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

[cupcakes2000]

What you said is still completely irrelevant to the context of this thread. Epic could have committed the worst crimes in the U.S. and it would have been irrelevant to a foreign legal system they don’t have jurisdiction over.

It’s bizarre the amount of commenters that appear to think that US law and US legal judgements or precedents apply worldwide.

 

[BaldiMac]

The core issue is still that Apple has literally set themselves up as the gatekeeper to their platform. I don't see how they can completely have it both ways.

You say that like there is something wrong with it. Being a "gatekeeper" to your own property is normal.

No they're not a utility. But they are one of only two choices for an absolute necessity today. It's increasingly impossible to function in a society without a mobile phone. There are exactly two software platforms for that. Industries have been regulated over less.

Yes and no. There are actually multiple android platforms as each manufacturer forks their own version of the android open source project. The problem is that Google has entered into anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors to make them effectively one. Why should Apple be punished for that?

If they insist on fully controlling all software on their platform, then they have to make good faith, non-capricious rules about it. Apple hates Epic so much because Epic so fundamentally disagrees with their platform's rules on principle. Maybe they're right or wrong but has Apple stopped to consider why so many people feel that way, and if it really is, as they say, the children who are wrong?

Your assuming "hate", but that's nothing but loaded language and cynicism. There is a clear, rational business reason for Apple to not trust Epic. Epic was given clear, unambiguous instructions on how to reestablish their account, and they basically blew Apple off.

Think about the alternative here. Assume that Epic does intend to violate the new rules in creating their own store. If Apple were to act at that point, how many customers would be screwed? It's certainly better to firm commitments from Epic now than to wait until after they release their store.

 

[9059737]

Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market, writes that they're looking into this "as a matter of priority"

 

[Delivered]

It won’t because it will turn apples ecosystem into a security nightmare. And governments won’t want to use the platform to support bad activities with no way to stop it.

Then they would
Ban Android. They haven’t. Gov actually wants more access not less.

 

[iOS Geek]

It’s bizarre the amount of commenters that appear to think that US law and US legal judgements or precedents apply worldwide.

Just as bizarre about the amount of commenters on all of these threads who are complaining that the EU's DMA laws should still apply, even if they're outside the EU.

Europeans can't expect their laws to apply everywhere while no one else's apply to them. Take a seat.

 

[techfreak23]

To answer this question: Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way?

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).


Heh, probably.

Most people who use that argument "well they can do it on macOS so they can do it on iOS" don't understand the difference in paradigms between the two platforms. Yes, they can obviously do it on iOS, but that was never the model to begin with. We almost didn't even have an App Store. It's really troubling to me that a company can invest billions in a platform only to have whiners who have other options to accommodate them and have profited off the back of said platform can influence a ridiculous governing body to strong arm fundamental changes to the platform.

 

[j26]

Just as bizarre about the amount of commenters on all of these threads who are complaining that the EU's DMA laws should still apply, even if they're outside the EU.

Europeans can't expect their laws to apply everywhere while no one else's apply to them. Take a seat.

As one of the proponents of extra-territorial jurisdiction in certain limited circumstance (e.g. people resident within the EU who travel for work or study should still have access to updates), I’ll respond.

One is a desire, the other is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's really troubling to me that a company can invest billions in a platform

That is their choice

One could invest “billions” in a weed farm and have regulations change and you are SOL and shut down

Such is life living with governments and laws, which are fluid

People need not make laws in a way to worry about what some corporation “invested in already”

 

[MNGR]

I think they may have done this to push the whole thing to the Supreme Court in the EU.
You're basically forcing a company to go into a contract with another company who have consistently lied and acted in bad faith. Is that even legal?

Is Apple now a utility company providing energy or something? The EU will have to revise what their rules mean. Again, they haven't thought it through. On one side they say that apple needs to make sure apps from third parties are secure etc, which means they have to sign these apps one way or another centrally. But on the other side they are implying apple should let software come in from anywhere and they have no right to vet it. Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way? And more importantly, should apple be legally forced to help companies deploy on their platform if that company is harmful or dishonest to Apple?

Lots to chew on here.. My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

The EU is anti Apple.
They would be happy if Apple closes up shop.
And as I have said before, when malware gets installed, who is going to be screaming the loudest? The EU and all of those who pushed for this.

