Apple Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account

[Realityck]

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.

Recollecting the earlier Apple vs EPIC ruling

Apple and Epic both lost today

Apple stands to lose billions; Epic failed to #FreeFortnite

www.theverge.com

It’s not a win for Epic for two reasons: First, because the judge explicitly decided that Epic’s injection of its own direct payment scheme into Fortnite on iOS — a move designed to provoke this entire lawsuit — was not okay. Epic breached its contract with Apple.

Second, because even if Epic did want to now insert, say, a PayPal button into Fortnite, it can’t: Apple terminated Epic’s developer account when the company breached its contract, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers confirmed that Apple is completely within its rights to keep Epic off the App Store for good.

 

[Abazigal]

Scams can be pulled off even in simple Safari browsing usage or inside Facebook app by scamming accounts.

This particular scam affected only android users because it involved tricking them into sideloading malware. Not saying iPhone users can never be the victim of scams, but I feel there is benefit in having a walled garden and the benefits don't quite get enough credit, IMO.

 

[rkuo]

I’m starting to feel that we might be talking about ex ante and ex post in different contexts.

They can have different meanings depending on the context, but generally it’s merely an indicator during cases to explain if we’re looking at things before or after they happened.

In some instances, particularly criminal law, it’s used in the context of laws (not) being retroactive, usually referred to as ex post facto laws.
Sometimes it’s also used to indicate the nature of regulation, like ex ante regulation in the EU, regulation that’s trying to prevent something, the GDPR is a good example for this, but art. 102 TFEU and the DMA are also good examples I’d say.

I’m not sure what you mean when you’re talking about ex ante regulations in an ex post jurisdiction, because I haven’t seen the terms be used like that, relating to jurisdictions, before.

Maybe I’ll be able to better understand what you’re saying if you leave the jargon for what it is and try to explain in your own words what you’re trying to say?

As for visualseed, from how I understand it they’re merely arguing that the DMA isn’t antitrust regulation.

I have to agree with that, not just on the premise of what the EU calls it and how the EU classifies it, but also based on the mechanics in the DMA.

It lacks a mechanic to establish market dominance, as well as mechanics for finding antitrust violations and follow through if antitrust issues would be determined. In essence it’s a regulation to regulate specific markets without making qualifications on potential antitrust issues, not unlike regulations for other markets as they pointed out.

I can see why the distinction might be difficult to make, similar to how an administrative fine might look like criminal law, but isn’t.

Although I wonder what benefit this meta discussion has on the discussion here as a whole.

This discussion stems around a point made by visualseed ... which yes, the finer points of probably aren't so interesting to the thread topic. Anyway, I think I understand your position here, but I'm going to have to mostly disagree. The vast majority of discussion around DMA that I can find understands it to have major antitrust components and be strongly motivated by antitrust concerns. Of course it is not purely antitrust, but in an internet discussion, I think the distinction that was brought up is pedantic and easily arguably wrong.

On agreements with unenforceable provisions: the principle of take it or leave still applies in those instances, as it always is the default position from which it will be adjudicated.

Depending on the specific jurisdiction and the regulations that exist in that jurisdiction to manage unenforceable, unfair and otherwise questionable provisions, and the severity of the provision being in contradiction of those regulations, a court may completely shift away from the “you could’ve just not entered into the contract” mindset or they may not at all and hold it against the party in question.

Yes, I think this is my point. In your original post (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...atest-developer-account.2421220/post-32990345), you were quite emphatic about "Take it or leave it" as being the two options, and several doctrines that might apply otherwise that would further weaken the case. I can understand what you mentioned about this being the default state for a contract, which makes sense.

But this is quite a special case where the defaults may not apply and Epic is willing to risk more to actually get a meaningful outcome, not just try to win a meaningless low stakes judgement or waste time.

As such, the safest bet will always be to not sign the contract. The second safest bet will be to get a court to void the offending provision if you did enter into the contract, while simultaneously not violating that provision as you await the court’s decision. After that are the other options, which can be risky depending on the specific circumstances in that particular jurisdiction.

