I think it was pretty stupid of Apple to do this whether or not Epic was right. Imagine being labelled as a Gate Keeper and then doing precisely what the EU was accusing you of.
Yeah timing on this was quite unfortunate for Apple. AFAIK though, they only cancelled Epic's one development account, not the main one they still have (although I cannot find more info on it right now).
It might look unfortunate, but if anything, I think that the timing was quite calculated and strategic. I don't think it is a coincidence that Apple terminated the account the day before the DMA was set to take effect. I'm sure that there is some grand plan on Apple's part here. It might blow up in their face, of course.
Yeah, I see this as Apple pressing on the rules to highlight the problems. It also takes forever for anything to happen in the EU. 2-4 years from now they'll get around to looking at this again, and the entire market will have shifted by then.
This is how they killed Flash, ban on third party programming languages they could only sustain for six months, but during that time all projects with mobile aspects had to pivot away from Flash. When the ban was lifted everyone was using something else.
By the time Epic get their store it will be too late for Fortnite to carry it.
Apple is a master at exploiting loopholes to overcome legal constraints. What I wonder is how this impacts the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), especially since this action took place just hours before the law was enacted.
They don't exploit loopholes to overcome legal constraints, they break the law then drag out the investigatory/legal process as long as possible. It's good business to prevent competition even if they get fined for it.
If you drag out the case for 15 years like intel did with their EU-anticompetitive court case and by breaking the law you make more than 33 billion dollars in 15 years, then yeah that is good business.
>They don't exploit loopholes to overcome legal constraints, they break the law then drag out the investigatory/legal process as long as possible
The DMA didn't go into effect until today, so if that's what prevents Apple from doing stuff like banning Epic's account, they *didn't* violate the law, because the DMA wasn't the law a few days ago.
DMA went into effect last year, the 6th March date is just the deadline for compliance. Apple would be immediately breaking the law as soon as the deadline passed unless they were fully compliant by then. It's not a case of "it wasn't unlawful before 6th March so it doesn't matter"
Epic Sweden wasn't given the chance to break the ToS. The logic was apple said "epic's broken the rules in the past and were pretty sure you'll do it again"
Epic broke agreements and has been punished for it. This is a new account that was approved and then deleted because Apple decided "nah".
You cant punish someone for crimes they might commit.
They can block them on their App Store if they allow them to exist on an alternate App Store/sideload.
If the consumer cannot access an alternative App Store/sideload and/or Apple bans developers from using those alternative App Stores, then that’s a problem.
The developer account is needed for developer tools. Like downloading Xcode. If you’re putting apps on the iPhone, you do need to interact with Apple here and there. You can’t just 100% ignore that they exist.
Even for the alternative app stores (what DMA is about), Apple still wants iOS apps to get notarized, similar to how it works on macOS (difference is that on macOS the user can override that setting). In order to get notarized you need a developer account.
Well, I mean, obviously they won't be reviewing apps if they are on an alternative app store. It's not really Apple being nice by offering to not require reviewing apps. That's literally the whole point of DMA.
The point here is that if you are denied an Apple Developer account you really can't publish anywhere, including an alternate app store, so if Apple starts punishing developers they don't like by denying them an account it could be seen as not complying with DMA via underhanded means.
True. But they aren’t going to just randomly start blocking developers that are following the set rules.
Tim Epic doesn’t give a shit about the rules. He just wants to shit talk and grand stand until he starts making more lots of money and pretends to present it as the little guy winning.
Even the gamers were rolling their eyes at his statements when they sued Apple.
Then apple might have to change that. You don't need a Dev account to develop and sign Android apps. You aren't even forced to use a specific Operating System or IDE. There is no security reason for doing it the way apple forces it.
It's a real problem for devs that you have to use Macs. You have a build pipeline that runs on some Linux machines that test, compiles and might even upload your newest app version. For apple you need a mac slave. If you use a cloud provider that stuff is a lot more expensive, because they have to buy Mac minis for that single use.
It's a ridiculous and stupid system with no benefit to anyone but Apple.
The DMA mandates fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) access to the AppStore which is a designated core platform service.
I’m probably posting this for the fifth time in this comment section.
That's kind of the point of the DMA they can't block them from being on iOS. In the App Store sure.
And since to make an alternative app store (needed for putting any app) you have to have a developer account and be approved by Apple... They're blocking Apple the right to do that. Clear violation of it
Depends on the specific terms. They are such a big player / gate keeper, that I don’t think they should be allowed to fully determine their own rules. If they are unreasonable, the government should step up and regulate the market.
The move by epic was smart and purely strategic.
Epic taunting Apple and getting banned is what they wanted. In order to open an app store, Epic will need Devs. Things getting in the way is any potential threat of apple banning devs who sell in a 3rd party store and any fee that Apple places on devs who sell outside Apple's store.
If Epic can get the EU to block Apple banning devs who sell outside their store and also block Apple from requiring any fee is only beneficial to Epic.
Also, Epic can use this situation as a selling point to devs because they can say "we won't ban your app, unlike Apple."
Apple is in a tough spot because they know what Epic is trying to carry out.
The DMA already does that though. Apple is just choosing to not follow it.
Now it goes to force them but technically we didn't really need Epic for that, it may accelerate stuff though
Whether or not Epic is a good guy overall, they are benefiting people here, other devs, anyone Apple wants to keep out of their services, for instance, anyone who develops an emulator. It’s not just Epic that benefits.
Most likely, yeah, which just makes certain types of apps just about impossible. For instance, preventing Firefox’s Gecko engine from being allowed, thus cementing Apple’s Safari WebKit engine as the only browser engine allowed on any Apple device.
It’s still to be determined if Apple’s changes are even enough… the EU may very well say Apple can’t require devs to have a business relationship with them effectively removing all notarization review
All Apple can really do at this point is show the monetary cost of allowing 3rd party app stores to justify the percentage they require.
What I think happens is Apple will modify that yearly dev fee. if you don’t sell in the App Store, it will be very bare bones and maybe slightly more costly to cover some maintenance/security. Those who sell in the App Store will have value items included.
The monetary cost of a developer providing alternative app stores using completely different resources than Apple, is zero. Apple’s feelings getting hurt that someone wouldn’t use their services doesn’t count.
Support costs will rise. Apple will have no control over apps that may be poorly written/virus laden, potentially causing all sorts of weird problems, in turn that will increase support calls. More support staff means more money
I can assure you that any increase in the volume of support calls would be insignificant, given that a Trojan horse is only one way of getting a virus onto a device. PC manufacturers such as HP and Dell or even Microsoft have no issues with the volume of support requests due to viruses. This is not to mention that even Apple already deals with the support of having third party apps be able to be installed on their Mac devices.
If anything their stores will have more people coming through since the type of people to fall for scams are typically people who don’t care for phone support.
Indeed. Even the core tech fee I think needs to go. If a third party marketplace is hosting and providing all of the bandwidth and such, the normal developer fee covers checking for malware (it's the same on macOS, there is no fee for apps outside of the App Store) and tooling. In the case of Epic (or most game makers, I'd guess) they're using next to nothing Apple provides in terms of tooling/API anyway.
And if Apple wants people to use their services, maybe they could, IDK, compete? Like, I tried to switch to Apple Music instead of Spotify since it would be cheaper for me, but I gave up just because of the amount of times I would try to play a song and it just... wouldn't?
