EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account

[Abazigal]

This is what Vestager tweeted. Based on this, looks like Apple's goose is cooked.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765705945156378649

Apple right now.

 

[progx]

Just waiting for Valve to move in on this one by offering cross purchases for Windows/Mac/Linux/iOS/iPadOS/Android. Doubtful that would happen, but I'd love to see Valve slam the door on broader ability to service customers and hurt Epic out of the gate on outside Fortnite sales.

 

[Phoenixer]

Yikes. Can't imagine someone who isn't already a billionaire CEO being so in love with corporate interests that they would want to leverage an actual war to further those interests. It's not hard to see why America is such a dumpster fire when its actual regular citizens have thoughts like these.

I'm not doing this for the CEO of a company. I'm doing this for Apple because I love Apple. I love their culture, their structure, how ruthless they are, their creative problem solving, and I think that's worth saving.

 

[gnipgnop]

As I've said before, this is an interesting strategy by Apple. They're basically forcing the EU to vouch for Epic which would then put more pressure on Epic to actually follow the rules if the EU required Apple to allow them back on the platform as a developer.

 

[boswald]

I really wish both sides would stop this nonsense before it gets worse.

 

[mdatwood]

And they won the same case against Google.

They are playing the long game and Apple is not, and the shareholders see that which is one of the poorest played cards of any matured publicly traded company.

Not even remotely the same case, and they already lost to Apple. The judge in that case even said the App Store does not constitute a monopoly.

In the Google case they leveraged their power to keep other companies from putting software on other companies hardware (similarities to the MS case in the 90s). Apple's strict control over the hw/sw/ecosystem means they are more like a console developer. Should EPIC be forced to allow 3rd party sellers of Fortnite skins and stores outside of Fornite? EPIC owns the game and the market.

 

[progx]

To me it sounds like the application of the macOS model (open, with App Stores but protected by notarisation) to iOS. Apple would still then have the right to vet apps... from a security POV, not a "You criticised us so we don't like you" POV (I'm simplifying, of course).

It would be similar to macOS would be my guess. You'd have to go into Privacy and approve it yourself, but that checks a box off for Apple that they're not liable for the damages done to your machine from non-approved software. It's just like plugging a non-approved cable being plugged into your device.

For my Mac, plus Windows, I use a wide array of apps that are approved and not. On my iPhone and iPad, I won't be doing this with them. I'd prefer not to play Russian Roulette on two devices that have immediate access to much of my personal life. We all know side loading on the iPhone is going to open the floodgates on malicious software, Sweeney stands to make a profit off it too. Epic's Game Store collects your gaming habits and information from other apps on PC (Steam, GoG, Xbox, Battlenet and others).

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I think we are missing a big piece of the puzzle here. Not saying anyone is right or wrong here... these are both less than innocent giant companies seeking money. But that said, the narrative has hinted that Apple did this largely because they were upset about a tweet.

• I can't imagine anyone at Apple would be surprised that Epic would continue to publicly be negative to Apple. They are still fighting in court.
• Many people including lawyers and PR people were involved in this decision. While not impossible, I find it highly unlikely that this was done purely out of spite, in particular with other negative consequences very likely (an EU probe, less favorable consideration of their DMA response, etc.)
• My guess is that Epic did something else shady and Apple is responding to that without calling them out on it. It's totally Apple's style to do something like this and let everyone figure out that Epic did something to justify this. (Again, not saying this makes Apple Good and Epic Bad, just that its not purely Epic Good, Apple Bad.)

That is what I suspect. Otherwise Apple may have fallen into a rock bottom juvenile business management practice soon to meet maturity.

 

[I7guy]

Apple has played this game for a relatively short time, so no, there is no knowledge about playing the long game.

Littlefinger also played the long game, and lost.

Both Apple and Littlefinger fell victim to their ego. This usually doesn't go down well and every shareholder knows it.

Apple has been successful in most endeavors. If you believe apple is not playing the long game and epic is and I believe apple is playing the long game and epic is headed for oblivion, we just have different opinions.

 

[Michary]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Would they do the same probe if a confectionary manufacturer gets delisted from a supermarket chain?
How about Amazon removing a marketplace account due to the owner not adhering to their policies?

The analogy would be that the supermarket chain also owns all properties in the city, and does not give the rival supermarket any space to do its business.

