Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's not Apple's device, it's my device. If Apple or Microsoft tried to control app distribution on macOS or Windows in the same way Apple is doing on iOS, people would be up in arms. Just because Apple has normalized this insane level of control doesn't make it acceptable.
So you knowingly bought a locked down walled garden limited device and are now upset that it is a locked down walled garden limited device despite knowing this before purchasing.

iPhones have only been around since 2007 and now 2024. So only had 17 years to discover how Apple works with iOS.

And despite those limitation that people complain about they still flock to buying it in droves.
 
You should want "little guys" (a subjective definition anyhow) to win because it helps keep playing fields more level and increases competition.

...which is better for you (and all customers)

But I don't care about competition on iOS. I don't need more choices (there is already too much) and I don't need cheaper software, it's already dirt cheap.

What I need is someone acting as a shield against developers bad behaviour and also their lust to contact me and have a customer relationship with me.
 
Couldn't happen to nicer bastards.

Anyway I will be stocking up on the popcorn for this one

2uxh8u.jpg


Judging from the number of pages in this thread, it is safe to say that you will run out of that popcorn before the night is over.

Besides, this has gone far beyond popcorn, and requires nachos. ;)

BL.
 
I agree with John Gruber here.
“But why not take an opportunity to look magnanimous? Apple shouldn’t be expected to grovel, but this looks like they’re going out of their way to look vindictive. I really thought it would be a clever bit of public relations jujitsu to make nice with Epic, even if, in Cupertino, it was through gritted teeth.

Popcorn-eating-wise, I’m genuinely curious about Apple citing a U.S. court decision as grounds for banning Epic’s Swedish subsidiary from holding a developer account. What happens if the European Commission doesn’t see that ruling as applicable? Epic never lost a lawsuit to Apple in the E.U. So how is this going to pan out?”
 
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.

That's not a right you should have as a customer or consumer. How a product work should be up to the maker of the product with as little government interfering as possible.

I want all the software I used to be tailored specifically to my usage, be optimised for Apple platforms and not be cross platform. Sometimes, I don't get what I want and I don't want the government to help me.
 
You’re right, lots of armchair lawyering going around here.

I used to be one, specialized in EU law no less, but then I traded people who show up with poorly Googled statutes in for me just Googleing code.

Nevertheless, I’ll add some more of my own armchair lawyering from the Hasbin region, all the rest is just sparkling armchair lawyering.

Contracts often include a jurisdication clause.

Private international law allows for this and more specifically for the EU, Rome I allows for this and honors it except in very narrow instances. There are some general exceptions in the form of consumer protections, but those don't apply in B2B contracts.

The Apple Developer Program License Agreement (ADPLA), contains such a clause in §14.10. It used to exclusively select the Northern District of California as their choice, but recently they've added Ireland in §14.10(d) as well for most cases arising out of a "European Relationship", with an explicit carveout for IP-related matters.

This change is presumably made to comply with Article 5(6) of the DMA which requires gatekeepers to allow parties to bring matters before a national court in the EU when it pertains to non-compliance with the DMA. The newly added clause that selects Ireland is a bit broader than that, but I suppose Apple's lawyers felt generous when they changed it.

So on the matter of jurisdication, as far as it pertains to "European Relationships" anyways, Irish courts would have jurisdications. But that doesn't have much relevance for this debate.

First and foremost, the DMA does not force business relationships and this notion that the DMA requires Apple to provide access to Epic (or anyone for that matter) without condition. I'm goin to need a citation for that.

In fact, throughout the DMA it's very clear that requiring an agreement has the EU's stamp of approval. Specifically Article 6(12) clearly states that the gatekeeper is allowed to set conditions of access, as long as they're fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Still, the bigger question is if there even is a valid contract. While the US has slowly moved away from the hard requirement of a meeting of the minds under the subjective theory of assent in favor of objective manifestations of asssnt, European courts are still hardcore subscribers to the original meaning of consensus ad idem.