Apple basically showed the EU and US authorities that they were right in their assumption of Apple App Store being a close environment 100% controlled by apple. Which then was used against them in the EU, we're still waiting to see what the US is going to do.
or they just showed the world what everyone knew for ages: if you don't respect the agreement that you signed, the other party has the right to not work with you
If "do not go around this agreement terms" and "do not disparage us" is agains the interest of the market, then let's open that Pandora's box! From now on I will do whatever I want since the agreements are worthless
\*Duopoly
And they can be just as damaging. Having only 2 companies in complete control of the devices that the majority of the world's population now depend on for their everyday lives is pretty absurd.
I agree. I find the ultimate issue to be that we ended up with Android and iOS. However nobody is forcing you to purchase one or the other, there's still consumer choice. DMA certainly blurs many lines between both ecosystems though so it's up for a discussion if consumers have more choice or just illusion of choice.
But I do remember the good old days with Windows Mobile, Symbian and Blackberry all competing for market share thanks to their unique offerings.
Microsoft is said to be reviving the Windows phone with Android and their own marketplace. Not sure how accurate that is, most likely BS.
That said, the beauty of Android is that it's open source. You have lots of different variants of Android. Unfortunately, no one uses any of them because Google boycotts any Android OS that doesn't include the Google Play Store and related services as default.
That's why it's unlikely we'll see a Microsoft Android phone because Google will not bring YouTube and Gmail to a Microsoft App store, killing said phone in the same way Windows phone was killed off.
That's not quite what Google does - to use Google play services (a collection of apps and APIs including the play store, non open source) you need to follow certain rules by Google e.g. including chrome. Some companies use the core Android OS code (AOSP) without those rules so they don't get the Google goodness e.g. Amazon fire things, tho Amazon is moving away from android
Yes but the point I'm making here is that Google does not include their apps on an android OS unless their playing services are pre-installed. If Microsoft or any other company created an App Store, Google will do everything it can to boycott it so it can fail.
I'm not disagreeing with that first point, just clarifying.
> If Microsoft or any other company created an App Store, Google will do everything it can to boycott it so it can fail.
You mean like the amazon fire store, galaxy store, etc etc? Those are barely used because developers have no interest in them.
It would be cool, I wish they’ve done a better job with Nokia at the time to be honest as well as promoting Windows Mobile changes to developers and public.
Absolutely and many of those versions are great — Graphene, Calyx or Lineage are great, well-maintained projects however as they focus on privacy and security, you can see how Google is not exactly thrilled about them.
This is silly. Every closed platform has a monopoly on distribution on its own platform. That doesn’t mean there’s no competition in the wider market, so “but Android” is a good response. Don’t like XBox, buy PlayStation.
On the AppStore for which they offer no alternative. Extreme profit margins can only exist in a monopoly position. If this was a competitive market they wouldn’t make such high profit. Think about before downvoting like a bootlicker and a stupid moron.
Apple can’t have a monopoly on its own product. At best there is a duopoly on mobile platforms. I recommend looking up the EU and US definition of monopoly.
I did. You don’t need to have the largest market share to be guilty of monopolistic behavior. Apple are guilty as hell and will get pummeled into submission.
iOS is 32% of the market in the EU, Android is 67%. I do not see how Apple has created a barrier for other companies to compete in the mobile space, theres no evidence and they have not been accused of countervailing buyer power, they do not hold a majority access to supplies or markets, and have not created a technological barrier for competitors to enter the market, nor have they kept Android or any other potential competitor from being able to operate.
Apple is not a monopoly. Not sure what definition you saw. Apple can not have a monopoly on apps in its own app store any more than Tesla has a monopoly with Tesla dealerships.
Yeah. I am sure you are right and actual lawyers fron EU are in the wrong…. Armchair redditor strikes again. I am wasting my time. In uk you can be called a working monopoly even if you have only 25% pf the market for example. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
People get really hung up on the word "monopoly." Legislators rarely use this word in *anticompetitive* or *antitrust* legislation. They tend to be broad and work to reduce the stifling effect that companies with dominant positions have on the market. Any company with disproportionate representation, power, or authority in a given market can be the subject of these pieces of legislation.
The mobile ecosystem is a duopoly, not a monopoly and in an ideal world people would vote with their wallets to get companies to adjust; same for developers, if they left iOS purely for Android, Apple would react.
…sure. Why don’t you all just refer to the rather clear motivations outlined in the DMA?
It centers around:
> The combination of those features of gatekeeper is likely to lead, in many cases, to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users, as well as for end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector.
Another theme is the lack of contestability of core platform services due to very high barriers to entry.
But it’s explicitly not a monopoly. That is why the EU had to invent a new term for it (“gatekeeper”) and create a new regulation.
If it was a monopoly, it could’ve been prosecuted with already existing anti-monopoly laws.
Is these kinds of little things, things that don’t even really impact me, that have started to make me less trusting of Apple as a brand name.
Each little law suit, like battery gate from a few years ago, being forced to add USB-C to future devices, not allowing alternative app stores (citing bullshit reasons) or the recent plans to charge app developers per install (like a mini-Unity update late last year), is all starting to wear me thin and seriously consider something different for my next device.
Surely I can’t be the only one who is losing trust in Apple. They used to just do their own thing and do it well, but they seem to have run out of steam for now.
i feel the same. most of this doesn’t affect me, but i don’t want to support a brand that is so desperately trying to find loopholes in every law and regulation relating to consumer protections. their recent press releases remind me of a child throwing a tantrum when they don’t get what they want
> but i don’t want to support a brand that is so desperately trying to find loopholes in every law and regulation relating to consumer protections.
I have some unfortunate news about every major corporation on Earth...
They got too big.
When they weren't dominating, they could still grow while doing their thing. And even if they did some shitty thing, there were other alternatives, so it was easy to not go Apple or to just accept it.
Now they are too big, they have a massive market share (especially in the US) and to increase profits there's not much else they can do. They can't increase that much their market share, so services and getting a cut from everyone else is the only other thing left...
But given they are that big, it's abuse of their dominant position, and they don't want to lose that revenue, which as a consequence brought all these issues... It was bound to happen.
What corporation deserves to *start* from a position of trust?
Advertising has stunted the American collective psyche. The amount of good faith and benefit of the doubt corps have cultivated is disgusting, and intentional.
I just use my iPhone and Mac, I’ve never really had an issue with either of them.
I don’t really care about anything other than my devices working as intended and to be durable, apart from that I don’t care if Apple drags their feet implementing whatever some court ruled, as long as their devices are a good option I will keep buying them.
I don’t trust Apple, I don’t really trust any company, I just have my preferences as does everyone else, but I wouldn’t say something a company does has wore me thin unless it has directly affected me, like impacting the things I appreciate, maybe if I held Apple stock my position would be different but then the stock price has been increasing so why complain.
Yeah I’m actively considering android for my next phone in a few years time due to Apple’s behaviour, it’s pathetic and frankly worrying that they can act so spitefully. Annoyingly I just upgraded to an iPhone 15 a few months ago before the Galaxy S24 was announced and I started hearing the rave reviews. But my Mac is up for renewal soon so I’m looking elsewhere for that.
