You own the bits on your media. You don’t own the source or are legally entitled to a copy of *most of the source.
*you can get a copy of the open source portions of iOS
Last edited:
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
*you can get a copy of the open source portions of iOS
I simply think it would be unheard of in global business and in international & domestic law for the EU to be able force a contract between two US companies – or any two companies. That would likely set a legal precedent with unthinkable consequences.
So, people are supposed to like EVERY aspect of a product they bought and if they don't, they shouldn't complain about the aspects they don’t like? They shouldn't express desire to see the "undesirable" aspects changed/improved?
If someone purchased an iPhone because they like iMessage and/or Safari and/or Keynote and/or Numbers and/or Pages and/or the camera and/or the deal they got through their carrier, etc. but don’t like not being able to sideload or use alternative app stores, they should just keep quiet?
Is that really what you are suggesting?
You're right – it is a tricky topic and it would've been wise to say "many EULAs are unenforceable". That said, I don't think Apple Store reps mention having to agree to an EULA before buying a device – it didn't happen to me last time I bought something. Furthermore, the fine print on the box only vaguely refers to having to accept "the terms".
The European App Store is operated by an Irish subsidiary, mostly for tax purposes, but that's another story. This complicates matter quite a bit. EPIC applied through a Swedish subsidiary. I don't know why you are so sure, that the ruling by a US court should apply in the EU.
Apple's based in the US, as is Epic. US courts do in fact have power over both companies, and what they can and cannot do to each other.
They would, it's to cover up their a**es, legally speaking.
It's not like I have a choice since Apple forcefully updates phones overnight.
How can developers identify every single copy? They cannot.
The mileage may vary a lot even within the EU depending on jurisdictions. E.g. some countries have special provisions that require particular onerous clauses to be individually signed, or that impose limitations on contracts offered unilaterally vs. contracts which arise from bilateral bargaining.
Furthermore, some clauses might be just unenforceable even if explicitly accepted by the user. Note that not every consumer right is at the user's disposal to be negotiated away: some are statutory enforced regardless of any contractual agreement.
You say US companies as if they are dragons fighting in the sky over European soil, but it's nothing to do with the poor European villagers.
That is not the case - the argument is almost certainly going to be about access to the European market, and that is squarely within the remit of European Courts.
Forcing a contract is admittedly unlikely, but forcing access may well happen.
But a subsidiary company can be independent from the parent company. So US court might not apply to this particular subsidary company in Sweden. But I will find it very strange if the EU forces Apple to accept Epic as a customer, because Hermes and Porsche are much worse when it comes to refusing customers.
In the end, Android has about 70% market share in the EU. Apple should make it 100% by putting Android on their iPhones in the EU because there is no point of iOS anymore.
Epic is a multi-billion dollar company, partly owned by an even larger Chinese company.
I think it’s generally accepted that the fine print on the box, vague or not, is legally sufficient. I’ve never had a sales rep explain the legalities to me either. But those few words on the carton make me aware that there are further conditions. Usually a terms and conditions of sale for the hardware, and an EULA for the software. Had I chosen not to accept them, when they were eventually presented, I would have been entitled to return the item for a full refund. But I did accept them, and therefore they are binding.
You are grossly mischaracterizing the situation. BOTH parties are Goliaths here. Have you seen all the reports of Epic abusing their power? Epic is not an underdog.
I lost respect for Apple long ago but still use a couple of their products because they provide value to my personal life. While I’m not ashamed in using them, I don’t understand the unquestioning support many have for the company.
It's in my best interest to have one App Store. It's in my best interests that developers are not given much power and treated as second class citizens.
Why?
Because what I want for me aligns much more with Apple than with developers.
Evil for asking a company to give a clear commitment to honor its contracts, after a premeditated public spectacle of breaking contracts in the past? After a US court said that Apple was allowed to ban Epic (a US company) from their developer programs as a result? And after the CEO made public statements that he did not agree with the terms in Apple's agreement again?
Shame on Apple, picking on poor defenseless $32 billion dollar companies.
The real problem is they shouldn't have to sell in the Apple app store. If I want to install a game from Epic I should be able to navigate to their website, install it, and purchase in game stuff whatever I want without Apple seeing a cent. They got their money from the hardware. I think Apple's app store is great but I should have the option to purchase software for my phone from whatever service I want without Apple sticking their hands in the cookie jar once that phone is in my possession. Unless you believe I don't own my phone.
This Chinese company that owns Epic will be larger this or next week than Apple if Apple their stock price keeps dropping.
^^ This is indeed the real problem that needs addressing.
Apple trying to take cuts of transactions they have no part in needs to stop
You can do what you want with the product. But what you're really asking is for Apple to allow you to do things that Apple does not currently allow. If you don't like Apple's rules, then go ahead and do something different with the product.
I don't think you're given the box until after the transaction has been completed (feel free to correct me, it's been years since I bought anything physically). Besides, even if you do accept the EULA, some parts (such as the licensing agreement of the OS) may not hold up in court.
In court, Tim Sweeney testified he would have accepted a special deal if offered by Apple, similar to how Epic has negotiated such arrangements with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.
Last edited:
It's exactly what we want. We want Apple to make those decisions. I don't have time to wet every developers.
OK, so maybe, Apple is wrong sometimes, but I don't care, because there are so many desperate developers out there waiting to take the place of those kicked out.
It's like being member of a country club. You have outsourced who you interact with and expect the management of the country club to keep out the riff raff and members behaving badly.
Again, you’re just making that up. That’s not a thing.