I think it's pretty clear Epic wasn't going for a safe win. They wanted to force the issue. That's not necessarily illegal or unethical if one truly believes the other party is engaging in anti competitive conduct.

In general however, even in the EU, any protections afforded by regulation only apply when there are asymmetrical parties involved (e.g., consumer v merchant, employer v employer, etc), whereas B2B contracts are relatively free and deregulated.

Keep in mind that in those instances there is always a specific law or regulation that specifically bans a specific provision l (in your example that would be NLRB provisions).

What we’re talking about and what you’re asking about, a B2B contract where one party might have significant market power, is a different situation.

For starters you’re not asking about a specific provision like in your NLRB example, you’re asking about the general concept of dominant market power.

Neither the EU nor the US, nor any other jurisdiction to my knowledge, has any regulation that applies to such a broad concept.

Which makes sense because in any given commercial agreement there’s a high likelihood that one of the parties involved will have more power than the other party, and a lesser, but still significantly high, likelihood that one of the parties is quite big.

Putting the enforceability of contracts on a wonky footing just on the premise that one of the parties involved might be big would significantly affect trade.

Instead, not unlike in B2C situations, there are a handful of regulations that prohibit a handful of provisions, and if you stay clear of those then you can be as big or small as you want, but you’ll be able to freely make agreements.

The DMA for example contains a few of those provisions. One is, essentially, about forum choice and the other big one is that Apple can’t put in their contract that the DMA doesn’t apply.
There are some more vague ones, with terms such as reasonable, fair and more of such things, that would ultimately require the CJEU to weigh in, but that’s about it as far as the DMA is concerned.

Similarly art. 102 TFEU, or rather it’s attached case law, has some others that are highly dependent on the context, but there is no blanket “you’re a monopoly so your contract is void” type regulation.

Fair and competitive are subjective terms. In all their wisdom, legislators across the globe have decided that the actual existence of commerce is more important than ensuring that in every single transaction, whether between businesses or ones involving consumers, both parties are 100% equal with equal power. Presumably because the latter is rather impossible to achieve.

So instead, most governments have decided to protect consumers to one degree or another and declare that businesses should be professional enough to know when to enter into agreements and when not to. As well as attributing some of it to “the risk of doing business”.

So yes, the idea I was focusing on was that certain terms can be unenforceable. In the NLRB case, there's a specific rule being violated, and in issues of market dominance, such things are usually decided case by case. I agree that most contracts in general should be taken as written, but this particular thread topic is a special case.

The only exception to this is antitrust matters, but again, instead of a blanket ban on successful business (or effectively banning them by severely hampering their ability to engage in transactions), they’ve opted to assess situations case by case or at best a pattern of behavior. Often requiring a formal finding by either a government agency or a court, or both.

They’ve decidedly not chosen to allow parties to just declare that something is antitrust and thus you they should be able to enter into contracts with the intent of breaching them.

I don’t think my mind matters much in this because it has no ability to make any changes. But if it’s out of personal interest that you ask me about this then I’d say it’s not ideal, but perhaps the less worst way of handling this. Because I can’t think of a way of managing this without significantly hampering commerce, due to how laws and legislation, by their nature, require a broad application.

When and how it crosses the line is ultimately up to the courts, not me, and often in antitrust legislation.

Well, of course no company can just up and decide there's an antitrust issue in a legally binding way. But if a company is willing to play ball, they can escalate, and that's what Epic did.

I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of "They’ve decidedly not chosen to allow parties to just declare that something is antitrust and thus you they should be able to enter into contracts with the intent of breaching them." It seems rather flip to suggest that this is a slippery slope that a lot of companies will go down. IMO it is perfectly valid to breach and go to court over this as long as one is prepared to face the consequences of losing ... which, as you said, may be magnified unfavorably by certain actions.

But also, let's say the smaller party is actually correct and the market dominant party is really being anti competitive and is judged to be behaving as such ... well, I don't see how a lot of these doctrines can be held against the smaller party. The point is that the smaller party isn't entering into the contract under fair terms.

 

[rkuo]

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.

