The issue being discussed is that Schiller relied on the negative posts to contribute to the decision. That’s it. Schiller did and my quote of him prove it.
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
The issue being discussed is that Schiller relied on the negative posts to contribute to the decision. That’s it. Schiller did and my quote of him prove it.
The DMA might be referred to by some as "asymmetric regulation" because it's a framework that encompasses more than just antitrust. That's a charitable explanation for saying that. But I think most would colloquially understand this as antitrust law because the motivation and similarities in approach composes a great deal of the framework. The vast majority of writing discusses the DMA as antitrust law and I find very little to suggest that your definition distinguishing the DMA apart from being antitrust law is widely accepted. I think the distinction would be better stated as "antitrust regulation" vs "antitrust enforcement".
One article that did support your definition: https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/how-european-union-can-best-apply-digital-markets-act
However, that was the only article I could find discussing it in this way.
The focus on whether Apple is a monopoly here is a bit of a side tangent I think. I asked a question about monopoly power in a hypothetical scenario because that was intended to address some claims regarding contract law, but i don't recall claiming Apple was a monopoly or that the DMA turned them into one. Apple is floating in a grey area that's probably around market dominance to oligopoly or duopoly ... certainly enough to get the attention of regulators on multiple fronts.
epic? still? they are the one who violate the App Store rules first, so why are they picking on apple now? they are like the bully kids in schools when they first break the rule but then they turn everything around and make the other look bad and all there is is they just want to win regardless of right or wrong. bully!!!!!
Basically the way I see it EU decided they need to open the platform. I suspect the result will be forcing Apple to not require a developer account at all. So EU may take this out on Apple that way. I think the net result will be Apple will have to charge for XCode and APIs vs make money on App Store. And wave it for those who agree to stay in App Store.
maybe, maybe not. the way I see it that the EU has created new regulations and the verbiage is somewhat high level and somewhat vague, which leads to differing interpretations. I am sure Apple's legal team studied all the details and came up with their interpretation. Now it's up to the EU to either allow different interpretations or add clarity and details on the points of contention. Lawyers will be involved in this process so it will take quite some time to get everyone on the same page ...
lol. I see this from 3 perspectives. Epics perspective and that of any developers. Apples perspective. And the user prespective. I get annoyed as a user that I pay for a device and yet Apple decides what I can and can’t do on that device through arbitrary limits and end up forcing apps to be less useful.
As a developer I find it ridiculous that Apple can yank your app and block your update’s arbitrarily.
As Apollo can see that I invest in a platform and want a certain quality and want money for my efforts
If it’s all done in good faith I feel like all these needs could be met. But all feels like they have control and don’t want to let go of control. Hence the government is going to solve it. It’s apples fault the government is this involved.
It really doesn't matter what it is colloquially called. The fact is that it is not an antitrust law and cannot be heavy handily enforced as such. It's not structured as an antitrust law and it makes no provisions or differentiations between regulating companies that may be actual monopolies from those that just barely meet the arbitrary threshold for gatekeepers. Again, conflating being deemed a gatekeeper under the DMA, which is true, as being the same as being a mono/oligo/duo/polistic flirt that needs to be regulated as such is disingenuous.
The EU wastes no time bringing antitrust action against companies that warrant it. The fact that the DMA exists is pretty much proof that Apple and others in their boat are nowhere near meeting the criteria to bring down the antitrust hammer. Without truly meeting that criteria the ability to brutally regulate Apple into submission will be met with pushback from the various international treaty-bodies the EU is member to that require exceptionally egregious behavior by a company with a court ruling under the appropriate laws before it can be stripped of things like financial interest in its IP or nullification of contracts and judgements from other treaty member jurisdictions or even "broken up."
I notice you're starting to back off the initial premise that Apple chose to terminate the account because of the rhetoric and are now describing it as a contributing factor.
First, Apple isn't debating whether to terminate an account, but whether to readmit a known and admitted violator via a different subsidiary. Second, that still misrepresents what Schiller is saying because you keep removing the final paragraph of his email:
Phil Schiller said:
The email in its entirety makes clear that the Epic rhetoric was not a contributing factor to termination or refusal to readmit, but a contributing factor to this email. The decision would be based on Epic giving a convincing statement that they wouldn't breach their contract a second time.
It's interesting that Sweeney obviously is the one who published this internal email, and who is likely the one trying to spin this as "they don't like our words" while ignoring the actual facts of the discussion: Sweeney acknowledged in court that he accepted the terms of the previous agreement and then intentionally violated them to precipitate a legal battle he then roundly lost at great expense to both parties.
Sweeney is obviously relying on people to hide the context of the discussion and inject it into the public discourse in an effort to sway opinion.
Despite that, Apple was considering readmitting them to the program if Sweeney would give assurances that he was done with his stupid stunts.
Here's the relevant bits through the email in order:
Phil Schiller said:
Phil Schiller said:
Phil Schiller said:
Phil Schiller said:
Phil Schiller said:
Probably should have talked to a lawyer instead of throwing together a quick email.
As I said earlier, it's in customers' interest for Apple and Epic to work out their issues before Epic releases an app store. As long as Epic acts in good faith in response to Apple's concerns, I'd think this would be over pretty quickly.
Incorrrect. You need to review my posts. My only claim was that Cchase88754321 made a fair characterization. My position has never changed.
Seems to me that it's misleading to claim a contributing factor as the only cause when you know it wasn't the primary factor.
This was the characterization you call fair:
"Also stated they terminated it because of Tim Sweeney’s criticism of Apple’s implementation of DMA rules. Which doesn’t sit right."
I've reviewed your posts, and replied to each in turn. You went from saying they terminated it because of criticism is fair to it only being a contributing factor. In fact neither is correct. The ongoing rhetoric was a secondary factor (second to Epic's earlier blatant violation of terms) in Apple's decision to send an email requesting assurances before reinstating Epic's developer license.
I never claimed it was the primary cause. I claimed Apple said didn’t like it and used it as part of their decision.
The post that you said was "fair" certainly implied it was solely over criticism.
First, that email is not the same as an official statement from Apple.
But more importantly, that email does not say what you think it does. It is referring back to past behavior and calls out the current comments strongly imply that the previously (negatively for Epic) adjudicated behavior to continue.
And, with full context, Apple is asking for written assurances that Epic will comply with the rules moving forward. Although, personally, I would not accept that assurance any more than the ink on the last contract. The way I read that email is "convince us you'll abide to the agreements this time and we'll let you back in."
Context matters. Read the last paragraph in full. It is clear that Apple is treating Epic as guilty until convinced otherwise. That is not an unreasonable (or illegal) position to take here.
That is where you went wrong. It was a fair characterization. Glad it is cleared up.
So you believe it is fair to be misleading? That certainly clears things up for me.
A fine also does not restore confidence. The logo owner on the back of the phone is going to be blamed for any and all bad actors / actions. They have to have a way to immediately resolve issues - developer agreements and signatures which may be immediately invoked. Even then, revoking an app (store) signature will only prevent new installs and, most likely not, stop existing installs to cease functioning.
Your post is way to nuanced for this forum 😆, but great a great contribution nonetheless!
Personally, I think it's in the customers best interest to never let Epic back in. This wasn't an inadvertent violation, it wasn't a disagreement about how to interpret the contract, this was an intentional and subversive violation.
There should be consequences for that kind of behavior in order to ensure the integrity of the ecosystem.
Scams can be pulled off even in simple Safari browsing usage or inside Facebook app by scamming accounts.Then explain something like this.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.www.channelnewsasia.com