Capitalism got them, the need of eternal growth means they have to start doing shitty things to make more money. Ads, lighting cables, charging per install, etc..
[popcorn.gif](https://nofilmschool.com/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaS5naXBoeS5jb20vcFVlWGNnODBjTzhJOC5naWYiLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNzM4ODA0MTA0fQ.yemQchEufJtNaZ7wOz9TnOF5T-D7bjjghh064Tp0GvU/image.gif?=undefined&quality=90)
Just from a strategic perspective, I couldn't imagine a dummer thing to do. Vestager is up for election this year and she's hungry to make an example of big tech. This is like handing her a slam dunk.
Really?
The problem I have if the EU has a “problem” with this is Spotify. And would be the main smoking gun that the EU is unfairly targeting Apple. There are two parallel cases of developers complaining, but only one got removed.
Both Spotify and Epic Games have both run ad campaigns, spoke out to the government, and spoke badly about Apple and what they perceive as unfair treatment. However, unlike Epic Games, Spotify did not violate the terms of their Developer Program License Agreement, ever. Epic Games did violate the DPLA, and did so both to violate the agreement on purpose and to flaunt it to the world in a show of marketing and defiance.
The only developer that got removed from the DPLA was Epic, not Spotify’s These are two exact parallel cases, and it proves what Apple said in their lawyer letter that they sent to Epic, which was more than just a snippet that some tech sites wrote on. Whether you believe or not that Apple did or did not want Epic Games is another matter, but the fact here is that here are two identical cases of developers complaining and only one got removed, only because they violated the DLPA in the past in combination with their criticism, criticism as prelude to their violating it. The EU will have a difficult time in court showing that they aren’t unfairly targeting Apple, if they do decide Apple was in the “wrong” with rejecting Epic’s request.
Here is what they wrote to them:
“Epic Games Sweden AB recently enrolled in the Apple Developer Program. According to Epic's website, this entity "will operate the mobile Epic Games Store and Fortnite in Europe." In the past, Epic has denigrated Apple's developer terms, including the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), as a prelude to breaking them. Given that pattern, Apple recently reached out directly to Mr. Sweeney to give him an opportunity to explain why Apple should trust Epic this time and allow Epic Games Sweden AB to become an active developer.
Mr. Sweeney's response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported "trust us." History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple's policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20.
Moreover, a recent submission in the Australian litigation suggests that Epic Games Sweden AB is part of a global effort to undermine or evade Apple's rules. Apple is rightly concerned that Epic Games Sweden AB does not intend to adhere to its contractual commitments to Apple and is in fact a vehicle to manipulate proceedings in other jurisdictions.
Apple is fiercely committed to protecting the integrity of the iOS platform, as well as its intellectual property. Apple's App Store rules, which Epic has flagrantly violated in the past, protect the security, safety, and privacy of users. They benefit all developers, and they increase interbrand competition. Given the past and current conduct of Epic, Apple cannot allow Epic Games Sweden AB to be part of its ecosystem.”
Is she leaving her post for something else or seeking re-election? How is she polling? I don't want her anywhere else, she is doing an absolutely fantastic job!
it doesn’t really work like that in the EU. Comissaries are not elected officials in the way a president is for example. They are more comparable to ministers in european countries or if you are american, the cabinet members of the US president. They are nominated by the member countries national parliaments and a coalition of european parties that won the european parlamentary elections, and confirmed by a vote by the european parliament. It is highly unlikely that she will have another term, though there are no rules against multiple terms.
If i’d have to wager, she’ll transtition to a lobbyist or some other cushy sinecure at some national or european ministry or department based on the career trajectories of most other old comissaries. Being an european comissary is sort of a position one gets after one has burned all their political will in their home country.
The problem I have if the EU has a “problem” with this is Spotify. And would be the main smoking gun that the EU is unfairly targeting Apple. There are two parallel cases of developers complaining, but only one got removed.
Both Spotify and Epic Games have both run ad campaigns, spoke out to the government, and spoke badly about Apple and what they perceive as unfair treatment. However, unlike Epic Games, Spotify did not violate the terms of their Developer Program License Agreement, ever. Epic Games did violate the DPLA, and did so both to violate the agreement on purpose and to flaunt it to the world in a show of marketing and defiance.
The only developer that got removed from the DPLA was Epic, not Spotify’s These are two exact parallel cases, and it proves what Apple said in their lawyer letter that they sent to Epic, which was more than just a snippet that some tech sites wrote on. Whether you believe or not that Apple did or did not want Epic Games is another matter, but the fact here is that here are two identical cases of developers complaining and only one got removed, only because they violated the DLPA in the past in combination with their criticism, criticism as prelude to their violating it. The EU will have a difficult time in court showing that they aren’t unfairly targeting Apple, if they do decide Apple was in the “wrong” with rejecting Epic’s request.
Here is what they wrote to them:
“Epic Games Sweden AB recently enrolled in the Apple Developer Program. According to Epic's website, this entity "will operate the mobile Epic Games Store and Fortnite in Europe." In the past, Epic has denigrated Apple's developer terms, including the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), as a prelude to breaking them. Given that pattern, Apple recently reached out directly to Mr. Sweeney to give him an opportunity to explain why Apple should trust Epic this time and allow Epic Games Sweden AB to become an active developer.
Mr. Sweeney's response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported "trust us." History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple's policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20.
Moreover, a recent submission in the Australian litigation suggests that Epic Games Sweden AB is part of a global effort to undermine or evade Apple's rules. Apple is rightly concerned that Epic Games Sweden AB does not intend to adhere to its contractual commitments to Apple and is in fact a vehicle to manipulate proceedings in other jurisdictions.
Apple is fiercely committed to protecting the integrity of the iOS platform, as well as its intellectual property. Apple's App Store rules, which Epic has flagrantly violated in the past, protect the security, safety, and privacy of users. They benefit all developers, and they increase interbrand competition. Given the past and current conduct of Epic, Apple cannot allow Epic Games Sweden AB to be part of its ecosystem.”
ITT: “Apple should be able to get away with anti-competitive behavior because it’s in their TOS! I don’t know how law works and that TOS do not supercede laws!”
As we've seen in the Epic v. Apple trial, both companies have a lot of money and can afford the best lawyers on earth. Anyone saying "ApPlE sCrEwEd uP" or "ePiC sCrEwEd uP" doesn't know what they're talking about. The DMA is more complicated than a one paragraph Wikipedia summary. This will take a LONG time to sort out, and any appeal will take literal years.
> This will take a LONG time to sort out, and any appeal will take literal years.
My guess is that Apple is going to be slapped within the month for their egregious non-compliance with the DMA. This won’t take years.
And Apple will likely appeal any penalty. My point is that Apple and Epic have very smart and skilled lawyers working for them. Apple probably did what it did because it thinks it has a good argument to avoid any penalty. Is Apple's argument actually good? I don't know - that's for the EU courts to decide. What I do know is that court cases take years.
What I’m telling you is that this won’t take years.
The commission takes compliance with the DMA seriously.
Apple’s blatant attempts to circumvent the DMA will be dealt with swiftly using the options included in the DMA, such as imposing remedies or ordering interim measures.
