Millions indeed, but so is Apple given the huge chunk of players that little obscure game called Fortnite has - and we, players, are apparently both's lowest priority to boot.
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
This will not end well for Apple, I'll just say that.
Ignoring the individual companies involved in the catfight, and all the particulars of the new EU dev agreement, they just preemptively squeezed someone out from the DMA compliance setup without the entity in question having done anything like distribute malware or commit fraud, which according to Apple itself, was the main justification for it being so non-straightforward in the first place.
I understand the real reason; that they think that Epic, who by all means should've waited for the terms to get better before agreeing to any of the CTF nonsense, was planning to get the entitlement and dip on payment "in protest," but I ask if it was wise to fire the first shot. Based on theory alone. Right as EU regulators are almost certainly preparing themselves to investigate the whole thing deeply.
Ignoring the individual companies involved in the catfight, and all the particulars of the new EU dev agreement, they just preemptively squeezed someone out from the DMA compliance setup without the entity in question having done anything like distribute malware or commit fraud, which according to Apple itself, was the main justification for it being so non-straightforward in the first place.
I understand the real reason; that they think that Epic, who by all means should've waited for the terms to get better before agreeing to any of the CTF nonsense, was planning to get the entitlement and dip on payment "in protest," but I ask if it was wise to fire the first shot. Based on theory alone. Right as EU regulators are almost certainly preparing themselves to investigate the whole thing deeply.
Sweeney needs to admit defeat and maybe retire. Epic Store pulls the same kind of anti-competitive, platform fees, platform exclusive behavior as everyone else, but he wants to dictate what every other platform can or can’t do. They take less of a cut, but the Epic Store still isn’t profitable. It’s a failure and game devs who take exclusivity deals from them have their games buried because of it.
Can’t live off Fortnite’s success forever. The time is going to come when they’ll absolutely need the support of someone like Apple and Apple users. They are not the do-gooders and saviors of the industry that Sweeney wants everyone to think they are.
Can’t live off Fortnite’s success forever. The time is going to come when they’ll absolutely need the support of someone like Apple and Apple users. They are not the do-gooders and saviors of the industry that Sweeney wants everyone to think they are.
Why should I enter a contract with Apple (the App Store) in order to enter one with Epic?
Do you realize that you made that up without any basis in fact? The agreement is with Apple Inc. A US company.
I'd go with a slight edit
That's a very good point. Hopefully, that's enough for the EU to decide that, since Apple has acted in bad faith, they can no longer force all apps to go through them.
Nope. Epic can argue, with some force, that this is about access to the EU and they are being prevented from doing so in contravention of the DMA.
That puts it squarely in EU territory.
Whether they would win or not is seriously up for debate, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the EU will have to bow to US court decisions.
Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification. Like I said I know nothing about EU Law
And Epic will argue that Apple (Ireland) is the relevant body to deal with since it's the EU headquarters. Or Apple Inc - if it's about access to the EU market, it won't matter too much.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the EU cannot force a business relationship. This IMHO wouldn't prevent the EU from requiring Apple to allow Epic access to the platform.
The requirement of entering in a business relationship to access the platform is entirely Apple's arbitrary decision, so why would the EU be concerned at all with it, or consider it as a waiver to the DMA provisions?
Note that you don't need to enter in any business relationship with Apple to e.g. provide software to MacOS users...
No they're focused on protecting their core business and their customers. The Core Technology fee could potentially exceed App Store revenue in some cases. Banning Epic means less revenue for Apple. Some things though are indeed more important than revenue.
You have to have an Apple Developer agreement to create an alternative marketplace.
Well, unlike installing a proper os via the bootloader, or installing an app from a place other than apples App Store, that suggestion actually WOULD break the security of the device.
Factually, nothing about it is your device except the hardware. This isn't a debatable topic.
But something is different. Look at the recent blog posts by apple, the same company that never bothered to comment on anything, or the so-called white paper on complying with DMA.
Factually, you're wrong:
This much is true.
You failed to understand the difference between iOS vs. MacOS.
It isn’t necessary to provide a copy of the EULA at the time of purchase. Effectively, as long as the purchaser has been made aware at the time of purchase that a further agreement (such as the EULA) will need to be entered into, and that if the purchaser declines to do so they have a remedy (such as a refund), and that if the purchaser does agree to do so, then it’s all valid and legal, and enforceable. It’s tricky to get this right, and probably a lot of companies get it wrong. However it is wrong to say that all EULAs are unenforceable.
Go on then. What’s the difference between these two computing platforms?
They are not unenforceable or else no one would have them. What you are referring to is simply the first sale doctrine. You certainly own the copy that you receive at purchase. You can resell it. You can use it. That's pretty much it.
However, developers don't have a right to modify or distribute modifications to your copy, making it relatively useless.
And as soon as you accept your first update, you've agreed to the SLA.