There's also a component in which it would be weighed if it was reasonable for Epic to assume Apple willingly entered into a contract with them, considering the history.

Apple would only have to assert that they didn't intend to enter into a contract with Epic, which can be further supported by the fact that Epic was kicked out of the ADPLA and that Apple has insisted at (and had been granted by). the California court that they should be able to sever all ties with Epic and affiliates.

Even worse, Apple can argue that Epic tried to deceive Apple by setting up a different entity with a name and address details other than what was known to Apple and has plugged those details into a (semi-)automated process to get a developer account in an attempt to bind Apple to an agreement they don't want.

European courts are not in the business of forcing people into contracts with one another and it's pretty likely that this new contract would be void. At the very least it would be considered a continuation of and directly related to the California case and European courts would simply defer to the court in the Northern District of California. Not in the least because that court's ruling affects affiliates as well, meaning it also covers this new entity.

In short, this whole thing is another Epic gambit and isn't going anywhere.


You're right. Apple clearly stated in the emails shared by Epic that it was because of their prior breach of contract and that the current pontificating by Sweeny about the new contract they wanted to enter in, worries them if they'd adhere to the terms of the contract.

As stated above, that could be the case and happens quite often. Also the other way around by the way. This is by design to facilitate international trade.


Did you pick this up watching Better Call Saul or something? It would be more helpful if you'd put more effort into understanding the matter at hand before opining on it.

Civil law cases don't aim to make "corrective" or punitive actions. Their primary purpose is to remedy a wrong. Standing relates to if you have sufficient connection to the matter at hand to be able to participate in a case. You don't have a right to create standing to get "relief" or a "corrective action".

If no negotiation is possible, then you have two options:

1. If you like the terms of the contract you can enter into it
2. If you don't like the terms, you don't enter into the contract

That's not a catch-22, that's just life.

In fact, entering into a contract under a false premise has implications on mutual assent, which could lead to the contract being deemed void.

There's a whole slew of other issues that come up as well with your kind of bad faith mentality. If you like looking up stuff I'd suggest you look into things such as the "clean hands doctrine", "estoppel by silence" and "laches". For Europe, since they don't do estoppels (not counting UK), "Nemo potest venire contra factum proprium" is a great thing to look into to get eased into this rabbit hole.

Alternatively you can just read what the Northern District of California and the Ninth Circuit had to say about Epic's masterplan to purposefully breach contract. I'll give you a spoiler: standing had nothing to do with it.

ETA: If just standing is you main concern: Epic would still have standing even if they didn't break the contract, if there would've been an actual injury that is. You don't need to break a contract for that and often, like in this case, it will work against you if you break the contract instead of going to court.
Would you care to explain how everything you wrote about contracts here applies in the case where one side has monopoly power?

I don’t think the implications are quite as you describe in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR
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.

I disagree. The regulation explicitly mentions the entities involved. The entities mentioned in 6(4) are the Gatekeeper and the end user. 6(4) never mentions "business users". I don't think this is a mistake or that it's stated anywhere else: I think it's by design.

6(4) does regulate the right of the end user to install third-party applications or stores of their choice and doesn't specify anywhere that said third-party application or application stores needs to come from a "business user".

This is likely because they not necessarily do: a third-party application could e.g. come from a non-profit that would not qualify under 2(21) as "business user" in the first place for its very nature.

6(12) is also not really relevant as it covers a Gatekeeper's conditions to allow access to a business user to the Gatekeeper's own software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services.
 
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.

But is this true also for B2B and not only B2C?
There much more freedom in contracts between to professional parties.

In any case, these decisions don't provide you with a right to make Apple change the software to work the way you do. You'll have to change it yourself.
 
Would you care to explain how everything you wrote about contracts here applies in the case where one side has monopoly power?

I don’t think the implications are quite as you describe in this case.
which aide are you referring to???
Neither Apple nor Epic have been found to be monopolies, not even in the EU.
So your statement is just blatantly false.
 