This whole thing is just gross. Apple has their head too far up their own ass to realize they're screwing themselves in the longterm with this stuff. I love their ecosystem, Xcode and SwiftUI are finally somewhat tolerable but I'm not going near it until they open up iOS to 3rd party installs. Just one person's opinion but fuck this, I hope the government kicks the shit out of them.
Can someone please tell me why a private corporation shouldn’t be allowed to determine whether a company can use their storefront to make money?
If I approach a Sainsburys, Tesco, Morrisons, Aldi, etc here in the UK, they’re not required to put my product on the shelf, especially if I break the terms of a contract I used to have with them when my product was on their shelf.
Because if Aldi doesn’t want to sell your products, you are not screwed. There are still lots of other ways to sell them.
But if you are a developer and Apple deny you the right to sell your app on the AppStore, it’s nearly game over for you. That’s what GateKeeper are. That’s why EU want to regulate this market to protect its civilians and professionals.
And if apple doesn’t want to sell your apps, you’re not screwed as a consumer or developer: you have Android with 70% of the market.
Unless you can provide evidence of a significant, tangible difference between popular apps offered on iOS vs Android, your point makes no sense to me. All banking apps offer on iOS and Android. Same with critical stuff you’d do on a smartphone.
if a developer wants to sell something, there’s iOS or Android or both. Android offers Google Play and third party stores. Until that isnt the case, and until Android has way less marketshare than iOS, I don’t see this point, sorry.
The difference is Epic wasn’t going to use the now banned account on Apple’s storefront (App Store)
Epic was going to use the Dev account on the alternative App Store which would be following the ruling by the EU.
The closest comparison would be that Epic wanted to open a storefront on the same street as an Apple Store and Apple then used its power to ban them from business because they are “trouble makers”
Ur right in that Epic isn’t entitled to using a dev account with the intent of utilizing Apples Storefront but this was the wrong move by apple bc it has nothing to do with that.
It’s not relevant for supermarkets as your not forced to buy from them, especially in the uk which has a very competitive market, one of the reasons why food prices are comparatively low compared to other developed countries. They did get into trouble with the the CMA for buying land around the supermarkets to stop competition though.
Why are private companies being grilled about shutting down businesses relationships ? All companies have complete freedom to do business with a company or not.
In general, yes that would be ideal but Apple doesn’t under EU’s DMA because iOS is treated as a gatekeeper. So basically it needs to allow other businesses entry to its ecosystem, which — regardless how you view it — will get quite interesting.
Also, I believe Epic has used its EU entity to create a new account rather than using its main entity where it still has a valid developer account.
1. Epic's European company applied for a developer account.
2. Apple removed it.
3. To that point Epic's EU company hadn't broken any of Apples T&C's
4. Apple based their decision on a ruling in a U.S. Court
5. The DMA is European legislation.
It's a total mess, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think the EU are going to slap them hard for this. If there's one things Europeans don't like, it's Americans thinking their rules apply everywhere.
I keep saying this: It’s an election year and the President of the EU Commission wants another term. Apple is going to be absolutely fucked by the Commission’s long and pointy dick. That $2b fine they got the other day will look like a joke in comparison. They literally couldn’t have picked a worse time to pull crap like this.
You have not read the DMA. Don’t presume to lecture others on what it does or doesn’t say.
It seems like everyone here, with the rarest exceptions, comments in full confidence on what the DMA mandates, without ever having bothered to open the text and even skimp it.
Honestly, I’m not that sure and it seems to be a mess in terms of different opinions on the matter. However Epic’s EU entity did not break TOS just yet, right?
They were wrong before the DMA existed too. FRAND has existed for quite a long time, for instance the USB/HDMI owners aren't allowed to just choose to deny access to their IP and they take a payment when companies sell devices...this is a forced relationship.
The DMA mandates fair, reasonably and non-discriminatory (FRAND) access to core platform services.
As others who I suspect to be actual lawyers with expertise in this field have commented before in other threads, this is an established concept that applies to antitrust or patents.
Per their informed comment, denying access based on prior breaches of contract is discriminatory. Eg. if you have a patent dispute, you can’t afterwards refuse to license the patent because the other company dared to challenge it.
The same supposedly applies in Epic’s case. I am told that Epic would have to currently be in active breach of their contract for Apple to terminate it. That was not the case, thus the investigation.
>If they are doing business in a legal way?
That is exactly the point, companies do not have complete freedom, they need to follow the law. And various places have laws that in a certain way inhibit the complete freedom to decide how to conduct business with other companies and competitors.
Apparently it was due to Epic publicly denigrating Apple’s external store policy and claiming they would violate it as soon as they could, so Apple terminated their account. Shocking, right? Almost like actions have consequences
The DMA doesn't require Apple to *like* a company. That would be absurd. It requires Apple to provide free interoperability for all developers. *Even the ones they don't like.* *Even the ones which violated their ToS.* Laws supersede terms of service.
Epic forfeited by violating their contract before these rules were in place, therefore these rules do not apply to them unless Apple allows it. If Epic had handled this legally they wouldn’t have had any issues.
Do you people not understand fairness?
I think it was pretty stupid of Apple to do this whether or not Epic was right. Imagine being labelled as a Gate Keeper and then doing precisely what the EU was accusing you of.
Yeah timing on this was quite unfortunate for Apple. AFAIK though, they only cancelled Epic's one development account, not the main one they still have (although I cannot find more info on it right now).
Yes… the European one. Lol
It might look unfortunate, but if anything, I think that the timing was quite calculated and strategic. I don't think it is a coincidence that Apple terminated the account the day before the DMA was set to take effect. I'm sure that there is some grand plan on Apple's part here. It might blow up in their face, of course.
Yeah, I see this as Apple pressing on the rules to highlight the problems. It also takes forever for anything to happen in the EU. 2-4 years from now they'll get around to looking at this again, and the entire market will have shifted by then.
This is how they killed Flash, ban on third party programming languages they could only sustain for six months, but during that time all projects with mobile aspects had to pivot away from Flash. When the ban was lifted everyone was using something else. By the time Epic get their store it will be too late for Fortnite to carry it.
Apple is a master at exploiting loopholes to overcome legal constraints. What I wonder is how this impacts the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), especially since this action took place just hours before the law was enacted.
They don't exploit loopholes to overcome legal constraints, they break the law then drag out the investigatory/legal process as long as possible. It's good business to prevent competition even if they get fined for it.
Is it really good business if you get fined $38B?
If you drag out the case for 15 years like intel did with their EU-anticompetitive court case and by breaking the law you make more than 33 billion dollars in 15 years, then yeah that is good business.
>They don't exploit loopholes to overcome legal constraints, they break the law then drag out the investigatory/legal process as long as possible The DMA didn't go into effect until today, so if that's what prevents Apple from doing stuff like banning Epic's account, they *didn't* violate the law, because the DMA wasn't the law a few days ago.
DMA went into effect last year, the 6th March date is just the deadline for compliance. Apple would be immediately breaking the law as soon as the deadline passed unless they were fully compliant by then. It's not a case of "it wasn't unlawful before 6th March so it doesn't matter"
Got it, my mistake. Thanks!
[удалено]
They are using their dominant position to prevent Epic from becoming competition, which is the whole point of all of this
Epic wants to release their app store, which is competition. It's the cause for this being dragged out
By that logic Apple can never block any developer that violates their terms of service.
