Apple Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store

[wbeasley]

And? Photo editors and video editors and music editors and accountants and engineers and data analysts and IT professionals and project managers and animators and call centre employees are all "task oriented" employees as well.

Just because a given person uses a computer for only a small set of tasks doesn't mean the computer itself wasn't designed and isn't marketed to be used for all of those tasks.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to create Hollywood CGI effects on a phone or tablet.

The two examples you gave initially use a tablet or phone because they tailor the interface to the task on those devices. Collect or check data. Easier than carting a laptop around.

I am sitting here answering you on my iMac because it lets me see more posts and type on a real keyboard.
I can do it on a phone but this is much easier.

I can read iMessages on my iMac as well. But I dont.
Different tasks just work better on some devices.
Perhaps go read some UX guidelines (Norman Neilsen Group do awesome work on screen stuff for many many years).

 

[wbeasley]

Today, 15% of U.S. adults are “smartphone-only” internet users – meaning they own a smartphone, but do not have home broadband service.

Interesting link.
Worth drilling down on data though:

Income is a significant divide on phone reliance.

5% only for $50000+ in 2021, similar results after new data collection method in 2023.

You can bet the lowest income group arent watching streaming video or music that needs a subscription as they would also have cheap phones and low data limits.

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

There, black on white for everyone that said i dont understand DMA and that i am lying or making up laws, here today not even an hour ago EU Comission launched multiple investigations into GateKeepers like Apple NOT MEETING the requirements of the DMA.

If you do not want to read this full article from EU Comission read few important quotes bellow .
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1689

Investigations will be finished within less than 12 months(probably a lot faster) and most likely these Gatekeepers under investigation will quickly change whatever they are doing that is not in full effective compliance to the DMA to avoid 10% world wide revenue fine.

The Commission suspects that the measures put in place by these gatekeepers fall short of effective compliance of their obligations under the DMA.

In addition, the Commission has launched investigatory steps relating to Apple's new fee structure for alternative app stores and Amazon's ranking practices on its marketplace.

The Commission has opened proceedings to assess whether the measures implemented by Alphabet and Apple in relation to their obligations pertaining to app stores are in breach of the DMA. Article 5(4) of the DMA requires gatekeepers to allow app developers to “steer” consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge.

Apple's compliance with user choice obligations

The Commission has opened proceedings against Apple regarding their measures to comply with obligations to (i) enable end users to easily uninstall any software applications on iOS, (ii) easily change default settings on iOS and (iii) prompt users with choice screens which must effectively and easily allow them to select an alternative default service, such as a browser or search engine on their iPhones.

The Commission is concerned that Apple's measures, including the design of the web browser choice screen, may be preventing users from truly exercising their choice of services within the Apple ecosystem, in contravention of Article 6(3) of the DMA.

 

[wbeasley]

There, black on white for everyone that said i dont understand DMA and that i am lying or making up laws, here today not even an hour ago EU Comission launched multiple investigations into GateKeepers like Apple NOT MEETING the requirements of the DMA.

If you do not want to read this full article from EU Comission read few important quotes bellow .
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1689

Investigations will be finished within less than 12 months(probably a lot faster) and most likely these Gatekeepers under investigation will quickly change whatever they are doing that is not in full effective compliance to the DMA to avoid 10% world wide revenue fine.

Well if they hadnt worded things so badly to start with, they wouldnt need a 12 month investigation.
things would be very clearly in breach or in line.

12 months is a very long time in IT.
We might all be answering to the AI gods by then...

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

Well if they hadnt worded things so badly to start with, they wouldnt need a 12 month investigation.
things would be very clearly in breach or in line.

12 months is a very long time in IT.
We might all be answering to the AI gods by then...

Nah, they worded it as they should have, its up to the companies to comply in good faith and not try any "lawyerly" trick to maliciously comply.
You are either all in with the laws and have smooth sailing onwards or you dont and you get fined anyway.

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

@GizmoDVD , @iOS Geek @MilaM

guess we now know for sure ​

 

[wbeasley]

Nah, they worded it as they should have, its up to the companies to comply in good faith and not try any "lawyerly" trick to maliciously comply.
You are either all in with the laws and have smooth sailing onwards or you dont and you get fined anyway.

well lawyers have a job because there's more than one way to interpret things.

we will see which side employs the best lawyers ultimately.