Its not just a store and a item. They terminate the account so they cannot do a competitive AppStore.

 

[TJFDenver]

this aggression will not stand, man

 

[Frantisekj]

Unless Apple can prove that allowing Epic to have a developer account —and by extension an alt store— they will look like a monopoly and acting against the spirit of the DMA. Epic, on the hand, can easily demonstrate the Apple is acting in a vindictive way.

At the end, this will lead to a forced backtracking and even requiring Apple to change their alt-store policies.

I do not like monopolies but in this regard I am not surprised Apple did it. And it did now not earlier.

 

[treacher]

I'm not doing this for the CEO of a company. I'm doing this for Apple because I love Apple. I love their culture, their structure, how ruthless they are, their creative problem solving, and I think that's worth saving.

This is so nauseating. Apple really does have its thralls hopelessly hooked on Candy Land like some dystopian movie midway through.

 

[makitango]

It would be similar to macOS would be my guess. You'd have to go into Privacy and approve it yourself, but that checks a box off for Apple that they're not liable for the damages done to your machine from non-approved software. It's just like plugging a non-approved cable being plugged into your device.

For my Mac, plus Windows, I use a wide array of apps that are approved and not. On my iPhone and iPad, I won't be doing this with them. I'd prefer not to play Russian Roulette on two devices that have immediate access to much of my personal life. We all know side loading on the iPhone is going to open the floodgates on malicious software, Sweeney stands to make a profit off it too. Epic's Game Store collects your gaming habits and information from other apps on PC (Steam, GoG, Xbox, Battlenet and others).

And similar to macOS, that is legally not enforcable in most parts of the world.

Sideloading does not kill your machine, an insecure OS will.

 

[The_Gream]

It is also possible that both parties are a "bad guy" in different ways.

What I don't know, because I'm not a lawyer in the E.U. (or anywhere else for that matter), is whether it's part of Apple's strategy to more or less expose before the court what Epic's hidden functionalities are.

That could have serious implications on the whole of the DMA that might have sounded good in concept but may not have been thought through, especially if it enables software manufacturers to exploit users in ways that run contrary to the spirit of E.U. tech laws and consumer protections, e.g. GDPR.

The best laid plans of mice and men.

Take anything, add the human factor, and it all goes to ****.

 

[Rogifan]

My point is that whether something qualifies as a game console or a general purpose computer is (to my knowledge) not defined under any current law.

This distinction is something totally made up by this forum for the purposes of justifying why Apple deserves greater scrutiny than Nintendo and while that might pass muster with the common layman, I have a hard time seeing that argument holding up in court.

It seems to me it’s the ones defending Apple’s commissions (or as I would call it rent seeking) that are pushing this. John Gruber is a perfect example of this. He argues iPhones are consoles not computers.

One question I have is what are the margins on a game console compared to an iPhone? When the App Store is discussed rarely does hardware come up. I would love to know how Apple breaks down a $1000 iPhone. One would assume a portion of that goes to cover the cost developing and maintaining the operating systems and running the App Store. Considering how profitable the App Store is it seems pretty clear Apple’s cut is no longer about covering costs. It’s about making money. Or rather about if someone else makes money Apple is entitled to some of it.

 

[VulchR]

Apple requires a developer account, so without that you can't start an alternative store or release your app in a store someone else made. Downloading an app via the browser like on macOS is not possible, so Epic can't do anything.

So the new EU law does not prevent Apple from determining who is a developer? Presumably this is about signing apps but if iOS is going the way of macOS according to the EU law, then unsigned apps could be used (at one's peril).

 

[gnipgnop]

The analogy would be that the supermarket chain also owns all properties in the city, and does not give the rival supermarket any space to do its business.

The problem with this analogy is that all the companies that complained to the EU about the App Store are selling their apps on other platforms as well. So it's obvious Apple doesn't have the capability to prevent them from selling their apps elsewhere.

 

[ThailandToo]

There is no Supreme Court in the EU. There is the European court of justice which is what will ultimately decide on this. What will be put in doubt is not Apple right to sign contracts with parties of their choosing, but the fact a contract with Apple is at all needed to publish apps outside the App Store. The whole point of the DMA is break Apple’s monopoly on the iPhone apps, so it is this requirement that will eventually be removed: Apple will be free not to sign an agreement with other parties, but the other parties will not need such agreement to create other app stores or publish apps in them.

