Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by ethbr0 on Friday September 10, 2021 @01:21PM (#28484589)

Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market.

The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of everything together, so that nothing can be independently valued.

"30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide you", etc.

Edit: As an example, in the US this is mandated for home mortgages. "These are services you can shop for" + "These are charges for each service". Any platform having to offer the equivalent of a Closing Disclosure / HUD-1 doesn't seem like such a bad world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by ChrisLomont on Friday September 10, 2021 @05:00PM (#28486836)

>The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market.

Historically line itemization makes it harder, not easier, for users to understand what they're being charged for. Compare Verizon versus Google fi statements, for example. The complexity hidden in all those fees confuses people, and let's Verizon (and others) claim monthly fees are X in ads, then listing that fee as X, then tacking on a lot of line items that make the actual payment much more.

Be careful what you wish for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by Spivak on Friday September 10, 2021 @01:53PM (#28484984)

I mean you also assume that it will be line-item'd instead of "give us 30% of your revenue made through iOS" in the ToS to publish an app which has any paid features or content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by ethbr0 on Friday September 10, 2021 @03:13PM (#28485842)

At least then, we'd be honest that it's extortion.

[ Parent | on HN ]