 

[MNGR]

I really do not understand why Apple should earn money for each and every subscription on a monthly basis. Or put it differently: why I as an iPhone owner should pay part of my Netflix subscription fee to Apple? Because I can use iPhone to watch movies? I can understand taking 1-2% as a transaction fee related to each payment if done through App Store. That is fair. But 15-30% cut? I thought that large availability of apps (especially from those "biggest partners") is beneficial to Apple as no one would buy iPhones/iPads is there were no such apps there in the first place... If only Apple could figure out how to force Amazon or eBay to pay 15-30% cut for all the things they sell in via their iOS apps...

My subscription to Netflix is outside if Apple. I paid on the Netflix website.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The EU is anti Apple.
They would be happy if Apple closes up shop.

Please state your sources for those claims

 

[MNGR]

Not a lawyer, but I can't see how the EU can force Apple to allow anyone to be able to install apps (a third-party app store is an app) on iOS. There are potential security and privacy issues. Could the EU force Apple to allow web-based stores that push apps to devices? Doubtful, again, because of security and privacy issues. They can't tell Apple that they have no say over what a developer does, that would open iOS to malicious developers creating app stores, which Apple couldn't block, and which would be much more harmful to users than any financial limitation for selling apps.

OS’s have API’s to make use of their resources. They were developed by the owners of the OS. Apparently some on this forum believe that the owners have no rights and should not be compensated for them.

So I guess the EU feels that everything is open source.
Including Meta???

 

[Crom!]

Maybe Air M4 models will have 120hz?

 

[bcortens]

OS’s have API’s to make use of their resources. They were developed by the owners of the OS. Apparently some on this forum believe that the owners have no rights and should not be compensated for them.

So I guess the EU feels that everything is open source.
Including Meta???

Apple doesn't care about compensation for API development from the App Store.
Evidence: Some of the largest, most profitable apps on the store pay Apple nothing.

If Apple were serious about being compensated for API/SDK development by developers there should be something akin to the CTF that applies to everyone uniformly regardless of how the app makes money.

 

[MilaM]

Apple lawyers are more or less rubbing their hands I'm guessing. I don't think they would ban Epic if they didn't think it was legally sound tbh. Cause imagine the fines if the EU were to say it goes against the DMA. Lawyers always win in these situations lmao

Lawyers are rubbing their hand, because they get paid no matter what the outcome will be. I think some Apple execs have taken this very personally and are reacting very emotionally, to the detriment of the company. This won't go down well with shareholders.

Maybe there is a grand brilliant strategy behind Apple's conduct, but I doubt it at this point.

 

[MilaM]

Also, do you really think GDPR in Europe has done anything much to address the huge misuse of personal data on the web? I see no evidence of that at all.

It has curbed a lot of misuse of personal data by legal businesses, for sure. Shady businesses will always misuse the data, no law can prevent that. The problem is, that most wins that can be attributed to the GDPR, are not really recognized in the general public.

It's certainly not nice to have all the cookie banners. But on the other hand, would you prefer companies just sold your data left and right, without you knowing?

 

[Abazigal]

There’s a difference in monetizing IP and squeezing every last cent out of the App Store that they can. Right now many think Apple is doing the latter. And how do you explain Steve Jobs saying they wanted to run the App Store as break even? Do you think he was wrong to think/say that? Is Apple not able to monetize it’s IP running App Store as break even?

Steve Jobs has said a lot of things. Remember that he initially did not think the App Store needed to exist and that web apps would suffice.

Also, in the very least, he meant for the App Store to pay for itself and not be subsidised via hardware sales, contrary to what some people here feel Apple ought to do.

The thing with App Store revenue is that it’s pretty “too heavy”. The majority of apps earn no money for apple because they are free and the bulk of revenue is derived mainly from freemium games like fortnite, and I am not really concerned about how much or how little these IAP-riddled games are charged, not least because I feel they are a stain on the App Store to begin with.

It’s not impossible for the App Store to be run as break even but then, why should Apple, and how would any sort of legislation even begin to be crafted in the first place?

Anyways, if you want something to apply to Apple, then it should apply equally to all. Right now, all these suggestions seem borne primarily out of spite, like they are there solely to punish Apple for the crime of being too successful at what they are doing. Quite a 180 from last decade when people thought Apple would lose to android.

 

[wilhoitm]

There is a difference in your examples. Apple decided to mandate a dev. account for alternative app stores —something that Apple has to allow by law now. If Apple had not decided to take a rather absurd interpretation of the DMA, they would had no trouble removing dev. accounts. However, as you need one to publish an alternative store, then you are—by extension—disallowing alternative stores without providing sufficient justification to why (within the DMA's legal framework).