I think they will rule Epic can create an App Store but they will not rule that Epic can get a developer account based on the terms. Therefore the part that should be tossed is needing a developer account to run an App Store. But they also will not get access to developer tools aka Apple’s IP to create apps.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm not doing this for the CEO of a company. I'm doing this for Apple because I love Apple. I love their culture, their structure, how ruthless they are, their creative problem solving, and I think that's worth saving.

That is not under an attack that needs saving unless one fell into a delusional dystopian reality.

I think you can preserve all that even if users are allowed to download iOS Apps outside Apple App Store if they please… no? Don’t think the way macOS does it keeps Apple from those values.

 

[dumastudetto]

I'm not doing this for the CEO of a company. I'm doing this for Apple because I love Apple. I love their culture, their structure, how ruthless they are, their creative problem solving, and I think that's worth saving.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m glad some of the old Apple family are still around, recalling what it means to bleed six colors and think differently.

 

[gnipgnop]

One question I have is what are the margins on a game console compared to an iPhone?

Why would that even matter? The EU didn't put anything about margins or commissions in the DMA.

 

[dead.cell]

If anything, the EU should be concerned with whether they'll follow Article 8 of the GDPR, given they clearly didn't follow COPPA in the United States. Epic Games violated child privacy while also tricking their customers (or largely kids) into payment. That isn't an alleged claim, but one that courts have determined and Epic settled on to the tune of over half a billion dollars.

Given Epic have clearly violated a contractual agreement with Apple previously, I see little reason to allow such a scummy developer back on their platform. At this point, Tim Apple could probably just point to their rap sheet of them just being a wholly untrustworthy company.

It's also worth noting the reality that this isn't a small honest developer either, working to try and make a living. This is a big company, trying to make an extra % off v-bucks they sell to kids.

 

[gnipgnop]

...

The DMA doesn't require Apple to give a developer account to everyone regardless of their actions. That would mean that developers could just ignore Apple's terms of service at will. Thus the "probe". Apple's point that Epic already violated the terms of service in the U.S. and that courts ruled in Apple's favor in that regard does have relevance.

However, if the EU rules that Apple has to allow Epic to have an EU store then the EU has put itself in the position of vouching for Epic despite their past behavior...and would look pretty stupid if Epic subsequently violates Apple's terms of service under the DMA.

 

[Abazigal]

One question I have is what are the margins on a game console compared to an iPhone? When the App Store is discussed rarely does hardware come up. I would love to know how Apple breaks down a $1000 iPhone. One would assume a portion of that goes to cover the cost developing and maintaining the operating systems and running the App Store. Considering how profitable the App Store is it seems pretty clear Apple’s cut is no longer about covering costs. It’s about making money. Or rather about if someone else makes money Apple is entitled to some of it.

Sony and Nintendo are highly profitable as well, so clearly, their 30% cut of games is also more than just about covering costs.

I don't bring it up because I feel the hardware margins are irrelevant in this discussion. So what if the iPhone is insanely profitable? Does that mean that Apple is somehow expected to just subsidise the running of the App Store and isn't allowed to make a single cent of profit off it ever?

Also, not every iPhone costs $1000. There's the $400 iPhone SE, there's the entry level $329 iPad 9, there's the discontinued iPod touch, and there's also the second hand iPhone someone bought off the grey market in lieu of a brand new iPhone from Apple. I assume that one of the chief reasons Apple is willing to support their devices as long as they do (even if it comes at the expense of some users holding on to their devices longer and upgrading less often) is because of the expectation that these iOS users will still earn Apple some money by way of sales of additional accessories, apps, subscriptions and services like Apple Pay. It's all connected, and it's all factored in.

At the heart of the matter, I maintain that Apple is entitled to monetise their IP however they wish by virtue of them selling a vertically integrated product. The right way to approach is if the EU had acknowledged this right from the very start, while also stating that this has to be balanced with the good of society as a whole. Instead, they decided to wage a war with Apple (the optics of which are somewhat coloured by their apparently blatant and open support of Spotify, a home-grown company), and so long as the EU refuses to be honest about just what they are trying to do, I support Apple's decision to keep pushing and testing every boundary of the DMA until we get real clarity about what is being asked.