Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account

[Chazak]

Cry-baby Tim Sweeney should resign. He's the one who called the shots and ruined the relationship with Apple by being greedy and stubborn.

Maybe if he resigns, Apple will also reconsider the decision of allowing Epic back on the App Store.

Sweeney isn't going anywhere. He has 50% of the stock and controls the company. Another 40% is owned by the Chinese via Tencent.

It just doesn't work that way and for good reason, it never will.

Just in case you didn't notice, you just accused Sweeney of what lots and lots of people on Apple centric tech sites (especially those that attract developer, coders, etc.) accuse Apple and Cook of - Stubborn and Greedy. I see those comments on MacRumors, 9to5, etc., without fail, every day.

 

[cupcakes2000]

nonsense. maybe read this post #545

I did. But the insinuation of your and other posters is that the EU won’t dare to take on the US. But they will if it is in violation of EU law. US law doesn’t trump all other laws, and US rulings may not fly in other jurisdictions.

 

[needsomecoffee]

Note that in 2022 there were 1.7 million apps on the App Store and almost 37 million registered developers. Sure, Apple could limit the number of developers, but that would be a very drastic change.

Whoah. $99 yearly dev fees... that's nearly $3.7 BILLION in almost pure profit. Nice to be Tim Apple.

Note: Long time ago I had a free app for learning math in the App Store (when Apple allowed Adobe Air apps). Despite never doing anything other than put it in the App Store it was pretty successful. Then dev costs went to $99/year, and I dropped out, and went PWA (actually a better app now vs. then). Just could not justify the yearly fee, and PWAs (despite what the FanBois all say) can make a great app. E.g.

GitHub - HeyPuter/puter: 🌐 The Internet OS! Free, Open-Source, and Self-Hostable.

🌐 The Internet OS! Free, Open-Source, and Self-Hostable. - HeyPuter/puter

github.com

 

[visualseed]

Rubbish comparison. Even though there are plenty of games that have been ported to different platforms simultaneously, that's not the point. This is about Apple preventing people from developing apps and running them on their devices without a kickback.

Does Microsoft or Sony prevent people developing games for their consoles? If yes, I don't agree with that either.

This DMA was never intended nor ever officially presented as a means for developers to avoid paying Apple for their IP. To the extent that the DMA and other anti-steering legislation has given companies an ability to avoid Apple automatically collecting their fees, they have never explicitly denied Apple has the right to charge them.

 

[makitango]

Factually speaking, they have violated the App Store Agreements, not the developer account agreements. Those are two different things.

I suspect that in the long run, Apple may have to allow their account to continue but to continue disallowing access to the App Store.

Access to the platform is required as unsanctioned as per the DMA, and I am sure this will be the result in the end.

Not a fan of Epic‘s politics though, and not defending their crimes.

 

[poseidondev]

The DMA does not force any business relationship, nor requires unconditional access to the platform, but imposes limitations on which measures a gatekeeper can put in place to control access.

From the DMA III.6.4, which regulates third-party applications and third-party application stores:



This is IMHO the only applicable part Apple can invoke to justify preventing Epic from accessing the platform.

That's not how you can read that.

Yes 6(4) regulates with kind of restrictions gatekeepers can impose on third party stores, but only within the context of the DMA.

And within the context of the DMA access is (semi-)guaranteed to "business users" which is defined in 2(21), with the caveat of 6(12).

Because Epic doesn't meet 2(21), they don't meet the definition of 2(21), making 6(4) irrelevant for their situation.

It's kind of like grabbing a clause in the App Store guidelines about a specific category of apps, and saying that a developer that is kicked out of the developer program can still publish those kinds of apps because that clause (and every other clause) doesn't explicitly state that a developer needs to agree to the ADPLA. It's not explicitly stated in the clause about that category of apps, because it's stated elsewhere.

