Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by cush on Friday September 10, 2021 @12:05PM
(#28483485)
I highly doubt there will be any win for consumers. App developers probably aren't going to reduce their prices by 20%
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by anonfornoreason on Friday September 10, 2021 @02:41PM
(#28485524)
Not financially (we wouldn't lower prices), but I would immediately start to hire 4 more developers if they went from 30% down to 5%.
Lowering prices increases the number of jobs available, and the only cost is that Apple loses some amount of it's astronomical profits.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by mcphage on Friday September 10, 2021 @03:21PM
(#28485935)
How many developers do you have already, that 35% more money would let you hire 4 more? Back-of-the-envelope calculation says you've got 7, does that match up?
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by anonfornoreason on Friday September 10, 2021 @04:00PM
(#28486267)
It’s more about what our annual app fees to Apple are, 1.2mm. We have diverse revenue streams so the correlation between Apple revenue and salaries isn’t apparent.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by mcphage on Friday September 10, 2021 @08:45PM
(#28488448)
Uh, if the correlation between Apple revenue and salaries isn’t apparent, then how are you sure Apple dropping their take will provide you with 4 new salaries?
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by anonfornoreason on Friday September 10, 2021 @09:08PM
(#28488572)
Sorry I might have been confusing you, I was only referencing the reverse calculation of current mobile devs on team. We would hire four people, maybe five, and distribute some to mobile some to backend.
I would absolutely take all the savings from the fee drop and hire as many people as it allowed, napkin calculations says that’s between four and five for me.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by mcphage on Saturday September 11, 2021 @02:15AM
(#28489780)
Ah, that makes sense—thanks.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by kllrnohj on Friday September 10, 2021 @01:07PM
(#28484423)
The win would be that you're actually able to sign up for more things in the iOS ecosystem that you previously weren't able to, like Netflix or Spotify.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by veilrap on Friday September 10, 2021 @07:26PM
(#28487989)
You can already sign up through Safari on iOS to those services. And besides signing up to that sort of subscription is a one time thing.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by solarmist on Friday September 10, 2021 @12:11PM
(#28483596)
No, and it wasn’t meant to. It was meant to let companies keep more and give Apple less. That’s all.
In all likely hood things will get worse for consumers. I will definite not buy apps requiring custom payment platforms. Hopefully it’ll settle on stripe companies will offer multiple payment methods rather than trying to force their own.
I look forward to it making Apple lower its IAP fees for everyone. I’d still like to use their infrastructure, but without the enormous fees (15% for small devs is still huge).
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case
by cush on Friday September 10, 2021 @05:45PM
(#28487249)
Right. I bet this will be huge for companies like Stripe, Square, and Shopify.