It's not disingenuous at all. The entire weight of the discussion around the DMA is very much framed around antitrust .. dozens of articles compared to the one I could find supporting your position. Honestly, I would link them, but presuming we're having an intellectually honest discussion here, they are so numerous that you can't wave your hand without hitting one. Anyway, you're welcome to disagree at this point ... I've made my case.

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."

The EU literally just fined Apple 2 billion in an antitrust case. Literally. This contention of yours does not hold any water.

Link: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...-antitrust-case-spotify-complaint-1234980110/

 

[Realityck]

The EU literally just fined Apple 2 billion in an antitrust case. Literally. This contention of yours does not hold any water.

Link: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...-antitrust-case-spotify-complaint-1234980110/

Amazing how people interpret this as a EU Court of Justice decision. The EU commissioners are not that. The Court of Justice has nothing regarding Apple documented yet.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions.

It can also, in certain circumstances, be used by individuals, companies or organisations to take action against an EU institution, if they feel it has somehow infringed their rights.

 

[poseidondev]

This discussion stems around a point made by visualseed ... which yes, the finer points of probably aren't so interesting to the thread topic. Anyway, I think I understand your position here, but I'm going to have to mostly disagree. The vast majority of discussion around DMA that I can find understands it to have major antitrust components and be strongly motivated by antitrust concerns. Of course it is not purely antitrust, but in an internet discussion, I think the distinction that was brought up is pedantic and easily arguably wrong.


Yes, I think this is my point. In your original post (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...atest-developer-account.2421220/post-32990345), you were quite emphatic about "Take it or leave it" as being the two options, and several doctrines that might apply otherwise that would further weaken the case. I can understand what you mentioned about this being the default state for a contract, which makes sense.

But this is quite a special case where the defaults may not apply and Epic is willing to risk more to actually get a meaningful outcome, not just try to win a meaningless low stakes judgement or waste time.



I think it's pretty clear Epic wasn't going for a safe win. They wanted to force the issue. That's not necessarily illegal or unethical if one truly believes the other party is engaging in anti competitive conduct.


So yes, the idea I was focusing on was that certain terms can be unenforceable. In the NLRB case, there's a specific rule being violated, and in issues of market dominance, such things are usually decided case by case. I agree that most contracts in general should be taken as written, but this particular thread topic is a special case.


Well, of course no company can just up and decide there's an antitrust issue in a legally binding way. But if a company is willing to play ball, they can escalate, and that's what Epic did.

I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of "They’ve decidedly not chosen to allow parties to just declare that something is antitrust and thus you they should be able to enter into contracts with the intent of breaching them." It seems rather flip to suggest that this is a slippery slope that a lot of companies will go down. IMO it is perfectly valid to breach and go to court over this as long as one is prepared to face the consequences of losing ... which, as you said, may be magnified unfavorably by certain actions.

But also, let's say the smaller party is actually correct and the market dominant party is really being anti competitive and is judged to be behaving as such ... well, I don't see how a lot of these doctrines can be held against the smaller party. The point is that the smaller party isn't entering into the contract under fair terms.

Respectfully, you’re in way over your head and are making stuff up out of whole cloth based on “your humble opinion”, “things you see or don’t see”, “what you think” and more of such things.

I think it’s fair to say that I’ve engaged in good faith. Making extensive efforts to not only refute your arguments, but also trying to educate on everything from legal systems and legal practices to established case law and legal principles, in an effort to try and narrow the knowledge gap and create equal footing a topic that is complicated as it is when dealing with one jurisdiction, but that gets exponentially more complicated when dealing with multiple jurisdictions that have different systems.

At every turn however, your dogmatic grip seems to tighten. Resulting in you brushing things aside based on nothing more than feelings.

As such, you fail to make a convincing case, and it seems like any further efforts from my end are wasted.

So I’ll leave you with a summary:

• The DMA is not antitrust regulation. It is not in name, nor is it not consider as such by its authors, nor does it have antitrust mechanisms, nor does it have antitrust implications. The EU has antitrust regulations, and this isn’t one of them. Nothing you say, feel or think can change that fact, and the distinction is essential, even when you feel that it is pedantic.
• There is no agreement between Apple and Epic, because the prerequisites for a legal contract have not been met, at the very least due to a lack of mutual assent. This means that not only could Apple terminate under anticipatory repudiation like they did in this instance, they can easily argue that the contract is void because it was clear that Apple had no intention of entering into a contract with Epic. There are no special considerations here and Epic can definitely not be in breach of the contract just because Apple is a big company. The standard fundamentals of contract law apply here. There is no there there. Nothing you say feel or think can change that fact.

