I use Apple products, and I want the same freedoms on iOS and iPad OS as I have on my Mac. I don’t know why you’re suddenly telling me to buy another product. I want the products I own already to be able to be used as I want. It’s a normal behaviour.
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
Yes, I believe them when they say they can do a better job in a large environment.
I fully admit I know nothing about EU law. That said I'm guessing that Apple considers software (MacOS, iOS, iPadOS etc) to be something that, again, is a licence, and what is being purchased by the consumer isn't the operating system itself but a licence to use said operating system according to the rules specified in the EULA
No, they did not. You are probably referring to the reader exception that applies to anyone regardless of size. Google was the one that got in trouble for giving special deals to companies like Spotify.
That is a distinction without a difference. You are installing it onto the hardware - the OS is just an interface to the hardware.
That is where you are wrong. If App developers can bypass Apple their quality assurance by moving apps outside of the Apple Store, the quality of the apps will go down the drain.
It's why the quality of iOS apps is superior to Android apps currently.
Just because someone is "little" is not an argument.
sure, no argument in principal, but in this case Epic is a US company, not a EU company so I seriously doubt that ill happen ...
I have to say, I never liked Phil Schiller. I have some respect for Tim Cook the COO but think he utterly fails as a CEO, but Phil has always struck me as a cruel individual in all his appearances.
Anyways, Phil's response seems like the centerpiece of Apple losing a monopoly case. "We're terminating your company because you said mean words" seems unlikely to do well in court. It shows Apple has way, way too much control over competing stores.
At this point, I'm expecting the EU's response to Apple is going to look something like this:
1. Apple's App Store, much like Safari, can no longer be a preinstalled default app. Apple devices must prompt during setup for a store to be selected from a list of randomly ordered popular options.
2. All App Stores must permit any other App Store that has been approved by the EU within them, with no other restrictions.
3. Apple cannot do more than the minimum to comply with the above - that is, no adding in crap like "it stops working after you've been outside the EU for 45 days".
These regulations are best for everyone (except Apple), but they wouldn't have come about if Apple had acted in good faith or with any shred of integrity. This is a message to companies/industries worldwide, that they all used to know but Apple apparently forgot - regulate yourself or you'll find yourself subject to harsh regulations from the government.
Video Games (at least in the US, and at least in decades past) are a shining example of self regulation. They realized the (US) government was starting to move to regulate violence and other objectionable material, and they formed the ESRB. Thus they've remained an industry that is free from government regulations, and everyone is pretty happy with the results.
Apple could have done that. Surely there were voices within Apple crying to do that (the whole company can't be a corrupt sack of crap, right?) And the leadership - Phil and Tim - decided they'd rather impale the entire industry on government regulation than risk quarterly profits.
@FloatingBones @STOCK411 @Analog Kid - @Cchase88754321 made a fair characterization. See Phil’s own words.
Last edited:
Cant wait till they pull a plug on Spotify’s developer account. They are threading in the same direction as Epic - give me, give me, give for, free mentality.
What I believe is that either Apple can justify not allowing access to Epic as measure "strictly necessary and proportionate" to ensure the safety of the platform, or Apple will have no justification for preventing access in the context of the DMA.
In the former case, Apple wins and Epic is done on iOS. In the latter, the EU will require Apple to allow access, but it's up to Apple how to do so.
Remember, it's Apple's arbitrary decision to link access to the platform as a vendor to a developer account, so it's their problem to make it work in the context of the DMA.
Actually Epic did that when they willfully violated their developer agreement with Apple.
Do you realise that it's likely to be Apple (Ireland) that ends up in Court, not Apple inc. An EU company.
You get an “a” for affort. Throw the baby out with the bath water is taking a small existing case and making it a general case.
Way to start losing your next generation of users. Apple has a massive stash of information on its user base, what is stopping the next CEO from monetizing it, given its quest for even higher profits.
True, but an important one. The application being installed is developed to use the OS. It isn’t developed to use the hardware directly. Nobody wants an app that requires exclusive use of the hardware.
It's an important difference. IP is subject to copyright law which gives certain rights to the owner of the IP. Most relevantly, the right to create derivative works.
If they operate in the EU, and Epic can successfully (or possibly even plausibly) argue that the ban is to prevent them from competing with Apple in Europe, then it becomes a solidly European case.
Because weak individuals feel powerful when they're in a mob.
Steve Jobs pretty much thought of that at the very beginning. He didn’t even want an appstore in the first place, he wanted nothing other than web apps. However, other people insisted a lot upon it and warned him that he could repeat the story of apple nearly going bankrupt like in the 1990s, so he relented and begrudgingly accepted the creation of the appstore.
it's a business relationship (with terms) that both parties agree to. in this case, 1 party willingly and knowingly broke a legal agreement and did not succeed in US courts to get away with it.
Can the EU force a business relationship between 2 US companies within the EU?
That shall be interesting to watch
You are ignoring the fact that this dispute is between two US companies (or their subsidiaries). So US contract law and the courts' judgements stand.
EULAs, in the European Union, are unenforceable as they're hidden terms (ie. you aren't given a copy of them to sign at the time of purchase). Furthermore, clauses such as "You don't own a copy of the software, but a license to it" are void.