Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account

[easy4lif]

Epic Games are no altruistic savior so I’m just gonna leave this right here.

FTC hits Epic Games with record $520 million in penalties over Fortnite privacy breaches

The North Carolina-based company's popular game duped millions of players into making unintentional purchases, the FTC said in a statement Monday.

www.latimes.com

 

[Samplasion]

It's exactly what we I want. We I 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.

(FTFY)
I think it's especially sad that you think every developer except Apple is out to get you personally. Plus, you admitted your POV is very selfish wrt. this situation.

 

[MilaM]

Again, you’re just making that up. That’s not a thing.

All international business of Apple goes through Apple Distribution International Ltd. in Ireland. That is a thing.

 

[Abazigal]

It's sad to see so many people supporting the Goliath

I'm not sure if many folks realize that it ultimately comes around to "get you too" when we have the entrenched power "winning".

Root for the smaller guys -- the underdogs -- the upstarts

(relatively speaking in this case - relative power matters a lot here)

That USED TO BE APPLE!
That is what created the company we loved

The reason for supporting Apple in the past wasn't only because they were the underdog, but also because they were right, and would go on to be on the right side of history.

I said it before when Epic sued Apple, that Epic is not your friend, and they are not doing any of this to empower developers or benefit consumers. I did not agree with that Epic was doing then, and I still don't agree with what Epic is doing now. They knowingly and wilfully violated App Store rules in a bid to force a lawsuit because the potential upside would be huge for them - the ability to offer their own App Store on iOS where they could then host other developers' apps and charge them a cut.

The downside would be the risk of souring developer relations, because if and when Apple did win the lawsuit, they would have no further reason to show any goodwill to developers, when their legal victory stands as proof of their unassailable authority over iOS.

Epic's reckless gamble had served to accomplish nothing except make things worse for everybody.

It's the same thing now. It was never about the money, but about power. Companies like Epic and Spotify want to burn the current App Store model down to the ground just for their own benefit, regardless of the impact to consumers and other smaller developers. Not least because companies like Epic have the right business model to prosper from an overturning of the current status quo.

Epic was on the wrong side of history then, just as they will be (on the wrong side of history) once again.

 

[bsolar]

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.

If you go through a typical European country regulator authority can find plenty of cases where they find EULA clauses to be invalid.

An EULA in itself is a contract and contract clauses in general can be found to be invalid, regardless of whether both parties agreed to them.

An invalid contractual clause can invalidate the whole contract if the contract cannot stand without said clause, or the contract might be declared still valid without the invalid clauses if it can stand without them.

 

[j26]

Again, you’re just making that up. That’s not a thing.

It's not a thing that Apple (Ireland) is the EU Headquarters?
Not a thing that Apple (Ireland) is a separate legal entity to Apple Inc?

 

[dwaite]

Yep. Steve Jobs wasn’t a nice person. He blocked Flash on mobile. Killing it off. We know it was a good thing now, but at the time it was quite a hot topic.

He didn't block anything. Adobe did not have sufficient engineering to run on iPhone, especially considering how constrained the devices were compared to desktop/laptop Macs (which Flash also barely ran on).

We saw how useful the Flash support which eventually came to Android was.

 

[Zest28]

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.

Apple is right.

I own a piece of hardware and the company wanted to release an iOS app to control this hardware. And their app got constantly rejected by Apple and they were blaming Apple for the reason why we didn’t have the app.

After a year when Apple finally approved the app …. man … it is the worst quality app I have seen in my life. I can’t imagine what the quality was of all the version that Apple rejected.

 

[cupcakes2000]

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.

How?

I don’t believe it’s Apple decision to ‘allow’ me anything.

 

[crsh1976]

Shame on Apple, picking on poor defenseless $32 billion dollar companies.

What's 32 billions when the other is worth over 2 trillions?

Nobody is going to cry for either of them's retirement plans.

 

[lartola]

It's not like I have a choice since Apple forcefully updates phones overnight.

Not true. You can disable the automatic overnight software updates if you choose to, and manually install the updates when you want (or even not install them at all).

 

[Will Co]

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.

