Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account

[Ethosik]

Even at the time it was well known that Flash was a terrible technology from the security point of view.

A lot of sites were broken on iPhone. I was on the side that Apple should have allowed flash.

 

[ksj1]

Game consoles are not marketed as general purpose computers. Smartphones are.
Aside from that, perhaps the EU should also focus on Sony, MS, and Nintendo. I think they would find, however, that any such enforcement would result in game consoles in the EU inflating in price to be similar to smartphones. Pretty sure EU citizens would not be happy spending $1200 for a Nintendo Switch.

Where does Apple market an iPhone as a general purpose computer?

 

[AlastorKatriona]

But they have rights which affect what that software can and cannot do.

No, they don't. There are no "rights" at all. You have a limited end user license, which is granted to you, by the owner of the software. You own nothing other than the hardware, and you have no "rights" to anything. This is the silliest and most uninformed thing I see repeated.

 

[Samplasion]

Consumers do not own the software on the iPhone...

Actually, European consumers own a copy of the software that came bundled with the device, the price of which is inherently included in the selling price. As such, they theoretically should be able to do as they please.

 

[9059737]

It's a very dangerous move for Apple since it basically constitutes exactly the kind of "gatekeeping" the DMA provisions are meant to prevent.

The only way Apple can justify this is with the clause that allows the Gatekeeper to protect the security of the platform, but the measures enacted needs to be "strictly necessary and proportionate" and I highly doubt the regulators would buy that argument.

I think that if Apple had made iOS more like macOS and allowed alternative stores + installing apps from the web, they could get away with requiring a paid developer account and notarization (automatic malware scan).

Instead, Apple is blatantly ignoring the letter and spirit of the law with the Core Technology Fee, a more invasive version of notarization, all that "app marketplaces" garbage, and now even banning Epic Games.

This just shows why Apple can't be trusted with so much power over app distribution. Instead of complying in good faith they're making developers and regulators even more angry, and they're inviting the European Commission to issue massive fines and adopt an implementing act, dictating what changes Apple should make to be compliant.

 

[jz0309]

No, the DMA clearly states that the Gatekeeper can implement measures or standards to protect the security of the platform as long as they are "strictly necessary and proportionate". Epic definitely cannot do "anything it wants", but Apple on the other side is quite limited in how and why they can prevent access.

Think about it: the whole point of the Gatekeeper provisions of the DMA is to prevent "gatekeeping". If a Gatekeeper were allowed to dictate contractual conditions to the third-parties and ban anyone who doesn't comply, the DMA would be completely meaningless as it would be easily circumvented through the contractual provisions imposed by the Gatekeeper.

The regulator definitely will have a say in whether this situation is compliant with the DMA and it would not surprise me if it does not.

and the US court system has found that Apple has the right to terminate any and all of Epic's developer accounts.

 

[boswald]

I’ve invested enough money into Apple that I believe I deserve to see this through and go down with the ship.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

I used to love Apple, but they've lost their way. They're bending the knee to the almighty dollar instead of making insanely great products. Jobs was stubborn around App Store policies for the sake of quality.. Apple today is more worried about the revenue stream.

True, but completely off topic.

 

[gnipgnop]

Did they, though?

Their lawyers throw around some vague "pattern of untrustworthy behavior" and claim Epic committed an "egregious breach of its contractual obligations" but offer no substantial explanation at all what these "patterns" and this "breach" are supposed to be.

I'm certainly not on Epic's side here but Apple will need to offer some better explanations for this behavior to not just appear spiteful.

Apple cited court opinions that gave them the leeway to terminate Epic's accounts.

 

[quietstormSD]

This one is fun to watch. lol

 

[AlastorKatriona]

and the US court system has found that Apple has the right to terminate any and all of Epic's developer accounts.

Common sense also finds that Apple is allowed to terminate their business relationship with anyone.