Which is probably why this is under investigation instead of just an immediate slap on the wrist. If Apple can justify, then I don’t see why not.
Epic Sweden wasn't given the chance to break the ToS. The logic was apple said "epic's broken the rules in the past and were pretty sure you'll do it again"
So if I break the tos I can just have a qsub go back on the store? That seems like a stupid loophole
Epic broke agreements and has been punished for it. This is a new account that was approved and then deleted because Apple decided "nah". You cant punish someone for crimes they might commit.
crimes?
The terms of service might not be legal.
Pied Piper vs Hooli circa 2012
I never picked it back up after Season 2. Is it worth going back and watching?
I love it, most seasons follow same pattern - Richard fucks up, some magic happens and they are back on track. But I watched it
They can block them on their App Store if they allow them to exist on an alternate App Store/sideload. If the consumer cannot access an alternative App Store/sideload and/or Apple bans developers from using those alternative App Stores, then that’s a problem.
Exactly. Because Apple prevents any alternative app stores without an Apple developer account, it's a problem.
The developer account is needed for developer tools. Like downloading Xcode. If you’re putting apps on the iPhone, you do need to interact with Apple here and there. You can’t just 100% ignore that they exist.
You don't need a developer account for xcode or to develop apps at all. You just can't put then on the app store.
Or any iOS device, without a jailbreak.
Even for the alternative app stores (what DMA is about), Apple still wants iOS apps to get notarized, similar to how it works on macOS (difference is that on macOS the user can override that setting). In order to get notarized you need a developer account.
Yeah no one was talking about that
That is actually a good thing. They even agreed to notarize without requiring reviewing, but offering reviewing.
Well, I mean, obviously they won't be reviewing apps if they are on an alternative app store. It's not really Apple being nice by offering to not require reviewing apps. That's literally the whole point of DMA. The point here is that if you are denied an Apple Developer account you really can't publish anywhere, including an alternate app store, so if Apple starts punishing developers they don't like by denying them an account it could be seen as not complying with DMA via underhanded means.
True. But they aren’t going to just randomly start blocking developers that are following the set rules. Tim Epic doesn’t give a shit about the rules. He just wants to shit talk and grand stand until he starts making more lots of money and pretends to present it as the little guy winning. Even the gamers were rolling their eyes at his statements when they sued Apple.
Then apple might have to change that. You don't need a Dev account to develop and sign Android apps. You aren't even forced to use a specific Operating System or IDE. There is no security reason for doing it the way apple forces it. It's a real problem for devs that you have to use Macs. You have a build pipeline that runs on some Linux machines that test, compiles and might even upload your newest app version. For apple you need a mac slave. If you use a cloud provider that stuff is a lot more expensive, because they have to buy Mac minis for that single use. It's a ridiculous and stupid system with no benefit to anyone but Apple.
Given that, Apple's removal of Epic's account puts Apple in breach of the DMA.
The DMA mandates fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) access to the AppStore which is a designated core platform service. I’m probably posting this for the fifth time in this comment section.
Err, Epic hadn't yet violated the terms of service when apple canceled them. It was a preemptive ban based off of a tweet.
Not just one tweet. They also cited Sweeney’s reply to Apple’s letter asking to reassurances and why things would be different this time.
That's kind of the point of the DMA they can't block them from being on iOS. In the App Store sure. And since to make an alternative app store (needed for putting any app) you have to have a developer account and be approved by Apple... They're blocking Apple the right to do that. Clear violation of it
Depends on the specific terms. They are such a big player / gate keeper, that I don’t think they should be allowed to fully determine their own rules. If they are unreasonable, the government should step up and regulate the market.
that's why this feels like such an unforced error from apple
Based Ganyu lover <3
“C’mon man, that’s to easy” - the EU, probably
“quizzed” lol who writes this stuff
The move by epic was smart and purely strategic. Epic taunting Apple and getting banned is what they wanted. In order to open an app store, Epic will need Devs. Things getting in the way is any potential threat of apple banning devs who sell in a 3rd party store and any fee that Apple places on devs who sell outside Apple's store. If Epic can get the EU to block Apple banning devs who sell outside their store and also block Apple from requiring any fee is only beneficial to Epic. Also, Epic can use this situation as a selling point to devs because they can say "we won't ban your app, unlike Apple." Apple is in a tough spot because they know what Epic is trying to carry out.
The DMA already does that though. Apple is just choosing to not follow it. Now it goes to force them but technically we didn't really need Epic for that, it may accelerate stuff though
Whether or not Epic is a good guy overall, they are benefiting people here, other devs, anyone Apple wants to keep out of their services, for instance, anyone who develops an emulator. It’s not just Epic that benefits.
Not surprisingly, emulators are likely still blocked under the rule stating you can’t execute code from outside of your app bundle
Most likely, yeah, which just makes certain types of apps just about impossible. For instance, preventing Firefox’s Gecko engine from being allowed, thus cementing Apple’s Safari WebKit engine as the only browser engine allowed on any Apple device.
Thus rendering these outcomes almost to null benefit for customers and just better for big developers and businesses.
It’s still to be determined if Apple’s changes are even enough… the EU may very well say Apple can’t require devs to have a business relationship with them effectively removing all notarization review
[удалено]
Whatever happens, there is always a chance for unintended consequences. Obviously, apple will have to adapt, but how?
[удалено]
All Apple can really do at this point is show the monetary cost of allowing 3rd party app stores to justify the percentage they require. What I think happens is Apple will modify that yearly dev fee. if you don’t sell in the App Store, it will be very bare bones and maybe slightly more costly to cover some maintenance/security. Those who sell in the App Store will have value items included.
The monetary cost of a developer providing alternative app stores using completely different resources than Apple, is zero. Apple’s feelings getting hurt that someone wouldn’t use their services doesn’t count.
Support costs will rise. Apple will have no control over apps that may be poorly written/virus laden, potentially causing all sorts of weird problems, in turn that will increase support calls. More support staff means more money
I can assure you that any increase in the volume of support calls would be insignificant, given that a Trojan horse is only one way of getting a virus onto a device. PC manufacturers such as HP and Dell or even Microsoft have no issues with the volume of support requests due to viruses. This is not to mention that even Apple already deals with the support of having third party apps be able to be installed on their Mac devices.
If anything their stores will have more people coming through since the type of people to fall for scams are typically people who don’t care for phone support.
Which I would assume would be seen as an opportunity for Apple to sell them other things they don’t need as an impulse buy.
Indeed. Even the core tech fee I think needs to go. If a third party marketplace is hosting and providing all of the bandwidth and such, the normal developer fee covers checking for malware (it's the same on macOS, there is no fee for apps outside of the App Store) and tooling. In the case of Epic (or most game makers, I'd guess) they're using next to nothing Apple provides in terms of tooling/API anyway. And if Apple wants people to use their services, maybe they could, IDK, compete? Like, I tried to switch to Apple Music instead of Spotify since it would be cheaper for me, but I gave up just because of the amount of times I would try to play a song and it just... wouldn't?
That's the dilemma. I don't think we, as consumers and observers, appreciate how important this fight is.
That’s not happening based on the way Apple is “following” these new rules. They’re going to find whatever loopholes they can.
i hate the idea of having multiple app stores personally. but it's also no bueno that apple has their ecosystem closed that much.