No amount of ifs, buts, feelings, thoughts, opinions, sights or lack thereof, misreadings of the laws, misapplications of terms such as ex ante and ex post, etc, etc, can change any of it.

You’re arguing from a place of wishful thinking that has no basis in reality, legal reality or otherwise, and any attempts made to make you aware of this fall entirely on deaf ears and are met with sea-lioning.

By now I’ve run out of ways of telling you you’re wrong.

 

[rkuo]

Respectfully, you’re in way over your head and are making stuff up out of whole cloth based on “your humble opinion”, “things you see or don’t see”, “what you think” and more of such things.

I think it’s fair to say that I’ve engaged in good faith. Making extensive efforts to not only refute your arguments, but also trying to educate on everything from legal systems and legal practices to established case law and legal principles, in an effort to try and narrow the knowledge gap and create equal footing a topic that is complicated as it is when dealing with one jurisdiction, but that gets exponentially more complicated when dealing with multiple jurisdictions that have different systems.

At every turn however, your dogmatic grip seems to tighten. Resulting in you brushing things aside based on nothing more than feelings.

As such, you fail to make a convincing case, and it seems like any further efforts from my end are wasted.

So I’ll leave you with a summary:

• The DMA is not antitrust regulation. It is not in name, nor is it not consider as such by its authors, nor does it have antitrust mechanisms, nor does it have antitrust implications. The EU has antitrust regulations, and this isn’t one of them. Nothing you say, feel or think can change that fact, and the distinction is essential, even when you feel that it is pedantic.

Anyone can read any number of well sourced articles referencing the EU DMA as antitrust law, and at the very least indicating it is hugely influenced by and complementary to those laws.

finance.yahoo.com - Welcome to the Digital Markets Act. Here’s what you need to know about the EU’s new Big Tech antitrust law
Washington Post - Big Tech howled over E.U. antitrust law. The White House declined a rescue.
International Center for Law & Economics - The Digital Markets Act and EU Antitrust Enforcement - This article acknowledges a distinction between the DMA and other antitrust laws, but also argues that the DMA blurs the lines signficantly.
Global Antitrust Institute - Antitrust and Ex-Ante Sector Regulation

That's barely even a tiny smattering of the evidence. I think it's perfectly valid to take one position or the other, with the caveats towards the other end. I do not think it is fair or correct to definitively state without nuance that the DMA is not antitrust regulation, which you have done here.

• There is no agreement between Apple and Epic, because the prerequisites for a legal contract have not been met, at the very least due to a lack of mutual assent. This means that not only could Apple terminate under anticipatory repudiation like they did in this instance, they can easily argue that the contract is void because it was clear that Apple had no intention of entering into a contract with Epic. There are no special considerations here and Epic can definitely not be in breach of the contract just because Apple is a big company. The standard fundamentals of contract law apply here. There is no there there. Nothing you say feel or think can change that fact.

This is truly a confusing analysis. The definition of a market dominant party means that one party may have the power to unduly influence or coerce the other party in the contract. That's the entire concern. The issue of "mutual assent" etc and the remedies would then be something to be litigated. This is not "standard fundamentals" when coercion is involved.

It's clear you know some facts, but it's hard to understand why you keep ignoring the central issue of market dominance and influence and continue to claim that the relative size and dominance of the parties has no bearing on contract law. It clearly matters. A lot.

No amount of ifs, buts, feelings, thoughts, opinions, sights or lack thereof, misreadings of the laws, misapplications of terms such as ex ante and ex post, etc, etc, can change any of it.

You’re arguing from a place of wishful thinking that has no basis in reality, legal reality or otherwise, and any attempts made to make you aware of this fall entirely on deaf ears and are met with sea-lioning.