 

[Samplasion]

This just shows why Apple can't be trusted with so much power over app distribution

Totally. Ideally, the DMA should enhance competitiveness. This move, however, shows just how much power Apple still retains.

 

[j26]

Thats even more interesting. No due process. Huh.

You can't just say "That's illegal", and then walk. You would need to show in court that it is illegal and the court would then release you from your contractual obligations

Plenty of due process....

 

[Samplasion]

and the US court system has found that Apple has the right to terminate any and all of Epic's developer accounts.

But the DMA is based in the EU. US courts have no power here.

 

[jakey rolling]

There is a larger issue at play here. Do we want to abolish all laws/EULAs/Agreements/Terms of Use? Just to have things open?

No. But we do want to abolish contracts that tie access to development tools and APIs to the requirement to use one's own unrelated services (ie, a storefront). Kind of like how governments of yesteryear wanted to abolish a monopolist's ability to tie the sale of its OS to the bundling of its web browser (and were probably cheered on by more than a few of the Apple-supporting posters in this thread).

 

[AlastorKatriona]

No, the DMA clearly states that the Gatekeeper can implement measures or standards to protect the security of the platform as long as they are "strictly necessary and proportionate". Epic definitely cannot do "anything it wants", but Apple on the other side is quite limited in how and why they can prevent access.

Think about it: the whole point of the Gatekeeper provisions of the DMA is to prevent "gatekeeping". If a Gatekeeper were allowed to dictate contractual conditions to the third-parties and ban anyone who doesn't comply, the DMA would be completely meaningless as it would be easily circumvented through the contractual provisions imposed by the Gatekeeper.

The regulator definitely will have a say in whether this situation is compliant with the DMA and it would not surprise me if it does not.

Do you know how completely insane it is to say, "You have to do business with anyone and everyone that wants to do business with you."

 

[Will Co]

Totally. Ideally, the DMA should enhance competitiveness. This move, however, shows just how much power Apple still retains.

It perhaps also shows how dumb the DMA is.

 

[Manzanito]

Did they, though?

Their lawyers throw around some vague "pattern of untrustworthy behavior" and claim Epic committed an "egregious breach of its contractual obligations" but offer no substantial explanation at all what these "patterns" and this "breach" are supposed to be.

I'm certainly not on Epic's side here but Apple will need to offer some better explanations for this behavior to not just appear spiteful.

At this point apple couldn’t give a damn at how they appear. They seem to be hurt on their pride.

And I think they are right on their original feud with epic.

 

[jakey rolling]

Where does Apple market an iPhone as a general purpose computer?

Pretty much every commercial featuring the iPhone in existence today? The ability to run a wide variety of third-party apps and do everything from taking pictures to filing your taxes on a computer is pretty much the textbook definition of a general purpose computer.

 

[Samplasion]

It perhaps also shows how dumb the DMA is.

I would rather say it shows at what length Apple is willing to go in order to keep their profits, even at the cost of their own reputation.

 

[now i see it]

Billionaires squabbling over money like seagulls over a bag of chips.

 

[jz0309]

But the DMA is based in the EU. US courts have no power here.

so the DMA has a clause that says Apple has to give a developer account to just anyone? I don't think so ...

 

[AlastorKatriona]

This just shows why Apple can't be trusted with so much power over app distribution.

Lol. You mean app distribution on Apple's platform and Apple's devices on Apple's operating system. No one is entitled to distribute anything on their platform.

 

[jclardy]

Does this matter when alternative stores are going to be a real thing on iOS?

It matters when the only way to build an alternative app store is through an Apple developer account. And that the primary company wanting to do it was the one that was just banned from doing it.

Basically, this is just Apple parading how it will loophole every possible rule the EU throws at it.

 

[rkuo]

Do you know how completely insane it is to say, "You have to do business with anyone and everyone that wants to do business with you."

Hospitals are required to treat patients in their emergency rooms. Doesn't sound insane to me at all.