Yes, that’s also true. It’s a very tricky area and the detail is mind boggling and varied: some jurisdictions work differently to others. Without getting into the nitty-gritty for a specific country, my original comment was that for the most part, if executed properly, EULA are enforceable in most jurisdictions. Otherwise they would not exist, as others have pointed out. Just like the Developer Agreement. Although I suspect Epic right now wishes it was otherwise…. ;-)

 

[Mescagnus]

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.

Forcing access without a contract? That would make the EU a very wild west with unforeseen consequences for any company considered a "gatekeeper". I'm certain such an authoritarian overreach by the EU would be battled in the courts for years to come.

You should also remember that Epic brought all this on themselves by breaking a contract and acting maliciously toward their business partner. Apple's course of action is not the new normal, it's specific to Epic – for valid reasons even the courts have sided with.

 

[dwaite]

I don‘t really understand the people, they broke the rules and now are banned for life on this platform.

Remember Facebook distributing a spy VPN app with their enterprise account, which got them disabled only for a couple of days.
You cannot really judge companies with different scales. „Its only Epic so we setting an example“.

I'm pretty sure Facebook was willing to pinky-swear that they would not break the agreements again.

Epic is not wiling to take this "pledge of fealty" (e.g. honoring signed contracts).

 

[Will Co]

If you go through a typical European country regulator authority can find plenty of cases where they find EULA clauses to be invalid.

An EULA in itself is a contract and contract clauses in general can be found to be invalid, regardless of whether both parties agreed to them.

An invalid contractual clause can invalidate the whole contract if the contract cannot stand without said clause, or the contract might be declared still valid without the invalid clauses if it can stand without them.

Yes, I agree. I could have gone into more detail, but my intention was to explain to a previous poster that his assertion that EULA are wholly unenforceable was wrong. That’s not to say that they are all fully enforceable.

 

[rkuo]

Good thing this isn't about hospitals.

You said “business”, so yes this is about hospitals. And this is in general about the fact that many businesses are forced to do business with other parties, of which I just gave you an example and of which there are many others.

 

[j26]

Forcing access without a contract? That would make the EU a very wild west with unforeseen consequences for any company considered a "gatekeeper". I'm certain such an authoritarian overreach by the EU would be battled in the courts for years to come.

You should also remember that Epic brought all this on themselves by breaking a contract and acting maliciously toward their business partner. Apple's course of action is not the new normal, it's specific to Epic – for valid reasons even the courts have sided with.

Not going to argue with any of that. It could all end up quite ugly, with the result being a DMA Mark II.

 

[dwaite]

What's 32 billions when the other is worth over 2 trillions?

Nobody is going to cry for either of them's retirement plans.

Yeah, point being it's not David vs Goliath, it's Goliath vs Godzilla.

 

[2540497]

Brilliant, well done Apple

 

[BaldiMac]

All international business of Apple goes through Apple Distribution International Ltd. in Ireland. That is a thing.

Revenue. Not business agreements.

 

[gimarbazat]

revenge time

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not a thing that Apple (Ireland) is the EU Headquarters?
Not a thing that Apple (Ireland) is a separate legal entity to Apple Inc?

Not a thing to sue a subsidiary that isn’t party to the agreement.

 

[GizmoDVD]

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.

So you should not have purchased an iPhone and maybe stuck with an android instead.

 

[I7guy]

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?

It depends on what is most important. People have complained about not being able to do “x” on an iPhone for years. Some with hyperbole, some with a matter of fact tone.

 

[bsolar]

Forcing access without a contract? That would make the EU a very wild west with unforeseen consequences for any company considered a "gatekeeper". I'm certain such an authoritarian overreach by the EU would be battled in the courts for years to come.

The DMA tries to compromise between the right of a company to do business as they see fit and the duty of a gatekeeper to provide fair access to their platform to third-parties.

The DMA does not say that access needs to be unconditional, but says that a gatekeeper can implement measures or standards only as long as they are justified as "strictly necessary and proportionate" to ensure the security of the platform.

That's a pretty limiting scope that is allowed to the Gatekeeper for enacting control and it's questionable whether the requirement for a developer account and all the requirements it has attached to it are "strictly necessary and proportionate" to ensure the security of the platform.

If you ask Apple, of course they argue they are, but the regulator might beg to differ. I'm sure Epic begs to differ, but ultimately it's the EU's opinion what will matter.