 

[wbeasley]

@GizmoDVD , @iOS Geek @MilaM

guess we now know for sure ​

gathering the support crew?

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

gathering the support crew?

nah, those are the few people that said i was making up laws and that i had no idea what im talking about in terms of DMA and how CTF is not illegal and whatever, i just said alright lets wait a few weeks or months and see what the EU Commission says about all of that, and now that the news broke we know for sure..

 

[Sophisticatednut]

well lawyers have a job because there's more than one way to interpret things.

we will see which side employs the best lawyers ultimately.

Ha well you should perhaps look how the system actually works and the job of the lawyer.
The practical differences between the inquisitorial and adversarial legal systems have significant implications for the legal process, from the investigation stage to the final judgment.

Inquisitorial System (CJEU):

• Investigation: The judge plays an active role in investigating the case, often conducting or overseeing the collection of evidence.
• Trial: There is less emphasis on oral testimony, and written documents play a crucial role. Trials are often a series of hearings rather than a continuous process.
• Judges: They are more involved in the questioning of witnesses and have a greater responsibility for guiding the trial towards the truth.
• Legal Representation: Lawyers play a less combative role, focusing on assisting the judge’s inquiry rather than advocating for their client’s version of events.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the U.S. legal system handle legal technicalities and the vagueness of language in regulations differently, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and approaches to jurisprudence.

CJEU’s Approach:

• The CJEU often deals with legal technicalities by focusing on the purpose and objectives of EU law.
• It seeks to interpret regulations in a way that promotes integration and effectiveness within the EU, even if the language is vague.
• The CJEU’s interpretative methods include considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.

U.S. Legal System’s Approach:

• The U.S. courts tend to prioritize the plain meaning of the text, using canons of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities.
• When dealing with vagueness, U.S. courts may look to legislative history or precedent to discern the legislature’s intent.

So good luck to Apple they will need it.

 

[wbeasley]

Valuely written words will always be contestable.
No matter what country you live in.

 

[Moncler]

So, Apple "capitulated".

From here on out, it will be up to EU consumers to vote with their wallets to determine whether the DMA will actually work as intended.

 

[wbeasley]

So, Apple "capitulated".

From here on out, it will be up to EU consumers to vote with their wallets to determine whether the DMA will actually work as intended.

what new lines of attack will the EU use when customers continue to use the Apple Store?

you can lead a horse to water...

 

[bcortens]

So, Apple "capitulated".

From here on out, it will be up to EU consumers to vote with their wallets to determine whether the DMA will actually work as intended.

And developers, the DMA is aimed as much at devs as it is at end users.

what new lines of attack will the EU use when customers continue to use the Apple Store?

you can lead a horse to water...

It’s not just about users, but developers, is the reason Apps aren’t being offered in alternative stores because Apple has setup terms and conditions that make it financially impossible to do so, (CTF for example).

Several developers have already said publicly ally that the CTF makes it impossible for them to take advantage of the DMA, which is likely Apple is already being investigated again.

Customers can’t vote with their wallets if Apple engages in malicious compliance.

 

[wbeasley]

There's always a Cost of Doing Business.

Whether you sell in retail, online, through an official app store or not.

If your business model doesnt take that into account and customers cant see value in what you are offering then it isn't the store that's at fault. Setting a RRP should take into account the dev costs, the manufacturing, the distribution and any licensing fees for use of other people's IP or patents.

It's basic business.

 

[wbeasley]

Saying "malicious compliance" is defamatory. It's an opinion without fact. And presenting it a fact is defamatory.

 

[bcortens]

There's always a Cost of Doing Business.

Whether you sell in retail, online, through an official app store or not.

If your business model doesnt take that into account and customers cant see value in what you are offering then it isn't the store that's at fault. Setting a RRP should take into account the dev costs, the manufacturing, the distribution and any licensing fees for use of other people's IP or patents.

It's basic business.

If Apple sets rules that apply to apps that take advantage of the DMA and not to apps that don’t take advantage of the DMA that isn’t a cost of doing business that is Apple engaging in malicious compliance.