 

[makitango]

This DMA was never intended nor ever officially presented as a means for developers to avoid paying Apple for their IP. To the extent that the DMA and other anti-steering legislation has given companies an ability to avoid Apple automatically collecting their fees, they have never explicitly denied Apple has the right to charge them.

The DMA requires access free of charge.

 

[jakey rolling]

This. Why don’t people understand that this is exactly what’s going on? Epic is trying to sell stuff on the APPLE storefront that APPLE created… For free

No, Epic are not trying to sell stuff on the Apple storefront. Quite the opposite, actually. Epic are trying not to sell something on Apple's storefront. They are trying to develop their own storefront to sell their own applications on their own storefront.

 

[hans1972]

Their Game Stores don't qualify as "Gatekeepers". This is due to the significant smaller number of third-party vendors operating on them.

It's because game consoles are outside the scope of the DMA.

Game consoles aren't a core platform service according to the EU, neither is music streaming services.

 

[Chazak]

Happens in so many threads

Sometimes folks take the time to say “I’m not going to read all of this thread!!…” … and then post something already covered in and out on the previous pages

There are currently approximately 550 comments on 23 pages in this thread. I don't think it is realistic to expect someone is going to read through all of them before commenting. In fact, I would be surprised if most people read more than a page or two of comments. But I do understand your frustration. I have had the same response you are having.

 

[jakey rolling]

That would lead to a contradiction to a US ruling. Between US companies. Should the EU have that much power to overturn any US ruling? This is where it gets tricky. And could take years to battle out.

When those companies are doing business in the EU, yes, the EU should have the power to regulate those businesses. Those businesses summarily have the option of not doing business in the EU.

It doesn't matter where those businesses are located - even if their parent head offices are located right across the street from each other. It only matters that they offer products and services in the EU.

 

[Chazak]

Maybe don't badmouth the place where you want to sell your items? If I was selling something at Target I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to bad mouth them and have a shocked pikachu face when they remove my products from their stores.

Apples to oranges my friend.

 

[rafark]

I don’t think this is about hardware. It’s about the OS and service infrastructure behind it. And none of us own that except for Apple. We merely have a licence to use it.

But it is not your software.

Read your TOS. That hardware has a license of OS X on it. You don't own the right to install OS X on it but a temporary user supported license on it that runs out (8 years or more considering Apple's supported hardware history), so go install Linux on it and discover you own no power over the GPL either.

You have a temporary user license on that purchase and eventually it ages out. Same goes for all operating systems.

Legal - Software License Agreements - Apple

www.apple.com

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

I am a software developer myself so I’m very aware of software licensing. I was replying to what the other poster said about wanting to run software on “apples hardware”, as if it was fully owned by them. If this was software that fully ran on apple’s hardware like a server I’d understand. But we are the owners of the hardware we’ve purchased.

I could even understand it if Apple sold the devices at a loss, but were not paying 300 bucks for a brand new flagship iPhone. We’re paying thousands. The device is ours.

 

[Ethosik]

When those companies are doing business in the EU, yes, the EU should have the power to regulate those businesses. Those businesses summarily have the option of not doing business in the EU.

It doesn't matter where those businesses are located - even if their parent head offices are located right across the street from each other. It only matters that they offer products and services in the EU.

That sets a major precedent for global business. Effectively making the US ruling moot. If all it takes is for Epic to get the account due to the EU than there is no point in ANY contracts EVER.

 

[hans1972]

Game consoles are not marketed as general purpose computers. Smartphones are.

But the DMA also deals with online intermediation services, online advertising services and virtual assistants.

They aren't general purpose computers either.

 

[bousozoku]

Meaning?

Apple is throwing a tantrum in response to Epic Games throwing a tantrum.

However, the DMA will push Epic Games back into the App Store with their own store eventually, probably with a hefty fine on Apple.

Apple might as well acclimate themselves to a world where they have diminished control over their devices and software, and make the best of the situation, instead of aggravating people and businesses.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple might as well acclimate themselves to a world where they have diminished control over their devices and software, and make the best of the situation, instead of aggravating people and businesses.