A supermarket chain can delist a confectionary manufacturer, no problem with that. However, if there is only one supermarket chain and that chain delists third-party products in favour of their own brands, then it becomes a case of them acting as a monopoly.

There is not only one App Store. There is Android. And Microsoft's smart phone had an App Store before Microsoft killed it with their incompetence! Governments should not be picking winners and losers! The Free Market system is best to decide everything!

 

[threesixty360]

It has curbed a lot of misuse of personal data by legal businesses, for sure. Shady businesses will always misuse the data, no law can prevent that. The problem is, that most wins that can be attributed to the GDPR, are not really recognized in the general public.

It's certainly not nice to have all the cookie banners. But on the other hand, would you prefer companies just sold your data left and right, without you knowing?

I just don’t think the wins you’re talking about have anything to do with the web cookie stuff. Yes in my work for example, how we store customer data is more regulated and scrutinised Internally. But the cookie Banners on the web are more about tracking people and that hasn’t stopped any of the web advertising companies doing that. It’s probably got worse!
And I have no idea who polices whether all these websites are actually honouring the settings eu customers make. Websites seem to expire any settings you make daily and ask you the same questions everytime you go to their sites, implying they want you to choose different anyway. It’s a mess. so Yeah not thought through. No matter what the intention was.

 

[Rogifan]

Steve Jobs has said a lot of things. Remember that he initially did not think the App Store needed to exist and that web apps would suffice.

Also, in the very least, he meant for the App Store to pay for itself and not be subsidised via hardware sales, contrary to what some people here feel Apple ought to do.

The thing with App Store revenue is that it’s pretty “too heavy”. The majority of apps earn no money for apple because they are free and the bulk of revenue is derived mainly from freemium games like fortnite, and I am not really concerned about how much or how little these IAP-riddled games are charged, not least because I feel they are a stain on the App Store to begin with.

It’s not impossible for the App Store to be run as break even but then, why should Apple, and how would any sort of legislation even begin to be crafted in the first place?

Anyways, if you want something to apply to Apple, then it should apply equally to all. Right now, all these suggestions seem borne primarily out of spite, like they are there solely to punish Apple for the crime of being too successful at what they are doing. Quite a 180 from last decade when people thought Apple would lose to android.

I’m not saying there needs to be legislation forcing the App Store to run as a break even business. I’m saying that’s what Steve Jobs said. The App Store is a huge revenue generator for Apple.This has long since been about covering the costs of running the App Store. Like I said this is about Apple believing it’s entitled to a share of any revenue someone makes via an iOS app (unless, of course, it’s an app that Apple deems exempt, then they don’t have to pay Apple anything). Because Apple believes they are the sole reason any iOS developer has customers or is successful. And like I’ve also said, if Apple thought they could get away with taking a cut of every Uber/Lyft/Instacart/Doordash etc. transaction they would in a heartbeat. They gotta keep revenue growth up some how and it isn’t going to come from Vision Pro.

 

[Corefile]

Makes you wish the EU was an American institution as they always do the right thing.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Why do people always bring this up? Do customers own a piece (more like half) of the supermarket? Because we own our devices, so your analogy is apples to oranges.

So you claim that the device you own only operates via 3rd party apps, without the 3rd party apps it's completely useless?

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think they may have done this to push the whole thing to the Supreme Court in the EU.

The what?

Is that like appealing to the Prime Minister of the United States?

 

[MilaM]

It’s probably got worse!
And I have no idea who polices whether all these websites are actually honouring the settings eu customers make. Websites seem to expire any settings you make daily and ask you the same questions everytime you go to their sites, implying they want you to choose different anyway. It’s a mess. so Yeah not thought through. No matter what the intention was.

I understand how one could come to this conclusion. I also don't like cookie banners. But they are more a symptom of a disease. The practices around banners are evolving and policing is slow, I agree. But after many wins in different courts, they are already improving. Nowadays you usually only get two choices: Agree or Disagree. In the beginning some companies thought, they could hide the disagree button behind a maze of choices. Not anymore. Also, the law is not set in stone. It will most likely improve in the future. It's a process.

 

[Naraxus]

Just as bizarre about the amount of commenters on all of these threads who are complaining that the EU's DMA laws should still apply, even if they're outside the EU.

Europeans can't expect their laws to apply everywhere while no one else's apply to them. Take a seat.

Not only that but I love how the EU believes it can impose fines on Apple's global revenue for a ruling that applies only to the grifters that are the European Union