You keep bringing this up in here and other threads but the fact of the matter is that Apple has structured it’s DMA compliance in such a way that many Apps are choosing not to take advantage of the DMA because Apple has purposefully made it impossible to use. Apps that do not make Apple money in their own store (free Apps) would actually cost Apple less if they were downloaded from third party stores because Apple wouldn’t be hosting them. If these Apps want to offer their App in Apple’s store and a third party store they can’t right now because of the CTF. This reeks of malicious compliance and if Apple continues to dig in its heels on this they might be forced to give up more than they wanted.

 

[bcortens]

Saying "malicious compliance" is defamatory. It's an opinion without fact. And presenting it a fact is defamatory.

Apple is clearly engaged in malicious compliance, they have made it as hard as possible to take advantage fo the DMA and have already been hit twice on this topic. They clearly didn’t want to add web side loading but were forced into it, they have been told they have to stop engaging in scare tactics about side-loaded apps. The DMA doesn’t say that only big developers in good standing get to distribute apps on the web, it just says developers, Apple is likely going to have to change that too. They are trying to be as restrictive as possible and I personally think that the EU should hit them with another giant fine if they don’t start behaving better and soon.

I don’t have the reference anymore and couldn’t find it in a few minutes of googling but IIRC the EU issued some statement to the effect that they will be investigating if it turns out that Apps cannot actually exercise their rights under the DMA because of how companies comply with it.

 

[wbeasley]

It is clearly defamatory.

It is NOT clearly malicious.
That's your interpretation and opinion.
A court would have to look at details to prove it was.

The EU can investigate all they want.

Anyway, most of this thread has now become irrelevant after today's app store game emulator announcement.
There's very little reason for the majority of iOS users to even consider an alt app store now

"Evil Apple" have played the game, backflipped on allowing a category of apps they didnt allow before, and effectively removed the main issue people had they wanted to side load other apps. You can claim the EU achieved this. Maybe. Maybe not. But allowing a vetted app in the regular store is always the preferred option to changing iOS to link outside to less regulated apps

Spotify had a "win" too with a payment link.
Who really cares? Apple were making no money from the app anyway for the last few years.
How many use it will be interesting.
Somehow doubt it is going to save Spotify and their mounting debts ...

 

[bcortens]

It is clearly defamatory.

It is NOT clearly malicious.
That's your interpretation and opinion.
A court would have to look at details to prove it was.

The EU can investigate all they want.

Given that Apple was just fined 2 billion dollars and the petulant language in their response to the fines and the DMA I have little faith in their leadership to comply in good faith.

I actually don’t think the commission will require a court case to find apple in non-compliance, they might require an investigation and then a decision but I don’t know that they will require a court case.

Anyway, most of this thread has now become irrelevant after today's app store game emulator announcement.
There's very little reason for the majority of iOS users to even consider an alt app store now

Depends on the details.

"Evil Apple" have played the game, backflipped on allowing a category of apps they didnt allow before, and effectively removed the main issue people had they wanted to side load other apps. You can claim the EU achieved this. Maybe. Maybe not. But allowing a vetted app in the regular store is always the preferred option to changing iOS to link outside to less regulated apps

I actually mostly agree that the App Store is the preferable way to get Apps, but Apple has been managing their store badly And as such I have little belief that they are going to do the right thing consistently going forward.

Spotify had a "win" too with a payment link.
Who really cares? Apple were making no money from the app anyway for the last few years.
How many use it will be interesting.
Somehow doubt it is going to save Spotify and their mounting debts ...

They won because Apple was forced to change it. You keep trying to claim there was no reason for Apple to allow this because oh it wans’ t hard at all to find the website. Apple fought hard to prevent the link ability, this isnt them being magnanimous this is them complying with a court order. Also, I can imagine Epic and others suing Apple using the Spotify case as precedent.

I would love to see what would happen if Apple was forced to run Apple Music on its own without potentially subsidizing it with the rest of the business. If Spotify can’t make money at the current subscription prices it is likely true that Apple wouldn’t be able to either. Potentially anti-competitive right there.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Given that Apple was just fined 2 billion dollars and the petulant language in their response to the fines and the DMA I have little faith in their leadership to comply in good faith.

I actually don’t think the commission will require a court case to find apple in non-compliance, they might require an investigation and then a decision but I don’t know that they will require a court case.