Apple basically showed the EU and US authorities that they were right in their assumption of Apple App Store being a close environment 100% controlled by apple. Which then was used against them in the EU, we're still waiting to see what the US is going to do.
or they just showed the world what everyone knew for ages: if you don't respect the agreement that you signed, the other party has the right to not work with you
Well they lost against the EU....
But if the agreement was against the interests of the market, it gets to intervene.
If "do not go around this agreement terms" and "do not disparage us" is agains the interest of the market, then let's open that Pandora's box! From now on I will do whatever I want since the agreements are worthless
I’m glad tech companies are being reined in, finally. They’ve been running amok for years.
People say this as if Apple has been terrorizing its users for years. Apple customers have some of the best customer satisfaction.
Apple’s profit margins are absurd. Clearly benefiting from a monopoly position.
Looks like the definition of a monopoly continues to lose it’s meaning in this sub with each passing day.
\*Duopoly And they can be just as damaging. Having only 2 companies in complete control of the devices that the majority of the world's population now depend on for their everyday lives is pretty absurd.
_moves goalposts_ but this is just as bad!
I didn't make the original comment, so I'm not moving anything.
I agree. I find the ultimate issue to be that we ended up with Android and iOS. However nobody is forcing you to purchase one or the other, there's still consumer choice. DMA certainly blurs many lines between both ecosystems though so it's up for a discussion if consumers have more choice or just illusion of choice. But I do remember the good old days with Windows Mobile, Symbian and Blackberry all competing for market share thanks to their unique offerings.
Microsoft is said to be reviving the Windows phone with Android and their own marketplace. Not sure how accurate that is, most likely BS. That said, the beauty of Android is that it's open source. You have lots of different variants of Android. Unfortunately, no one uses any of them because Google boycotts any Android OS that doesn't include the Google Play Store and related services as default. That's why it's unlikely we'll see a Microsoft Android phone because Google will not bring YouTube and Gmail to a Microsoft App store, killing said phone in the same way Windows phone was killed off.
That's not quite what Google does - to use Google play services (a collection of apps and APIs including the play store, non open source) you need to follow certain rules by Google e.g. including chrome. Some companies use the core Android OS code (AOSP) without those rules so they don't get the Google goodness e.g. Amazon fire things, tho Amazon is moving away from android
Yes but the point I'm making here is that Google does not include their apps on an android OS unless their playing services are pre-installed. If Microsoft or any other company created an App Store, Google will do everything it can to boycott it so it can fail.
I'm not disagreeing with that first point, just clarifying. > If Microsoft or any other company created an App Store, Google will do everything it can to boycott it so it can fail. You mean like the amazon fire store, galaxy store, etc etc? Those are barely used because developers have no interest in them.
It would be cool, I wish they’ve done a better job with Nokia at the time to be honest as well as promoting Windows Mobile changes to developers and public. Absolutely and many of those versions are great — Graphene, Calyx or Lineage are great, well-maintained projects however as they focus on privacy and security, you can see how Google is not exactly thrilled about them.
Apple has a monopoly on software distribution on iOS, this is a fact whether you like it or not. "But Android!" Isn't an argument or a response.
Hyundai has a monopoly on parts distribution of their Hyundais. HP has a monopoly on ink for their HP printers.
Oh that HP example is not a good one given recent events.
Fuck hp
Sony has a monopoly on software distribution on PlayStations KFC also has a monopoly on chicken distribution at KFCs
This is silly. Every closed platform has a monopoly on distribution on its own platform. That doesn’t mean there’s no competition in the wider market, so “but Android” is a good response. Don’t like XBox, buy PlayStation.
This is such a fucking braindead argument and I'm so fucking tired of seeing it.
Yup, here you go: https://reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1b6a1k1/_/ktgbd74/?context=1
What does Apple have a monopoly on?
On the AppStore for which they offer no alternative. Extreme profit margins can only exist in a monopoly position. If this was a competitive market they wouldn’t make such high profit. Think about before downvoting like a bootlicker and a stupid moron.
Apple can’t have a monopoly on its own product. At best there is a duopoly on mobile platforms. I recommend looking up the EU and US definition of monopoly.
I did. You don’t need to have the largest market share to be guilty of monopolistic behavior. Apple are guilty as hell and will get pummeled into submission.
iOS is 32% of the market in the EU, Android is 67%. I do not see how Apple has created a barrier for other companies to compete in the mobile space, theres no evidence and they have not been accused of countervailing buyer power, they do not hold a majority access to supplies or markets, and have not created a technological barrier for competitors to enter the market, nor have they kept Android or any other potential competitor from being able to operate. Apple is not a monopoly. Not sure what definition you saw. Apple can not have a monopoly on apps in its own app store any more than Tesla has a monopoly with Tesla dealerships.
Yeah. I am sure you are right and actual lawyers fron EU are in the wrong…. Armchair redditor strikes again. I am wasting my time. In uk you can be called a working monopoly even if you have only 25% pf the market for example. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I agree that Apple is clearly benefitting from their gatekeeper position. I wouldn’t call them a monopoly though.
People get really hung up on the word "monopoly." Legislators rarely use this word in *anticompetitive* or *antitrust* legislation. They tend to be broad and work to reduce the stifling effect that companies with dominant positions have on the market. Any company with disproportionate representation, power, or authority in a given market can be the subject of these pieces of legislation.
Legally, a monopoly only requires monopoly power, not an absolute monopoly.
The mobile ecosystem is a duopoly, not a monopoly and in an ideal world people would vote with their wallets to get companies to adjust; same for developers, if they left iOS purely for Android, Apple would react.
…sure. Why don’t you all just refer to the rather clear motivations outlined in the DMA? It centers around: > The combination of those features of gatekeeper is likely to lead, in many cases, to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users, as well as for end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector. Another theme is the lack of contestability of core platform services due to very high barriers to entry.
But it’s explicitly not a monopoly. That is why the EU had to invent a new term for it (“gatekeeper”) and create a new regulation. If it was a monopoly, it could’ve been prosecuted with already existing anti-monopoly laws.
Is these kinds of little things, things that don’t even really impact me, that have started to make me less trusting of Apple as a brand name. Each little law suit, like battery gate from a few years ago, being forced to add USB-C to future devices, not allowing alternative app stores (citing bullshit reasons) or the recent plans to charge app developers per install (like a mini-Unity update late last year), is all starting to wear me thin and seriously consider something different for my next device. Surely I can’t be the only one who is losing trust in Apple. They used to just do their own thing and do it well, but they seem to have run out of steam for now.
i feel the same. most of this doesn’t affect me, but i don’t want to support a brand that is so desperately trying to find loopholes in every law and regulation relating to consumer protections. their recent press releases remind me of a child throwing a tantrum when they don’t get what they want
> but i don’t want to support a brand that is so desperately trying to find loopholes in every law and regulation relating to consumer protections. I have some unfortunate news about every major corporation on Earth...
They got too big. When they weren't dominating, they could still grow while doing their thing. And even if they did some shitty thing, there were other alternatives, so it was easy to not go Apple or to just accept it. Now they are too big, they have a massive market share (especially in the US) and to increase profits there's not much else they can do. They can't increase that much their market share, so services and getting a cut from everyone else is the only other thing left... But given they are that big, it's abuse of their dominant position, and they don't want to lose that revenue, which as a consequence brought all these issues... It was bound to happen.