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?

Yes!

iOS being a locked down system is such an essential part of the system so disagreeing with it clearly shows you bought a system not for you.

You should then buy an Android phone and complain about it and why it sucks on an Android site.
 
which aide are you referring to???
Neither Apple nor Epic have been found to be monopolies, not even in the EU.
So your statement is just blatantly false.
I’m sorry … what exactly do you think antitrust actions relate to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR
Great to read. Epic if given the chance, would be the same things they accuse Apple of being. If it was a small company? I’d probably be more on their side but it’s not. It’s a greedy company that made Fortnite and thinks it’s now king of the hill.
It's actually worse.

Epic itself is half owned by Chinese conglomerate Tencent.

That's what this is really about. Tencent owns tons of crappy, borderline fraudulent mobile "games" that are designed to addict customers with elements of gambling, only a small fraction of which are available in the App Store.

What you got to realize is that those products make 90% of their money from whales, aka the most profitable 1% of customers who are addicted and get drained for tens of thousands of Dollars.

iOS customers on average are wealthier targets and now they'll have unhindered access to this customer base.
 
This Chinese company that owns Epic will be larger this or next week than Apple if Apple their stock price keeps dropping.

Chinese tech companies have also fallen in the last year; one of the major reasons being government interference.
Sounds familiar?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
THE Walled Apple Garden strikes again.

Soon People will get tired of the closed wall system of Apple and its high prices for memory and SSD upgrades and move on. This action is only hurting Apple. 1 less game out of a weak Apple gaming system.
You know that is exactly how competition works.

If you don't like the products offered by a company, you don't buy them.

The company learns from that and improves the product.

Unfortunately too many people that complain about the walled garden etc, still kept buying the products, and if spending hard cold cash with Apple then Apple must still have a better product then the alternative, or why else are they buying the Apple products.
 
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.

My opinion is the complete opposite.

I want to force all developers to go through a single gatekeeper per operating system on mobile devices. And I want that gatekeeper to protect me from having to deal with developers directly. The gatekeeper should also be very restrictive on the quality and content of the applications.

Uniformity, strictness and simplicity should be the key.
 
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.

Is your position that Epic doesn't meet 2(21) because it doesn't have a developer account?

I've read both of your posts with great interest, but I would think that Article 13 on anti-circumvention, in particular 13(4), will also be relevant here:

4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.

On the face of it, not allowing a potential competitor a developer account, which in turn makes it impossible to offer an alternative App Store, might be captured by 13(4), although that is of course untested and, in any case, I can't see this creating an unqualified obligation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poseidondev
(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.

Every developer until proven otherwise. Millions of developers out there are trying to scam users, getting their personal information, selling their information, showing ads etc. No virus, worm or trojan horse would have been possible without a developers.

Developers are selfish too. They want to make more money, being in control and owning the customers.
 
If that happens, Apple might as well put Android on the iPhone for EU. Ofcourse also at a very high price because all those fines have to be paid by the EU customers.
No what Apple should do is offer two OS in the EU.

1.) Classic iOS for people that want it.
2.) A new Open mobile OS named I_should_have_bought_an_Android, and at choice then flashes up, thankyou for acknowledging you bought the wrong product.
 
(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.

If you're not selfish it doesn't matter to you how iOS works.

If iOS stays locked down, some of us would glad, and you should be glad on our behalf, since you don't care about how iOS should work for you.
 
This is exactly how it should be. There should be a way of install things on MY phone without APPLES approval. There should be a way of developing an app and releasing it on iOS without apples approval. You can do this on any other none specialist platform.
So knowing this why did you buy an iPhone or does Tim Cook have a Dossier of Blackmail on you that force you to buy this product you clearly unhappy you purchased.
 
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.
And what he was asking is why do you use Apple products as opposed to the alternative. As you clearly unhappy with your products.

It is not as if any of this stuff is new on iPhone and iPad.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.