The European Commission, while not having judicial power, has the authority to enforce EU competition law and can impose fines or other sanctions on companies that violate these laws. The Commission’s enforcement powers include the ability to issue decisions, which can include ordering companies to cease anti-competitive practices and imposing fines. These decisions are binding and can have immediate effect, including the imposition of a sales ban.

When the Commission finds that a company has breached EU competition rules, it can impose fines directly. The process of assessing fines is based on the severity and duration of the infringement, and the fine must not exceed 10% of the company’s total turnover from the preceding business year. If a company does not comply with the Commission’s decision, the Commission can seek enforcement through the courts of the member states.

If a company disagrees with the Commission’s decision, it can appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU has the judicial power to hear appeals against decisions of the European Commission. It can uphold, modify, or annul the Commission’s decisions. However, until the CJEU makes a ruling on an appeal, the Commission’s decision stands and must be complied with.

In summary, the European Commission can enforce a sales ban or impose fines through its decision-making powers, which are part of its role in enforcing EU law. The CJEU’s role is to provide judicial oversight and hear appeals against the Commission’s decisions. The enforcement process is designed to ensure compliance with EU law while allowing for judicial review by the CJEU

Depends on the details.


I actually mostly agree that the App Store is the preferable way to get Apps, but Apple has been managing their store badly And as such I have little belief that they are going to do the right thing consistently going forward.

They won because Apple was forced to change it. You keep trying to claim there was no reason for Apple to allow this because oh it wans’ t hard at all to find the website. Apple fought hard to prevent the link ability, this isnt them being magnanimous this is them complying with a court order. Also, I can imagine Epic and others suing Apple using the Spotify case as precedent.

I would love to see what would happen if Apple was forced to run Apple Music on its own without potentially subsidizing it with the rest of the business. If Spotify can’t make money at the current subscription prices it is likely true that Apple wouldn’t be able to either. Potentially anti-competitive right there.

 

[bcortens]

The European Commission, while not having judicial power, has the authority to enforce EU competition law and can impose fines or other sanctions on companies that violate these laws. The Commission’s enforcement powers include the ability to issue decisions, which can include ordering companies to cease anti-competitive practices and imposing fines. These decisions are binding and can have immediate effect, including the imposition of a sales ban.

When the Commission finds that a company has breached EU competition rules, it can impose fines directly. The process of assessing fines is based on the severity and duration of the infringement, and the fine must not exceed 10% of the company’s total turnover from the preceding business year. If a company does not comply with the Commission’s decision, the Commission can seek enforcement through the courts of the member states.

If a company disagrees with the Commission’s decision, it can appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU has the judicial power to hear appeals against decisions of the European Commission. It can uphold, modify, or annul the Commission’s decisions. However, until the CJEU makes a ruling on an appeal, the Commission’s decision stands and must be complied with.

In summary, the European Commission can enforce a sales ban or impose fines through its decision-making powers, which are part of its role in enforcing EU law. The CJEU’s role is to provide judicial oversight and hear appeals against the Commission’s decisions. The enforcement process is designed to ensure compliance with EU law while allowing for judicial review by the CJEU

Thanks for the summary, that was a much more elegant way of saying what I was trying to say
I was trying to get at the idea that the commission can force Apple to make changes without taking Apple to court. People seem to believe that the the only way for it to be demonstrated that Apple is in non-compliance or complying maliciously is through a court case but the EU commission doesn't work like that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Thanks for the summary, that was a much more elegant way of saying what I was trying to say
I was trying to get at the idea that the commission can force Apple to make changes without taking Apple to court. People seem to believe that the the only way for it to be demonstrated that Apple is in non-compliance or complying maliciously is through a court case but the EU commission doesn't work like that.

Yea it works extremely differently in EU. Especially when the fact the judge isn’t a neutral arbiter but very active.

The practical differences between the inquisitorial and adversarial legal systems have significant implications for the legal process, from the investigation stage to the final judgment.

Inquisitorial System (CJEU):

• Investigation: The judge plays an active role in investigating the case, often conducting or overseeing the collection of evidence.
• Trial: There is less emphasis on oral testimony, and written documents play a crucial role. Trials are often a series of hearings rather than a continuous process.
• Judges: They are more involved in the questioning of witnesses and have a greater responsibility for guiding the trial towards the truth.
• Legal Representation: Lawyers play a less combative role, focusing on assisting the judge’s inquiry rather than advocating for their client’s version of events.

