Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account

[User 6502]

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.

A quite creative way of seeing things. The EU will just fine apple. Apple will scream and cry as they usually do and eventually pay the fine and reinstate the European Union account as it doesn’t have a leg to stand on and the eu law doesn’t allow anticompetitive practices as closing down accounts because you didn’t like a tweet.

 

[Will Co]

That would be a significant imposition on Apple's freedom of contract, but again, it's Apple's decision to link access to the platform to a business relationship. The EU might find that this imposition is not compliant to the DMA in the first place.

Yes, that’s very interesting and it could be an angle for EU/Epic. But I doubt it could ultimately lead to an unravelling of the entire Developer Agreement. In which case Epic need one, and don’t have one, and so are still screwed. Maybe. Definitely a popcorn case.

 

[crsh1976]

Epic took in over $900 million from the app store. I am sure they made plenty of profit off that. They just want to keep more of their money rather than pay app store commissions.

"Fortnite players have spent almost $1.2 billion through Apple's App Store, generating revenue of about $354 million for Apple"

There were 73 million players who played Fortnite exclusively on iOS when Epic was kicked off the App Store in 2018 - I'm not saying Epic is angelic here, but that's still gotta hurt.

It can't be free to sell through Apple, we all get it - but Apple's decision to ban Epic primarily hurt players to safekeep their profit margin.

Ref: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/13/heres-how-many-people-were-playing-fortnite-on-iph/

 

[bsolar]

Fine. Then I guess the EU can go after Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo next if they think that the game console ecosystem is the same as the smartphone ecosystem. That really isn't very relevant to this discussion anyhow.

The reasons those stores are not considered Gatekeepers as opposed to the App Store on iOS is due to the criteria which are required to qualify as Gatekeeper.

One of the criteria is to have at least 10k active "business users" on the platforms, which would be the third-party vendors. On the App Store you have literally hundreds of thousands of active developers, whereas on a Game Store the number is significantly smaller.

 

[Will Co]

If they could start over they would. Why do people have to buy virus/spam/spyware programs for those computers. Because the sideloading leads to major security risks. This is NOT a problem with iOS and I am grateful for that.

I’m being picky here, but possibly wrong to say NOT a problem. Certainly very much less of a problem. But I fully agree with your point and I’m grateful too.

 

[bsolar]

Yes, that’s very interesting and it could be an angle for EU/Epic. But I doubt it could ultimately lead to an unravelling of the entire Developer Agreement. In which case Epic need one, and don’t have one, and so are still screwed. Maybe. Definitely a popcorn case.

Apple is allowed to impose measures, but very limited in both scope and motivation.

In a way it looks to me that if they can impose an agreement they are subject to offer access to the platform in a similar way a patent holder might be required to offer the patent under FRAND licensing.

 

[Zest28]

The reasons those stores are not considered Gatekeepers as opposed to the App Store on iOS is due to the criteria which are required to qualify as Gatekeeper.

One of the criteria is to have at least 10k active "business users" on the platforms, which would be the third-party vendors. On the App Store you have literally hundreds of thousands of active developers, whereas on a Game Store the number is significantly smaller.

Why doesn't Apple start limiting the number of third party vendors? Most people only use YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Meta, ....

It's quite easy to reduce the number of third party vendors without effecting the user experience at all.

 

[Timpetus]

Tim Sweeney is the majority shareholder of Epic. He owns his company. Apple can’t buy Epic unless Tim Sweeney personally sells it to them.

That explains a lot. I was wondering how he wasn't removed by the board for destroying shareholder value...

 

[Ethosik]

Apple sells devices which consist of a combination of hardware and software. Once a device is sold, the user owns it, not Apple. Third parties then sell further software to the user, to be run on said device. At that point, Apple shouldn’t be involved anymore at all.

This is a much bigger discussion. Nintendo still owns my switch — I know someone that got their switch banned by emulating games. Xbox and PlayStation have been known to get banned too in some cases with hacks and mods.

 

[3224932]

True, but completely off topic.

It's on topic. This whole thing with Epic started, because Apple is too focussed on protecting the App Store revenue stream.

 

[bsolar]

Why doesn't Apple start limiting the number of third party vendors? Most people only use YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Meta, ....

It's quite easy to reduce the number of third party vendors without effecting the user experience at all.

Because they still likely gain more than they lose even with the Gatekeeper status and its impositions.

 

[mrochester]

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.

Slapping down Epic surely improves Apple’s reputation?

 

[Naraxus]

If an employer made an illegal rule, an employee violated it intentionally and won a ruling that the rule was illegal, then the employer fired that employee afterward, I'm curious what you think what would happen next.

Other than perhaps the anti-steering provision, what "Illegal Rule" did Apple make?

 

[t122648]

Thank you so much Apple for confirming my decision to move back to Android is the correct one. With Cook, its all about controlling everything and everyone and the $ above all else..

 

[Naraxus]

That’s the problem. It’s OUR hardware. Not apples.

You own the hardware, not the software. You can do whatever you want with the hardware, not iOS

 

[Zest28]

Because they still likely gain more than they lose even with the Gatekeeper status and its impositions.

But Apple can put a hard cap on the number of third party vendor to prevent keeping tagged as a "Gatekeeper".

There doesn't need to be 10.000 third party apps on iOS, as probably 99.99% of the app usage is covered by less than 1000 apps.

 

[jakey rolling]

Maybe. But I very much doubt there is any statute, DMA or otherwise, that the EU can use to compel Apple to do business with Epic. So your point might well be academic. Without a developer account, Epic is screwed.

The DMA may compel Apple to allow developers to develop for iOS without the need for a developer account or any other business relationship at all. That is a much more likely scenario.

 

[visualseed]

Apple sells devices which consist of a combination of hardware and software. Once a device is sold, the user owns it, not Apple. Third parties then sell further software to the user, to be run on said device. At that point, Apple shouldn’t be involved anymore at all.

You own the device, but you license the software for use under specific terms that you agree to. Thanks for attending my Ted Talk.

 

[Darren.h]

THE Walled Apple Garden strikes again.

Soon People will get tired of the closed wall system of Apple and its high prices for memory and SSD upgrades and move on. This action is only hurting Apple. 1 less game out of a weak Apple gaming system.

 

[jakey rolling]

LOL, you mean the decisions from the US Federal District Judge, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? I'm willing to bet Apple has them on hand.

Pretty sure the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in the US, not the EU.

 

[Samplasion]

Slapping down Epic surely improves Apple’s reputation?

I mean, I personally couldn't care less about Epic games specifically, but it's not a good look for Apple to be able to basically block everyone from doing business with a company even outside of them, on their own devices.

 

[Will Co]

Apple is allowed to impose measures, but very limited in both scope and motivation.

In a way it looks to me that if they can impose an agreement they are subject to offer access to the platform in a similar way a patent holder might be required to offer the patent under FRAND licensing.

I suppose it comes down to what is accepted as FRAND, which of course cuts both ways. Wouldn’t Apple try to claim that it is unreasonable for them to have to offer access to a company that they would claim is serial offender of contractual obligations.

 

[Samplasion]

You own the hardware, not the software. You can do whatever you want with the hardware, not iOS

Users own a copy of iOS, regardless of what the ToS say.

 

[Will Co]

The DMA may compel Apple to allow developers to develop for iOS without the need for a developer account or any other business relationship at all. That is a much more likely scenario.

Indeed it might pan out that way. It’s perhaps the only way I can see that Epic might have a chance to get back onto iOS.

 

[jakey rolling]

Why do people have to buy virus/spam/spyware programs for those computers.

This isn't 2006 anymore. Most people don't need to buy antivirus for their computers.