By now I’ve run out of ways of telling you you’re wrong.

Emphatically stating you are right does not constitute an argument. I would in fact say that your wall of words that still don't address the key point I raised from the very beginning regarding market dominance influencing contracts are the actual sea lioning.

At any rate, I'm happy to end this thread as well. I've learned quite a bit from you, which I appreciate, but I obviously do not appreciate your current tone or outlandish unsourced arguments that market dominance does not affect contract law.

 

[Abazigal]

It's clear you know some facts, but it's hard to understand why you keep ignoring the central issue of market dominance and influence and continue to claim that the relative size and dominance of the parties has no bearing on contract law. It clearly matters. A lot.

To chime in, I feel the issue of market dominance doesn't apply to Apple, who sells a vertically integrated product. This means that their ability to block Epic from their platform is irrespective of their market share. Even if there is only one iPhone in existence and Android commands the other 99.999999% of the market, Apple could still say no to Epic wanting Fortnite back in the iOS App Store, by virtue of Apple having the final say over which apps are allowed and which aren't.

I am not entirely sure what the DMA technically falls under. My understanding is that the EU recognises that the modern smartphone market is essentially made up of 2 players - Google and Apple, and existing antitrust laws are not designed to handle the issue of aggregators who "win" by virtue of offering a superior product over everyone else. As such, the EU came up with new laws which they believe will protect their own local businesses.

In this context, I would argue that the DMA feels more "protectionist" than "anti-trust", but again, the distinction feels overly academic because it really doesn't matter in this context. Apple decides on the rules for their platform (within reason), Epic knowingly broke them, they lost the US lawsuit, and have shown zero evidence of being willing to act in good faith or mend bridges, and are now trying to egg on the EU commission to intervene on their behalf.

If the EU decides to side with Epic and override Apple's legal authority in revoking Epic's developer's account, then we will know that the EU is purely going after Apple's power over the App Store and has zero interest in being an impartial adjudicator between right and wrong (they have already decided to fine Apple 2 billion, an absurd amount that is not supported by any precedent or evidence). It's well within their right to do so (governments aren't always right, and they aren't always fair), and we should be calling it out rather than pretend this isn't happening or cheer that this is somehow Apple's much-deserved karma.

 

[star-affinity]

While I understand Epic breached the contract they had with Apple there in first incident some years ago I still think they should be given another chance now. Just because Epic (Tim) is critisizing Apple's way of handeling the Digital Marketing Act with words that Apple (Phil) thinks are foul I don't think think that warrants shutting down the developer account.

 

[rkuo]

To chime in, I feel the issue of market dominance doesn't apply to Apple, who sells a vertically integrated product. This means that their ability to block Epic from their platform is irrespective of their market share. Even if there is only one iPhone in existence and Android commands the other 99.999999% of the market, Apple could still say no to Epic wanting Fortnite back in the iOS App Store, by virtue of Apple having the final say over which apps are allowed and which aren't.

I am not entirely sure what the DMA technically falls under. My understanding is that the EU recognises that the modern smartphone market is essentially made up of 2 players - Google and Apple, and existing antitrust laws are not designed to handle the issue of aggregators who "win" by virtue of offering a superior product over everyone else. As such, the EU came up with new laws which they believe will protect their own local businesses.

In this context, I would argue that the DMA feels more "protectionist" than "anti-trust", but again, the distinction feels overly academic because it really doesn't matter in this context. Apple decides on the rules for their platform (within reason), Epic knowingly broke them, they lost the US lawsuit, and have shown zero evidence of being willing to act in good faith or mend bridges, and are now trying to egg on the EU commission to intervene on their behalf.

If the EU decides to side with Epic and override Apple's legal authority in revoking Epic's developer's account, then we will know that the EU is purely going after Apple's power over the App Store and has zero interest in being an impartial adjudicator between right and wrong (they have already decided to fine Apple 2 billion, an absurd amount that is not supported by any precedent or evidence). It's well within their right to do so (governments aren't always right, and they aren't always fair), and we should be calling it out rather than pretend this isn't happening or cheer that this is somehow Apple's much-deserved karma.

