29K views · Sep 11, 2021 · 2:26:22 · 3 HN recommenders · 5 mentions · discussed 2021–2022
Hoeg Law's Virtual Legality walks through the 185-page Epic v. Apple decision, covering antitrust law, relevant markets, anti-steering and who actually won. It runs well over two hours and corrects common media misreadings.
Why Hacker News points people here: Strongly recommended as the best explanation of the ruling, in more depth and with more accuracy than press coverage.
“I'd suggest watching the excellent video by Hoeg Law.”HN comment, 2021
“I'd suggest watching the excellent video by Hoeg Law.”
Detailed ruling walkthrough noting where media coverage was wrong.
I'd suggest watching the excellent video by Hoeg Law. He has followed the case from the outset and goes through the ruling in intricate detail. Even within the first few minutes he starts noting how much of the media coverage is wrong or overstated. this video
“HoagLaw offers a two and a half hour summary of the 185 page judgement”
Two and a half hour summary of the 185 page judgement.
If you're willing to wade through a very long YouTube video, HoagLaw offers a two and a half hour summary of the 185 page judgement: this video
“I also recommend those interested to watch the first 4 minutes of the Hoeg Law video and even the whole video”
In-depth look at the trial correcting media misinformation.
Precisely. As I and many others already highlighted it is not over yet and they are both likely going to appeal this. The media outright jumped into conclusions with their headlines and caused this hype of misinformation to spread very quickly and now we have to cut thought it and correct the wrongs they reported. I also recommend those interested to watch the first 4 minutes of the Hoeg Law video and even the whole video for an in depth look into the trial. [0] [0] this video
“it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth”
Explains the ruling in full depth, countering media spin.
Absolutely correct. The Verge and other media reporters continues to omit this important note from the ruling itself from [0]: Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional [0] (p68) Seems like The Verge loves to spin their way into misinformation since they know that the majority of readers won't read the ruling text at all. For those that don't have time, it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth. [1] [0] link [1] this video
“There's an excellent overview of the US Federal court's 180 page decision on Youtube, but it's rather long.”
Excellent overview of the decision, though long; summary in first 15 minutes.
There's an excellent overview of the US Federal court's 180 page decision on Youtube, but it's rather long. The diction is good, so it's still understandable when set to run at a faster speed. The first 15 minutes is a summary and the balance of the video is a more detailed look. this video TL;DW, the judge makes it clear that Apple can still charge a cut even if developers use someone else's payment system. She also hints strongly that Epic screwed up by not challenging the size of Apple's cut instead of challenging their right to take a cut.
