force it to allow alternative payment methods. Epic wanted alternative payment methods allowed now, while Apple appeals.
This is simply the Supreme Court saying alternative payment methods are still on pause until the Supreme Court presumably hears the case and makes what will be the final decision.
The TechCrunch article is a bit clearer on the legal history here:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/09/app-store-payment-rules-wo...