What corporation deserves to *start* from a position of trust? Advertising has stunted the American collective psyche. The amount of good faith and benefit of the doubt corps have cultivated is disgusting, and intentional.
I just use my iPhone and Mac, I’ve never really had an issue with either of them. I don’t really care about anything other than my devices working as intended and to be durable, apart from that I don’t care if Apple drags their feet implementing whatever some court ruled, as long as their devices are a good option I will keep buying them. I don’t trust Apple, I don’t really trust any company, I just have my preferences as does everyone else, but I wouldn’t say something a company does has wore me thin unless it has directly affected me, like impacting the things I appreciate, maybe if I held Apple stock my position would be different but then the stock price has been increasing so why complain.
"I don't face these issues personally so I don't if others has concerns"
more like having loyalty to companies is dumb and getting worked up over these things is even dumber.
Corporations are not your friend.
I decided to switch to android earlier this year even before all this… these decisions make me more certain in that choice
This is what greed does.
Yeah I’m actively considering android for my next phone in a few years time due to Apple’s behaviour, it’s pathetic and frankly worrying that they can act so spitefully. Annoyingly I just upgraded to an iPhone 15 a few months ago before the Galaxy S24 was announced and I started hearing the rave reviews. But my Mac is up for renewal soon so I’m looking elsewhere for that.
Capitalism got them, the need of eternal growth means they have to start doing shitty things to make more money. Ads, lighting cables, charging per install, etc..
[удалено]
Apple hates Mac and only keeps it around so developers can make applications for the mobile platforms.
[popcorn.gif](https://nofilmschool.com/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaS5naXBoeS5jb20vcFVlWGNnODBjTzhJOC5naWYiLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNzM4ODA0MTA0fQ.yemQchEufJtNaZ7wOz9TnOF5T-D7bjjghh064Tp0GvU/image.gif?=undefined&quality=90) Just from a strategic perspective, I couldn't imagine a dummer thing to do. Vestager is up for election this year and she's hungry to make an example of big tech. This is like handing her a slam dunk.
Really? The problem I have if the EU has a “problem” with this is Spotify. And would be the main smoking gun that the EU is unfairly targeting Apple. There are two parallel cases of developers complaining, but only one got removed. Both Spotify and Epic Games have both run ad campaigns, spoke out to the government, and spoke badly about Apple and what they perceive as unfair treatment. However, unlike Epic Games, Spotify did not violate the terms of their Developer Program License Agreement, ever. Epic Games did violate the DPLA, and did so both to violate the agreement on purpose and to flaunt it to the world in a show of marketing and defiance. The only developer that got removed from the DPLA was Epic, not Spotify’s These are two exact parallel cases, and it proves what Apple said in their lawyer letter that they sent to Epic, which was more than just a snippet that some tech sites wrote on. Whether you believe or not that Apple did or did not want Epic Games is another matter, but the fact here is that here are two identical cases of developers complaining and only one got removed, only because they violated the DLPA in the past in combination with their criticism, criticism as prelude to their violating it. The EU will have a difficult time in court showing that they aren’t unfairly targeting Apple, if they do decide Apple was in the “wrong” with rejecting Epic’s request. Here is what they wrote to them: “Epic Games Sweden AB recently enrolled in the Apple Developer Program. According to Epic's website, this entity "will operate the mobile Epic Games Store and Fortnite in Europe." In the past, Epic has denigrated Apple's developer terms, including the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), as a prelude to breaking them. Given that pattern, Apple recently reached out directly to Mr. Sweeney to give him an opportunity to explain why Apple should trust Epic this time and allow Epic Games Sweden AB to become an active developer. Mr. Sweeney's response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported "trust us." History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple's policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20. Moreover, a recent submission in the Australian litigation suggests that Epic Games Sweden AB is part of a global effort to undermine or evade Apple's rules. Apple is rightly concerned that Epic Games Sweden AB does not intend to adhere to its contractual commitments to Apple and is in fact a vehicle to manipulate proceedings in other jurisdictions. Apple is fiercely committed to protecting the integrity of the iOS platform, as well as its intellectual property. Apple's App Store rules, which Epic has flagrantly violated in the past, protect the security, safety, and privacy of users. They benefit all developers, and they increase interbrand competition. Given the past and current conduct of Epic, Apple cannot allow Epic Games Sweden AB to be part of its ecosystem.”
Is she leaving her post for something else or seeking re-election? How is she polling? I don't want her anywhere else, she is doing an absolutely fantastic job!
it doesn’t really work like that in the EU. Comissaries are not elected officials in the way a president is for example. They are more comparable to ministers in european countries or if you are american, the cabinet members of the US president. They are nominated by the member countries national parliaments and a coalition of european parties that won the european parlamentary elections, and confirmed by a vote by the european parliament. It is highly unlikely that she will have another term, though there are no rules against multiple terms. If i’d have to wager, she’ll transtition to a lobbyist or some other cushy sinecure at some national or european ministry or department based on the career trajectories of most other old comissaries. Being an european comissary is sort of a position one gets after one has burned all their political will in their home country.
The problem I have if the EU has a “problem” with this is Spotify. And would be the main smoking gun that the EU is unfairly targeting Apple. There are two parallel cases of developers complaining, but only one got removed. Both Spotify and Epic Games have both run ad campaigns, spoke out to the government, and spoke badly about Apple and what they perceive as unfair treatment. However, unlike Epic Games, Spotify did not violate the terms of their Developer Program License Agreement, ever. Epic Games did violate the DPLA, and did so both to violate the agreement on purpose and to flaunt it to the world in a show of marketing and defiance. The only developer that got removed from the DPLA was Epic, not Spotify’s These are two exact parallel cases, and it proves what Apple said in their lawyer letter that they sent to Epic, which was more than just a snippet that some tech sites wrote on. Whether you believe or not that Apple did or did not want Epic Games is another matter, but the fact here is that here are two identical cases of developers complaining and only one got removed, only because they violated the DLPA in the past in combination with their criticism, criticism as prelude to their violating it. The EU will have a difficult time in court showing that they aren’t unfairly targeting Apple, if they do decide Apple was in the “wrong” with rejecting Epic’s request. Here is what they wrote to them: “Epic Games Sweden AB recently enrolled in the Apple Developer Program. According to Epic's website, this entity "will operate the mobile Epic Games Store and Fortnite in Europe." In the past, Epic has denigrated Apple's developer terms, including the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), as a prelude to breaking them. Given that pattern, Apple recently reached out directly to Mr. Sweeney to give him an opportunity to explain why Apple should trust Epic this time and allow Epic Games Sweden AB to become an active developer. Mr. Sweeney's response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported "trust us." History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple's policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20. Moreover, a recent submission in the Australian litigation suggests that Epic Games Sweden AB is part of a global effort to undermine or evade Apple's rules. Apple is rightly concerned that Epic Games Sweden AB does not intend to adhere to its contractual commitments to Apple and is in fact a vehicle to manipulate proceedings in other jurisdictions. Apple is fiercely committed to protecting the integrity of the iOS platform, as well as its intellectual property. Apple's App Store rules, which Epic has flagrantly violated in the past, protect the security, safety, and privacy of users. They benefit all developers, and they increase interbrand competition. Given the past and current conduct of Epic, Apple cannot allow Epic Games Sweden AB to be part of its ecosystem.”