Apple keeps trading places with other companies for being the largest company in the world by market cap, so it's hard to imagine that this isn't a consideration at some level. I'm not sure what being vertically integrated really has to do with the validity of the situation tho?

I do agree the EU certainly seems overly inclined to beat up large companies. But I also think Apple has gone overboard with its terms and restrictions. The answer is going to be in the middle ground somewhere ... it doesn't have to be black and white.

 

[nitrobear]

Recollecting the earlier Apple vs EPIC ruling

Apple and Epic both lost today

Apple stands to lose billions; Epic failed to #FreeFortnite

www.theverge.com

and Judge Gonzalez Rogers confirmed that Apple is completely within its rights to keep Epic off the App Store for good.

That Judge called Gonzalez Rogers doesn't have any force nor vote for enforcing anything within the jurisdiction of the European Union, which means that Apple's excuses have no value here.

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

I’m so extremely fed up with all the drama that Epic creates. Just make your damn game and stop complain already.

They do make games? 🤦‍♂️

 

[poseidondev]

Anyone can read any number of well sourced articles referencing the EU DMA as antitrust law, and at the very least indicating it is hugely influenced by and complementary to those laws.

finance.yahoo.com - Welcome to the Digital Markets Act. Here’s what you need to know about the EU’s new Big Tech antitrust law
Washington Post - Big Tech howled over E.U. antitrust law. The White House declined a rescue.
International Center for Law & Economics - The Digital Markets Act and EU Antitrust Enforcement - This article acknowledges a distinction between the DMA and other antitrust laws, but also argues that the DMA blurs the lines signficantly.
Global Antitrust Institute - Antitrust and Ex-Ante Sector Regulation

That's barely even a tiny smattering of the evidence. I think it's perfectly valid to take one position or the other, with the caveats towards the other end. I do not think it is fair or correct to definitively state without nuance that the DMA is not antitrust regulation, which you have done here.

Your first two "sources" are just run-of-the-mill journalists who make bold claims but don't understand the legal matter. Those are a dime a dozen.

The sources you provide that perform an actual legal analysis explicitly state all over the place that the DMA isn't antitrust. Whether it blurs the line or not is irrelevant.

This matter is settled.

This is truly a confusing analysis. The definition of a market dominant party means that one party may have the power to unduly influence or coerce the other party in the contract. That's the entire concern. The issue of "mutual assent" etc and the remedies would then be something to be litigated. This is not "standard fundamentals" when coercion is involved.

It's clear you know some facts, but it's hard to understand why you keep ignoring the central issue of market dominance and influence and continue to claim that the relative size and dominance of the parties has no bearing on contract law. It clearly matters. A lot.

I ignore it because there is no there there and you have made no substantial arguments rooted in any reality to make your case. It's all made of whole cloth.

Emphatically stating you are right does not constitute an argument. I would in fact say that your wall of words that still don't address the key point I raised from the very beginning regarding market dominance influencing contracts are the actual sea lioning.

At any rate, I'm happy to end this thread as well. I've learned quite a bit from you, which I appreciate, but I obviously do not appreciate your current tone or outlandish unsourced arguments that market dominance does not affect contract law.

I can't prove a negative, you're the one making the claims, so the onus is on you to substantiate them beyond some generic hand waving because you don't like the status quo.

 

[mielie]

The sandbox is what secured the OS. It’s not fundamentally flawed, it’s exactly what it is. Get some knowledge on the matter.

OS security is just one aspect of overall security in the ecosystem. And sandboxing (which is on Android as well as iOS) is just one aspect of OS security, there are many others such as secure boot loaders.

Users cannot rely solely on sandboxing to protect them from rogue applications as there will always be vulnerabilities that could be exploited but there will also be undesirable actions that are not easily protected against by sandboxing.

For example, it's very easy to build an application that respects all the security aspects of the underlying OS, including playing nicely inside its sandbox, but is actually tracking the users location without their permission. This is one of the reasons Apple reviews App Store software before it is published.

There is no guarantee that a third party App Store will check app submissions to the same level, or with the same respect for user privacy. These stores may also withhold user information, sell these details on, process payments in an insecure manner, etc. Sandboxing does absolutely nothing to protect the user from all this.