The practical differences between the inquisitorial and adversarial legal systems have significant implications for the legal process, from the investigation stage to the final judgment.

Inquisitorial System (CJEU):

• Investigation: The judge plays an active role in investigating the case, often conducting or overseeing the collection of evidence.
• Trial: There is less emphasis on oral testimony, and written documents play a crucial role. Trials are often a series of hearings rather than a continuous process.
• Judges: They are more involved in the questioning of witnesses and have a greater responsibility for guiding the trial towards the truth.
• Legal Representation: Lawyers play a less combative role, focusing on assisting the judge’s inquiry rather than advocating for their client’s version of events.

EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

The General Court’s ruling process involves:

1. Written Phase: The parties submit written observations to the Court.
2. Oral Phase: A public hearing may be held where lawyers present their case, and judges may ask questions.
3. Deliberation: The judges deliberate based on the evidence and arguments presented5.
4. Judgment: The Court issues its judgment, which can be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.

Textual Interpretation:

• CJEU: Tends to use textual interpretation as a starting point but does not strictly confine itself to the literal meaning of the text. The CJEU often looks beyond the text to the objectives of the EU treaties
• U.S. Courts: Generally give primacy to the text of the law, adhering more closely to the literal and plain meaning of the words used in statutes and the Constitution.

Systematic Interpretation:

• CJEU: Systematic interpretation involves considering EU law as a whole, ensuring that new interpretations are consistent with existing legal framework and principles.
• U.S. Courts: Also consider the systematic aspect, ensuring that interpretations fit within the broader legal system, but they may be more focused on precedent and the consistency of judicial decisions.

Teleological Interpretation:

• CJEU: Strongly emphasizes the purpose and objectives behind laws, particularly the overarching goals of the EU, such as integration and fundamental rights.
• U.S. Courts: While purpose can inform interpretation, U.S. courts are less likely to use teleological reasoning as a primary method, especially if the text is clear.

Comparative Law Method:

• CJEU: Regularly employs comparative law methods, looking at the laws and practices of member states to inform its interpretation of EU law
• U.S. Courts: Comparative law is less commonly used and can be controversial, especially when interpreting the Constitution

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the U.S. legal system handle legal technicalities and the vagueness of language in regulations differently, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and approaches to jurisprudence.

CJEU’s Approach:

• The CJEU often deals with legal technicalities by focusing on the purpose and objectives of EU law.
• It seeks to interpret regulations in a way that promotes integration and effectiveness within the EU, even if the language is vague.
• The CJEU’s interpretative methods include considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.

Now compare the information above with the below summary of the U.S. system.

Adversarial System (U.S.):

• Investigation: Parties are responsible for gathering their evidence, and there is little to no judicial involvement in this stage.
• Trial: Oral testimony and cross-examination are central to the trial, with both sides presenting their arguments and evidence to a judge or jury.
• Judges: They act as neutral arbiters, ensuring the fair application of the law and overseeing the conduct of the trial without delving into investigations.
• Legal Representation: Lawyers aggressively represent their clients’ interests, aiming to persuade the judge or jury of their narrative.

Compared to the U.S. adversarial system where the judge is a neutral arbiter of the case and the lawyers are the ones who are very active.

U.S. Legal System’s Approach:

• The U.S. courts tend to prioritize the plain meaning of the text, using canons of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities.
• When dealing with vagueness, U.S. courts may look to legislative history or precedent to discern the legislature’s intent.

 

[wbeasley]

It was still defamatory...

 

[BaldiMac]

Thanks for the summary, that was a much more elegant way of saying what I was trying to say
I was trying to get at the idea that the commission can force Apple to make changes without taking Apple to court. People seem to believe that the the only way for it to be demonstrated that Apple is in non-compliance or complying maliciously is through a court case but the EU commission doesn't work like that.

Or... people believe that the way the EU commission works in some situations is wrong. They soured me on their dealings with Apple when they deliberately and repeatedly lied during the Irish tax investigation in order to manipulate public opinion.