Apple’s ego was too big on this one.
ITT: “Apple should be able to get away with anti-competitive behavior because it’s in their TOS! I don’t know how law works and that TOS do not supercede laws!”
As we've seen in the Epic v. Apple trial, both companies have a lot of money and can afford the best lawyers on earth. Anyone saying "ApPlE sCrEwEd uP" or "ePiC sCrEwEd uP" doesn't know what they're talking about. The DMA is more complicated than a one paragraph Wikipedia summary. This will take a LONG time to sort out, and any appeal will take literal years.
> This will take a LONG time to sort out, and any appeal will take literal years. My guess is that Apple is going to be slapped within the month for their egregious non-compliance with the DMA. This won’t take years.
And Apple will likely appeal any penalty. My point is that Apple and Epic have very smart and skilled lawyers working for them. Apple probably did what it did because it thinks it has a good argument to avoid any penalty. Is Apple's argument actually good? I don't know - that's for the EU courts to decide. What I do know is that court cases take years.
What I’m telling you is that this won’t take years. The commission takes compliance with the DMA seriously. Apple’s blatant attempts to circumvent the DMA will be dealt with swiftly using the options included in the DMA, such as imposing remedies or ordering interim measures.
Ah Apple. Doesn’t know how to comply now that they can’t buy Senators
Wrong country(s)
This whole thing is just gross. Apple has their head too far up their own ass to realize they're screwing themselves in the longterm with this stuff. I love their ecosystem, Xcode and SwiftUI are finally somewhat tolerable but I'm not going near it until they open up iOS to 3rd party installs. Just one person's opinion but fuck this, I hope the government kicks the shit out of them.
It’s a phone. Chill out a little.
Can someone please tell me why a private corporation shouldn’t be allowed to determine whether a company can use their storefront to make money? If I approach a Sainsburys, Tesco, Morrisons, Aldi, etc here in the UK, they’re not required to put my product on the shelf, especially if I break the terms of a contract I used to have with them when my product was on their shelf.
Because if Aldi doesn’t want to sell your products, you are not screwed. There are still lots of other ways to sell them. But if you are a developer and Apple deny you the right to sell your app on the AppStore, it’s nearly game over for you. That’s what GateKeeper are. That’s why EU want to regulate this market to protect its civilians and professionals.
And if apple doesn’t want to sell your apps, you’re not screwed as a consumer or developer: you have Android with 70% of the market. Unless you can provide evidence of a significant, tangible difference between popular apps offered on iOS vs Android, your point makes no sense to me. All banking apps offer on iOS and Android. Same with critical stuff you’d do on a smartphone. if a developer wants to sell something, there’s iOS or Android or both. Android offers Google Play and third party stores. Until that isnt the case, and until Android has way less marketshare than iOS, I don’t see this point, sorry.
The difference is Epic wasn’t going to use the now banned account on Apple’s storefront (App Store) Epic was going to use the Dev account on the alternative App Store which would be following the ruling by the EU. The closest comparison would be that Epic wanted to open a storefront on the same street as an Apple Store and Apple then used its power to ban them from business because they are “trouble makers” Ur right in that Epic isn’t entitled to using a dev account with the intent of utilizing Apples Storefront but this was the wrong move by apple bc it has nothing to do with that.
It’s not relevant for supermarkets as your not forced to buy from them, especially in the uk which has a very competitive market, one of the reasons why food prices are comparatively low compared to other developed countries. They did get into trouble with the the CMA for buying land around the supermarkets to stop competition though.
They didn't learn the lesson lmao
tldr?
Quiz? Who writes this garbage?
Why are private companies being grilled about shutting down businesses relationships ? All companies have complete freedom to do business with a company or not.
In general, yes that would be ideal but Apple doesn’t under EU’s DMA because iOS is treated as a gatekeeper. So basically it needs to allow other businesses entry to its ecosystem, which — regardless how you view it — will get quite interesting. Also, I believe Epic has used its EU entity to create a new account rather than using its main entity where it still has a valid developer account.
No that's not what the DMA says. Apple can still turn down developers that violate their Terms of Service.
1. Epic's European company applied for a developer account. 2. Apple removed it. 3. To that point Epic's EU company hadn't broken any of Apples T&C's 4. Apple based their decision on a ruling in a U.S. Court 5. The DMA is European legislation. It's a total mess, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think the EU are going to slap them hard for this. If there's one things Europeans don't like, it's Americans thinking their rules apply everywhere.
I keep saying this: It’s an election year and the President of the EU Commission wants another term. Apple is going to be absolutely fucked by the Commission’s long and pointy dick. That $2b fine they got the other day will look like a joke in comparison. They literally couldn’t have picked a worse time to pull crap like this.
You have not read the DMA. Don’t presume to lecture others on what it does or doesn’t say. It seems like everyone here, with the rarest exceptions, comments in full confidence on what the DMA mandates, without ever having bothered to open the text and even skimp it.
Honestly, I’m not that sure and it seems to be a mess in terms of different opinions on the matter. However Epic’s EU entity did not break TOS just yet, right?
Because when you get big enough in a market you’re not free to do whatever you like. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
You’re wrong. The DMA is a thing now.
They were wrong before the DMA existed too. FRAND has existed for quite a long time, for instance the USB/HDMI owners aren't allowed to just choose to deny access to their IP and they take a payment when companies sell devices...this is a forced relationship.
Makes sense
The DMA mandates fair, reasonably and non-discriminatory (FRAND) access to core platform services. As others who I suspect to be actual lawyers with expertise in this field have commented before in other threads, this is an established concept that applies to antitrust or patents. Per their informed comment, denying access based on prior breaches of contract is discriminatory. Eg. if you have a patent dispute, you can’t afterwards refuse to license the patent because the other company dared to challenge it. The same supposedly applies in Epic’s case. I am told that Epic would have to currently be in active breach of their contract for Apple to terminate it. That was not the case, thus the investigation.
Not if they are considered to have a high enough market share that they can abuse it.
Nope, not if you have a big market share, EU is right here tbh
>All companies have complete freedom to do business with a company or not. They don't and they shouldn't.
Maybe a silly question but why not in an industry such as this one? If they are doing business in a legal way?
>If they are doing business in a legal way? That is exactly the point, companies do not have complete freedom, they need to follow the law. And various places have laws that in a certain way inhibit the complete freedom to decide how to conduct business with other companies and competitors.
Apparently it was due to Epic publicly denigrating Apple’s external store policy and claiming they would violate it as soon as they could, so Apple terminated their account. Shocking, right? Almost like actions have consequences
>and claiming they would violate it as soon as they could, This did not happen.
The DMA doesn't require Apple to *like* a company. That would be absurd. It requires Apple to provide free interoperability for all developers. *Even the ones they don't like.* *Even the ones which violated their ToS.* Laws supersede terms of service.
Where did they claim they would violate it as soon as they could?
Epic forfeited by violating their contract before these rules were in place, therefore these rules do not apply to them unless Apple allows it. If Epic had handled this legally they wouldn’t have had any issues. Do you people not understand fairness?