100% agree - The sooner they get with the program and start heading that way, the better.
Fighting fires on every front (fronts which are only starting to grow and spread) is a losing long term plan.

I hope they are working towards that in the background and what we are seeing publicly is just buying time.

 

[rafark]

Where does Apple market an iPhone as a general purpose computer?

Apple is running an ad where a kid asks, 'What's a computer?' — and people find it infuriating

The end of an Apple commercial that features a teen using her iPad in various situations has people upset.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[ChromeCloud]

Sweeney isn't going anywhere. He has 50% of the stock and controls the company. Another 40% is owned by the Chinese via Tencent.

It just doesn't work that way and for good reason, it never will.

Just in case you didn't notice, you just accused Sweeney of what lots and lots of people on Apple centric tech sites (especially those that attract developer, coders, etc.) accuse Apple and Cook of - Stubborn and Greedy. I see those comments on MacRumors, 9to5, etc., without fail, every day.

How would you define a CEO that single-handedly ruined Epic's business relationship with Apple in such a way that effectively bans Epic from selling its products on the most profitable digital platform in the world with close to a billion active devices?

You are right, greedy and stubborn are probably not the best adjectives. They don't scale up to that level of idiocy.

 

[hans1972]

It's only insane when you remove all context, like you're attempting to do here. The requirement to "do business" in the first place is Apple's own artificial requirement. Just like the case on other OS platforms (such as Windows), there does not need to be a business relationship for a developer to develop software for the OS. If Apple were to sell just the developer toolkit to developers without requiring any other artificially bundled services, that would probably be absolutely fine. But they don't - they require you to have an active developer account and use their storefront. In that case, yes, it is absolutely sane to force Apple to "do business with others", because they are leveraging their monopoly power to force a business relationship to exist in the first place.

Selling something to a business is a business relationship and it will be some kind of contract between those to companies.

 

[jakey rolling]

That sets a major precedent for global business. Effectively making the US ruling moot. If all it takes is for Epic to get the account due to the EU than there is no point in ANY contracts EVER.

What major precedent? All businesses that do business in any country have to follow that country's laws. The US ruling is moot outside of the US. That's how laws work. If a business doesn't like how the laws work in a particular jurisdiction, they can choose not to operate in that jurisdiction.

Apple are already limiting certain EU-specific features to users who are located in the EU and are removing those features if those users leave the EU for longer than an accepted period of time. If Apple can enforce a geo-fenced limit to EU-specific features on the device, they certainly can use that to limit access to Epic's third party store.

 

[hans1972]

I don't know if you're aware of this, but decisions made by a United States court mean nothing in the European Union. Apple can only take measures that are "strictly necessary and proportionate" and "duly justified by the gatekeeper" which simply isn't the case here. Apple's decision will be blocked without hesitation, since there's no evidence that Epic Games endangers "the integrity of the hardware or operating system"

So how many hours or days are "without hesitation"? Do you think Apple will be forced to change before the weekend?

 

[visualseed]

The DMA requires access free of charge.

No, for software application stores they require FRAND. And they make no provision or limitation on the licensing of IP which would have made the law dead on arrival.

 

[bousozoku]

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

Until this stupid move, Apple was in the right.

Epic Games broke their contract. They were punished. Apple restored their development account.

I even agree that Apple wasn't enthusiastically following the idealism of the DMA. The lawmakers didn't want to tie down the necessary parts for fear of political retaliation. Apple took advantage of ambiguous legal wording.

Apple should restore the development account and follow the idealism of the DMA, even though they won't make as much money.

 

[jakey rolling]

But the DMA also deals with online intermediation services, online advertising services and virtual assistants.
They aren't general purpose computers either.

The DMA applies to certain subsets of goods and services, among which game consoles are intentionally excluded. Better?