I don't know if you're aware of this, but decisions made by a United States court mean nothing in the European Union. Apple can only take measures that are "strictly necessary and proportionate" and "duly justified by the gatekeeper" which simply isn't the case here. Apple's decision will be blocked without hesitation, since there's no evidence that Epic Games endangers "the integrity of the hardware or operating system"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We're talking about the EU, not the US. Just as EU law is largely irrelevant to US user, so are US court finding irrelevant to EU laws.
So, contrary to your statement they do not in fact market it as a general purpose computer, you have assumed that. Where are all the Apple tools associated with a general purpose computer on the iPhone?
So can I finally cross out Unreal Engine as a cross platform game engine now? Game developers who rely upon that game engine are either going to stop making games for Apple devices or switch to Unity or something else. Given the small market for games in iDevices and the amount of work necessary to switch to a different game engine...Bye bye gaming on iDevices. I hope it doesn't spread to Macs too, although I think it will.
I remain convinced that, in their defense of Apple, too many folks don't actually understand what the actual 3rd party goals are.
\epic maybe epically childish, but they have a point. Apple just needs to look at Androids alt app stores, and realise it isn't really a threat.
Apple are being a perfect example of malicious compliance.
Apple are being a perfect example of malicious compliance.
no, it is not disingenuous cause the US court system determined that Apple is allowed to terminate Epics developer accounts, and this is what Apple decided to do today, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Off topic and consoles, and the differences, have been covered ad nauseam in all these back and forths.
Recap. EPIC broke the rules. If they didn't like the rules they didn't have to break them.
Spotify hasn't broken the rules. And they complain about a lot too. But, not to the point of preventing their App from being on the store.
if your not seeing the difference, I don't know how else to put it.
There are iOS versions of Pages, Numbers and Keynote (productivity apps), GarageBand and, more recently, Logic Pro (music production apps), professional camera apps, Code-Server clients (for coding), and so on and so forth. Seems general-purpose enough for me
You have to be a really scummy company to make Epic look like the good guy, but here we are.
Be careful. This isn’t as simple as it might seem. If someone in the EU agrees to enter into a contract that contains a clause that allows US law to prevail, i.e. that disputes etc would be heard in a US court of law, then it might not be so clear cut.
Isn’t the App Store Apple’s market though? If I don’t like it there is another major market with access to even more users around the world.
An absolute disgrace.
Regulators are going to have an absolute field day with this kind of thing. DOJ watching closely i'm sure.
Regulators are going to have an absolute field day with this kind of thing. DOJ watching closely i'm sure.
It's an interesting move by Apple. If the EU forced Apple to allow Epic back, Epic would then be under pressure from the EU to not prove Apple correct by violating the terms. So Apple could get what it wants either way.
If you aren't going to answer the question then your comment is useless. I understand there are differences but they are both locked down digital consumption devices, so the comparison is fair.
Hey, so I took a look at that EU addendum thing for apps. It kicks off with some fancy-sounding legal stuff, basically saying:
"Hey developers, this is an extra bit for EU apps that goes along with your regular Apple Developer agreement. To get in on this, you need to be a legit Apple Developer member and have agreed to all the usual terms."
They're calling it the "Alternative EU Terms Addendum" or just "Addendum" for short. Sounds like Apple's trying to cover all their bases here, but I'm no legal expert either. Just a casual observer trying to make sense of it all! 😅
"Hey developers, this is an extra bit for EU apps that goes along with your regular Apple Developer agreement. To get in on this, you need to be a legit Apple Developer member and have agreed to all the usual terms."
They're calling it the "Alternative EU Terms Addendum" or just "Addendum" for short. Sounds like Apple's trying to cover all their bases here, but I'm no legal expert either. Just a casual observer trying to make sense of it all! 😅
Last edited:
It’s a chess match at this point and Apple is going to lose, one way or another.
As soon as people are able to install apps outside the App Store, revenue from the 30% fee will plummet along with the share price. Apple will go scorched earth to defend that revenue, even to the detriment of its users.
Want to use your phone how you like? Sorry. It’s an iPhone, not my phone.
As soon as people are able to install apps outside the App Store, revenue from the 30% fee will plummet along with the share price. Apple will go scorched earth to defend that revenue, even to the detriment of its users.
Want to use your phone how you like? Sorry. It’s an iPhone, not my phone.
That's exactly the problem. Apple made it so that any and all business agreements (ie. app and IAP sales) must go through them, and that includes third-party app stores. If that weren't the case, then this wouldn't be an issue.
I still love this Epic vs Apple soap. Also I love that Apple still is winning it.
I think peoples mistake is in thinking the DMA has anything to do with this. Apple is within its rights to not do business with a party who has broken their developer agreement. How could it be any other way?
As for it being a US court instead of a EU court, note that Epic is headquartered in the US. Disagreements between two US companies are not going to be adjudicated in the EU. And Epic isn't going to skirt that by using an EU subsidiary.
As for it being a US court instead of a EU court, note that Epic is headquartered in the US. Disagreements between two US companies are not going to be adjudicated in the EU. And Epic isn't going to skirt that by using an EU subsidiary.