Just by way of advice, I would be very wary of telling a software engineer who has worked on both platforms for years to 'get some knowledge on the matter' unless you are completely certain they are wrong, and the reason they are wrong is a fundamental lack of knowledge.

 

[I7guy]

That Judge called Gonzalez Rogers doesn't have any force nor vote for enforcing anything within the jurisdiction of the European Union, which means that Apple's excuses have no value here.

It’s a legal precedent is the point. They tried to defraud apple.

 

[jakey rolling]

It’s a legal precedent is the point. They tried to defraud apple.

You don't seem to understand what "legal precedent" means. Precedents only have legal force in jurisdictions where the precedent is made in the first place. There is no "legal precedent" that is relevant to the EU in that ruling. Even if there were, a law being passed that disallows the contractual term that was broken would overrule such a precedent. Which is what the DMA essentially does. Apple apparently now agrees as of yesterday.

 

[I7guy]

You don't seem to understand what "legal precedent" means. Precedents only have legal force in jurisdictions where the precedent is made in the first place. There is no "legal precedent" that is relevant to the EU in that ruling. Even if there were, a law being passed that disallows the contractual term that was broken would overrule such a precedent. Which is what the DMA essentially does. Apple apparently now agrees as of yesterday.

Your skirting around the defrauding of apple y epic. This shows the true colors of the dma. It’s a big business anti large tech legislation.

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

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.

Then use one 🙄

 

[jakey rolling]

Your skirting around the defrauding of apple y epic. This shows the true colors of the dma. It’s a big business anti large tech legislation.

I'm not skirting around anything. You are misusing legal language to try to further an argument that is not quite as strong as you think it is.

 

[dwaite]

It is my understanding that Epic had already made amends for that. So you're saying that Apple is punishing Epic a second time for something they've already paid for? That is even worse.

Made amends in what way? It isn't like they paid Apple's legal fees or issued an apology to Apple (or to Epic's user base.)

 

[Realityck]

Apple today said it has terminated Epic Games Sweden's developer account worldwide due to the game developer's pattern of untrustworthy behavior.

Made amends in what way? It isn't like they paid Apple's legal fees or issued an apology to Apple (or to Epic's user base.)

I been wondering why we keeping getting our information concerning Apple via epicgames.com?
example this threads article is based on

https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-terminated-epic-s-developer-account

Has it been this way all along?

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

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.

Crimes? 🙄

 

[NagasakiGG]

A very large number of people here don’t understand that there can be a difference between normal everyday contracts and a monopoly sized business forcing terms on another business.

Anyway, I’m not sure exactly where Apple is heading with this because the EU has already judged Apple’s terms to be illegal at this point, so they’re angling for a big fine unless this gets resolved quickly.

The problem is that here are many people from outside EU who don't even know what the word monopoly means, as they are used to it. I do have relatives in the US and if I compare US and Europes lifestyle, I just feel sick. Tesla also tried their **** in Berlin and got smashed when they wanted to ignore Germany's labor law. In the US they might have got away with that but not in civilized countries.

 

[lartola]

The problem is that here are many people from outside EU who don't even know what the word monopoly means, as they are used to it. I do have relatives in the US and if I compare US and Europes lifestyle, I just feel sick. Tesla also tried their **** in Berlin and got smashed when they wanted to ignore Germany's labor law. In the US they might have got away with that but not in civilized countries.

Apple too couldn’t do in Germany what they did in the US: when they released the first iphone aka the original iphone they gave the exclusive right to activate it to a single carrier in each of the few countries where they sold it, and the phone was locked to that single carrier with no way to unlock it (legally, at least). Germany was the one exception Apple had to make because they already had a law that prohibited carrier-locking any mobile phones.

 

[lartola]

Your skirting around the defrauding of apple y epic. This shows the true colors of the dma. It’s a big business anti large tech legislation.

He’s right. Apple just reinstated Epic Sweden’s dev account after the EU requested further explanation of apple’s decision to terminate it. Therefore, the US ruling did not supersede the EU law (DMA) nor was it considered a relevant legal precedent.